William Gayley Simpson

[nunaem]

By intelligent and watchful selective breeding (that is, by carefully and steadily weeding out the culls and by making wise use of the seed from the best), Western man has brought forth countless marvels in the way of improved strains of all his domestic animals, and likewise of every manner of grain, vegetable, fruit and flower. But in regard to himself, to his own kind, he has long followed, and is following now, a course directly opposite to all this. He has been like a gardener who would neglect his tallest, sturdiest, most luxuriant and fruitful specimens to nurse along and try to make something of his diseased, deformed and sterile runts. Instead of taking humane and practical measures to stop the multiplication of human life so botched and broken that it can never, by any agency known to man, come to have any value or meaning (and thus gradually eliminate such defectiveness altogether), we levy an absolutely enormous tax on all the rest of the nation to feed it, doctor it, nurse it, and try to “educate” what can only slowly catch on to the idea that 2 plus 2 equals 4. In fact, our whole welfare and social security program, intended primarily to raise the standard of living of the masses, tends actually to increase the birth rate of the part of our population that at the best is only mediocre in its endowments, and whose procreation should be kept within limits. On the other hand, the tax to support all this falls so heavily on our most richly endowed stock that it is handicapped and crippled, and instead of having large families—which is what we need from them, even very large families—it commonly settles down to having one child or two, not enough even to perpetuate itself.

In short, our present social setup is steadily producing, and as long as it lasts cannot fail to produce, a literal degeneration of our kind, of the caliber of our national and racial stock. Our good and our best are being outbred by our mediocre and by our worst, and to be outbred means to be replaced, as surely as if they had been conquered by bombs and bayonets and then massacred. They are removed from the Earth. The masses multiply like rabbits, and our best—such best as we still have, though no longer the equal of our best of 50 or 100 years ago—are shoved into oblivion. We are steadily becoming a people of average lower intelligence, feebler character, and reduced stamina. What we are witnessing is retrogressive evolution, an evolution in reverse, backward and downward. But any people long subjected to such a process must sooner or later fall to pieces from internal weakness and decay, or become the victim of a foreign conqueror. This is precisely the fate that has removed one nation after another from the pages of history, simply because it failed to give constant and intelligent heed to the quality and the state of its breeding stock.

[mamboni]

+1000%

[hoarder]

http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Reichler.Max.1916.Jewish%20Eugenics.htm

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0503

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_unfabricated_history_of_eugenics/

[woodman]

This guy gets it exactly.

[nunaem]

http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Reichler.Max.1916.Jewish%20Eugenics.htm

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0503

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_unfabricated_history_of_eugenics/


How'd that work out for them? Average Ashkenazi IQ 115. Average Ashkenazi income is astronomical.

Of course they never artificially selected for beauty (just look at a Khazar), but we (Nordics) did. And they never artificially selected for moral instincts (they did the opposite, selected for unscrupulousness), but the white races did. Intelligence and cunning is only 1 parameter to select for.

White people were practicing good breeding for millennia before crack-brained egalitarians took over, not coincidentally this is when Jews took over levers of power.



Eugenics, as such, was really founded by Francis Galton, half first-cousin of Charles Darwin, of whose book on natural selection it was the logical development. Yet his ideas were by no means wholly new. A like concern with the problems of population (even though one less systematic) was shown, for instance, among the ancient Greeks, by men as distinguished as Theognis, Plato, and Aristotle. Theocritus declared that “the fairest gift one can give to children is to be born of noble sires.” The Iliad (and even more, the Mahabharata, the corresponding monumental epic of the Hindus) is full of phrases and casual remarks that reveal the conception of what was most admirable in man and woman, and therefore, by implication, of what were the marks of desirability in a mate. The practice of “exposing” (i.e., allowing to die) weak and defective infants was certainly practiced by the old Norse peoples.3 It was common among both the Greeks and the Romans, and was recommended by Aristotle and Plato. The former, along with other eugenic proposals, counseled that “nothing imperfect or maimed be allowed to grow up.” And Plato worked out the most thoroughgoing scheme of eugenics ever devised, though most of it has always been regarded as too greatly at variance with parental instinct to be suitable for practical application. The “democratic,” “enlightened,” and spectacular Age of Pericles, an age in many ways not unlike our own, was significantly indifferent to matters of eugenics, and to a eugenist it is therefore not surprising that, within a few years after his famous Funeral Oration, the whole national structure was swept into oblivion. Some centuries later, Caesar Augustus, confronted with disquieting symptoms of decay in the Roman social order, framed his Juliae rogationes to stimulate the birthrate, especially in the upper classes. But no people of the past has shown itself more conscious of the importance of improving its breeding stock than the Jews, nor has any been more explicit in regard to mating and to the maintenance of health. The main substance of their accumulated wisdom in this field is to be found in the body of tradition known as the Talmud.4

[hoarder]

Some people get offended that I call Jews the Master Race. They say it's self-defeating and supports the idea of letting them run things. Quite the opposite. The teevee/college addled masses have been conditioned to think that Hitlers Germans were building the Master Race. Pre-WW2 Germans are the first thing that comes to their minds when "Master Race" is mentioned.
Upon discovery of who the Master Race really is, they are forced to question the uh-fish-ul version of WW2.

[nunaem]

Some people get offended that I call Jews the Master Race. They say it's self-defeating and supports the idea of letting them run things. Quite the opposite. The teevee/college addled masses have been conditioned to think that Hitlers Germans were building the Master Race. Pre-WW2 Germans are the first thing that comes to their minds when "Master Race" is mentioned.
Upon discovery of who the Master Race really is, they are forced to question the uh-fish-ul version of WW2.


They are the master race, because we have given up good breeding and they have continued it (with different goals in mind). Jews select for unscrupulousness but we can and should select for scrupulousness.

Take dogs for instance... we turned vicious wolves into friendly companions through artificial selection. Anything is possible. But ignoring good breeding only brings out the worst traits in people.

[woodman]

Some people get offended that I call Jews the Master Race. They say it's self-defeating and supports the idea of letting them run things. Quite the opposite. The teevee/college addled masses have been conditioned to think that Hitlers Germans were building the Master Race. Pre-WW2 Germans are the first thing that comes to their minds when "Master Race" is mentioned.
Upon discovery of who the Master Race really is, they are forced to question the uh-fish-ul version of WW2.


Hoarder, I've discussed this with you before. My main point was that we should not ascribe to the Jews, some kind of superiority that does not exist. Master race? They are at the top of the feed pile right now and they've done it through central banking, devious machinations (protocols) and nepotism. I'm not offended by you calling them the master race but I am offended by the fact that I am a slave. We all are. I will call no man my master though because I do not have a slave mentality. This is why I detest calling them the master race.

[nunaem]

Hoarder, I've discussed this with you before. My main point was that we should not ascribe to the Jews, some kind of superiority that does not exist. Master race? They are at the top of the feed pile right now and they've done it through central banking, devious machinations (protocols) and nepotism. I'm not offended by you calling them the master race but I am offended by the fact that I am a slave. We all are. I will call no man my master though because I do not have a slave mentality. This is why I detest calling them the master race.


They are absolutely superior in cunning. Unfortunately white races are superior in trustfulness and individualism. This is a bad combination for us.

[Book]

Parasite-host relationship.

[woodman]

Parasite-host relationship.


Absolutely. As we all know, it doesn't take much smarts to commandeer the hosts system and kill it off. This is what is being done to us. How smart is it to kill off the organism that is feeding you so well? They had it good here, as they did in so many other places but always destroyed the good will and integrity of the hosts.

[Book]

They had it good here, as they did in so many other places but always destroyed the good will and integrity of the hosts.



http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

Won't be long...

[PatColo]

The End of White People 1: Kevin MacDonald on Group Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Nf_n27mpQ


The End of White People 2: Jewish Intelligence and Goals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDFK_jXXQMU


THere might be other parts to this spiel, search gootube... many from MacDonald but different titles, not sure if they're part of this series.

[nunaem]

On to another, possibly more controversial topic... Marriage and childbearing.



Ludovici has collected and analyzed “twenty-one reports, dating from 1883 to 1933,” of cases of first child-birth. The reports were put forth by professors and doctors, most of them, apparently, obstetricians and gynecologists connected with large city hospitals on the Continent. The cases number “scores of thousands.” Ludovici’s analysis of these reports led him to the following conclusions: “The more closely they [the reports] approach the present age and the modern scientific view, . . . the more inevitably are we driven to the conclusion that labour before 20 is more favorable than after, and that the decline in efficiency is rapid after the twentieth year.” 30

The reasons for why a first childbirth is best before the mother has reached the age of twenty are mainly biological. Before that time, the bones and muscles and joints of the pelvis are soft and flexible, and will remain so if the first of a succession of children has come in the mother’s teens. Whereas’ hardening, stiffening, and ossification set in rapidly after the twentieth year.31 The biological urgency that the first childbirth come early is so well presented by Dr. Hugo Sellheim, “that eminent authority,” 32 in the following passage, that I feel that I must quote it at length. He says:

“This transient function [child-birth] in which an adequate passage has to be made for the foetus by stretching the muscles of the pelvic floor to the limit of their elasticity—i.e., without damage to their essential and permanent function of keeping the pelvic outlet closed—can be performed by the pelvic floor only in normal, healthy, and fully developed girls, in whom the muscles are still resilient. In older primiparae [women giving birth for the first time], not only is the extra tissue growth in the birth canal, necessary for the function, defective, but there is also imperfect resilience, and defective increase of elasticity at the critical moment. To compensate for the defects the tissues are stretched beyond the limit of their resilience, with tears and lacerations as the result. In the youthful elastic primparae, however, this extreme compensatory sacrifice is only exceptionally called for, and on a much smaller scale.

“Only female organisms just attained to full development seem capable of further bodily development during pregnancy. For this is precisely what is necessary to secure perfect functions in motherhood, more especially in forming the birth canal without damage. An organism, which has already waited a long time in the developed state, is no longer fit for this function and it seems to me, therefore, that the practice of allowing women to wait beyond their 20th year for marriage—a practice sanctioned even by doctors—amounts to no more than tranquillizing the public by glossing over our present-day social conditions which cause men to settle down late in life.” “He adds,” comments Ludovici, “that the marriage of a woman over 20 amounts to the ‘deliberate scouting of the most favourable conditions for child-birth.’ Further, ‘In the woman who has had her first child in youth, the pelvic floor retains its capacity to form the birth canal for later births without damage, because this capacity is acquired with her first birth, provided this occurs at the right time.’” 33

Moreover, easy labor, such as commonly attends youthful childbirth,34 means greatly diminished risk of puerperal sepsis. The Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality and Morbidity35 says, “Among the predisposing causes of sepsis the most important are undoubtedly injury to the tissues during labour, exhaustion, and haemorrhage,36 which of course are chiefly attendant upon labor that is difficult and prolonged; and the digest of Nicola’s report on childbirth in girls between 13 and 17 states categorically that “puerperal fever and septicemia are extremely rare.” Prolapse of the uterus also seems to be associated with relative senility at the time of first childbirth. Dr. M. Fetzler, a pupil of Dr. Sellheim, remarking on 200 cases of this ailment observed at the Tubingen Clinic, says that “the chance of incurring this disability were almost three times greater in primiparae of 28 than in primiparae of 20, twelve times greater in primiparae of 30 than in primiparae of 19, and before 19 the chances were nil.” 37

In other words, from the point of view of the good of the mother, in order that her child-bearing be safe and easy, it is of the utmost importance that she have her first baby while she is young, preferably before she is twenty.

.......

It would seem to me that the answer is to counsel women to bear, with the heroism sprung of love, whatever pain childbirth may bring, but at the same time strive to eliminate all the pain that is not necessary. The way to this last, however, is not to drug parturient women into unconsciousness, but to begin much further back. We must reform our mating customs. Like must marry like. Our women must marry young. Our wives must be brought up with an understanding of the absolute necessity of the particular regimen required for a healthful pregnancy, and of an all-around healthy life before pregnancy. Otherwise, childbirth will be the horror that it so evidently had been to the women who, in letters to the New York Times, sent up a wail of angry protest against the attitude of Dr. Nielsen. Instead of finding the trouble in themselves, in their own degenerate condition, where undoubtedly it lay, they would make agonized childbirth normal, and indignantly pleaded for anesthetics. The simple truth is that childbirth is likely to be not only safe for the mother, but an experience of joy, upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, one of the most important of which is that it come early in the mother’s life. But from the point of view of the child, also, it is urgently to be desired that he come into the world without too much difficulty. It is notorious that irremediable injury is often done to babies in instrumental deliveries. And Freud, I believe, maintains that a child carries with him through all his future days a subconscious memory of his birth experience, and that this memory conditions his whole future outlook on life. What measure of truth there be in such an idea, I do not know (though it seems to me rather plausible), but if it has any foundation in fact, it is again highly important that birth be easy. And this, as we have seen, means that, as rule, the first birth should come early in the life of the mother. Of course, everything that vitally affects the well-being of mothers and children is of supreme consequence to the race: a race literally stands or falls with its women and with the number and quality of their offspring. And therefore the race has a vital interest in early marriage and early childbirth from the point of view of woman’s fecundity. Prof. S. J. Holmes says that “the liability of women to conceive falls off quite rapidly after the twentieth year,” 41 and also that “Galton has established the fertility of women marrying at the ages of 17, 22, 27, and 32 as roughly in the ratio of six, five, four, and three, respectively. An increase of the average age at marriage, therefore, would have a potent effect in lowering the birthrate.” 42 And decline of the birthrate in the stock of proven capacity is something that no civilization can stand. That the birthrate in this quarter should somehow be raised has become simply a matter of life or death—in the most literal sense. And the evidence shows that early marriage on the part of our best women would make this possible.

And finally, early marriage is so fully in accord with Nature’s obvious intention and so largely solves the problem of sexual repression on the female side, that, so far as biology is concerned, it would seem difficult to find any grounds on which to base an intelligent objection. It certainly is a gross violation of Nature that a girl, whose sexuality develops at an age of thirteen or fourteen, should undertake to deny it all outlet for ten or fifteen years, as Puritanism, feminism, and industrialism combined require of our women today. Our sexuality is only one manifestation of the total measure of vigor and vitality with which we have been endowed, so that the better constituted a person is, the more desirable he is as a specimen of his sex, the more certain he is to have strong sexual desires.43 And complete suppression of all this surging vitality for ten or fifteen years, as is presupposed in modern marriage, in the great majority of cases, simply is not possible—to either sex. I was not brought up to believe this, but slowly, through forty or fifty years, widening knowledge has convinced me that it is a fact.44 Masturbation, neurotic disturbance, psychic distress, homosexuality, and pre-marital intercourse are the inevitable and almost universal concomitants of the attempt at complete suppression. Several studies of the sexual life of the unmarried woman,45 reports of doctors and psychiatrists, and the revelations in such books as judge Ben Lindsay’s Revolt of Modern Youth and the notorious “Kinsey Report” 46 long ago made this indubitable. Soon the talk among college students was indicating that pre-marital sexual relationships, even among the upper classes, were fast becoming majority practice. And now, in 1970, the official opening of women’s college dormitories to men, day and night, suggests that it is well along toward becoming universal.

I find this exceedingly disturbing. If long continued, it must mark the end of our family system, and without the family, which has been the chief foundation of all civilized life for thousands of years, I believe that neither our nation and race, nor any other nation and race, can long survive. If the family is to be preserved, then it is essential that as largely as possible our women should come to marriage virgin. And this can be accomplished simply by establishing the custom that our women marry early. This alone would solve the whole problem of sexual repression on the female side. In short, there is absolutely no need that our young women, in the name of easing their sexual tension, should get into the way of giving themselves to one man after another, as will certainly tend to be the case, and thereby letting themselves be soiled by the touch of men who, in another day and age, would have gone to prostitutes. And if in their fanatical pursuit of equality with men, and by their thoughtless and headstrong determination to throw off all restraints and to do what they feel like doing, regardless of consequences, they thereby threaten to break up the foundations of all national existence and significance, then the day will certainly come when men, individually and collectively, will have to take them in hand, and, where necessary, by force put them in their place. The family, the home, and the cradle are essential to survival, and nothing that threatens their welfare can be tolerated. The ancient Hindus were dead right: every woman from birth to death should be under the ward of some man. If she is to fulfill her function properly, then she cannot be allowed independence.

But early marriage, marriage before twenty, would nowadays be frowned upon. “Child marriage!” we hear someone exclaim, “that’s bad enough in India, but let’s have nothing to do with it in a civilized country like ours!” I presume that such an attitude would have the almost overwhelming support of any intelligent community of the Western world, and it would be especially ardent from all those who have their hearts set on a college education for women. But once again, before replying to this, let me ask my reader to hear out what I have to say for the proposition.

[nunaem]

Continued


In our day, at least until very recently, marriage in which the bride is under twenty is commonly looked upon as hardly decent. And yet there is evidence aplenty that even in England (the land from which most of the original stock in this country was derived), throughout the Middle Ages (the period which Henry Adams and President Hutchins of the University of Chicago regard as the apex of our civilization), marriages were frequent in which the bride was not only 16, but 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, and even younger. This was true not only among the common people, but also and most certainly in the upper classes and in the royalty. Henry VII, one of England’s greatest monarchs, was born of Margaret Beaufort when she was under fourteen, and many other of England’s kings similarly.47 Indeed, early marriage continued to be common in England down to the beginning of the last century.48 And these were periods that showed in the population a greater vigor and vitality, a greater poise, stability and contentedness, and a far richer and more significant cultural creativeness than is to be found among us. We shall do well to remember, too, in passing, that “Napoleon’s mother was only eighteen when the hero of Austerlitz was born,” and that Goethe’s mother “was married at seventeen, . . . and was only eighteen when the poet was born.” 49

Indeed, down through history the general rule, in all ages and in all lands, has been for women to marry young.50 And it is only our false prejudices, the perverted and degenerate ideas prevalent today about women and women’s role, and our absurd conceit that we are above and in advance of other periods, which prevents early marriage among us. From the point of view of the best good of the race, there can hardly be any question but that, as a rule, the most desirable age for a woman at the time of marriage is between sixteen and eighteen. At that time, she stands at last in full flower, at the height of her desirability as a woman. It is as though all Nature conspired to say through the entire ensemble that she is, “I am ready.” It gives me considerable satisfaction to be able to note here that nowhere have I found a more complete endorsement of this position than from Laura Marholm, whom I quoted in my last chapter. And because, being a woman, she may perhaps speak on this matter with more authority and with more understanding than I can, I am going to quote what she has to say at some length. Laura Marholm (really Mrs. Laura Mohr Hansson), a Swedish woman, wrote at the beginning of this century. Most of her books were addressed to, or were about, women. I have found her Studies in the Psychology of Woman so invaluable that I can but hope that it may someday be republished. For it is written beautifully, eloquently, and with such breadth of knowledge, with such depth of sympathy for women and with such understanding of their nature, that for any woman it ought to prove very moving and impressive. And here is what she says about a girl’s age at the time of her marriage.51

“In the young girl of healthy vitality, the period between fifteen and seventeen is really her blossoming time. Everyone perceives the fragrance which hangs about her whole young being, making the insignificant charming, the homely engaging, and first revealing beauty. The bloom of the skin, the sparkle of the eyes, the slender, graceful suppleness of the body,—everything is blooming health and elasticity. People imagine this is something purely physical, which changes so quickly on that very account; but how if it changes so quickly because it is more Psychical than physical,—an almost instant unfolding of all the expansive capacities for complete womanly feeling, in which there is yet no reflective thought? “Why does the blood come and go so quickly in her cheeks? Because she undergoes great bodily agitation? Or because presentiments, ideas which are knowledge, connections of sympathy not yet become thoughts, glide through the soul of the young girl at the slightest outward provocation? Why does she feel this loud, tumultuous heart-beating at the approach or greeting of a man, which becomes still louder because she fears it may be heard? Why does she so often drop her eyes and grow confused? Why are her slender hands so warm and moist that the crochet needle rusts in them? . . . Why does she often grow pale under a glance, so pale and so suddenly that one thinks her about to faint? Are these only physical appearances, without her knowledge?—or does she know only too well and blush or pale with double violence because she fears it can be read in her face? Many believe the former, and the mothers always say excusingly, ‘She is still so innocent, she is still quite childish.’ I believe that ‘she’ is perhaps never again in her life so little childish as then. The years when people no longer think her childish are quite frequently a great step backwards towards childishness. “In this short time of blossoming—and perhaps only then in fulness—everything in the young girl is readiness. There is readiness of soul and mind—a capacity for intuitive understanding, for unrestrained devotion, and unbroken instinct. Nothing is perverse in her, and she is still so pliant that nothing tears wounds in her.”

And if she does not marry and become pregnant while this bloom and invitation are yet upon her, the effects are plain to all who have eyes to see or the intelligence to know what they mean. Day by day and year by year, she withers. The bloom that was upon her slowly fades away, never to return and in its place comes—disappointment. Every month is a “mock confinement.” Throughout her whole body she gets ready to be a mother, and then—nothing comes of it. Frustration, and more frustration. Menstruation becomes more difficult, the pelvis hardens, the whole reproductive system is seized with a deterioration that in many cases becomes outright cancer. But perhaps it is again Laura Harholm who can reveal the situation best.

‘She [the young girl, to whom a man has not come] prefers to sit still and her eyes become dull and dreamy—languishing we call it, but it is not that, it is disappointment; so far as I understand it, it is the very deepest disappointment of her whole life, penetrating body and soul, for it springs from the feeling of a dissolving unity. The woman never again possess herself so completely; she is never again so susceptible mentally, so awake, so capable, never again so pliant bodily, so strong and ready.” 52

In any case, there is no question but that a girl is quite able to bear children within a few years of the onset of puberty (to state the facts conservatively). And it simply is not possible for a person of unbiased mind to believe that Nature, equipping a woman to bear children in her early teens, ever intended her to put off beginning for ten or fifteen years, until she was in her middle or late twenties, not to speak of her thirties.

In fact, I believe the only objection to this position will come from those who, consciously or unconsciously, are feminist. From them a loud wail will go up about the horrors of childbirth and the early aging of the mothers of many children. But the material that I already have presented makes it impossible to take this outcry very seriously or to listen to it with much patience. The facts of the matter seem to me to be as follows. Nature punishes us only for doing a thing or for not doing it—never for both. One or the other has her favor and is rewarded with health; and only the other is punished. And we already have seen how it is failure to make reasonable use of the female reproductive system that tends toward organic degeneration and actual cancerous organic disintegration. If, therefore, it is woman’s primary function and the deepest instinct of her being to bear and to rear children (and about this no one can be more unequivocal than Laura Marholm53), then it must follow that a well-constituted woman will have a deeper serenity and sense of fulfillment if her youth is guided by a sound regimen of diet, dress, healthful exercise that does not harden the pelvis (as male athleticism does), and if she marries, before the “first great turning point of a woman’s life—her twentieth year,” 54 a man of her own kind and of corresponding size, from whom she receives both economic and emotional security, and if she follows a wise regimen during her pregnancies. Further, she will actually enjoy better health if she bears a child every second or third year of her bearing life. All this feminist wail about the cost of motherhood is only evidence of degeneracy, and it is the effort of the diseased and perverted to infect the healthy and well-constituted.

But probably the feminist protest against early marriage for women will wax most angry over the fact that it would make impossible the college education that the modern woman requires for the successful pursuit of a career. It is argued that even to make a good mother a woman must have more education than would be possible if she married before twenty. In any case, the feminists demand to be told how much education would be possible under the circumstances, and what kind would be desirable. This is not the place for an extended discussion of the question, but it can be answered in outline. A girl’s education should be fundamentally different from that of a man. I would remind you that Dr. Carrel says, “The same intellectual and physical training, and the same ambitions, should not be given to young girls as to boys. Educators should pay very close attention to the organic and mental peculiarities of the male and the female, and to their natural functions. Between the two there are irrevocable differences.” 55

A girl’s education should center where her own deepest instinct and interest and capacity center—about the child, which means also about homemaking. She should be instructed as to her own physiology and know how to take care of herself, during pregnancy and at all times. She should learn how to take care of a baby, and understand the principles of sound diet and health, both for the child at different stages in its development and for the adult members of her family (so much depends upon this), and know how to treat simple ailments.56 The art and the practice of making a home lovely and of creating an atmosphere expressive of herself and her husband, with definite regimen, rules and standards for such simple things as washing dishes and clothes, making a bed and cleaning a room, and doing it efficiently; the knowledge of how to plant and to grow vegetables and flowers, to set a table attractively, to prepare tasty and wholesome meals, to preserve foods of all kinds in various ways, to spin and to weave and to dye, to make clothes for herself and her family and to mend them, together with a knowledge of other handicrafts (for the day of handicrafts in the home will come back in an age that is economically sounder than ours)—all this lies within her province. And not least, she should be prepared to bring to the unfolding mind and aspiration of her children the study of Nature and a love of the Earth, and also the folklore of her people, their great myths, their great epics, their great heroes, and the heart of their religion, their literature, their art, and their music. Indeed, it might often be the mother who would awaken in her children an interest in and a love for the art, and literatures, and music of the world.

Much of this, however, would require no formal schooling. To a considerable extent she would simply absorb the culture of the race and transmit it. A great deal of what young women need to know they would simply pick up from their mothers and from the life of their homes, as their children in turn would pick it up from them. With this, their girlhood reading, and a schooling shaped from the start to meet their future needs as mothers, they could be ready for marriage before they were twenty. And as a rule, at least until there was a child, study could be continued in the schools even after marriage. It must be remembered that there have been millions of admirable and notable wives and mothers who never had a college education. Indeed, I am strongly of the belief that four years of exposure to the severely rationalistic atmosphere of a place like Smith or Bennington College is enough to ruin a girl for life. I was convinced of this even thirty years ago. And today, in 1970, after the avalanche we have witnessed of feminism, coeducation, and the equalitarian dogma, and the general lifting of all obstacles to pre-marital sexual experience on the part of teenage girls, I do not at the moment know of any college in the land to which I should be willing to entrust the tender destiny of any daughter of mine. Prolonged exposure to such influences will make it difficult for any girl to be content and happy either as wife or as mother.

[PatColo]

On to another, possibly more controversial topic... Marriage and childbearing.


GSUSers drop these long quotes in quote boxes, and Ive griped before, the font size in the quote boxes is too damn small (size 8?).

I've taken to remedying this where when I quote someone/thing, I take the extra step of wrapping the text inside the quote box in (size=10pt) tags, which normalizes the font size to something readable without moving in close or squinting... esp for a long quote.

Highlight all the quoted text (staying INSIDE the quote tags), and hit the "A" button with the up/down arrow next to it, and that wraps both ends in (size=10pt) tags by default.

Alternatively, in firefox if not most browsers, hitting CTRL(plus-sign) or CTRL(minus-sign) raises or lowers the font size, continuously if you keep pressing them.

But the GSUS mods should really raise the font in quote boxes to 10pt... I recall it was lowered at some point when mayhem was around, and never raised back. GSUSers should just use discretion & crop quotes from others down to just the part they're replying to.

[JohnQPublic]

Human beings are not animals. We are created in the image and likeness of God- all of us are. This is basic Christian theology. To apply breeding concepts to human beings is a fallacy.

Add: It may be possible to apply some breeding concepts for physical traits, but I question whether intelligence, honesty, morality, etc. are physical traits (I would argue they are learned, societal, etc., in the case of morality learned + innate). Swedish women are a case in point (of physical traits).

[LuckyStrike]

OP (or anyone) have you read Which Way Western Man?

If so what are your thoughts?

[nunaem]

OP (or anyone) have you read Which Way Western Man?

If so what are your thoughts?


I am currently reading it. It covers so many topics so deeply that it takes a long time to digest. But even at this stage I think it's the most enlightening book I've ever read. Truly a survival manual for the race, or any race, as Dr. Pierce put it.

If anyone is interested in it, here it is: http://www.solargeneral.com/library/which-way-western-man/wwwm.html

[woodman]

OP (or anyone) have you read Which Way Western Man?

If so what are your thoughts?


I am currently reading it. It covers so many topics so deeply that it takes a long time to digest. But even at this stage I think it's the most enlightening book I've ever read. Truly a survival manual for the race, or any race, as Dr. Pierce put it.

If anyone is interested in it, here it is: http://www.solargeneral.com/library/which-way-western-man/wwwm.html


I'm reading it now. Good stuff.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
All are equal, is the cry. Anybody can marry anybody else. Even the races are equal. There is no good reason, even from the point of view of genetics, why Blacks and Whites should not marry, or Whites and Yellows. Well, if I may anticipate the conclusion that I buttress with massive documentation toward the end of this book, let me say here and now, after such study as is possible to an earnest and intelligent layman, that in my sober judgment it is the suicide of a people when they allow themselves to be made into a “melting pot,” where you no longer have a people but only a hodge-podge of peoples, a stew of conflicting bloods, traditions, values, and tastes. It is the betrayal and surrender of those differentiations that their ancestors painfully achieved through many thousands of years, and which give their existence on the Earth all its worth and meaning. I am glad my venture failed, if for no other reason, because I am convinced that my preaching of equality would have worked against the only kind of life I believe to be worth striving for—that is, quality of life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[nunaem]

It is the most encyclopedic and truthful book ever. Look at all of the sections for the chapter on Jews alone:

Section 1. Is There A Jewish Race?
Section 2. The Jewish Money System
Section 3. Control of a Nation’s Money Should Be in the Hands of Its Government
Section 4. The Bank “of England”
Section 5. The Federal Reserve System
Section 6. Depressions Deliberately Created to Plunder the People
Section 7. What the Federal Reserve is Ultimately Driving At
Section 8. The Only Sound “Backing” for a Money System
Section 9. The Origin of the Hoax of the Gold Standard
Section 10. Debt as a Means of Enslavement
Section 11. An Outline of a Money System at Once Honest and Workable
Section 12. Jewish Control of the Means for Shaping Public Opinion
Section 13. Jewish Limitations: Everlastingly They are but Middlemen
Section 14. The Doubtful Loyalty of the Jews
Section 15. The Talmud, Full of Hate for Gentiles, the Admitted Basis of All Jewish Life
Section 16. “The Jews Have Muzzled the Non-Jew Press”
Section 17. The Jews—the Supreme Masters of the “Big Lie Technique”
Section 18. The Jews’ Record—from the Mouths of Jews
Section 19. The Jews’ Record—from the Gentile Point of View
Section 20. The Author’s Own Conclusions about the Jews’ Record
Section 21. The English Revolution
Section 22. The French Revolution
Section 23. The Rise of the House of Rothschild
Section 24. The Industrial Revolution
Section 25. The American Civil War
Section 26. The First World War
Section 27. The Balfour Declaration
Section 28. The Russian Revolution of November, 1917
Section 29. The Second World War
Section 30. Hitler’s Purpose—the Regeneration of his People
Section 31. Hitler’s Record
Section 32. The International Money Power Declares War on Hitler
Section 33. The Jews’ Part in the War
Section 34. The Aftermath
Section 35. The Hoax of “The Cold War”
Section 36. Our Invisible Government
Section 37. The Line-Up of Forces in the Near East
Section 38. The Solution of the Jewish Problem
Section 39. The Problem of Ourselves
Section 40. Our Hour of Deadly Peril
Section 41. The Crucial Importance of Race
Section 42. “Pure Race” is Something That Can Be and Must Be Created



I found a PDF of it, to download for safe keeping:
http://www.archive.org/download/WhichWayWesternMan/WhichWayWesternMan.pdf

I ordered a hardcopy myself for $50. Very well worth the price.

[woodman]

It is the most encyclopedic and truthful book ever. Look at all of the sections for the chapter on Jews alone:

Section 1. Is There A Jewish Race?
Section 2. The Jewish Money System
Section 3. Control of a Nation’s Money Should Be in the Hands of Its Government
Section 4. The Bank “of England”
Section 5. The Federal Reserve System
Section 6. Depressions Deliberately Created to Plunder the People
Section 7. What the Federal Reserve is Ultimately Driving At
Section 8. The Only Sound “Backing” for a Money System
Section 9. The Origin of the Hoax of the Gold Standard
Section 10. Debt as a Means of Enslavement
Section 11. An Outline of a Money System at Once Honest and Workable
Section 12. Jewish Control of the Means for Shaping Public Opinion
Section 13. Jewish Limitations: Everlastingly They are but Middlemen
Section 14. The Doubtful Loyalty of the Jews
Section 15. The Talmud, Full of Hate for Gentiles, the Admitted Basis of All Jewish Life
Section 16. “The Jews Have Muzzled the Non-Jew Press”
Section 17. The Jews—the Supreme Masters of the “Big Lie Technique”
Section 18. The Jews’ Record—from the Mouths of Jews
Section 19. The Jews’ Record—from the Gentile Point of View
Section 20. The Author’s Own Conclusions about the Jews’ Record
Section 21. The English Revolution
Section 22. The French Revolution
Section 23. The Rise of the House of Rothschild
Section 24. The Industrial Revolution
Section 25. The American Civil War
Section 26. The First World War
Section 27. The Balfour Declaration
Section 28. The Russian Revolution of November, 1917
Section 29. The Second World War
Section 30. Hitler’s Purpose—the Regeneration of his People
Section 31. Hitler’s Record
Section 32. The International Money Power Declares War on Hitler
Section 33. The Jews’ Part in the War
Section 34. The Aftermath
Section 35. The Hoax of “The Cold War”
Section 36. Our Invisible Government
Section 37. The Line-Up of Forces in the Near East
Section 38. The Solution of the Jewish Problem
Section 39. The Problem of Ourselves
Section 40. Our Hour of Deadly Peril
Section 41. The Crucial Importance of Race
Section 42. “Pure Race” is Something That Can Be and Must Be Created



I found a PDF of it, to download for safe keeping:
http://www.archive.org/download/WhichWayWesternMan/WhichWayWesternMan.pdf

I ordered a hardcopy myself for $50. Very well worth the price.


I didn't note a chapter on the Jews. Which chapter is this?

[nunaem]

I didn't note a chapter on the Jews. Which chapter is this?


Actually it's a section of a chapter. Part C of chapter 19.