May 19, 2017
“I’m in a traditional marriage”
“I’m all for traditional gender roles”
“I want gender norms to be like the old days”
These are refrains I’ve heard endlessly repeated as the discussion over WHITE SHARIA has advanced. They are coming from women and a few weak men counter-signaling the WHITE SHARIA meme.
Because of the critical importance of this discussion for the survival of the white race and its European civilizations, I wanted to take a minute to explain to all the men and women claiming to be so-called traditionalists all the concepts and social boundaries that defined traditional relationships. This is the most important education that I can possibly give the community at this moment, and I ask that you ask yourself if you are really embracing traditionalism like you claim to be.
Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the mid and late 19th century, when feminist agitators, the media, and academic establishment triumphed with their agitations through its abolition. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself.
William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I:
The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.
UCLA gender studies professor Ellen Carol DuBois (whose career is chronicled in the Jewish Women’s Archive, of course) highlighted in her histories of women’s rights “the initial target of women’s rights protest was the legal doctrine of ‘coverture’“, and that 19th century feminist icon Lucy Stone despised the common law of marriage “because it ‘gives the “custody” of the wife’s person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself.‘”
If a woman decided to leave her marriage she was a penniless non-entity no matter what her previous position was in life (truly, there is no better position for an errant whore to be rendered into). Any restoration of traditional gender roles starts by restoring coverture, thus removing financial incentives for worthless scheming whores to destroy the sanctity of marriage by abandoning it over whims and lusts. Marriage, up until the abolition of coverture, meant that the woman was permanent property of one man, allowed continued existence and any degree of freedom only in accordance with his desires.
The dower grew out of the Germanic practice of bride price (Old English weotuma), which was given over to a bride’s family well in advance for arranging the marriage.
Before a woman was her husband’s property, she was her father’s. This is why the father gives away the bride at the marriage ceremony. Traditional marriage was a transfer of property, with the priest serving the role as the trusted third party to do the background research and make sure the transaction was honest. It was essentially like getting the sale of your apartment validated by a notary. The daughter was sold off by her father, and it was the father’s sole judgement of who was eligible to lawfully purchase his property.
The status of women as property was nearly universal in European cultures, with the exception of Jewry and some groups of gypsies, where access to tithes and trust followed a matrilineal line. This was why the Jews were so keen to attack these ideas, because the patrilineal passing of property was innately offensive to their culture. Europe only has this absurd notion of women as independent entities because of organized subversion by agents of Judaism.
Domestic Discipline and “Marital Rape”
Coverture and bride price were abolished to ridiculously assert women were independent entities with “rights” so that they could lobby for suffrage. The implementation of suffrage culminated in legal penalties for domestic discipline and the concept of marital rape so that women could abandon their most basic household duties, thus destroying their homes and their husbands’s lives. The thing about these changes is that they are really fresh and new. While the 19th century might seem like a long time ago for many of our young readers (it isn’t, on the civilizational timescale it is just last month and on the evolutionary timescale it is mere seconds) these new changes began in the lifetimes of our parents and finished in many of ours, and civilization was immediately and measurably the worse for wear.
The reluctance to criminalize and prosecute marital rape has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and to cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband—views which continue to be common in many parts of the world. These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape. … The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.
Rape is a property crime and nothing more. First a crime against the property of the father, and then a crime against the property of the husband. This change only finished in the US and UK in the nineties, when I was 8 years old. Women existing in a state of slavery to the sexual whims of their husbands is not some barbarism of prehistory. This was universal common sense for whites up until a couple decades ago.
The woman clearly loves this, and you can see the righteous satisfaction and levity on the man’s face.
Likewise, hitting a woman out of her head was seen as benevolent and a universal necessity in every marriage until the sixties, and even portrayed positively in movies and film. Regular slapping and the occasional vicious beating of a woman was a necessity in every household. Women need to be regularly disciplined to keep their heads about them. They can be intellectually mature and clever to the point of deviousness, but they will always have the emotional state of a very young child and we all know what happens when you spare those the rod.
On this subject I hear two narratives from low-T men in the alt-right. The first is that all these transformations in the rights and status of women happened in reaction to family abandonment and general hardships upon women. Even those I respect fall for this sniveling lie from the mouths of manipulative whores. To these I have said: let us examine the data.
Sorry, the data says you’re a fucking liar.
Broken families happened as a result of these changes in the status of women, not as the cause of them. The reality is that extramarital sex and birth was at an all time historical low because of Victorian standards of morality. The only spikes on that chart before 1950 were a result of world wars, because a man that died in some kike’s war could not marry his whore. Men held up their end of everything. They married women, they provided for them, they gave them newfound comforts and innovations like laundry machines that reduced their domestic workload to nil. They gave them full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline. What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.
They did this because white men had a fool’s compassion in their hearts and lost the good sense to shove their faces into a countertop and give them a swift kick to the gut as hard as they can when these skanks had it coming to them.
Men Counter-Signaling WHITE SHARIA
Most of this “I’m totally traditionalist but WHITE SHARIA is terrible” nonsense is coming from women, but sometimes it is coming from small-souled bugmen as well. Some of these men are being bullied by their wives. Some of them just have no will to power.
Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased. This was the reality for thousands of years of European history and the change in this status only finished in our and our parent’s lifetimes. There’s nothing Islamic about this. It is just the default position of any civilization that is not being destroyed by decadence. Man up, put women under your heel, throw away their birth control and make them bear you children and take care of your house. If they resist, discipline them.
If you are uncomfortable with the WHITE SHARIA meme because it contains the word sharia, I can understand that, but “muh feels” is not an argument against the efficacy of the meme. This meme is effective because it has an immediate effect of being shocking and lurid to the senses of women and weak men and forces people to talk about the status of women in our civilization. All we are pushing for is a return to the status of women we had in the early 19th century before Jews and their feminism ruined our civilization. This should not be controversial. If you are opposing WHITE SHARIA because you disagree with women being reduced to the status of property to be beaten and fucked at the whims of her husband, you are a faggot and a cuckold and have no place in any right-wing site, and instead belong at the bottom of festering bogs like Reddit and Voat.
A final word to offended “traditional” female readers:
Despite all your assertions of being a good traditionalist, you fight against the implementation of traditional gender roles wherever they begin to be discussed. You’re not a traditional woman and you don’t want a traditional relationship. You just like the sound of the word traditional and the outfits you see women wearing in Victorian era photographs. You speak traditionalism with your Pinterest and Instagram posts, but your actions scream of your lascivious natures. You agitate only for the “rights” of modernity: to deny your fertility, to destroy families, to rot at and injure the lives of good men who have acted with honor and decency in all their dealings to you.
You’re a whore.
That would normally be a forgivable thing. I’ve found the company of many prostitutes quite amicable, and whatever gods may be know it is impossible to meet a woman that isn’t one in this era. However, that you would sully the good name of European tradition, that you would would run around using it as a cloak for your harlotry makes you the an entirely contemptible whore. Your blasphemy against the history of Europe is to a level unforgivable through words alone, and you need to have your face bashed in by the fists of good men before a great horned shrine. On the far precipice of life, as a palsied chill ascends fast to put cold grasp upon those streams that pulse beside your throat you may beg the apologies of your ancestors.
‘What am I that should so be saved from death?
‘What am I that another death come not
‘To choke my utterance sacrilegious here?’
Be honest about what you are. Don’t sit here and pretend you’re a nice traditional girl when you fight against any implementation of traditional values. Say aloud what you are, on the streets, to your families, on social media: “I’m a despicable whore.” Do it before it is too late, because I swear to whatever gods may be that when the purge comes if you have been using traditionalism as a cloak for your revolting degeneracy your name is going on a list and we will be coming to make you pay for it. You will feel the punch to your throat first, but the hours afterwards at the hands of a WHITE SHARIA gang will make that seem as just a brief and gentle touch against your skin. Your ribs will be broken. Your face will be broken. Some of you will not live to tell about it. This I promise: a much needed correction is coming for you soon, you disgusting skanks.