For Christian Women: An Appeal From the "Far-Right"
You don’t want to be a Nazi, and that’s fair. You probably don’t like categorizing people, but that’s an inevitability of life. One you yourself believe in; see ‘those who categorize vs. those who do not’—alongside anything else which you know makes someone a bad person, like ‘cheater vs. faithful.’
Yet another reality is that the principle of ‘don’t mess with children’—when not used against acceptable targets like Donald Trump or the Catholic Church—already makes you a Nazi and archaic and conservative and reactionary and bigoted and [insert bad word here] and [insert bad word here] and [insert bad word here]. Combine that with how race wins over sex in the Pantheon of Victimhood and Diversity: ‘Muslim man > underage White girl’ is a favorite fetish of the United Kingdom’s governmental culture as the grooming gangs show (retrieved 4/8/2026), and succinctly explains the dubiousness of the historic Leo Frank case here (retrieved 4/10/2026):
The real difficulty with this case is that, in order to believe the theory that Jim Conley killed Mary Phagen you must necessarily believe that a mob of 20th century working-class Georgians decided to lynch a Jewish man instead of a black man, who was essentially being handed over to them on a silver platter.
[…]
Without the taboo label of “antisemitism” this case becomes a very obvious example of a wealthy industrialist trying to exploit racial tensions to cover up his own wrongdoings.
With all this and more in mind, you may as well give us a look.
Contrary to potential expectation, the core case for the ‘far-right’ is relatively simple. Its truncated form can be made in five points:
#1: Are We “Conservatives?”
Leftism is the attempt to eliminate opposing forces that curtail believers’ impulses. Whether it be disagreeing people or the “risk” of pregnancy1, everything that even slightly limits “autonomy” must be eliminated; human reality itself is oppressive because we can’t just DO or BE anything we want. Leftists operate under the increasingly delusional conceit that them not getting every political concession, canonization of de-facto-religious law, and intensification of policy that they want at any given time will result in a dystopia, hence they often invoke fiction2 like The Handmaid’s Tale while accusing the same for, for instance, the Bible.
“Conservatives” change none of this, and outside of what we can speculate about any given ‘conservative’ party, the mode in which one is a ‘conservative’ in our time is something often ascribed—naturally to an extent—to us: nostalgia, particularly nostalgia for not that long ago. The nostalgic folk of our day usually have either the 1960’s, ‘80s, or ‘90s as their favorite decade, have such as their desired climate and charge in which to live, and necessarily see the way things currently are as an inexplicable development caused by a similarly unexplainable societal departure from their values. What results is an out-of-touch, one-dimensional framework of ‘old, cool, scoffingly-normal kid vs. uncool, clueless, pitiable new kid.’ Shows or channels where hosts and audiences alike impotently gawk at “the woke” are common examples of this.
Contrastingly, we know it as Stage 3 cancer calling Stage 4 sick, not only in severity but, most importantly, in one clearly following the other.3 Hence, what’s thought of as Republicans, centrists, or especially those who believe ‘I didn’t leave the Left, the Left left me’ are each differing shades of liberal-conservative.
It’s puzzling to think that the children of absolute, upheaving cultural rebellion whose prevalence inherently enforces its own normalization and canonization against any oppositional influences or ideas would not continue it; out with the old, in with the new, and woe to those who invariably forget that they and theirs will get old. Yet even among the so-called ‘right-wing,’ social media’s “conservative influencers” live in a house of lies, a façade of false authenticity and mysterious funding parroting the return of decades-old Republican moods, American Protestantism, and mild political-incorrectness as if it’s what George Washington crossed the Delaware for. In this, they reflect their immediate ideological ancestor: Ronald Reagan, whose legacy remains overrated due to the outstanding historical timing of his warm, humorous, stable, and principled charisma. His 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act gave amnesty to over three million “undocumented” immigrants (retrieved 4/10/2026) and is assuredly part of the precedent to the MORTAL immigration issues of today, and he was the first politician in American history to legalize no-fault divorce, doing so in 1969 as Governor of California.
From the above-linked National Public Radio article, quoting Peter Robinson, listed as a ‘former Reagan speechwriter:’
“He was a Californian,” Robinson says. “You couldn’t live in California ... without encountering over and over and over again good, hard-working, decent people -- clearly recent arrivals from Mexico.”
That the U.S. failed to regain control of the border -- making the 1986 law’s amnesty provision an incentive for others to come to America illegally -- would have infuriated Reagan, Robinson says.
“But I think he would have felt taking those 3 million people and making them Americans was a success.”
As a whole, NPR’s article paints a picture of the ‘immigration issue’ not being about legal vs. illegal but homicidally magical fairytale obligations to let anyone without White skin be a charity case while avoiding the only solution—closing the southern border completely—at all costs.
Turning south to north, one finds yet more examples of “racial equity” becoming systemic anti-White discrimination:
The report itself, running 375 pages, makes it clear that the state of racial disparities in NYC is rooted in “settler colonialism,” noting that “New York City’s history has been one of colonization, exploitation, and racial oppression.” The report asserts, for example, that the Lenape Native American tribe are the “rightful stewards” of New York.
It also has numerous calls to action, including mandating anti-racism training for government staff and a fresh look at “fine and fee based programs” for transportation to seek out “racial and ethnic disparities”—that is, doing even less to enforce against subway fare evaders, who are predominantly black and Hispanic and who disproportionately commit other crimes on the subway. It decries the “punitive policing policies” that further marginalized “Black and Latine communities”—the very policing measures that drove the city’s historic drop in crime under Giuliani and Bloomberg.
And it goes on in this vein for chapter after chapter. But you get the idea.
New York City is racist, and it’s your fault, whitey, so you must pay even more taxes.
But the funny thing is, if racial equity actually matters, it’s white New Yorkers who need it. Because in almost every respect, the New York City government has been exploiting its white citizens—without interruption—for decades. This explains in no small part why millions of them have fled the city since 1950, even as the NYC population has grown by around a million.
- Jeremy Carl. We Need Racial Equity in New York City—for White People. Retrieved 4/10/2026.
Contrast this with myths and alarmism over how Christianity or some other approved target is magically still “dominant”/“common” in “society,” when it’s common to see antitraditional “lifestyle choices” literally be treated as the default, as with this article from Mayo Clinic (retrieved 4/4/2026):
Sexually transmitted infections, also called STIs, such as chlamydia and gonorrhea can cause male infertility. To lower the risk of getting an STI, don’t have a lot of sexual partners and always use a condom for sex. Or stay in a relationship with only one person who doesn’t have an STI.
Trying to reign in whorishness—impossible as the LITERAL appeal and purpose of vice is fantasy and excess—is the first and anti-normatively normal option.
But you are “Or.”4
If this strain of post-World-War-2 morality is not stopped, the situation in New York will only spread further. Considering how many times racial hypocrisy has been observed among our opposition, none of this should come as a surprise to you.
This is but one of the issues we must fix, and better yet, such is inevitable to an extent; given the now-notorious worldwide collapse in fertility, including among immigrants who come here, we—a loose conglomeration of demographics which can broadly be split between a much larger Christian side and a smaller non-Christian side—are one of the only groups in our region of the world whose survival is reasonably assured past a few generations. (If your group is at-best begrudging/lukewarm about having children, don’t expect to live very long.)
#2: What Do We Want?
This can be presented in a list:
The ‘rediscovery’ of classical culture. (Think ancient Greece and Rome.)
Included in this are physical culture—i.e., fitness but without steroids or picking protein-infused cheesy puffs over steak—learning practical skills, learning how to defend yourself, military service is looked on fondly, etc. Parents here will tell you: It is indeed possible for kids to like different things than we did, it is indeed possible for them to play pretend as Pyrrhus of Epirus or something.
Culture isn’t about seeing certain things, or even doing certain things; it’s about becoming the kind of person who does certain things.
- . On “Lifestyle” and Lindy West. Retrieved 4/3/2026.
Note that this also applies to women. For instance, feminism’s operative conceit of ‘men have their traditional expectations whenever it suits women but women magically can’t be expected to do anything they don’t immediately feel like’ has thoroughly proven itself unviable; if him ogling women who aren’t you is bad, so is you ogling men who aren’t him.
As pretensions (the kinds of which are varied) are one of the greater sins of manhood, hypocrisy is the mortal sin of womanhood.
Understanding the facts of Christianity and its tradition. I here refer to Catholicism as the Christian Church, though others would argue for Eastern Orthodoxy, some denomination of Protestantism, or Mormonism.
As you likely know, that’s less a can of worms and more a silo-full.
White people succeeding and having families to survive the next few decades of what all signs point to being complete rot, including demographically and in terms of fertility.
This definitionally entails the maintenance of western nations as first-world countries; Japan is only Japan because of Japanese people, and so it is with White countries. The most immediate measure to take towards this necessity is remigration of the majority of non-White immigrants, which will, among other things, SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the amount of danger in cities and crimes committed against women and children (retrieved 4/8/2026).
The article that Apollinaire quotes is paywalled, so this screenshot is the only reasonable form of access to it. Screenshot taken 4/10/2026. 
Reagan’s optimism at its logical extreme.
#3: Progressivism
With those we oppose, known by many names and having many slightly different individual doctrines between them, all you have to do to disprove them is prove that their dogma doesn’t monopolize all of reality. To prove that anything is debatable, that none of their laity can’t pretend to be “above politics” while treating their conditioned devoutness as derived from self-evident reality—stupid young women do this all the time—or that there’s anything in the world their one-dimensional historiography can’t account for or is challenged by.
Given how the perception of reality they—however ‘implicitly’ or unknowingly—have is ‘everything built up to us, ours is the measuring stick to which all past, present, and future must be measured, please don’t notice anything that would threaten our demanded consensus or norms ever,’ that isn’t very difficult. gives the best summary of the conceit this sort has when currently in power that I’ve ever seen (retrieved 3/25/2026):
Liberalism pretends to be morally neutral in order to win huge triumphs against traditional morality without having to actually face those arguments directly.
Apart from lawfare or rallying around whichever thing is currently trending, the mere existence of genuine opposition is a kind of wound, defeat, and when the motivation to act is at its highest, even a crime. Hence those infamous indignation overdoses (meltdowns, freak-outs, ‘triggered’) which have made the rounds among anti-progressive social media for over a decade. Hence their incapability to square the phenomenon of someone living this way, or to maintain any degree of impulse-control around it; the best they can do is ‘well to each their own, I guess’ or ‘well they’re just ‘religious.’’
A moderate example of said lack of impulse-control, also from James J. Heaney (retrieved 3/25/2026), is as follows:
Some months ago, a friendly acquaintance saw a casual remark I made on a politics forum about how Democrats will never win in states like West Virginia because they are anti-unborn. My acquaintance objected: “Democrats aren’t anti-unborn. We just believe medical decisions like whether or not to have an abortion are best left to be decided between a women and her doctor.”
I replied, without rancor:
This is like saying that Roger Taney wasn’t anti-Black.
In fact, it’s exactly like that.
Now, I get it: you don’t think unborn people are people, and think it’s not just reasonable but necessary (for gender equality) to exclude them from legal personhood, the protections of the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment. Okay, that’s where you stand. We all know how abortion debates crash and burn in this thread, and we don’t need to have one tonight.
But declaring that you think the unborn have “no rights the [born] man is bound to respect” makes you -- and the mainstream Democratic Party -- anti-unborn. This is as plain as the fact that triangles have three sides. Please don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.(Roger Taney was the Supreme Court justice who authored Dred Scott v. Sandford.)
My acquaintance was infuriated. He demanded I apologize for my “insulting, disgusting” comparison to “a slave-owning SCOTUS justice” and contended that I had attacked the basic rules of civil discourse by drawing that parallel. He stated that there was no similarity between abortion and slavery, because of course everyone has always known that Blacks are full-fledged human persons, but nobody knows or ever can know whether unborn children are full-fledged human persons, in large part due to their limited cognitive abilities.
(Yes, the ‘everyone has always known’ about black people is blatantly wrong as made so blatantly by the world-famous ‘boo-hoo racism’ in addition to what Haney responds with, and the same for unborn children; the justification for people in the womb due to their ‘limited cognitive abilities’ is a FLAWLESS self-writing joke—the average IQ in Somalia is 84. (retrieved 4/8/2026))
I answered (intemperately, this time) that if he was uncomfortable being compared to Taney and the slaveholders, he should stop relying on the same logic, the same arguments, and even the same legal theory as the slaveholders. I said that, like the George Floyd protestors (who were on the streets at the time), and like the great William Lloyd Garrison, I had lost patience with being called uncivil just because I said plainly that our society should stop murdering kids. I noted that, in fact, White Europeans like us had spent centuries pretending not to know that Blacks are full-fledged human persons. You saw it from the theological debates of the 15th century over whether indigenous people had properly human souls, to the scientific racism of the 20th century, which claimed Blacks lacked Whites’ cognitive abilities.
At this point, my friendly acquaintance ended our conversation, unfriended me on social media, and never spoke to me again.
Bring such an acquaintance any thought experiment about how many people would never exist if someone in their past lineage was aborted, one branch cut off and with it multiple more. Bring them any appeal about how many husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins, friends, and family are all missing, with no grave, no name, and no mourning. In doing so, you will find not only why we so often dehumanize them, but why such is increasingly hard to argue. With those who think an 18-year-old girl getting into pornography is an adult making a decision but becoming a wife and mother makes her a helpless child about to ruin her life out of insecurity-provoking and “surprise”- or “concern”-inducing ignorance, platitudes of dignity only go so far.
And for what? Just…whatever today says should win right now winning and, within that, everything just…working out, because that’s how it works when the good guy wins. Duh.
Even a simple fact like ‘being a nervous virgin is leagues better than a stupid whore’ spoils things too much to be part of the ‘conversation.’ The rhetoric of such a “conversation” is typically as follows:
The NAXALT (Not Everything Is Like That) fallacy, which applies to everything.
“Well [insert random tribe or remote people here] doesn’t think like you, so that just means that because you want to enforce rules that I will phrase as being ‘just your perception’ because I think that’s the syllable sequence that will make you do what I want here—THAT’S NOT JUST MY PERCEPTION, SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP—that means I should get what I want.”
Performative “concern” or, ‘Wow, just wow, that’s cuh-ray-zee!!!’
Deflecting a fetishized non-White/western demographic’s failings into a presentation that can implicate Whites, like turning ‘brown and Muslim immigrants are rape-happy’ into a problem with “men.”
‘Well White men are half of the offenders on this one chart!’ Care to look at how they’re MORE than half of the listed population?
Having no God, country, race, or history in anything but name, it’s little wonder they’re as reactive as if this is all they will ever have.
Because it is.
Case in point: Go into any devoutly left-wing friend group or organization, the Democratic Socialists of America being an example, and especially one with young/non-heterosexual members long enough to hear stories about their sexual tastes. “Polyamory” and the like.
What you’ll find with several and perhaps most of them will mark them out as a particular, profoundly shallow, perverted, man/femchild whose idea of “love” is a flagrant enabling pretension of politics-motivated whorishness, buffeted by yet more pretensions from wannabe-rebellion to wannabe-snark to seething power-trips to impulse-control-free, ego-slurping bluster of having some kind of snappy conviction or depth whenever challenged. Simple age-regression, fiction-fueled escapism, and subhumanizing consumerism, which indeed the grifters, degenerates, and performative edgelords our own circles live for as well.
But say you don’t see any of this and instead find a man who you want to have a relationship with. Well…
‘women’s choice’ means you always have to decide where to go and what to do
modern “understanding” of “relationship dynamics” means every part of “attraction” is irreparably intellectually sterilized and considered to be at-base independent from one another
‘gender equality’ means you split the bill on everything while what that everything is supposed to nurture becomes politically-neurotic eggshell-walking, ‘openness’ means anything inherently “right-wing” will be equally inherently resisted or fatally cheapened irrespective of whether that’s ever directly admitted
‘feminism’ means none of your impulsively catty moments can ever be corrected, and you can’t ever be challenged or told no, while nothing can ever be explained or taught to you and none of your boundaries will ever be that tasteful degree of pushed except a fixation on porn-brained goonerism from a “man” who won’t have a drop of testosterone more than his given limit
and finally, any question regarding commitment or the future will blow up the entire spot because—as can be readily inferred—masturbation-with-severe-delusions-of-grandeur is the only reason any of these sad charades are “believed in” at all.
So much for “sexual liberation.”
HOWEVER, I know that you, as a woman, are more than familiar with that side of the ‘gender discourse,’ as well as the overall poison that it engenders.
As a man, for my money, Dave Greene’s explanation of its current condition is the best I have ever seen (retrieved 4/10/2026):
At this stage everyone honest knows that men and women only create functional pair-bonds and families under specific moral circumstances, very different from the consent-only sexual free-for-all we have now. If our society is to survive, we need to re-moralize. There is literally nothing else interesting we need to describe about the problem at hand.
However, proposing we re-moralize seems uncool, moral language applied to sex “codes as low status”, so people are forced to just “describe” the same simple problem over and over and over again using different words, from different angles, never-coming to a conclusion.
Moreover, since everyone knows moralism is needed (even if they don’t want to provide it), each side of the gender discourse is incentivized to “describe” the problem of modern sex in language that insinuates a need for moral action from the other side. No one wants to admit action is needed and no one wants to speak in terms of morals, so frame is never conceded and what results is the most passive aggressive game of moral “hot potato” imaginable.
‘Feminists,’ ‘incels,’ ‘man-haters,’ ‘misogynists,’ etc. Without our Lord and His Church, it will be nothing but a hamster-wheel.
#4: Survival vs. “Being Mean”
Naturally, one resolves that progressive politics are all just power with a whole false reality of pretenses. Subordinates are necessarily dismissed—the ‘okay but we’re gonna keep doing the same thing’ response to everything—while anyone who’s any kind of ‘threat’ gets the in-person Cringe Compilation & Offensive Stereotype Validation package.
Either way, nothing about the future really matters. Things will…just work out, because what would it mean if it didn’t?
If we’re not “mean,” everything gets destroyed and we all die in a demonic rape-infested bungalow mockery of what you take for granted as civilization—no matter how annoying or sad it often is—and neither you nor whatever you think you like will be treated any differently regardless of what you think about yourself or what you think you support, believe, or hope for. Red flags to this end have been pretty constantly raised for years, and one regularly finds instances where trendy post-World War 2 practices vindicate incredibly politically incorrect stereotypes (retrieved 3/26/2026).
#5: Extremism Is A Dirty Word
Past a pretty short line, it’s not about freedom for this or that. It’s not Republican/Democrat or right/left. It’s those who understand human nature, limitations, and needs versus those who don’t.
And before you know it, this will be nothing but a dazzlingly weird yesterday with more wreckage than one can comprehend.
So, from , this is a moderate rendition of beliefs that all of us have, free of autism, schizophrenia, or soy:
The Seven Hills Worth Dying On (link accessed 4/10/2026)
People groups are not interchangeable, so it’s reasonable that we should limit foreign immigration.
The presence of women can completely reshape how an organization functions, so it’s reasonable for men to exclude them sometimes.
American cities deteriorated after civil rights policies were implemented, so it’s reasonable to oppose civil rights law.
Queer culture is abnormal and is harmful to many who practice it, so it’s reasonable not to want it celebrated or normalized.
It is logical to suspect that anyone who professes loyalty to a foreign state does not want what’s best for America, so it is reasonable to seek to curtail that person’s influence.
Charity is founded on belief in the teaching of Jesus, so it’s unreasonable for unbelievers to feel entitled to charity.
It’s good that White Americans exist, so it’s reasonable to encourage them to have more kids and perpetuate White culture.
#6: Our Challenges
We are not perfect, and if I want to appeal to you, it’s only honest for me to inform you of our flaws.
Three insufficiencies have frustrated us for years. The first is minor, and the subsequent two are major.
We can often seem (or just be) caustic to people who would otherwise sympathize with us more. As ours is the necessary pro-White cause, the most common example of this is with those who are not White.
This is where the primacy of Christianity over the far-right can come into play, including in the faith governing the latter those who otherwise would find its fractured, often belligerent personalities to be a sign that things won’t get anywhere anytime soon.
We can flawlessly identify things that are bad and should not be, but can’t agree on what should be believed/instituted in their place.
While at-present troubled in this, we’re better off here than everyone else. Others either lapse into nostalgia, repeat tired complaints over and over (like feminists about men), or can’t give an answer at all because none are politically correct. To say nothing of the infighting that has historically plagued Communist movements and parties.
Most/many of us are still sufficiently demoralized to mostly not want to take any political or personally risky action.
Basically, like this:
Once when I was hop-picking I asked the sweated pickers (they earn something under sixpence an hour) why they did not form a union. I was told immediately that ‘they’ would never allow it. Who were ‘they’? I asked. Nobody seemed to know, but evidently ‘they’ were omnipotent.
- George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier. Retrieved 4/8/2026.
(Cont.)
Such isn’t unreasonable, but for such nerves to be felt in general about anything that would imply risk or what’s often called ‘adventure’ is indeed stunting. As has famously become the case in our time:
However, each of these challenges are either inevitable (like the differences between Catholics and Protestants) or will be eased as time goes on and we mature. The only way is through, and now more than ever, fully breaking from the norms of our wicked secular zeitgeist is showing itself to be the only available road.
As for you, among ebbing tides of unnatural evil, ensure that it’s your children who inherit the land that centuries of some of the most advanced human history in our species vouch to be our home.
Link to Elisabeth Stone’s Note supplied on 4/9/2026.
In addition, to what degree any of this is intentionally encouraged or orchestrated by an outside group is unclear. Notoriously, the most commonly alleged such group are Jews of high or moderate standing.
Of course, we also have such fiction; see The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail and The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, both links retrieved 4/6/2026. The difference between ours and theirs: ours is prophetic in real-time.
Admittedly, you could use a reductio ad absurdum argument against the premise of the evils of a day being at least partly to blame on the one before it. In other words, the REAL point where everything went wrong was the thing BEFORE the thing where everything went wrong, and so on and so forth until the Garden of Eden. However, that the ills of today are a direct result of the dogmas and fads of prior decades is undeniable.
 | A guest post by
|