Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! Make thick my blood;
Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
Th’ effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts
And take my milk for gall, you murd’ring ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark
To cry, “Hold, hold!” – Lady Macbeth
Her voice was ever soft,
Gentle and low, an excellent thing in woman.
– King Lear of Cordelia
Sir Walter Scott, in his book The Lives of the Novelists, has this to say about the novelist Robert Bage:
Fielding, Smollett and other novelists have, with very indifferent taste, brought forward their heroes as rakes and debauchees, and treated with great lightness those breaches of morals which are too commonly considered as venial in the male sex; but Bage has extended, in some instances, that licence to the female sex, and seems at times even to sport with the ties of marriage, which is at once the institution of civil society most favourable to religion and good order, and that which, in its consequences, forms the most marked distinction between man and the lower animals. All the influence which women enjoy in society—their right to the exercise of that maternal care which forms the first and most indelible species of education; the wholesome and mitigating restraint which they possess over the passions of mankind; their power of protecting us when young, and cheering us when old—depend so entirely upon their personal purity, and the charm which it casts around them, that to insinuate a doubt of its real value, is willfully to remove the broadest corner-stone on which civil society rests, with all its benefits, and with all its comforts. It is true, we can easily conceive that a female like Miss Ross, in Barham Downs, may fall under the arts of a seducer, under circumstances so peculiar as to excite great compassion; nor are we so rigid as to say that such a person may not be restored to society, when her subsequent conduct shall have effaced recollection of her error. But she must return thither as a humble penitent, and has no title to sue out her pardon as a matter of right, and assume a place among the virtuous of her sex as if she had never fallen from her proper sphere. Her disgrace must not be considered as a trivial stain, which may be communicated by a husband as an exceeding good jest to his friend and correspondent; there must be, not penitence and reformation alone, but humiliation and abasement, in the recollection of her errors. This the laws of society demand even from the unfortunate; and to compromise farther would open a door to the most unbounded licentiousness.The fact that Bage’s view of women has prevailed in society and Scott’s view of women has become “sexist” is the main reason that Europe is under siege and about to perish from an “unbounded licentiousness” that has rendered her people incapable of defending themselves against black barbarism from within and the Moslem onslaught from abroad. I am second to none in my disgust with the modern European men who have ceded everything to the Lady Macbeths among them, but when I look at the way a young white male is brought up – to detest his whiteness and his manhood – and when I look at the image of woman that is presented to him, how can I expect anything from the white male? Everything is done to improve the black male’s image of himself and the white woman’s image of herself, but what is done for the white male? He is told that the sooner he self-destructs the better it is for the world. He is not supposed to even think of marrying a woman whose “personal purity and charm” make him aware of the eternal God, who, because He loves man, gave him a helpmate. It sounds strangely out of place, the term ‘helpmate,’ when we look at modern women, but there was a time when men did depend on women to guide them upward. It all sounds so sexist, the idea that a woman fulfills herself by helping the male fulfill himself. But just such an arrangement once worked. It worked, I believe, because it was in keeping with God’s will.
There can be no doubt that the modern woman is a creature who has given herself over to Satan. Her exemplar is Lady Macbeth. The modern woman, always excepting the Christian woman who has resisted the wickedness and snares of feminism, is a traitor to everything Christian and European.(1) She is in the front ranks of the race-mixers; for every white male I see with a black female, I see at least fifty white females with black males, and she is in the front ranks of the welcoming parties for the Moslem invaders. “Better rapists than racists,” was the chant of a group of German women. From Angela Merkel to the female mayors of Hamburg and Cologne, it is the same refrain: “Whoever is anti-Christian and anti-white is welcome in our nations.”
The modern liberal belief is that woman’s “liberation” is a marvelous thing, it is a sign of an advanced civilization. But a close study of civilizations reveals just the opposite. In fact there are no feminist civilizations that have ever survived. Only civilizations that severely restrict the economic options of women and require monogamous marriage have ever survived for any length of time. Cultural anthropologists such as Spengler (The Rise and Fall of the West) and J. D. Unwin (Sex and Culture) have chronicled that fact of history. Of course the feminists, with the support of male sycophants, will simply tell you that there can be a feminist civilization, because they want it to be.
The hart he loves the high wood,But there is a weakness in works of men like Spengler and Unwin, and the weakness is not that they misrepresent the facts. Their weakness is that they see rationalist man as the end product of civilization. For instance, Unwin concludes his work on Sex and Culture, in which he tells us it was the restrictive, patriarchal societies such as England from the 1500’s up to the 20th century that thrived and prospered, with the wishful hope that women can be given economic freedom, but then they will voluntarily give it up to become wives and mothers, because they will see it is the rational thing to do. Unwin, like all those committed to a belief that rational man is the ultimate man, greatly exaggerates the power of reason to alter human behavior. Again, let’s refer to Scott’s article on Robert Bage, the male feminist of his time:
The hare she loves the hill:
The knight he loves his bright sword,
The lady — loves her will.
Having adverted to his prominent error in Mr. Bage’s theory of morals, we are compelled to remark that his ideas respecting the male sex are not less inaccurate, considered as rules of mental government, than the over-indulgence with which he seems to regard female frailty.
Hermsprong, whom he produces as the ideal perfection of humanity, is paraded as a man who, freed from all the nurse and all the priest has taught, steps forward on his path without any religious or political restraint, as one who derives his own rules of conduct from his own breast, and avoids or resists all temptations of evil passions, because his reason teaches him that they are attended with evil consequences. In the expressive words of our moral poet, Wordsworth, he is
“A reasoning self-sufficient thing,
An intellectual all-in-all,”
But did such a man ever exist? Or are we, in the fair construction of humanity, with all its temptations, its passions, and its frailties, entitled to expect such perfection from the mere force of practical philosophy? Let each reader ask his own bosom, whether it were possible for him to hold an unaltered tenor of moral and virtuous conduct, did he suppose that to himself alone he was responsible, and that his own reason, a judge so peculiarly subject to be bribed, blinded, and imposed upon by the sophistry with which the human mind can gloss over those actions to which human passions so strongly impel us, was the ultimate judge of his actions? Let each reader ask the question at his own conscience, and if he can honestly and conscientiously answer in the affirmative, he is either that faultless monster which the world never saw, or he deceives himself as grossly as the poor devotee, who, referring his course of conduct to the action of some supposed internal inspiration, conceives himself, upon a different ground, incapable of crime, even when he is in the very act of committing it.There are exceptional women like Carolyn Graglia (Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism), who gave up a law career to be a housewife and mother, but exceptional cases and hard cases make bad laws. The historical record clearly shows that non-Christian women, in the main, would rather be one of many sexual partners of a male at the top of the food chain than the wife of one male at the bottom of the food chain. In societies (if you can even call such abominations ‘societies’) where women are given unlimited career options apart from the one necessary career of a woman – wife and mother – some 80% of the males (Unwin’s numbers) are not able to reproduce because they can’t find mates. We can see this tragedy being enacted in our present society. The rock stars, the rich capitalists, the athletes, particularly black athletes, practice a form of serial monogamy which is really polygamy, while the disenfranchised white males either go without a spouse or else severely limit their families when they do find a mate.
The white nations are not reproducing themselves because of this new religion of feminism. Is it really a better world now? No! A world where a man feels himself to be a useful provider, however so humble his job and his home, and where a woman feels she is queen of the family hearth fire, no matter how humble the hearth fire, differs from our modern world as heaven differs from hell. But of course the liberals’ hell is the Christian’s heaven, and the Christian’s hell is the liberals’ heaven. Are the liberals happy in their man-made heaven? It doesn’t seem so. The women seek male restraints in the form of Islam and black barbarism, much more stringent than the Christian patriarchal restraints they say they hate. And the men turn to porn and/or sodomy to escape the responsibilities of keeping the modern women in check.
Which brings us to the question of who’s to blame. It’s customary for women to blame the white male for everything. And the white male is to blame for not being a heroic Petrucchio and taming the shrewish Katerina. But unless we take a truly male chauvinistic view of women, namely, that they don’t have fully human souls and are therefore incapable of behaving as human beings, we must put the primary responsibility for the sins of modern women on the women themselves. Elizabeth Browning, Christina Rossetti, Jane Austen, and Anne Bradstreet are exceptional because of their poetic gifts; they were not exceptions, in terms of their personal virtues, in the Christian era. There really were women who bore witness to the higher things of life, because of their love and devotion to their husbands and their children and to Jesus Christ, the sovereign Lord of the European hearth fire.
Of course the modern view of the women of Christian Europe was that they were repressed, the mere slaves of evil male patriarchs. How can this be true when the poets of the Christian era, the male poets and the female poets, present an image of the good woman that stirs our hearts to its very depths? Was that all an insubstantial pageant? If it was, then I, like Shakespeare and millions of other men who believed in the Christian romance of brave and virtuous knights and fair and virtuous maidens, “never truly writ and never truly loved.”
Everything comes back to the one essential question: Was Christian Europe a lie? Were the people whose customs, morals, and laws were based on their belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God wrong? The modern Europeans have told us in no uncertain terms that the Christians of pre-20th century Europe were wrong, and they have forged a new society based on their beliefs. From a Christian’s perspective, the new liberal feminist society is from Satan. And the “Christian” church men have sided with the liberals. They want to shout, “Lord, Lord,” but they also want to serve Satan, so they label European Christianity as racist and sexist and bid us look to a new Christianity, a modern liberal Christianity in which Christ becomes a Satanic figure fighting against racism, sexism, and everything else of value that made and sustained Christian Europe.
That the world needs women to be wives, mothers, grammar school teachers, and nurses more than the world needs cop-chicks, bimbo newscasters, and female mixed martial arts fighters seems so obvious that I shouldn’t have to say it, but just as I must write about so many of the discarded customs and mores of the European people, so must I write about the demonism of feminism and the glory of the antique Europeans who revered the Christian women whose love and fidelity to the European hearth fixed men’s sights on Christ, because our modern world has reversed the moral world of the antique Europeans. The modern liberals revere Lady Macbeth and hate Cordelia.
It is now taken as a given that the Europeans of the Christian era were wrong about women, but should the liberals’ given be our moral imperative? Almighty God, forbid it! Their moral imperatives have given us the kingdom of Satan on earth. Like Puddleglum, who rejected the evil witch’s world, we must reject their liberal-feminist world.
The feminist West cannot defend itself from enemies within or from without. The Moslem invasion and escalating black crime has made that glaringly apparent. So what should our stance be vis à vis the West? It would be nice to stand by and let the Moslems and the black barbarians kill all the liberals. But things are not that simple. There is the European remnant. Our wives and our children do not deserve to be overrun by the liberals’ Moslem and colored allies (allies until they turn on the liberals). We will fight then, but we will fight a two-front war. We will fight the liberals, and we will fight the heathens from within and without. When the liberals fall, the white Europeans should be ready to replace them. The new Europe will be a very old Europe, where men and women love each other in and through the Savior, who is the source of all true love.
All is cheerless, dark, and deadly if we look at man through the eyes of the biological determinists or the eyes of the liberal utopians. The determinist sees only decay, and the liberal utopian tells us filth is not filth, it is ambrosia. Both views of existence ignore the one great truth that only the antique Europeans knew: There is a stunning, blinding reality called the grace of God. We have seen it in the culture of the people who loved much and so ordered their society that their mysterious human relationships pointed them to Christ the Lord.
For it is only through our mysterious human relationships, through the love and tenderness and purity of mothers, and sisters, and wives, through the strength and courage and wisdom of fathers, and brothers, and teachers, that we can come to the knowledge of Him, in whom alone the love, and the tenderness, and the purity, and the strength, and the courage, and the wisdom of all these dwell for ever and ever in perfect fullness. – Tom Brown’s SchooldaysFeminism is a dagger in the heart of old Europe, the only world that gave us a glimpse of our Lord’s house of many mansions. Who shall separate us from that house? Certainly not the liberal feminists, nor the heathens, nor the black barbarians. We are not rationalists, nor are we liberals; we belong to the European hearth fire which is sustained by His abiding love.
(1) The Christian woman will always be the strongest advocate for a Christian patriarchy. It has always been thus and it always shall be thus. The modern tragedy is that many Christian women have to work outside the home, because they can’t find Christian husbands or because their husbands cannot find work because “career women,” who shouldn’t be working, have the jobs meant for male providers.
One of the most disgusting modern blasphemies is the modern family, where the husband makes $100,000 plus a year, the wife makes $100,000 plus a year, and both send what children they have to daycare. That woman belongs with her children at home, and her job should belong to a white family man. What greater gift has God given us than to be part of His divine procreative process? And who is more ungrateful before God than the men and women who reject that gift and try to build a feminist hell on earth in direct conflict with God’s greatest gift?