An Informal Discussion on Women
This discussion began as a rare entry I made on a forum, but for some reason it was deleted. This illustrates an important point – that although actions may be irrational and illogical, the instinct driving the actions always exists for a logical reason (though the instinct may be misdirected, i.e. displaced). For example, females are illogical for a logical reason – to confuse males.
Firstly, some men claim that only particular kinds of women go with immigrants. This is not true. I actually measured this (sitting at the side of a shopping mall with a clipboard over several weeks) and confirmed that the tendency to race-mix was led by women. Further, the tendency was expressed by women of all ages, ugly and attractive, across all social classes. For proof of this general female attraction to immigrants we only have to think of the “common slapper” picking up a black at a nightclub and Princess Di opening her legs for Dodi al-Fayed.
I am excluding from this analysis Unstable Females, who are the first to defy social conventions, and who pave the way for others – when women see that UF’s successfully get away with it, they follow suit. UF’s in the past would have been burned as witches, or similarly persecuted, in order to prevent their aberrant behaviour reverberating for generations afterwards.
It is claimed that only women with low self-esteem go with immigrants. Not so, in my view, but rather the contrary – they have an exaggerated opinion of themselves. Imagine this situation. You, a white man, are in a public park and a white woman comes along and starts hurling the most appalling insults at you. She calls you a scumbag, a pervert, a paedophile, uses a plastic shovel to pick up dog mess and throw it at you, spits in your face. You just walk away, or stand there in confusion, because any sane reaction to these insults is going to land you in prison, possibly for a long time.
Who has low self-esteem in this situation? Certainly not the woman. She is attempting to demonstrate (possibly due to insecurity of the exaggerated esteem she has of herself) that she is superior to you. She is conferring low esteem on you – imposing Diminishment. This is precisely what she is doing by flaunting her relationship with an immigrant in front of you: “I prefer him to you.” This also explains why, although women like ethnics, most don’t usually go to their lands of origin to indulge their perversion – because one of its greatest benefits, of being able to spite their menfolk by this practice, is unavailable to them there.
I have an undeveloped hypothesis that race-mixing by women is an expression of paedophilia. She views the immigrant as a child (Affection Beneath), which she also uses for her own sexual gratification. Whatever the case, someone who applies their natural instincts for procreation and child-rearing, intended to further the hereditary line, in the interests of another genotype and irrevocably destroying that hereditary line is, in the proper sense of the word, a pervert.
Next, it is suggested that “There are women, who marry and settle down, have children and make a wonderful home, bring up our children to be decent respectable members of society” etc. The point here is that the woman, if she does it at all, is doing it for her own benefit. Suppose she is dutifully ironing her husband’s shirts. In doing so she is gratifying herself by satisfying her instinct to mark her husband. True, the husband gets his shirts ironed, but in seeking to understand the underlying mechanisms we should not deceive ourselves that it is being done for his benefit. (This threatens to open a can of worms on the subject of altruism, and a discussion of whether true altruism exists or not, which I shall avoid.) Similarly when a woman makes a cosy nest of a family home – the husband’s enjoyment of it is almost incidental. We can see this when an increasingly “female friendly” society, using male technology, allows the female to have almost all of the benefits without a “troublesome man” around who would formerly have been needed to pay for it all. Now, in an increasing number of cases, she simply does without him.
All “good” features of women – besides the obvious biological ones, of furthering the race – are either the result of masculine influence or the expression of masculine traits (just as many males express feminine characteristics). I cannot think of an exception to this rule.
Women are indeed sheep. They cleave to power, regardless of its source or legitimacy. Look at how they love to work in government offices. Whoever has power is able to dictate everything to them, their role, their behaviour, their thoughts. See ‘Females and the Laws of Nature’ on the ‘Supplements to Procedural Analysis’ page and ‘The Gynaeceum’ on this site. In effect, just as in nature, females come with the territory. Whoever controls the territory, wins the females. This is one reason why women shouldn’t have the vote, because they will seek to maintain the status quo regardless of how corrupt it is.
Ultimately, females subjugate themselves. In race-mixing, they may be seeking to “get one up” on their menfolk but my proposition is that ‘The status of the female is proportional to the status of the male she can attract.’ This is but one example of how women sow the seeds of their own subjugation.
Women, for evolutionary reasons, will use any and every means at their disposal to increase men’s burden, to increase the load on males. (See ‘The Female As Enemy’ for a discussion on this topic.) This is what they are doing with the considerable power conferred upon them by ZOG, and the situation we have today.
Also for evolutionary reasons, men have strong instincts to idealize their women and make offerings to them. They seek to compete with their nearest rivals: Darwin wrote that “it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure.” We can see this in the enthusiasm some display for factional in-fighting and the exceptional barbarity of civil wars (into which category, as F. J. P. Veale, I include wars with Germany). Men need to control these anachronistic instincts and stop allowing themselves to be manipulated and exploited.