Apolloism and Feminism

This is a response to Mineo Solveig’s article linked here.

Solveig, thank you for your detailed response to my inquiries.  It is true that we differ on key points and that Apolloism is, ultimately, incompatible with your project.

You’ve made clear that your movement doesn’t require other movements or the broader DR and Apollonians feel the same. On the other hand, we are certainly friendly to groups working toward important shared goals. In this case, both our projects are pro-White and against racial replacement in Aryan (European) inhabited lands.

True, you and I may perceive one another as being pro-White “incorrectly.” However I am not sure this guarantees enmity. Certainly, in this case, I hope it does not. I am hopeful that we can civilly agree to disagree. This is, in any case, my intention.

Finally, as one last bit of sincere diplomacy before I address your points, you can be assured that Apollonians will spend no energy attacking you after I drop this article. After this discussion (and I will try to put my final word here), I will encourage them not to engage you on our areas of disagreement (provided of course you are not engaging them).

After all, surely you’ve heard it all before. Certainly, of course, they shall not harass you.

In any case, to my points:

Apollonians are no more “misogynistic” than they are “misandryist” by any reasonable definition of those terms. We don’t “see women as threats” as you characterize. In fact, some of our best advocates are women. We see them as venerated sisters and mothers whatever role they are serving in society, whether currently or in the future. Though we understand that your definition of the term misogynistic is different from ours. That is the sense we gain from the article, where the term gains an implicit definition from your apparent perspective. Regardless, it doesn’t seem useful to push for greater clarification on what exactly you mean by this term. Again, I believe it is made clear in your article.

Certainly there is overlap in our definitions of misogyny.  We, for instance, abhor violence against women and incivility directed against them.  We abhor the abuse of women, psychological, physical or sexual, whether occurring by members of our own race are those outside of it. And not merely do we abhor abuse against White women, we abhor it against all women, even if White women are obviously the fixed focus of our concern in this matter. Indeed we abhor the abuse of humans generally.

Of course we do recognize, obviously, that human conflicts do arise and that the White race has the duty to defend itself from others. As a colonizing race, it has often been in the position of greatly improving the lives of others, while being viewed by later historians as evil oppressors. This is not to say that it hasn’t behaved abusively to other people in the past. Though certainly its cruelty has been vastly exaggerated.

Likewise we understand that races are in a natural competition for existence and this is simply an unavoidable fact of nature and not something we, the White race, decided. Far more troubling is that the White race has commonly abused members of the White race, whether through religion, politics, economic oppression or warfare. This brings us to the issue of “woman’s rights” that you have raised in your article.

I might argue the notion of rights, in the context of your article, lack specificity. For instance a reader might reasonably ask “is she arguing for affirmative action for women in the work place (e.g. a guaranteed quota of women in board rooms)? Is she arguing for guaranteed equal pay with men regardless of workplace value or performance? Or is she simply talking about the woman’s right to vote or a woman’s right to employment generally?” But let’s avoid a discussion at such a low, non-philosophical level, shall we?

Indeed, here it’s useful to step back and consider the larger idea of rights. The tricky thing about rights is that like the wealth, property, power and protection they invariably represent, they are finite.  Rather it seems we find a fair synonym to rights in the word power. For example, the “black power movement” is also the “black rights” or “black liberation movement.” As Nietzsche pointed out, every bid for “equality” is ultimately, in the end, a bid for dominance.

To the extent we are defining female power against male power, we are seeing invariably an increase of the power of one at the expense of the other. In the back ground, though, of such conflicts, we see male led oligarchical classes that continue or increase their success despite such shifts or even, in some cases, partially because of them.

Regardless, only a utopianist imagines, for example, that all men and women will be equally free or equally powerful. This would actually require them to be identical not only in terms of economic or political power but in terms of all imaginable attributes, desirable and undesirable. Equality, as I am certain you would agree, whether among animals, the various races or the two sexes, has never existed and can never exist. 

The project of Apollonians is racialist. We seek power and rights for our race first and foremost.  We understand this naturally to also entail the protection of the rights of White women whose power and destinies are intrinsically tied to that of White men and not independent from them. Indeed, historically, the greatest exertion of female power has, naturally, appeared more commonly outside as those spheres seen as “male spheres,” sometimes more “invisibly.” Rather, female power in “male spheres” represent its feeblest expression, being allowed, symbolically, when powerful men have allowed it. You say for instance that your feminist position gives you greater currency in contemporary politics. I don’t doubt this for a moment. Yet the reason this is true, ultimately, is because elite “liberal” men are in favor of feminism.

Regardless, truly powerful and influential women are a constant of history. The reliance of the race on reproduction ensures this. This is particularly true of desirable, well positioned women. How many men vie for the hand of a princess or even an Ivanka Trump and why do they do this? And doesn’t this indicate her power, in many cases, greater than theirs?

Likewise men have always had their ear open to women and have typically tried to serve the interests of the women and families they love through greater acquisitions of power. And women have commonly sought men that can do this and assisted these men to these mutual ends. Hence we Apollonians don’t perceive a division in interests between men and women. We don’t perceive men and women naturally at odds nor seeking to encroach on the rights of the other. We do seek to treat our women exceptionally well especially when considered against the abominable treatment they receive among the non-White races or in current degenerate conditions. But we also seek to treat our men exceptionally well.

Some smaller points. You say: “Women will never be safe in an environment where their harassers, assaulters and rapists are tolerated.” Our current milieu, in all its manifestations, is not controlled by White men on the DR who are financially ruined, de-platformed or jailed on a whim by anti-White Leftists whenever they seek to assert some measure of control. This is the reason abuses are “tolerated.” Can this be argued to be a failing of White men and a commentary on their current, sorry condition? Obviously it can be. Yet just as obviously, relatively psychologically healthy White men on the DR are opposed to the harassment, assault and rape of women. Obviously.

You say: “Every political movement has to decide clearly what is acceptable in their group and what is not acceptable. Call it ‘political correctness’ if you will, I call this minimal respect towards white women.” We consider Apollo the God of Truth. If we perceive men behaving in a womanly way, we will say that he is behaving in a womanly way. The adjective womanly by itself is certainly not pejorative. Rather it is almost always praise when applied to women while a pejorative when applied to men. We don’t consider womanly behavior in men “evil” in the Christian sense, only Dionysian, degenerate and undesirable. We seek humane measures, cultural and otherwise, to curb, dissuade or eliminate it within spheres we can control.

You say: “Mark, you said you “feared” that my feminism may introduce some “political correctness” within the DR.” I ultimately don’t fear this because I don’t see it happening at least among Apollonians. We are obviously against the legitimate misogyny we find in the DR which is incivility and abuse toward White women working toward a pro-White cause.

You say: “Forbidding your members to call us sluts and to be for terrorism against women is good but it is barely the minimum and it will never make a radical change for women’s safety.” True. We are for civility toward women.  And true, we see no tactical advantage in making “slut-shaming” some centerpiece of our activity. What you see in the DR is the desperate flailing of powerless, sometimes deeply depressed or mentally ill men. We, in the DR, are in no position currently to influence or direct sexual behavior. And when we are in such a position, our methods will not be crude, dehumanizing or abusive. In a moralized setting, much fewer will desire to be engaged in promiscuous, pointless or random sex.

Rather, in the future, we will focus especially on presenting desirable models of conduct through religion and culture. Being Apollonians, and not Dionysians, we are opposed to dishonorable and degenerate behavior in men and women. We are particularly opposed to that behavior which might be disruptive to family, tribe, nation or race.  Degeneracy though is a symptom of root causes.

We Apollonians are directed, especially in this moment, at addressing root causes. Certainly though Apollonians are in favor of healthy and enjoyable courtships and sexual relationships between men and women. We are particular interested in those that hold long term, reproductive promise.  We are not prudes. Rather we seek a state of fertile, robust sexual health akin to that of our ancestors when removed from Christianized or highly degenerate and multicultural conditions. We recognize that there is a pastoral aspect to our project and know that current conditions have harmed some of us in this area. Yet we work to heal or mitigate such problems when such healing is possible.

You say: “There is also room in the DR for incel/MGTOW/groyper men who think beheading white women to punish them from their liberation is a great thing to do.” Apollonians are opposed to any absurd idiot that fits this description. Though, again, we have no way, as of yet, of controlling their presence in the DR or in society generally. 

Relatedly you say: “Within the DR, there is always room for a Muslim man, for an admirer of Islam.” We consider Islam Abrahamic and don’t consider its members viable citizens of Aryan inhabited lands nor do we consider it a religion, in any way, suitable for Aryans.  We don’t consider “Roosh” part of our movement.  We don’t place the same restrictions on speaking to people though that perhaps you do.  And maybe we can chalk this up as a tactical difference given present conditions and our position versus yours.

Regardless, the spread of our ideas necessarily brings us into contact and debate with those with whom we disagree or those who are not yet convinced of our ideas. It is neither in our interest, nor is it possible, to fully segregate ourselves from them. Presumably this is true to some extent of feminist racialists as well.  You point out for instance that the political establishment is amenable to feminism and this has helped your ideas or efforts gain currency and effectiveness. This, of course, necessitated interaction with people that you otherwise disagreed with yet lacked the power to exclude, given your goals.

I am not familiar with the case of the French lesbian “Mila” that you bring up in your article.  However Whites being threatened by Muslims and non-Whites is wholly unacceptable and, obviously, on this point, we agree. 

“You want Apollo without Dionysos.” We have plenty of Dionysus at the moment.  In fact, we are up to our ears with Dionysus and quite sick of this god. Yes, we Apollonians are in opposition to this foreign “eastern” god of degeneracy from which sublimated forms like Christ are derived. We are against this God who was widely associated with Yahweh in the ancient world. One of Nietzsche’s and Tacitus’ important mistakes, it would appear, was misidentifying this clearly Semitic gods as somehow intrinsically part of our nature. The majority of classical historians that pointed to his connection to Yahweh did not make the same error, however. You may call this a misinterpretation and here we will agree to disagree. 

Yet even were it a misinterpretation (which it certainly is not) we’d still hold the position. After all, we are Apollonians which, even by Nietzsche’s imperfect paradigm, are opposed to Dionysus. We don’t think that woman, or man, need be degenerate to “be free.” Rather degeneracy is a sapping force to power and power is the only true “freedom” that exists under the sun. The rest are drugs that seek to approximate power while diminishing it. Hence, as it concerns sex, reproductive sex or sex toward developing desirable relationships and loving bonds among Aryans is non-degenerate, is related to an increase in power. This is true as well of all healthy relationships, whether among political or professional associates or among friends or family.  Healthy relationships represent power. Familia, Gens are power.  

You say, “No patriarchal golden age has never existed for white women.” No golden age has existed for either man or woman, Aryan or non-Aryan. However, current conditions approach a golden age for Jews. Their difficulty now, as it always is at the zenith of their powers, is their level of exposure. And yes they tend disproportionately to be leftist and feminists despite the disproportionate number of Jews that have been rounded up during the Me Too# campaign. They also invented Christianity and Communism and have occasionally run into difficulty with those two creeds as well.

It is true that modernity and technology have changed many things. Nevertheless we connect a racial decline to a decline in masculinity among men and would seek to promote a healthy masculinity among Aryan men. We also see a decline in masculinity connected to a decline in fertility and a decline in the attractiveness and viability of our race from a perspective of sexual selection.

This certainly doesn’t mean every man is a muscle man or a solider but it does mean that masculinity, competitiveness, successfulness and even a “warrior spirit” is desirable in fields of achievement, accomplishment and endeavor. They are also important in the defense of our race. In fact, it’s our believe that White women cannot be protected from other races without this mindset among White men especially on the collective, political level. We are, of course, not opposed to women who are able to protect themselves individually and, in fact, see this as desirable given current conditions. But we are also interested, of course, in men, who by instinct and ability, are willing to protect their women and provide for their families.

You say “Most DR influencers hate me.” We don’t hate you. We wish you the best.

I feel that I have covered all the major points of disagreement and may not respond to a second rebuttal from your side.  Frankly, you and I both may use the time better, devoted to the success of our respective projects.

If you feel at all discouraged by my response to you, I encourage you to revisit the beginning of this article, which is, in its most importance significance, an olive branch and an entreaty of friendship. 

But my dedication to the God of Truth, Apollo, necessitates I be clear on all matters.  And surely you would be unsatisfied with anything else.  So, in any case, we will agree to disagree with you.