The Triumph of Life: An Assault Upon the Values of the Current Society 13 страница

Only in this way, with this understanding, can “sexual assault” be made a thing of the past. It does not occur hardly at all in a society where people are educated to embrace a normal, naturalistic view of sexual relations and where a man is truly the husband of his wife from a relatively young age. When a society cares about breeding, instead of anarchic individualism, as the purpose of sex—and the breeding of a superior humanity at that—sexual assault is like an empty sail devoid of wind. A man and his wife are truly one flesh, committed to the creation of new life which is an improvement upon their individual selves; sex does not occur outside of that racially furtherative context and thus neither does sexual assault. Instead of education for being a good “consumer, ” we thus need education for good breeding: that our youth will find suitable mates early on, understand what those mates are for, and that those mates will remain true to one another their entire lives in common purpose for the furtherance of their kind. That is more important than economic considerations or the acquisition of abstract knowledge for its own sake. Instead of a free for all of sexual licentiousness or sentimental romantic delusion—things which only lead in the long run to individual and racial disappointment, decline, defeat, and death—we need a purpose in mind for the most basic function of our very existence and education for that purpose. That purpose is none other than the devoted and conscious furtherance of the race as we have stated.

It follows from the above that the only conceivable justification for allowing the women of our race to terminate their pregnancies is when those pregnancies do not further the race for one reason or another—such as disease or defect—though one could certainly argue that the practice of “abortion” is unnatural altogether since the culling of substandard, inferior beings only takes place after birth in the natural world, not before. “Abortion” (infanticide) can thus only conceivably be justified in those situations where the fetus is of mixed (destroyed) race, where it possesses (other) genetic defects, where it is incurably diseased, where it has been otherwise damaged in the womb by the drug habits of its mother, or where its termination is necessary to deter the practice of rape which would contribute otherwise to the creation of racially detrimental beings. Otherwise, the idea that a woman has the innate “choice” as to whether to carry her voluntarily created child to term is kind of a sad joke; her choice was already made rather when she engaged in voluntary copulation with a member of the opposite sex. Fundamentally, if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she should not copulate since pregnancy is, after all, the foreseeable result of copulation. The same can be said of countless other activities which people can engage in: don’t rollick among poison ivy plants if you don’t want poison ivy, don’t eat a lot of candy if you don’t want cavities in your teeth, and don’t eat unnatural acidic foods if you don’t want heartburn, for example. That which happens does not happen by accident; it is a result of what we do. If you don’t want the result of something—or potential result—don’t do it, or express bewilderment that the result has indeed occurred. Marriage without children is, for its part, nonsensical for that is of course the point of the exercise in the first place. There is, however, one caveat to that: when a man or woman proves to be sterile during the course of that marriage, there are only two possible explanations for that situation—either genetic or environmental in nature—and people who are genetically sterile shouldn’t have children since sterility exists in creatures for a reason: because they are genetically defective in some way and shouldn’t pass on those genes. It is not always possible to know why exactly a particular being cannot bear or sire children but in any case the body is not somehow lying or wrong when it denies the organism that capability. Rather, there must be a sound physical justification for that sterility: either the organism bears some sort of genetic defect that it does not want to pass on to its offspring or the organism is perhaps living an environmentally destructive life—such as its consumption of a bad diet, for example—which prevents it from reproducing to the potential detriment of both the offspring and his race. The reproductive capability of the organism shuts down so as to prevent the creation of offspring who have become genetically, environmentally, or biologically compromised in some way. The defect is thus not the sterility itself but rather those conditions which made that sterility necessary for the health of the race. This is why, notably enough, the incidence of sterility has increased so rapidly within our White Race the past several decades: our race is living such a destructive life today in all of the facets of its existence that it has little choice but to cut down on the reproductive capability of its members so as to cut down on the damage to the gene pool. The race wishes to protect itself and thus shuts down the reproduction of beings which could prove harmful to it in some manner.

The attempt to claim a supposed “right” to kill one’s own healthy and normal fetus in the womb—on the basis that it has not been born yet—must, for its part, be deemed indefensible since it obviously would be born were it to be left alone; it is no argument at all to say that a healthy living creature may be morally killed now when it cannot be morally killed later; if it is wrong to kill a five month old healthy child, it must be wrong to kill a five month old healthy fetus, quite simply. It is still a living, growing, valuable member of our race, a member of our race which was created by the voluntary act of its parents, doing what they were supposed to do: propagate themselves. It will not do for them to try to cancel out the natural result of their activities now that they have literally born fruit, especially since our race needs its sons and daughters. The operative fact rather is the health and value of the fetus or child to our kind, not the supposed “right” of its parents to frustrate the furtherance of that kind. Furthermore, the idea that a fetus does not feel pain—and may therefore be killed without it feeling pain—is ridiculous and defies common sense in its face. Of course it feels pain, as does every other living, animate creature whether born or unborn. The fetus merely lacks the ability to express itself to others since it dwells within the body of another being. We can thank the inane self-delusion of our times for the fact that countless millions of our kind have been killed off in the womb simply because their mothers could pretend to themselves that there was no suffering involved; just because they could not hear their babies scream or see them grimace or wince while they were being dismembered and torn apart within their mothers’ bodies by the so-called abortion “doctor, ” our people have duped themselves into thinking that no such traumatic violence takes place. That though is absurd; just because you cannot see or hear something does not mean that it does not exist, especially when it concerns what is going on within one’s own body. Every creature feels physical pain as a means of preserving itself, for when it is harmed by another creature the pain serves to motivate it to try to escape that situation if it can. What makes the situation of the fetus unique then is that it has no means whatever of escaping its assailant, not that it is incapable of feeling the pain that is meted out to it at the behest of its own mother. That, incidentally, is what makes cursory, non-eugenic “abortion” all the more heinous: the healthy offspring of our race is harmed at the behest of the very person who should love, treasure, and defend it the most: its mother.

Routine elective abortion is thus a sickness, a product of a sick and disturbed age. It is the will of a race to destroy itself instead of preserve itself; it is a form of racial suicide, a refutation of life itself. A woman who has voluntarily copulated has no more right to have her unborn fetus killed than she has a right to have her already born child killed; only if the race has determined that a racially dysgenic being would be born to the race otherwise could the practice of abortion ever be justified but that would of course be due to eugenic considerations, not merely because the mother views the burgeoning child within her womb as an inconvenience to her personal life or wishes to evade the natural consequences of her own willful actions. Abortion would thus only be used in that instance as a means of assisting the meaning of life: the furtherance of the race, not only in its life itself but in the quality of that life. It would be a corrective to a process which has gone horribly wrong, that instead of the race being furthered with the new life, it would be harmed. That again is the only way for a practice that is unnatural and racially destructive on its face to be justified. Far from being a personal decision, it would be the decision of a race to prevent the addition of dysgenic life to its ranks, life which sets it backward, not forward. If a child were certain to be born with half a brain for example, it would be foolhardy to bring that child to term. We need eugenic life, not dysgenic life. Allowing dysgenic beings to be born causes, of course, the race to become dysgenic likewise within the course of time. The only natural alternative to the abortion of dysgenic beings would be to allow them to be abandoned and exposed after birth as was done prior to the advent of the Christian religion, an action that may or may not be the preferable course of action in a State which is devoted to the furtherance of our White Race. It is questionable, however, whether women should be forced to carry to term beings which they know are dysgenic only for them to have to expose them upon birth.

Needless to say, the laws of the current society must be changed regarding all of this but that is already par for the course for all those who would like the laws of society and the values of the natural world to coincide, all to the preservation and advancement of the race. The values of the natural world are obviously more worthy of our respect and love than are the mere enactments of men, men who, by their ignorance of those values, only lower the race through their actions instead of raise it. Those men thwart the progress that was meant to be ours by Nature herself and send our race hurtling backwards through the eons of time to a more primitive, inferior state of being—assuming that a White Race riddled with disease, defects, and other disorders had ever existed at a previous time in history at all. The bottom line is this: the values of the society of today coddle—and thus enable—a rapidly degenerating stock whereas the values of the natural world waste no time in stamping such degeneration out. It thus behooves us to embrace natural values and discard all those values which make the degeneration—and destruction—of our White Race possible. Far more misery is bestowed upon the world by those who would seek to thwart the operation of natural values within the lives of men than by letting them take their course. It makes far more sense to try to prevent the breeding of dysgenic life in the first place than to pamper, subsidize, and proliferate it within the entire race with all of the misery and degeneration which that entails.

Thus we can say this: a woman’s body is not “hers, ” nor is a man’s body “his. ” We all belong rather to our race and cannot act legitimately without regard to the consequences to that race. None of us has the right to kill the well-born members of that race; the race rather has the right to protect those members. All of us are mere vessels of a life that will continue long after we ourselves have met our personal doom. Thus we have an obligation to that life, being obliged to protect it and make it better. Sometimes that requires us to be hard—both to ourselves as well as others—but there is no cause more deserving of that hardness for what is at stake is nothing less than the attainment of a happier, healthier, and greater humanity and a well-nigh paradise on earth.

It is noteworthy that the most outspoken advocates for abortion on demand have always been incredibly homely Jewesses, individuals who would themselves in all likelihood never be inseminated by a man in the first place but who are, quaintly enough, hot to trot to encourage the beautiful women of our race to kill their unborn children as much as possible. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand why Jews would behave in such a fashion: being their natural rival for power, they want to cause the destruction of the White Race if they can. So, they encourage conduct and attitudes which are destructive to our race as much as they can, whether we are talking about abortion, race mixing, homosexuality, “feminism, ” White guilt and self-hatred, or any and every other practice or attitude which weakens us as a race in its life. It is not some kind of coincidence then that Jews have always been the driving force behind the “pro-choice” movement which has resulted in the slaughter of millions of healthy, normal White babies in their mothers’ wombs, any more than it is some kind of coincidence that they have instigated wars again and again between the White nations of the world. After all, the results are the same: a lot of dead White people. The mass abortion of today just kills us off even quicker than did the Jewish-inspired wars of the past is all. Instead of causing the death mainly of our men alone in the prime of their lives, both our men and women are killed off before they have even left the womb and thus before they have had any chance to live (and propagate themselves) at all. Abortion is thus a far more effective means of eliminating our race than war happens to be. Not being (soft) Christians, the Jews realize that that is a sensible policy: for them. Plus, war destroys a lot of property unlike abortion, and naturally the Jews would like to acquire that property in the future if they can rather than eliminate our racial stock along with its property too. Jews do not support so-called “abortion rights” because they are liberal-minded people; rather, Jews are liberal-minded people—if one can call it that—because so-called “liberalism” destroys their hated rival: the White Race. It is an instinctive quality of the Jewish race, fortified by the religion which it has created for itself, to seek the weakening of and indeed destruction of all those who would stand in the way of its domination of the world. Those who would deny that assertion need only examine the historical record of Jewish conduct regarding the non-Jewish nations of the world as well as what the Old Testament and The Talmud have to say. In any event, when a Jewess appears on the television set practically foaming at the mouth about how terrible it is that somebody somewhere is supposedly trying to take away “a woman’s right to choose, ” we would do well to consider the source and ask ourselves why it is that the Jewess happens to be so passionate about the issue.

As for the children of our race which do manage to be born, the requirement that unwed mothers be paid “child support” by their fathers has only encouraged sexual promiscuity and weakened the family unit; it is important rather that unwed mothers not receive any “child support” if our women are to be encouraged to be selective in their choice of mates and do their breeding within the bounds of the marital bond. Thus “child support” is a totally counterproductive policy. Women would be far more careful with whom they copulate were the fathers of the ensuing children not required to pay them child support—which of course was the way things worked for countless thousands of years—instead of the situation we have at present whereby they are casually giving themselves to men of inferior character and worth outside of wedlock with the prospect of “child support” being forthcoming from the man should things go wrong in their relationship. It is important rather that unwed women not believe that child support will be given to them should they get pregnant; that way they will be far more insistent on marriage which is the true “child support. ” So-called “child support”—requiring men by law to pay women money with whom they have bred children out of wedlock—is thus destructive to the institution of marriage, not constructive, and should be abolished; women should be copulating with their husbands and only their husbands, not men who have not pledged themselves to them for life. Marriage is the only obligation which the law should recognize here, not a halfway scenario which is unfair to both the man and the child alike; the reason why a married man has obligations to his wife and children is that they are his, bearing his name. It is nonsensical then for a man to have obligations to a woman who is not his whether they ended up spawning a child together or not. Women, for their part, cheapen themselves when they copulate with a man who will not call them “wife. ” They need to be far more choosy, both for their own sake and for the sake of their children who need to be conceived in purposeful, responsible, and far-sighted love instead of the carefree lust of the moment, love for the creation of new life for their White Race. In other words, copulation needs to be a deliberative effort—by both the man and the woman—to further their kind in its life. There is a form of copulation, breeding, love, and marriage which makes sense and which drives our race forward. There is a form of copulation, breeding, love, and marriage which we can all be proud of. We have an end in mind and both man and woman are devoted to that end. Instead of pregnancy being an “accident” or a “mistake” for our couples, it is rather our hope, our drive, and our will to create new life for our kind and to cultivate it to ever greater heights.

Sexual anarchy, on the other hand, results in racial anarchy, a lack of knowledge of and faith in one’s own roots, one’s own heredity, and one’s own family. It also obscures the incredible importance of breeding in a race whereby the race loses sight of the fact that the purpose of copulation is racial furtherance, not pleasure for its own sake. Our men and women must become psychologically committed to one another again, not because of what is in it for each of them personally but because they understand that it is their duty as White people to create new life for their kind and because their spouse is the one they have chosen to do that with. Copulation thus needs to be viewed once again as a serious activity, not as a frivolous one. Our passions have a purpose: the furtherance of our kind. A woman allows herself to be inseminated by a man because he is her husband whose duty it is to take care of her, not a “boyfriend” who has no such duty and who can be discarded next week for another. A man gives his name to his wife and child as a symbol of the fact that they belong to him and that what they do reflects on him. A woman needs to know that if she gets pregnant outside of wedlock, she won’t get child support; that way she will demand marriage from her man before any such pregnancy-producing copulation takes place. There is no such thing therefore as a “deadbeat dad” per se, only the failure of both the father and the mother to behave in such a way that is racially furtherative: a man only deserves to have his way with a woman if he has pledged himself to her as her husband and the woman only deserves his support in her childbearing and child raising if she has consented to be his alone. That’s just common sense, if nothing else.

Since it is man’s instinct to inseminate at practically all costs—sometimes even risking his own life to do so—it is woman’s job to resist that by demanding that any such insemination take place within the bonds of matrimony whereby the man has a duty to her and their potential children. That is because only the man is physiologically driven to copulate while woman is not. It thus befalls upon her to put a brake upon a drive which she herself does not possess (women are obviously not physiologically driven to emit seed). While it may be quaint for the current society to declare that a man can, should, and must halt his sexual advances the moment a woman says “no, ” that is easier said than done to anyone who knows anything at all about male physiology. It is therefore important for woman not to place herself in that situation with a man not her husband in the first place; at a certain point a man is not responsible for his actions because they are quite simply beyond his control. Traditional wisdom has always understood this, and counseled women accordingly; the onus of restraint falls upon the woman, not the man, because she is not impelled to have sex the way a man is. As we have said, it is the man who is driven to spawn new life while it is the woman who is driven to sustain the life that has been born; thus it is her responsibility, in keeping with her nature, to make sure that new life is spawned only when the man is bound to her as her husband, a relationship blessed by their respective families and by the racial community itself. That, incidentally, is why people have traditionally been invited to express their opposition to a particular marriage at the wedding ceremony (“if anyone present should have cause to believe that these two should not be joined together, let him speak now or forever hold his peace”); it was recognized that the community does have a stake in the matter.

There is a reason why this is the way things used to be: it worked. There has to be a balance between the roles, powers, and rights of men and women or everything will fall apart as it has. Women have a duty to protect their chastity, not throw it to the winds. They should not give it up cheaply, to men who refuse to devote their lives to them and the offspring which may grow within their wombs. A child needs to know that his mother is loyal to the man with whom his mother created him, and to know that his father does not give his seed—his genes—to any other woman in the creation of life. Random breeding does not further our race because if it did, we would have evolved for that random breeding instead of to the contrary; selective breeding, planned breeding, controlled breeding, is evidently advantageous to our racial life. Our race is furthered by our children knowing who their fathers are. Our race is furthered by our men and women being bound to one another—morally, psychologically, physically, and legally; the State should never interfere with that marital relationship, even if called upon to do so by one of the parties, because that destroys the spirit of intimacy and trust upon which the union of husband and wife rests. (The State should not respond to domestic disputes. ) Our race is furthered when there is both a mother and father under their children’s roof. Our race is furthered by our men and women finding a mate and sticking to her or him throughout the vicissitudes of life. Our race is furthered by the sexual energy in our men and women being devoted exclusively to one person. Our race is furthered by the recognition that the purpose of marriage is the regulation of the creation of new life, and preparation of that new life to create new life in its turn. Our race is weakened by the erosion of all of the foregoing. It is not some kind of coincidence that our racial decline is occurring most dramatically at the same time that the family unit has been broken up, copulation has become a mere hedonistic pursuit, the sexes have become androgynous and have assumed each other’s roles throughout society, and test tube babies have become an acceptable norm. That is because all of these things are unnatural and a race can only endure under the say of natural values, not artificial ones. When a race has become atomized into its mere component parts, “individuals” who act in a haphazard manner without any regard at all for the basic truths of their own biology, instincts, traditions, and that mode of living pursued by every other natural creature upon the face of the earth, it is little to be wondered at that the race breaks up and disintegrates the way that we are witnessing today with our White Race.

While it is true that not every tradition of our people has a racially furtherative basis and that those which don’t must be disposed of accordingly, those traditions which do have a racially furtherative basis must be upheld and justified on that ground. If we are to be true to the values of the natural world, it is that which furthers our race which must always be pursued, and that is so whether it does or does not correspond with abstract notions of justice in a racially free sense as justice for a race can only be that which furthers that race in its life whether we are talking about its culture, genes, biology, morals, or any other facet of that life. The end of our racial furtherance must always be the yardstick for our every action, every value, and every law that we would pursue, and that which all of the other creatures of this world do for the furtherance of their own respective kinds as a matter of sheer instinct must be, for us, both a matter of instinct as well as a matter of our reflection as the sapient beings that we are, our being sapient enough to figure out what benefits our race and what does not and to choose the former in everything we think and do. Since we are able to defy our instincts with our reasoning ability unlike the rest of the creatures of this world, we must make sure that we employ that reasoning ability in such a way that our actions indeed further our race as happens with the other creatures as a matter of course due to their possession of instinct alone.

The ability of men to reason thus imposes a special burden upon them: to see to it that their reasoning ability does not impede the furtherance of their race but rather fulfills it, and thus see to it that their reasoning ability fulfills the values of the natural world instead of thwarting those values. Men must make sure that their ability to reason complements their instinctive drive to further their own kind instead of contradicting that drive. What comes to the other creatures of the world instinctively alone must thus come to us both instinctively and as a matter of our reasoned judgment. Our instincts are complemented by the reasoning power which we possess. Reason alone cannot guide a race in the conduct of its life because it lacks any direction whatever in its own right; for what exactly do we employ our reason, the question may be asked? The instinct of every race to further itself, on the other hand, provides the direction to our reason which it needs. Human life is above animal life because no animal can think at the level at which Man can think, nor create what Man can create. That does not mean, however, that Man should allow his better brain to cause the destruction of his own kind, the situation which we face so manifestly today with our poor, befuddled, distracted, and debilitated White Race. Anybody can “reason” anything but if reason is to be a constructive faculty for the race which possesses it and not a destructive one, it must assist the instincts of that race to further itself in this world as those instincts do with every other race of creature as a matter of course. In sum, both our instincts as well as our brains must be employed in the cause of our racial furtherance for that furtherance to in fact occur; we cannot afford for our brains to suppress and defeat those racially furtherative instincts which we have in common with every other living creature; we cannot afford for our brains to cancel out those instincts which are so necessary to the furtherance of our racial life. That may seem obvious by this juncture but the point cannot be stressed enough.

What sort of attitude then about sex and the sexes furthers our race? We can ask (and answer) that question when it comes to a countless array of specific topics but in any event it is a question which must indeed be asked instead of letting the matter play out in every direction as a result of the myriad number of abstract thoughts which may enter our brains. To put it another way, just because somebody can “reason” something out doesn’t mean that that reasoning furthers our race the slightest in its life; rather, our reasoning ability must coincide with our racially furtherative instincts in order for that ability to be beneficial to our race at all. Anybody can be induced to think anything but that doesn’t make it good, right, or just for our kind in the furtherance of its life. Anybody can be induced to think that men and women are the same, should be the same, should do the same, or whatever for example but such thinking ignores the difference of functions which is integral to the different sexes of the races of creatures upon this earth. If men were the ones who had wombs for instance, they would be the ones whose job it would be to bear the children of our race as well as nurture and cultivate that life. The bearing of life thus creates a special responsibility to that life which is not and cannot be present where the sex which (merely) did the insemination is at issue; a man does not have the same duties to his child as its mother does. By the same token, men have a special responsibility to fight physically for their families and their race because, of the two sexes, men are the ones who bear the advantage of physical strength. To be sure, we have witnessed the great leveling of the roles, societal functions, and powers of the respective sexes the past several decades but that only illustrates the sickness of our times, times which would divest themselves entirely of a natural mode of living in favor of an idiotic “equality” dogma which has no relationship whatever to the reality of that which occurs in a state of Nature. It is only natural than the sex which produces and carries the offspring within its bodies for nine months will have a closer relationship with that offspring than the sex which set that process in motion, true, but which is not so absorbed in the development of the new being. Thus the laws of the State have usually recognized the primacy of the mother’s rights as far as the custody of her children is concerned. A woman will always feel her child to be more a part of her than a man will for this reason: that her child really was a part of her at one time. The child leaves her body but the biological memory of its presence there remains. The man has genetic affinity with his child but he obviously did not carry it and nourish it with his blood!

⇐ Предыдущая 11 12 13 14 151617 18 19 20 Следующая ⇒