Where the White Women At?

Get Rid Of Slimy girlS!
Get Rid Of Slimy girlS!

Get Rid Of Slimy girlS!

Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer has become the most active and popular pro-white website, much to the chagrin of the “respectable” paleocon leadership of America’s White Nationalist movement. This development is in part because Anglin’s a talented and prolific polemicist, but it’s also because his political theory is superior to his colleagues’. While they’re wasting time and energy in futile attempts to win the respect of an establishment which despises them and eternally belabor the point that we’re factually correct on our key considerations, Anglin’s speaking directly to alienated and frustrated young white men who don’t care to look “normal,” wouldn’t want this system’s “respectability,” and take delight in triggering each and every taboo that the old guard so studiously works to tip-toe around.

There’s utility in projects like VDare, NPI, and AmRen, and I support all those projects, but they’re actually less relevant and politically impactful than sites like Daily Stormer, precisely because they speak to comfortable and respectable bourgeois whites. Comfortable and respectable folks who will anxiously scurry off at the first sign of aggressive or confrontational language aren’t where revolutions foment. The popular idea that we should focus on influence and entryism instead of developing radical dissident subcultures, given the tactical situation of White identity in North America, is almost certainly the worst and most stupid idea to ever plague this movement notorious for its bad ideas.

We need more angry young men, not more ‘race realist’ pensioners.

And I say “men” advisedly, as women, young and old alike, are neither designed nor inclined to develop or encourage politically aggressive subcultures. Women tend to prefer compassion and compromise over conflict, albeit social or physical. Women tend to tag along with the herd rather than staking out their own course. Women tend to be more sensitive to safety and security considerations, with a general attitude of risk-aversion. Women tend to think in terms of people and details rather than abstractions and ideals.

All of these general inclinations make for superior nurturers, superior community organizers, and superior secretaries. But they also make for counter-productive and corrupting distractions from the development of radical subcultures if they’re allowed to set the tone, guide the conversation, or steer the decision-making process.

Women are absolutely equal to men in value for our communities and for our cause. They’re complementary halves of our racial whole, and we should strive to respect them, protect them, and go out of our way to put their energy and talent to use for our survival. But Anglin’s correct on a fundamental point: Our work is implicitly male at this stage and we can’t afford to waste time trying to make it more comfortable for or inclusive of women. Predictably, he goes astray in his application of this point for the same reason Anglin always misses the mark, because his approach is ultimately secular, modern, and biologically reductionist.

In the general framework of Radical Traditionalism, more specifically within the Christian Traditionalist framework, a dynamic has been developed wherein men are trusted and expected to lead in political matters while women are afforded complementary opportunities which are every bit as vital to our long-range success. Simply borrowing from the “manosphere” and its groupthink to arrive at our approach to gender relations is as toxic as imbibing the implicitly feminist and egalitarian approach to gender relations which secular women who happen to be pro-white generally expect. A synthesis of insights from tradition, from the manosphere, and from the small but growing number of complementary feminine traditionalist projects is necessary, one which discards both the feminization of contemporary Christianity and the misogynist resentment of MRA culture.

We could use more white girls supporting our projects and standing with our men, but we can’t and won’t achieve that by catering to them, propping up tokens, or watering down our message to make it more female-friendly. There’s a small contingent of white girls who are genuinely willing to marry and support men who have chosen a life of conflict with the system and sacrifices for the cause, but the drummer from Def Leppard can count them on his fingers. Being a political soldier in today’s environment is pretty much antithetical to being an ideal mate for most women. You’re not going to be “settled,” you’re not going to be financially secure, you’re not going to be respected by mass society.

Women in our scenes should stop nagging about the relative lack of “suitable” mates, because the problem can’t be resolved to their satisfaction at this time. The system systematically degrades, humiliates, and marginalizes the men who stand up against it. All things being equal, judging matters objectively, young women looking for a mate will be able to find a more settled and suitable mate outside of our subcultures. And that’s fine. Go.

The few who are willing to make that sacrifice because they value the political soldier’s courage and commitment to the cause over material comfort deserve a great deal of gratitude and respect not only from their partners but from the entire dissident subculture, but the women who aren’t willing to make that sacrifice have a duty to stop complaining about the situation and go marry any one of the numerous men out there who quietly agree with our positions while refusing to make a public stand.

At a certain point, several years from now at the least, our dissident subcultures will hopefully develop to a critical mass point where women can have their cake and eat it too, finding mates who are settled and capable of offering them a comfortable life, while also enjoying high social status. Until that happens, things will carry on like they’re carrying on now, with pro-white men complaining that not a single pro-white woman will have them and pro-white women complaining that none of the dozens of men who will have them are up to their standards. That’s okay. Not all men could or should reproduce, and they should actively avoid marriage to women who insist on dropping their dissident work as a precondition for courtship.

Reproducing is important, but our political work is more important than marriage if the two are to be juxtaposed, as they typically are. The man who heroically sacrifices himself so that white families can thrive is more needful and necessary at this point in our struggle than a man who has and raises children. Both are important work, but the implicitly feminine and biological reductionist attitude that we must all breed and must make whatever compromises we need to make in order to breed must be rejected. The men who perished at Thermopylae made a greater contribution to the replication of their genome than the men who stayed behind with their wives.

Personally, I don’t believe that implicitly male spaces like Daily Stormer should disrespect white women or drive them out. It’s not necessary or constructive. All they need to do is confidently and consistently remain implicitly male in their leadership, focus, and rhetoric. Websites aren’t tantamount to war rooms or initiatic leadership circles, and I believe Anglin’s recent aggressively misogynist effort to drive women off is unnecessary and less than honorable. Plenty of women enjoy and constructively participate in implicitly male spaces. From time to time, women will come along who insist on making the space implicitly female, and they can be ignored or driven off on a case-by-case basis.

There’s an important and operative difference between confidently asserting one’s masculinity and one’s implicitly male spaces…and disrespecting or degrading what’s female and feminine. Women are good for much more than making sandwiches and babies, and some of the most talented and dedicated advocates I’ve worked with over the years have been women. In fact, it’s not uncommon for them to have more physical and social courage than the average white guy. White girls are, love it or hate it, generally more assertive and less submissive than non-white girls, and we can’t simply borrow an Oriental approach to gender relations because our women aren’t Oriental.

Implicitly male spaces rather than explicitly male spaces or explicitly gender neutral spaces are vital for the success of our dissident subcultures, as the risk-affinity, boldness, and social courage expected in those circles will naturally attract two kinds of women who are critical to our success; women who are seeking to be helpmeets of men with high status in those dissident circles and women who can and will thrive in and contribute to an implicitly male environment. While the mere presence of women does categorically entail that some women will test those boundaries, the answer is to strengthen the boundaries, not to drive off all the women. After all, even if you drive out all the women, there are more than enough men who are risk-averse, easily taboo-triggered, and mortified by the prospect that somebody, somewhere, might give them the stink eye at the water cooler if they find out he believes his people have a right to exist.



I believe there is a verse in Romans or one of the other epistles of Paul that discusses how being a single male does have some advantages over marriage. You have a lot more time to get things done than men with families have. There is a lot of truth to that. The older you get, in general the more constrained you get for numerous reasons, especially once you have kids.

But, speaking as a member of the contemptible, middle-class, middle-aged bourgeois business owner class, I think Anglin and the youngsters at DS should be careful about dismissing middle-agers and oldsters as well as women, if for no other reason than their turn’s coming, and sooner than they appreciate. By the time things start to move, if they do, the young males who will be most relevant at that time are not them. The relevant ones are still on the playground.

Anyway, this was well reasoned with a pitch perfect presentation, as usual. I hope Anglin listens. A lot of people who disagree with you on some point or other could save themselves a lot of trouble in the long run by just following your recommendations from the start. And besides, Jews smile when white men and women are at each other’s throats.


Lew, I hadn’t read all the comments. I have just so much time, like everyone…

But now that I did yours, I’d have to ask something: do you really think the most ‘relevant’ generation will be those on the playground now?

Because I don’t. I fully believe that the only really relevant ‘generation’ is Now Pro-White America. The reason being that things are changing very rapidly, both in terms of demographics, and in how accelerated the pace has become towards installing total tyranny. Already the hispanics in some areas are turning against the very people who let them in (da jooz), and revolt is churning in the black decent class, against the JWO. The white middle class knows the jig is ending; they just can’t accept that it’s OVER. It’s the country we built, after all.

We don’t have all this time. Frankly, I think Generation X is the most relevant one. If middle-aged whites don’t rise up sometime soon and help guide the 20-somethings, give or take a half decade, then all is lost.

While I can’t stand at least a third of what Ann Barnhardt says, she clearly gets some larger imperative, and is an excellent example of why Anglin is way off base (in my opinion, not wholly spontaneously):


The Republic Is Over



Above is Eddie Murphy on SNL in 1983, making fun of genocidal rastafarian rock star SJW’s, pointedly Bob Marley. I was still in middle school at the time, and hadn’t caught much of SNL since years earlier when friends’ older siblings tuned me in.

I post it because it helps explain to any younger people how Generation X dropped the ball. The Fifties teens held onto their parents’ ethnic/racial notions, and were followed by the Boomers who really got the White Genocide ball rolling. By the time the first X’ers entered highschool, Eddie Murphy had already taken up lampooning black militance. Even in the sitcoms of the late 70’s there was a layer of mockery of black radicals running throughout the narratives.

So we all laughed with Eddie, either then on SNL or a year or two later in Trading Places, which starred another SNL graduate, Dan Akroyd, who played a rich Philly WASP who falls victim to his elder boss’ social experimentation. Eddie was the poor homeless black guy faking Viet Nam injuries while panhandling downtown. The two ‘trade places’ according to their sociopathic commodities broker bosses’ whimsical bet.

Highschool guy friends of mine would break out into Eddie’s character’s schticks from Trading Places throughout the late 80’s; he was an iconic persona to Generation X. He came to embody our ethos; we were all seduced into thinking the world had moved on and ‘racism’ had become just another crank card to play. TPTB had tricked us and lulled us. I seriously think Eddie himself was a partial patsy for the jews, even as he likely wrote most of his own material.

What was intended and perceived as absurdist hilarity became a living nightmare about 20 years later, or thereabouts, just as we reached a point where most of us had no latitude within which to move in middle aged bourgeois commitments. While we finished the party or tried to recover from the hangover, the critical race theorists were planting the seeds of White Genocide. One might even say we were ‘date raped.’

The generations traded places in some bizarre nightmarish comedy only the jews and the brainwashed youth could appreciate. But I doubt it will take another quarter century to turn things around, in any dimension. We as a demographic and society either ‘man up’ soon or I’d say White Genocide is a done deal.

MK "Ultra"S

hey Radicalist. I wonder if Miss Berhard believes in freedom of speech when it comes to challenging the holohoax or would she, too, be like those she criticizes in this video, consider that hate speech and not protected. The fact is, miss Bernhard has been totally taken in by the fake Muslim threat that the Jewish media has so thoroughly drowned the airways in. Andrew Anglin, clearly an agent infiltrator adopts over and over issues to distract his followers away from the Jew and against other goy. Let me say this clearly, all goy are considered enemies of the chosen few. If they have temporary marriages of convenience it is purely strategic and will end when it is no longer useful!

Sydney Nationalist

“I believe Anglin’s recent aggressively misogynist effort to drive women off is unnecessary and less than honorable.”

Omfg white knight alert.. point out where exactly Andrew has driven tha wyimin away!! >whipish<

Brrrr, Yeah nah actually brah. He said we're not going to have women writers or radio guests since were aimed at young men. He even said its a public space and we tolerate women watching.

Mysoginist? Are you some sort of feminist? Yes I am intolerant of this white knighting, yes I am angry why are you acting like this? you should know better.

Honourable is winning not coming last. The whole WN femgate 2015 thing wouldn't even be discussed without Andrew. Get our base in order.


Next time, try for reading for comprehension and then follow it up with a bit of reflection before commenting.


The whole WN femgate 2015 thing wouldn’t even be discussed without Andrew.

Speaking as someone who generally likes DS but has no particular investment in that community, it took me about 10 seconds to find Anglin committing some pretty spectacular acts of self-discrediting in his recent remarks at DS.

1) broad statements that women can’t reason

2) white women are worse enemies to white men than Jews. This one is especially hilarious given that 1), it’s false, and 2), it implies white female behavior is something other than a symptom of Jewish cultural hegemony.

Anglin does not appreciate that one can ruin a good case with exaggeration and overstatement.


At the recent Reclaim Australia rally in Australia – it was the angry young (60+ yrs) pensioners who shouted down the antifa. They turned out in droves to register their disgust at Sharia Law and halal food taxes. One old guy got up on his scooter and shouted ‘to hell with the prophet and to hell with the jizzya’.

Fortunately we still have White cops who are reluctant to taser the oldies.

Many well meaning, softly spoken SWPL types spoke to me about major politically incorrect issues and yet prefaced their remarks with “I don’t want you to think I am a racist”…but. I have developed a few replies to this. “I am a racist – so what, isn’t everybody?” and “I have no idea what you mean by the term ‘racist’. Every group, however defined, prefers its own. That is why they are a group. Why do you think that is bad when the group is a race?” This question is usually followed by something very interesting, surpressed and productive.

It is early days for this movement. It is headed in the right direction and they have made the right set of enemies.. Except of course for the Wile E Jews – which are still (officially anyway) under the radar. There were plenty of Jew lawyers at the rally blending in, working the crowd and sniffing the air. I made a point of speaking with several of them. They made comments along the lines of their disapproval of racism and nationalism etc. To which I would say – “You mean like in Israel?”

Lots of fun with the Jews and the yada yada yada at the Reclaim Australia rally.

The one group noticeably absent was young White women. They are going to have to come into this political movement through their families and the young men with whom they fall in love. Therefore we need young men with the message on these podiums and making courageous, principled stands that look good on the vids and the social networks. Let the antifa have the grunge look.

Some of the young White men I spoke to were there because of the way the Muslim gangs down at Lekemba are menacing the Australian surf culture. They were there in a spirit of ‘je suis charlie’ to listen and network. They were in designer boards and Ts and they were in town for the Billabong pro surf. Right now they are not happy with halal taxes and women in burkhas. I hope they left with plenty more to think about. If these young men were to take the lead in Reclaim Australia – the young women would be there. The movement would have the young White women in hearts.


Too bad “Reclaim Australia Rally” is nothing more than a neo-con/Zionist organized fake opposition. They don’t hide it very well either.


Okay guys, you need to face reality. We are the freest nation on the PLANET.

We are also the weakest, least cohesive and influential nationalist movement.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

And you, WN men, are INSANE.

Anyone of you who don’t recognize this need to check out every white nationalist movement that’s done something for their countries, because all you have is blabbing on the net and taking a few photo ops. Mind you, I’m a big fan of trailblazing men but this is just ridiculous.


I’m not done yet.

Anyone studied the early days of National Socialism in Germany? It was the Strasser brothers who took Hitler from a beer hall pontiff to a *political* mover and shaker. How did they do this? By appealing to women and men. Wives okayed the conversion of their men into the movement, because its economic polices, among others, appealed to them.

Now, we’re in a situation where white women have been seduced away from their young men. It’s really tragic and horrifying to watch. I simply can’t believe what I see at times. But there it is.

You can become contrite and malcontented, or you can rise above it. Maybe you need each other to do that. I’m quite sure you do, actually. But this expecting young women to give up their freedoms so completely is just falling into the trap being set for you.

You win more bees with honey… Standing up to the antifa, the leftists, the deranged anti-white men is enough. The rest should come naturally – if you let it. But this neurosis about ‘roles’ will just continue the same old, same old.

Women forged the frontier every step of the way with men, whether you want to believe it or not, sometimes in their own specifically feminine roles. But journeying side by side made up most of our white forebears’ love for one another.

How sad that you’ve all forgotten that, or that you’ve never known it. And that’s everyone’s fault.


Thank you, miss, for affording me an opportunity to demonstrate what I’m trying to get at.

What I’m trying to get at is that while there’s a serious gender problem in the West, we must avoid pairing off onto “team boy” and “team girl” against each other. We must be on “team team,” and effective teams have roles, and effective teams have mutual respect.

You reject gender roles altogether, you openly and flagrantly insult the men here as individuals, and as men. You think you have the right to talk down to us, emasculate us, and scold us like children. You think your half-baked feminist opinion is valid and deserves to be heard.

It doesn’t. You’re not welcome here. Your ideas aren’t welcome here. I don’t care how pro-white you are or whose daughter you are or anything else. If winning entails being insulted and degraded by the likes of you, then I choose “going my own way.” I’ll choose losing.

I really hope my people survival. It’s my life’s work to find a way to make that possible. But I have my limits.

There are plenty of women who are looking to constructively dialogue on gender issues and gender roles, and they’re welcomed and encouraged to speak up and contribute in an environment of mutual respect. You’re not one of those women and I regret that you’ve wasted your time reading an article and responding to an article that doesn’t pertain to you.


Okay, Matt, before you responded in kind I realized I’d sounded a bit harsh. So I apologize. I think you’ve tried to bridge a gap in people’s sense of how to deal with all this stuff and I don’t mean to denigrate all you say.

It’s just the belaboring of every role. That’s what ails me, and what I decry. I personally don’t reject all concept that there are some roles better suited for each sex. If you’ve caught the brouhaha (it goes on perennially it seems), an article recently came out in which some female Marine basically says women shouldn’t be in combat (and maybe not even a Marine). Apparently no women passed whatever recent test they had for the corps. I have had friends and family members in the military, and have tried to stay out of the debate – because I’m personally not interested in serving in combat. But I’ve tended toward the position that it’s not perfect in either direction to be so rigid *but* that we’re better off minimizing the negatives. Which, as I’ve grown older, seems to me to mean excepting women from the combat.

I conclude this for a number of reasons, one being that it likely causes fights between men that can’t be good. Again, I don’t know this for sure as it’s not my place to order the military around, but I mention all this as an example. And because it does seem to relate to the issue at hand; I’m not a national socialist but also think it an apropos example for those who are.

Could it be that pro-white men are too rigid and reactionary in their need to reassert their own masculinity? I’m of a generation that fought over this and sort of won, sort of lost depending on the individual. But overall we tried for peace and achieved some, especially those who came of age just a couple years after I. Sometimes a new generation is defined in the passing of one or two years, and that was true in my youth.

So that’s my olive branch. I do talk down a bit. I’m at least ten years older, and tired, very very tired. MIddle class white men around me, where I live (and some upper middle too) have expressed heart felt sympathy for me in recent half year or more as I’ve sought comfort and reassurance that they aren’t the indifferent, solely self-interested narcissists that Diversity seem to think you are. When they attack me as a white woman on the street, in some job slinging food, or wherever, there’s this sense that white men won’t avenge me. I kid you not; I had a hispanic woman torment me one day at a job right after the Ariel Castro story hit the airwaves. While folding napkins and minding my business, she started menacing me, claiming that ‘the gringa, her men didn’t care about her…’ When I parried back that they were short (I’m on the tall side), and that *I* would have fought back, it only emboldened her: “There were three of them,” she said.

There’s more and more of them every day, and fewer of us.

And I’m just trying to figure out why the men who nod their heads, like my mechanic, or bank dude, or various other workaday white guys, assure me that in fact, they do care and don’t want to have to stand for it. They aren’t ‘the vanguard,’ Matt, but they wait on one and I’m only trying to understand where the two meet.

Cuz it seems like no one gives a shit. And I got stories, lots and lots of stories, mine and many women’s.

So, I say there are plenty of men looking to constructively dialogue on gender issues and roles, and they don’t feel like they and their women are truly represented anywhere by the movement, as far as I can see at this time.

Don’t be so sure who my father is or isn’t. I’m a field white bitch.



Last, do you have any idea how abusive men in this movement can be, particularly to those women who seek to just “thrive in and contribute to an implicitly male environment?…While the mere presence of women does categorically entail that some women will test those boundaries, the answer is to strengthen the boundaries, not to drive off all the women.”

All I can say, Matt, is a. I don’t fully get from what angle you want to strengthen boundaries and b.
you have NO idea how difficult it is to ‘thrive’ in an implicitly male environment, at least not the pro-white one, as a woman. As things stand, I really doubt one ever will, and no one could accuse me of playing into sexual power dynamics, as you yourself seem to note.

You have no idea how difficult and downright abusive this environment is for women who don’t play the traditionally feminine role.


Who cares. Politics are rough, abusive, feelings get hurt, people scream, sometimes even violence breaks out. The issue of “abusive men” is completely irrelevant to the white cause, you want to turn this into some personal or emotional thing when there’s bigger fish to fry.

POLITICS ISNT FOR WOMEN. It’s the sphere of men. Once men emerge victorious or gain momentum and operate from a position of strength, we will have a space for you, but until then any attempts at recruitment of women is a waste of time.


Eric, go tell that to all the australian people who are taking back their continent while men like you try to equate rape and heinous violence with ‘frictions’ and ‘hurt feelings.’ Their men are among the most no nonsense, shall I say, yet they’re proud to have their women stand with them out there.

What white men want to just fight for a life with no love, no family – no tribe? Not many. There’s no nation of loners, just a few change agents who do their best for the cause. Even those, if they’re truly men, would never speak the way you do about the worst of what’s happening to our people. For every solider the oligarchs will maim or kill next month, there is a woman down whose wounds never fully heal.

But that’s life, and this is war. So my response to a man who belittles this mostly feminine suffering when I can only admire the veterans of mens’ war is, buzz off.


…and, what are you doing on this site chasing me off when Sylvia Stoltz sits in prison? Is your sacrifice somehow greater because you’re some Y chromosome? I thought this was Matt’s website to order me off of, not yours.

Sylvia brought me such hope and inspiration, and also reassurance, just like that workaday white guy who nods his head and hopes someone steps out to forge an actual future for his family and people. I shouldn’t have lowered myself to your level in trivializing her sacrifice with wise ass remarks, although it speaks volumes that her men afforded her a chance to stand up for her people. The time for rugged individualism and zero sum societies is over. If that’s ‘scolding’ so be it. Like Sylvia, I’ll never stop speaking my truth.


Shrill, condescending, emotional and badly reasoned, at best half a step above Sydney Nationalist’s drivel. You two are the type who makes Jews smile.


Lew, how was my qualifying response condescending? Can you really not see how condescending this whole milieu is to women? Even when Matt has tried to rise above the extreme denigration of women that some engage in (and I don’t necessarily consider all male space to equate to denigration, BTW), he does so from a point of departure that comes across as condescending. Of course men fight better than women physically, and can take certain risks that women can’t in any sober frame of mind. So what? Wherefore this need to belabor this stuff? Why do you men have to study what I’d hope might just come naturally?


Where are white men taking back their continent in Australia? You aren’t seriously suggesting that’s what “Reclaim Australia” is, are you?

If so, then you’re wrong. That organization is the equivalent of the tea party in America. Some Israeli lobby was even financing the bail fund of goy dupes arrested while protesting their 2% muslim population-a drop in the bucket in respects to non-white immigration- and its alleged conspiracy to put kangaroos in burqas LOL.


I like Sylvia Stolz too, nobody is taking her merit away. If you’re serious about saving your country, maybe you should start or support legitimate Australian nationalist groups, rather than falling into every Jew snare waste of time about sharia law and some clash of civilizations that isn’t happening. The Jews of your country are trying to turn it into New York City, definitely not Iran.


So now some man purports to tell me what to do? I don’t even understand your post, Eric. Are you assuming I’m australian, or american?

Sure, organized jewry uses whites to accomplish their goal of total tyranny; they’re certainly very close to installing a mostly jewish oligarchy in the US. I can’t claim to understand all the internecine dynamics of the Reclaim Australia movement and context, but I do think that all over the true nationalists who use Big Jew the way they use us seem to making serious headway, like in England, and also over in Australia. Use them back is what I preach, wherever necessary. We can play their game; it may be the only way to win.


Does this site allow links? Has anyone read about ‘the nazis killing the white wimmenz?’

Elliot Rodger was said to have gone nazi right before his blonde-murdering crusade. His manifesto had a paragraph clearly designed to distort white men attempting to defend white women from black male violence as ‘racist’ psychopaths – like the fictional persona Elliot

Like I said, I’ll continue speaking my people’s truth and defending white men’s right to fight for whites’ freedom. Pro-white men may claim they don’t need women to help in that fight. I think you do, and it’d be nice to get help back. But as Matt says, “If winning entails being insulted and degraded by the likes of you, then I choose “going my own way.” I’ll choose losing,” or to die fighting.

Claus Brinker

Matt, this is quite possibly the worst thing I’ve see you write: “The popular idea that we should focus on influence and entryism instead of developing radical dissident subcultures, given the tactical situation of White identity in North America, is almost certainly the worst and most stupid idea to ever plague this movement notorious for its bad ideas.”

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your definition of entryism, but if I am, then you shouldn’t be using the word in that way. Are you saying that if a white man with a job and family suddenly decides that he’s had enough and needs to do something, then he should go out and protest with you even if he might lose his job? What about a college student? I see an all too familiar trend of white men waking up and then charging forth recklessly waving their views around like a banner, practically asking to be attacked by our enemies. It quite possible to build a subculture without wearing a WN button on your backpack.

If you are a young white man new to the movement my recommendation is: Do not expose yourself. There are limitations to being covert, but there are also opportunities that the overt activist has destroyed for himself. If you aren’t sure what to do, try to find as many like-minded people you can meet with and brainstorm ideas. Don’t just have bitch session with your buddies about current events, actually sit down and make plans for covert activities that will further our cause. DO NOT try and convert people and bring them into the group. There are plenty of us out there. More are waking up every day, not because of proselytization, but because they’ve always felt this way in their hearts. The White Nation isn’t going to happen overnight and the movement doesn’t need more people who are unemployable and begging for money from the rest of us.


The “lone wolf” ideal has been around for decades. The sneaky and covert approach isn’t going to work for our side for a variety of reasons. A subculture must be developed and a subculture cannot develop if nobody’s willing to identify with it. There are careful and subtle ways to signal subculture, and I’m all for that. But, ultimately, your advise to avoid exposing yourself at all costs remains a terrible and paralyzing idea which has been tried to death with nothing even remotely demonstrable to show for it.

Claus Brinker

First Matt, I’m not advocating for a lone wolf strategy. Quite the opposite. But I am saying that once you expose yourself you lose a position of power. Better to remain covert until you can’t anymore. What I am advocating for is the creation of a covert network of people with a variety of skills in strategic positions. It’s tempting to go out and debate our ideas with a bunch of people who will never change their minds but what does that accomplish? I used to try to do that and now I wish I hadn’t. I’ve lost credibility with people who could have been useful in other ways had I kept my mouth shut.

Second, how do you know that covert operations won’t work and aren’t having an effect? Just because you haven’t read about it in one of our media outlets or on the SPLC site? And how do you know that overt tactics will have lasting success? Who remembers Michael Spletzer anymore?

My advice to young unexposed WNs is not to be reckless. Seek out like-minded people and think strategically about what you can do. There is power in your anonimity. We are not going to win this war by engaging in the marketplace of ideas.


As racialists, we offer you limited employment opportunities, targeting of violence by state sanctioned Marxist death squads, the risk of being framed by the FBI and imprisoned for life ala Matt Hale, being lied about and character assassinated by institutional Jewish tyrants at the SPLC and ADL, the possibility of being disowned by your family, the occupation of all your free time to the political and ideological grind, and much much more.

How many women want what we have to offer? Say ‘ I ‘ .

And that’s why these politics are not for women. They’re not even for most men.

MK "Ultra"S

You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion ain’t fact or law. Most men don’t want the challenge and many of your ilk wouldn’t resist or ever consider it. They just want to practice calling Arabs “Muds”, and blacks, “goy beasts” that are subhuman. Anglin makes it clear on his site he believes he can change the Jewish dominated system within. Excuse me, but I’m laffing my ass off to that. Covert resistance is the only option since provocateurs will be sent out to undermine and discredit legitimate overt resistance. Now you got a thought of your own or do you just spout “Anglin”?


Yeah, who wants Monday morning quarterbacks around?

Lew, you hate Carolyn Yeager. You call for me to be banned (I’m assuming I’m the ‘case’ in question). Are there any women out here that you respect? Are any just human beings with strengths and weaknesses, or are all just ’emotional shrews?’ I see Carolyn as human, with lots to learn from – both the good and the bad.

But at least she’s out there doing something. Its your lack of logic that causes you to believe that you can blaze a trail by your vanguard of men self. The governmedia tries to turn every last white woman against those brave enough to blaze that trail with these psy ops about “whitemenwhowanttokillalljewsandblondes.’ Your reaction is to then validate that very lie by pathologizing the only white women who challenge it. It’s just illogical.

Are their any ‘cases’ whose contribution you can affirm are a net positive? I saw a woman tell Andrew Anglin that she just couldn’t recommend his site to people, in spite of finding him ‘hilarious,’ because of his attacks on women. Some Stormers want to literally beat or imprison their partners into servitude. I’ve actually seen comments made to this exact effect.

But you’d like to keep doing the same thing over and over in spite of the fact that it’s never worked before.


Men aren’t put off by you because you’re women. They’re put off because you’re disruptive. As for Carolyn Yeager, she is not someone I look to myself for ideas or analysis. I don’t hate her. That’s ridiculous. I’m not going to hate somebody over a pitched but ultimately trivial disagreement that happened years ago that I barely remember. Carolyn Yeager is disruptive. That much is true. On the other hand, she stands up to Jewry on their most cherished issue. She deserves a lot of credit for having gone much further on that front than most men, including me.

It would certainly come as surprise to my wife, daughters and numerous female friends and colleagues that I don’t respect women. I might be the closest thing women like you have to a friend in these circles. I don’t happen to believe everything about the modern world is bad, though a lot of it is of course. As a father of daughters, I don’t want to roll back the clock for women to the 1950s, much less further back than that.

There is no difference in principle between you and the misogynists at DS. Far as I’m concerned, women who dwell on men and men who dwell on women rather than on the impact of elite culture on men and women have already taken Jewry’s bait.


The men on DS advocate violence towards women, whether AA wants to take responsibility for that or not. This is both overt and de facto. I have never condoned much less promoted violence towards men. What do you have to back up your claim that I’m somehow the female equivalent of a Stormer male?

If all women are disruptive in your view, then I guess you disagree with Matt’s article.

At the end of the day, there’s still the hard fact that pro-white america has yet to harness a mostly untapped potential and trying to blame that on women’s presence is absurd because there are so few women yet the disconnect still exists. You’re the one who is dwelling on women here, claiming their all ‘disruptive.’


I understand you’re frustrated just like Sydney Nationalist. We are all frustrated at the fallout from this nightmare dystopia. I’ve made 100s of impudent remarks myself over things that really didn’t matter. It’s never too late to quit taking the bait and start focusing on that which matters. Here, the Jews have a message just for you.



Please see above video of Ann Barnhardt. Also maybe take a step back and check yourself. When I calibrated my position somewhat, without ceding the whole point of my first comment, you then call me ‘impudent.’

Ann is absolutely disruptive.

syd nationalist

@ Women who shouln’r even be here who is wasting our time with emotional personal issues: Haha, every Stormer is a violence prone male.. okaayy..

@ Lew: I think DS is trying to get back to the traditional role of women not in politics. Who cares if this makes them mysoginists? Isn’t that a word like rascist? It sounds like your need to put on the glasses and was this cultural Marxism out of your system. You don’t fix feminism by meeting it half way. You just get rid of it. And this doesn’t mean you *hate wimen* it just means you realise they are no good in politics like ours as leaders.

Free to come to rallies and support the doods – yes. Really interested in an abstract sense in WN politics – no. So why pretend they are here for any other reason than ego stroking and mate seeking?

DS is basically saying in the interests of a soft sail to inevitable power we need to realise these truths and plan accordingly. yes there will be places as supporters and tag alongers, but as far leading and being part of cadres – no it just doesn’t work. We have like different brains and yeah women just disrupt bunches of doods trying to get shit done.

Daniel Evans

TY and DS both have raised good points. A man should focus on self-improvement, and should be able to complete tasks independently such as cooking and cleaning so that individual goals can be achieved. Even I can cook and clean for myself. I’ve also and always believed that we shouldn’t weaken our message as to appeal to White women, but that doesn’t mean that I’d push them aside if one were to engage in a conversation with me. If White men were to simply better themselves, become more aware of the issues that we face, reassert themselves, then White women will naturally follow as women are naturally attracted to masculinity.

Do you agree?


This article is filled with a lot of words. You could have saved yourself and everyone else a lot of time by just saying, “Make me a sammich.”


Women can be heroes and do what’s right. If women today decide not to pursue careers and costly unnecessary schooling and instead low paying jobs until they can marry, or to live at home, I think this might be an equivalent of the sacrifices trad men make today. Women should have a “trad subculture” created for them – by men, for women. St. Joan of Arc and other women saints are examples of Christian women who were heroic women in their day and age.

Also, there need to be schools set up for training women to be mothers and homemakers – online programs would do as well. If trad men believe that being a mother is a serious vocation, it seems like this vocation could use some vocational training.

MK "Ultra"S

Matt, I too am attacking Anglin, I am not a white onlier but I am Jew-wise. Do I have to follow white only ideology to be taken seriously? Well, I wrote my own article inspired by Anglin’s response to yours. Let me be blunt. Andrew Anglin is working for the Jews with his dogmatic demands that only white goy beasts would take seriously! By the way, most of the Jew wise movenment is controlled by Jews, FYI! Out of curiosity, why do you need to moderate your comments- just ban a troll if he acts up. It’s Jews that hate free speech-right? http://blindlight.org/index.php/ongoing-psyops/anglin-watch/andrew-address-trolls/white-race-utopia

MK "Ultra"S

Thanks for your response that said nothing but implied you were trained by Jews. Oh, Eric, by the way, would Alex make such a reference and did you even read my piece and if you did, say something that is respondable to you seemingly brainwashed idiot!

Leave a Reply