Send Your Kids To Public School So They Can "Know How To Turn Away From Evil"?

One of the ladies I work with is trying to decide whether to homeschool her children or enroll them in public school. She's a very solid Christian, and is careful who they are around, what shows they watch, etc, and cannot afford private school. One of the guys keeps trying to talk her out of it. We'd talked before, and she was asking me to get some info on different curriculums for her [I don't have children yet, but about half of my friends with school-age children teach them at home]. I told her I'd ask around, and congratulated her on her decision. Anti-homeschool guy said nothing.

A few hours later, he goes on break, and I overhear him in there for close to an hour trying to change her mind, and talking down about homeschoolers. It just makes me mad. He's judging from a handful of families he knows at church, and he claims that they "have no social life outside of church" and are too "different" from other kids. He also says that it shelters them too much form bad, and they need to be around it in order to chooses good. He has a teen and a pre-teen daughter, so he's not totally out of touch, but I really wonder if he knows how different public schools are now than when he went.

I graduated from public school in 2000, and have spent about 3 years working inside a maximum security prison. The two have a lot of similarities and, honestly, I feel safer in the prison than I felt in my school at many times [it was worse than a lot of public schools]. I don't like the strict control over public schoolers that seems to punish independent thought, and I find the amount of violence and pressure to rebel against the teachings of their parents and their faith really scary. I don't think someone wanting to expose their children to the world "so they can make a choice" can understand what it's like for a girl to be ridiculed in 7th or 8th grade for not smoking [cigarettes or marijuana] or 9th or 10th grade for still being a virgin. I'd much rather let my children learn about the world at their own pace than thrust them into an environment where I wasn't around to guide them and where the prevailing morality is so contrary to Christianity.

Yes, socialization is important, but public school isn't the best place for it. Most of the day is spent sitting in a desk, with punishment for talking to other students in class, so only an hour or two, at much, is really spent socializing. A homeschooler who spends time on filed trips, community activities, etc really spends more time with people, and learns to interact with all ages and groups in society, instead of just those their own age. They will see enough of the evil in the world just by living in it and maybe watching the news or discussing current events, without being cast headlong into it. If someone's really all that concerned about it, they could drive them through the cities red light district or hang out in the local bar for a few hours - they'd be less tempted there, and possible even see less immorality, than they would in a week at most public high schools.

Women and the Movement

I just finished listening to a short radio broadcast called Coldshot that's put out by Nicole Nichols and company, over at Citizens Against Hate. I was going to leave my comments over at her blog, but the comments section on that entry has already spiraled into the normal assortment of snipes concerning Bill White, the NSM, Satanism, S&M, and giant penis suits. Good for entertainment, but I figure any response to the program would get lost among the more entertaining stuff [throw in a midget and Jeff Berry in a Klan robe & you'd have an episode of Jerry Springer]. Anyway, it sparked a few thoughts on something I thought I'd written my last piece on [used to get into discussions of this very thing on Stormfront every few weeks it seemed].

I usually don't listen to programs like this online, because I'm on dialup and get stuck downloading then playing it back. This program was described as a discussion of racist & how they view women, the problem of domestic violence, and speaking openly and frankly to the female sector of the movement. I have been active in the movement for over 10 years, and have been pretty outspoken about the female part of the movement, and Nikki does seem intelligent and usually on target about what's going on, so this program piqued my interest. I ended up being disappointed.

I hadn't realized that the idea came from on of Hal Turner's diatribes, because I don't pay much attention to Turner, VonBluvens, White, and their ilk. I thought they were sort of like VNN or Harold Covington - most people who've been in the movement more than a few years, or are involved in more than the internet side of things know them for what they are and don't give them much credence. Apparently, most've the comments and "thoughts" she was responding to came from this corner of the movement, so that could explain why it sounded pretty foreign to me- I can't blame her for the content if that was all she had to work from.

One thing I noticed was that a lot of the criticism she had about the movement's views on women are the same ones I hear in fundamentalist and conservative Christian groups. Actually, the movement tends to give women more credit and freedom than almost all fundamentalist and most evangelical groups. As a woman, I feel more "threatened" by the views on women presented by Dr. James Dobson than I do by those of Adolph Hitler - Hitler allowed exceptions without questioning their loyalty to the state, Dobson questions their very salvation and loyalty to God if they don't follow along. A lot of Christian women's groups are peddling these same ideas to other women, that feminism is evil, women should submit to men, women belong at home, etc. Most Christian women are following along, but you won't see anybody encouraging those women to leave their men and their religion, because it isn't yet popular to protest those groups.

On the other hand, the white nationalist movement did seem to endorse those ideas for a long time, but things have changed greatly in the last few years. There have always been at least a small portion of women in the movement who have participated on activist roles, but the conservative and Christian influence on most WN groups attracted women who felt more comfortable staying in the background and providing a supporting role - it wasn't so much that men were keeping women in the kitchen as the women wanted to be there. Those who didn't would feel more pressure from the other women than from the men if they wanted to take different roles - in my experience, most of the men are glad to see women stepping forward, while some women are resentful of it. No, there isn't some big WN feminist revolution going on, but the thing I have seen in most groups is a willingness to let capable women take nontraditional roles, and to let families and couples work out their "roles" for themselves.

There aren't a whole lot of female leaders out there, but the percentage of women in the overall movement is small, and most women know that we'd open ourselves up to attacks even more than the men would by assuming such a position - for all their rhetoric of equality, our opposition must still view us as the "weaker sex", or they would not try to appeal to us first to get us to betray our comrades or use attacks on our appearance, sex life, or families to target our "emotional nature". I know of a few women who are leaders at the state levels of their organizations, and many more who hold positions on local unit levels, not to mention those who are just rank and file members, on level with the male members. Most of us have found that it's easier to take a position and do the job than to argue and debate why or whether or not a woman should be doing it - results beat arguments every time.

I do agree with Nikki that domestic violence is a problem, but I've seen a lot less of that in the movement than I have among coworkers and the military guys I knew back home. I've also seen, on more than one occasion, WN men step in to set a guy straight who was being abusive to a woman. One guy I know pretty much tells his crew member that if he ever finds out they hit their girlfriend or wife, they'll get beat down - maybe extreme, but it seems to work. Most guys now realize they want a strong women, not someone who's totally weak and submissive - those types tend to be open to all sorts of manipulation and are usually the sort you see who testify in court to bring down the whole group or leave their man, take the kids, and become anti-racists. Most guys I know want a women who has a backbone, because it takes one to survive. I do know several women who are stay-at-home mothers, by choice, and, by choice, let their men make most of the decisions - I'd still hate to be the one to cross them, because that takes more strength than most people know. Personally, we usually agree on the decisions, I work outside of the home in one of those "men's jobs", so he helps with the housework, and I love debating politics and have worked on a couple campaigns [thought about running for local office, but I don't want to waste time and money to be shot down by evidence of "racism" provided by the antis.

I really don't know of many men [outside of the VNN circle jerk] who think of women as less intelligent, subservient, stupid, etc. If anything, it's the opposite - too many WN men set us up on some sort of a pedestal and seem to think we're almost perfect - that gets tiring to live up to. Maybe they're just not telling me, cause I'm a woman, but then again that would be a form of respect. I've sat around and debated movement issues, politics, theology, history, etc with a lot of movement men before, and I've always felt like my opinions were listened to and respected as much as the men's were. Maybe it's because I just said what I thought and did what I could, instead of trying to convert them all to feminist or egalitarian ideology first - I was seen as another racialist, not as a "female racialist". Again, antis forget that when they try to look at us and classify us - we look at race and results, they want to analyze some sort of gender paradigm that, for the most part, is irrelevant to our cause.

I noticed the offer at the end of the broadcast to "contact us [Citizens Against Hate or One People's Project] if you're thinking about leaving the movement. Why not provide info for those trying to get away from domestic violence instead, if that's such an important issue. Or if it's really OK for a woman to get beaten, as long as she remains loyal to our race? If not, then why is it OK for antiracist men to attack antiracist women, as ARA and other groups affiliated with Citizens Against Hate and One People's Project have done?

White People Grilling Out = A Terrorist Threat

Weird headline, but apparently that's what the ADL would have people believe.

My husband and I threw a private cookout this weekend for some of our friends and people with similar beliefs. We've been doing this for a few years now, and no problems so far. The one thing that amuses me, and slightly ticks me off, is that the ADL insists on posting them on their "Upcoming Extremist Events" web page. It'd just be a joke if it wasn't for the fact that these guys are wasting my tax money on crap like this. The ADL is paid to train many state and federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and ATF and the CIA, and they're using that money to stir up the bogeyman of an "extremist threat" every time members of a website or church they don't like decide to get together to meet and talk, or hold a religious observance. Apparently, they don't find anything ironic about having BBQs, Bible conferences, picnics, and Baptist conferences listed in between Klan rallies, Neo-Nazi protests, and militia training.

Anyway, now that I'm done ranting, I'll just say that Saturday was great. We had about 50-60 people show up, with about half the people there either never having been a member of any group or not currently belonging to any, as well as members of at least 6 different organizations. Got to see a couple people who I haven't seen in years, and met several new people. There were also lot of other women so it wasn't just me and one or two others scattered amongst the "boys club" - another think I like about these, people bring their kids and families and it really does feel like a big family reunion. As always, there were no drugs, alcohol, or weapons allowed, and no fights or violence. There were a lot of different organizations and viewpoints represents, from Christian Identity, mainstream Christians of several denominations, Odinists, agnostics, Cosmotheists and at least one former Creator to Klansman, Constitutionalists, neo-Nazis, and Libertarians. Talk about an argument waiting to happen, but the one thing that characterized the whole evening was respect - we all had respect for each other and the one viewpoint we had in common - that our race is important and worth preserving - so we were able to respect other viewpoints and ways of approaching our problems.

Afterward, several of us ended up going back to one of the guys who lived nearby's houses, and hanging out for a while. Of course, a while always ends up to mean a very long while, so it was 3 or 4 am when we got home. Mostly, we just hung out and talked, but I miss having real conversations with people who think outside of what they hear on television, and there's just something to be said for sitting on a porch at 2am discussing theology or politics, or making up parody lyrics to 80s music- seems a little like college again.

And if anyone wants to see something really funny, buy a DVD with a bunch of speeches on them - even better if it's people you know speaking - and watch it in fast-forward. We found this out trying to skip forward to a friend's speech on one. The fast-forward and skipping makes most people either look like they're in a Monty Python skit or an early music video [think Bauhaus or Danzig].