Gender Issues

“Given that, in my own opinion, the predominant ethos of the last three millennia – especially within the societies of the West – has been a masculous, patriarchal, one it is no surprise that women were expected to be, and often had no option but to be, subservient, and no surprise therefore that a modern movement has arisen to try and correct the imbalance between the masculous and the muliebral.” – David Myatt

Gender debates have achieved nothing except annoy everybody involved in the debates, both male and female. This is yet another prong of the Zionist agenda, which has constructed the false dichotomy of “men’s rights” vs “women’s rights” and kept people trapped within them. As usual, Jews lead both sides of the argument, so that the useful idiots remain under their control whichever side they are on. As usual, the Aryanist countermeasure is thus to understand the false dichotomy and to seek a true solution outside of it.

Gloria Steinem (Jew), professional annoyer

Henry Makow (Jew), professional annoyer

Whereas the Paleolithic separated the economic contribution of the genders by men focusing on hunting and women focusing on gathering, the Neolithic brought men and women back together in farm work. (“The woman has always been not only the man’s sexual companion, but also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in the field. … She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.” – Joseph Goebbels) Thus the idea of economic gender convergence is specifically of Aryan origin, whereas the idea of women as economic dependents is an Ice Age atavism. (“These populations persisted through the Ice Ages. … These populations were hunters and gatherers, not agriculturalists. Because of the relatively low level of economic production, hunting favors male provision of females.” – Kevin MacDonald (Gentile))

External link: We Hunted the Mammoth

External link: Swedes Tell Racists: ‘We Are Not Your Women’ (#notyourwoman)

Despite Zionist Allied claims to the contrary, National Socialist Germany led the world in genuinely ending institutional discrimination against women, with emphasis on female economic independence. As Hitler recalls: “Of primary importance were the measures we took to ensure a living wage for working women … By insisting that they receive a regular wage in accordance with their qualifications — instead of the sort of pocket-money they formerly received — we have delivered them from the doleful necessity of being dependent on an ami for their existence.” Influenced by witnessing during his childhood his mother’s silent toleration of his often violent father due to having no other practical option, Hitler was determined to change this traditional expectation of a woman’s duty, in his words: “Tt would be unjust in the extreme to demand of a woman that she should systematically sacrifice herself on the altar of matrimony.” The main National Socialist criticism of the parallel women’s rights movement in democratic countries was its emphasis on “rights” rather than duties, which threatened to create a burden on the state, as Alfred Rosenberg points out: “Is the state then to become nothing but a welfare institution that will take care of the consequences of unbridled sexuality? Here, there is the denial of the idea of duty on one’s own part when irresponsible demands are made upon others. … The campaigner for women’s rights curses marriage as legal prostitution, but, if in place of the man, it is the state which pays, how is anything altered in the whole affair?”

In a National Socialist state, military service (by which we mean deployment into a war zone) is typically compulsory for male citizens but optional for female citizens. This is in no way because we prejudge women to be militarily incompetent, but because we take into account that reproduction involves risk to women’s lives and damage to their health (pregnancy can be fatal, and even in the best-case-scenario causes permanent skeletal deformation) but not to men’s lives, so if military service were compulsory for both genders, it would mean typically requiring female citizens to risk their lives twice over as compared to requiring male citizens to only risk their lives once over, which would be unfair to female citizens. For completeness, we should include an amendment that military service be compulsory for the fraction of female citizens who are either innately incapable of pregnancy, or prohibited from reproducing by the state due to racial hygeine considerations, or else who have by their own free will vowed not to reproduce (e.g. nuns). Furthermore, in the futurist possibility that reproduction no longer involves an in-body womb and therefore has ceased to be more dangerous to women than to men, military service would thereupon become compulsory for citizens of both genders. Also, irrespective of the situation with military service, military basic training would always be compulsory for both genders. (During the last days of WWII, Hitler Youth members of both genders put their basic training to use fighting Allied forces as Werwolf units.)

Zionist propaganda has deceptively portrayed National Socialism as male-chauvanistic by zooming in exclusively on Gertrud Scholtz-Klink who indeed displayed such attitudes, while neglecting Trude Mohr and Jutta Ruediger who ideologically rivalled Scholtz-Klink from within the NSDAP. Mohr’s vision of the male-female relationship was, in her own words: “She does not regard him as some sort of idol but rather as a companion!” The BDM gave all its members the opportunity to learn a skilled trade, which was groundbreaking among equivalent female youth groups of the time. It was Ruediger’s explicit aim not to limit BDM activities according to traditional expectations, in her own words: “If a group of girls had expressed an interest into an activity that was not yet offered to them where they were at, for example, glider flying, it could have been made available to them provided there was enough interest and the financial capacity to make it a reality.” All this paid off in WWII when millions of BDM members were able to rapidly fill up the wartime labour shortage in many occupations, thereby holding off economic implosion.

“The same progress has been made with the girls, who have received an education in accordance with the principles of National Socialism. They are moulding themselves perfectly to the necessities of the modern epoch, working in the war factories, the offices, the hospitals, the fields and so on.” – Adolf Hitler

Hanna Reitsch, NSDAP fan favourite, was featured heavily in state propaganda and became a top rolemodel for young German girls until the end of WWII.

This uplifting of women was achieved without in any way demeaning or discriminating against men, or otherwise causing resentment between the genders. As Joseph Goebbels said: “No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the man must remain his.” On the contrary, men too were uplifted by the programs of National Socialism at the same time, and thus were only glad to see the uplift of women also. This is only possible when the uplift occurs via a parameter external to masculinity and femininity. In other words, women were uplifted not by emphasizing their female identity, and men were uplifted not by emphasizing their male identity, but rather both genders were uplifted by appeal to an altogether higher concept.

Terms such as “feminism” and more recently “masculism”, which emphasize gender identity even as they supposedly campaign for non-discrimination based on gender, are counterproductive to this understanding. As such, we prefer to describe our position simply as anti-sexism.

Masculinity/Femininity vs Nobility

“Things are not as simple as, nor are they solved by, establishing an equilibrium between a male and a female political system.” – Alfred Rosenberg

The traditionalist position is that “men should be men, and women should be women”, ie. each gender should conform to the respective role considered conventional for itself, and that overlap between these roles should be avoided. The modernist position is that “men and women should learn from each other”, ie. roles should gradually cease to be particularly associated with one or other gender over time.

Let us consider gender in depth. Whereas asexual reproduction introduces no genetic variation besides intergenerational mutations, sexual reproduction introduces copious genetic variation via random DNA recombination from parent sources. Sexual reproduction flourished over asexual reproduction because it enabled faster adaptation to conditions via natural selection.

As Aryanists who consider our evolutionary history as degeneration from Original Nobility to subsequent evil, it follows that sexual reproduction could only have accelerated this process. (Miguel Serrano hypothesized that Aryans once upon a time reproduced asexually. This would explain why a number of mythical founders of Aryan religions are said to have been products of parthogenesis.) Gender is the reason why we have fallen so far from how we were meant to be, the true culprit of confusion of the blood bitterly cursed in writings of both classical antiquity and esoteric Hitlerism.

“Enkidu … who lived some seven or eight thousand years ago — or more — was, at first, the companion and friend of the wild beasts, with whom he dwelt alone. He used his human intelligence to help them, and taught them how to outdo the hunter’s cunning and to avoid death. But, says the old Sumerian epic, once he experienced the charm of woman he began to side with the hunter against his former friends and playmates.” – Savitri Devi

Now we can look at the false dichotomy again. The traditionalist position encourages men to celebrate their own male flaws and appreciate women for their female flaws, and women to celebrate their own female flaws and appreciate men for their male flaws. The modernist position encourages men to adopt female flaws as well as keep their male flaws, and women to adopt male flaws as well as keep their female flaws.

To this, the Aryanist answer is staring us in the face: men need to get rid of their male flaws, and women need to get rid of their female flaws. Both masculinity and femininity are unsatisfactory conditions; this much is verified by the ease with which each gender can see the flaws of the other. The problem is that neither can see its own flaws with the same ease. It is obvious to all honest men that women cannot think clearly, but men mistakenly believe themselves to be clear thinkers, and vice versa. Precisely because each gender knows it is correct in its unflattering assessment of the other, it is reluctant to consider that the other side may also be correct in its equally unflattering assessment. We could conveniently refer to men as testosterone junkies and women as oestrogen junkies. When two junkies try to have a conversation, each invariably thinks he/she is making sense and blames the other for being stoned.

“Without doubt, when we mock at women’s artifices, they could pay us back by pointing out our own coquetry – our poor, male coquetry.” – Adolf Hitler

Just as smokers and drinkers have different experiences of addiction (nicotine is a stimulant, alcohol is a depressant) and different experiences of breaking addiction, so men will have to deal with their flaws in a different way than women with theirs. It is idiotic to attempt to offset the effects of smoking by drinking, or vice versa; it is similarly idiotic to attempt to counterbalance masculinity with femininity, or vice versa. Thus both traditionalist and modernist gender doctrines fall flat, and for the same reason: both advocate preservation of the flaws, and differ merely in how they advocate the flaws should be distributed.

“Hermann Wirth entered into conflict with Alfred Rosenberg, as Bachhofer would have, because he defended a matriarchy against the Weltanschauung of the SS that, it seems to me, must be above matriarchy and patriarchy, themes relative to the lowest yugas of involution.” – Miguel Serrano

Men and women should not be treated as if they were the same, because they are not. But this does not mean each should be proud of their respective flaws, and hence of their differences! Instead, each should see their own gender-specific characteristics as akin to a narcotic addiction which they must struggle to break in order to return to Original Nobility. This is the Aryanist third-position on gender. Men do not need to become more feminine; they need to become less masculine. Women do not need to become more masculine; they need to become less feminine. Unity between genders is UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY, achieved by both genders pursuing the same heroic ideal, merely from very different starting points and hence via very different routes as a matter of practicality. Describing Hitler’s success in inspiring such heroism in National Socialist Germany, Joseph Goebbels stated: “We have no right any longer to speak of the weaker sex, for both sexes are displaying the same determination and spiritual strength.” 

Because heroism trumps gender

External link: Why BDS Is a Feminist Issue

The word “knight” comes from the root “kniht” (meaning both “youth” and “servant”). In its profound understanding, knighthood is an alternative path to either manhood or womanhood, in which gender identity is de-emphasized in favour of heroic service, so that a youthful state of mind is retained throughout life. We consider Carl Jung mistaken in his graphological analysis of Hitler, when he concluded: “Behind this handwriting I recognize the typical characteristics of a man with essentially feminine instinct.” It would be more accurate to say that Hitler was neither masculine nor feminine, most likely because he consciously modelled himself after the heroic knights from the operas of Wagner (fellow Schopenhauer disciple).

Even biologically, low sexual dimorphism is associated with a higher racial type. Sexual dimorphism tends to be lower in Neolithic populations (of any ethnicity) compared to Paleolithic-Mesolithic populations (of any ethnicity). Women of hunting and herding populations adapt to sexually select men who can provide more food/security than other men, leading to the “alpha male” phenomenon (women who would rather share a more provident man than have a less provident man to herself) in non-Aryan culture. In contrast, farming involves teamwork and shared harvests by the entire village, so that the “alpha male” concept is not applicable in Aryan culture (as Hitler describes: “In the open country there could be no social problem, because the master and the farm-hand were doing the same kind of work and doing it together. They ate their food in common, and sometimes even out of the same dish.” ). Also, men of transhumant populations adapt to sexually select women more adept at child-control than other women – a vital nomadic skill. In contrast, children in permanent villages are automatically safe inside fortified perimeters, so that parental attention is not applicable (communal babysitters was the norm while the rest of the adults worked in the fields). In each case, subsistence farming and settled lifestyle permitted mate selection with reduced focus on materialistic criteria, leaving more room for idealistic/romantic criteria, hence demographic reinforcement of Aryan traits. However, subsequent transition to competitive urban life made materialistic criteria adaptive once again (e.g. women’s readiness to marry an ugly man as long as he has money or power), thus setting the stage for racial degeneration ever since – which we must now reverse.

“The Ancients suffered, and knew whom to curse. Modern men and women, as a rule, do not know; do not really care to know; are too lazy, too exhausted, too near the end of their world to take the trouble to enquire seriously.” – Savitri Devi

High sexual dimorphism

Low sexual dimorphism

Thus to the traditionalist evolutionary psychologists who claim that the majority of women themselves have been naturally selected to be subservient to men and that anti-sexism has in fact made the majority of present-day women (as well as the majority of present-day men) miserable, our reply is that this may be the case, but would only explain why we are National Socialists and not democrats. Our duty is owed not to the majority but to the superior, and the superior people - male and female – are those who despise sexism. Those women made miserable by anti-sexism do not deserve any more sympathy from us than do the men made miserable by anti-sexism: slaves and slavemasters alike deserve only our scorn. The most we can do for them is to systematically prohibit them from reproducing so that the world can one day consist only of innate anti-sexists (preferably of as low sexual dimorphism as possible).

Sexuality

“The assumed or stated sexual orientation, and perceived ethnicity and culture, of an individual are all irrelevant in relating to, interacting with, or in judging that individual, since the only ethical criteria to judge a person is an empathic understanding of them deriving from a personal and direct knowing in the immediacy of the moment.” – David Myatt

Which is it? Can Zionists make up their minds?

The NSDAP has been alternately accused by Zionist historians of both extreme homosexuality and extreme homophobia. This shows, if anything, that Jews and Gentiles – not Aryans – are the ones most hung up over sexual preferences. Any intelligent appraisal of Hitler’s political manouevres accounts for the alleged ”anti-homosexuality” of National Socialist Germany as solely a tactical excuse to deal with traitor Ernst Roehm and his faction. As a matter of fact, none of the anti-homosexual laws used to attack Roehm’s faction were instituted by the NSDAP, but all already existed during the Weimar era and earlier, whereas from 1935 onwards (the year after Roehm’s faction was dealt with) these laws began to be loosened, starting with removing the term “unnatural” from the official description of homosexuality. Homosexuals loyal to Hitler experienced no persecution, and many (e.g. Gustaf Grundgens) were promoted to high prestige. It is, however, also baseless to claim that Hitler actively preferred to recruit homosexuals; Roehm probably had such a preference, but Hitler simply kept those who were good National Socialists. Quality of character and strength of ideology in his followers were what mattered to Hitler, not their sexual preferences, in his own words: “What people do in their beds do not concern me so long as relationships do not prejudice the State and its leadership.”

Formalization of sexual preferences into the tunnel-visioned classification of so-called “sexual orientation” is actually a dichotomy originating in Judaism via the explicit prohibition of same-gender sexual relations in Mosaic Law. Authentic National Socialism, which by definition seeks to de-Judaize culture, logically cannot subscribe to the Mosaic perspective, but opposes it. It is Judaism which should be held fundamentally responsible for the thousands of years of cruel homophobia from the time of Moses onwards wherever the Tanakh has been culturally influential, as well as for the postmodern overreaction of “gay pride” that has deliberately conflated homosexuality with promiscuity and debauchery (which is by no coincidence how the Tanakh negatively stereotyped homosexuals as a whole) and thus predictably revived homophobia in the 21st century, all part of the Zionist agenda to divide society.

External link: Hasidic Gay-Bashers Wore Watchmen’s Jackets

By contrast, in the pre-Judaic ancient world, words such as “homosexual” or “heterosexual” did not even exist, because it was trivially understood that gender preference was just one of many possible preferences based on all kinds of parameters. For example, those exclusively attracted to fat people are not called “liposexuals” and treated as a distinct subgroup (let alone one to be stoned to death, as the Tanakh recommends to be done to “homosexuals”). Thus there is no reactionary “chubby-chaser pride”, nor need there be. Similarly, it is long past time to remove the words “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, “bisexual”, etc. from language and drop the entire issue as just another miscellaneous sexual preference, wholly unworthy of special attention. If I happen to exclusively prefer reading authors of the same gender as myself, nobody calls me “homoliterary” and tries to make a big deal out of it. Or if I happen to exclusively prefer listening to musicians of the opposite gender to myself, I do not think of myself as “heteromusical”. And if I am comfortable with food prepared by chefs of either gender, I do not think of myself as “biculinary”. This is where we need to be with sexual preferences. We want a society in which nobody should ever feel a need to hide their sexual preferences out of fear of harassment or any kind of discrimination (by which we include prohibition from marriage), but also in which nobody believes that their sexual preferences are anywhere near the most important part of who they are.

“The so called old testament must be abolished once and for all as a book of religion. By this, the unsuccessful attempt of the last one and a half thousand years to make us spiritually into Jews will be eliminated.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Boring

National Socialism exalts the supreme importance of the individual personality in culture-forming; in Hitler’s words: “The movement must use all possible means to cultivate respect for the individual personality. It must never forget that all human values are based on personal values.” This idea trivially extends to sexual preference. Aryans are attracted to individuals, not to categories. I submit as self-evident among Aryans that when asked to imagine our ideal partner, we imagine a particular person, and certainly never an entire mass of people (regardless of what features they have in common). This thought experiment demonstrates that so-called “sexual orientation” is alien to us. Moreover, it is dishonourable to others to view them in terms of a category (or an intersection of categories) that we are attracted to, as this necessarily deconstructs and objectifies them, ultimately turning them into sexual Goys in our own minds. Honour is satisfied only if we perceive integral individuals whom we are attracted to.

“While I personally have always desired and shared a human love involving someone of the opposite gender, I never – even from my schooldays – made any kind of distinction between ‘them’ and ‘us’. Rather, I just liked these people as individuals, and – as individuals often tend to do – we gravitated toward each other, and became friends, because we shared similar interests or enthusiasms, … and often because of a certain sensitivity from whence derived those manners that we also shared in common. … It is a personal matter based on the importance of personal love to us as human beings and the unimportance of gender in matters of love.” – David Myatt

Much better

By similar reasoning, there need be no explicit sociological category referring to people who have undergone gender reassignment operations. We do not refer to cleft palate surgery outpatients as a special subgroup of society known as “transcraniofacials”,nor for that matter do we refer to people who do not require cleft palate surgery as “ciscraniofacials”, so why refer to genital surgery outpatients as a special subgroup of society known as “transgenders”, and the rest as “cisgenders”? Terms like these, often coined by Jewish academics and then popularized via repetition in Jewish-owned media, are designed to highlight aspects of a person that have no real reason to be highlighted, and it is invariably after such highlighting has occurred in language and consciousness that a far-right backlash of prejudice and oppression then follows in action, which is the Zionist agenda. What is so hard about simply treating people as people and judging them solely by their character and their contributions?

Superheroes, not “transgenders”

“What was done to put an end to the contamination and mammonization of sexual life among us? … The reply to this question can best be illustrated by showing what should have been done.” – Adolf Hitler

Sexualization of present-day society has nothing to do with sexual preferences, and everything to do with the excessive social importance accorded to sexual concerns - sexual appeal, sexual experiences, sexual prowess, sexual innuendo – as a whole. This is a perfectly expected side-effect of secularization: as spirituality declines, sex becomes a convenient alternative receptacle for imagination and energy - Alfred Rosenberg explicitly named phallic worship as a sure sign of cultural degeneracy. Far-rightists, in their pseudo-moralistic aggression towards sundry non-violent sexual preferences that do not happen to be their own preferences, to the extent of calling for violence against people with such preferences, are merely the other side of the same degenerate coin. In contrast, a genuinely healthy True Left society is one where no non-violent sexual preference is worth any more attention than a preference for a particular screensaver or a particular ringtone.

“Rabbi Johanan said the penis of Rabbi Ishmael was as large as a six-kab wineskin; according to others, three kabs. The penis of Rabbi Papa was as large as one of the baskets of the inhabitants of Harpania. The highminded competitive zeal of the three old rabbis could knock an unprepared person off his chair.” – Dietrich Eckart

External link: Does Fertility Make Women More Racist?

It is easily deducible that rightists are more sexually obsessed than leftists. When rightists think of pair-bonding relationships, their minds go straight to the act of copulation, hence their preference for terms such as “sodomy” (which derives from “Sodom and Gomorrah” in the Tanakh) and “buggery” (I’m not even going to get into this one) to describe same-gender couples (not to mention terms such as “coalburning” and “oildrilling” (again, don’t ask) to describe interethnic couples), and their generally unsympathetic attitude towards them. In contrast, when leftists think of pair-bonding relationships, we imagine primarily the feelings of attraction between the two individuals, hence our generally sympathetic attitude towards all sincerely romantic couples, and our distate towards the rightist vocabulary.

So instead of joining in the debates over sex and thereby adding to their momentum, we should trivialize such debates as foppery for those without serious causes to fight for. As Aryanists, only sexual behaviour that involves violence (ie. reproduction and rape - in that order of priority) is worth our worry for now. (Spousal infidelity is dishonourable, but as an issue of breaking contract rather than a sexual issue in itself.) As for everything else, surely we have more pressing matters to attend to! Our task is to shift social attention away from sex and back to these matters. Sigmund Freud (Jew) portrayed sexuality as the centre of all human thought, and thus made it so in the world today. To undo this, a new centre of thought must replace the Freudian centre, in relation to which sexuality is put in perspective as a minor phenomenon. Only then will desexualization of society proceed as required. Aryanism already provides such a centre in nobility. In place of the challenge to prove one’s sexual worth, we offer the challenge of freedom. In place of slavish gladiator matches against sexual rivals (either on the individual or group level), we offer a real war against the slavemaster. In place of love denigrated to nothing more than a mental rationalization of sexual desire, we celebrate genuine romantic love capable of complete independence from sex and possibly even antithetical to it.

“I will not lure you into loving my body in the only way known to the dark age, because that way death will swallow you up. I will never be the Great devouring Mother, the Primordial Female, who will turn you into a vanquished warrior, living in a dream of unfulfilled glories. I will be the She who leads you to heaven.” – Miguel Serrano

It is not prudery that we demand of society and its lifestyle, insofar as prudery attacks non-violent sexual activity while turning a blind eye to (or worse, outright glorifying) the violence of reproduction. On the contrary, all we demand is simple, constant rememberance that every single one of us born into the world is a creation of sexual violence.

“Illness is not a disgrace but an unfortunate accident which has to be pitied, yet … it is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction all the worse by passing on disease and defects to innocent creatures.” – Adolf Hitler

When we step back and calmly examine the situation, we will realize that all of the unmanageably huge problems that we as activists are currently forced to deal with expanded to their present scales of size through reproduction, in other words through sexual violence. As long as we keep this awareness close to our hearts, sexuality will never again be glorifiable to the same extent as in the fallen cultures of today.

Break

Related Information