White Nationalist groups are almost exclusively men’s clubs, and most of the men are bachelors who complain that they cannot find suitable women. Furthermore, those men who are married frequently complain that their wives are indifferent or even hostile to their views about race. Men, it seems, are far more willing to espouse politically incorrect views about race than women. After perusing various websites and forums discussing this topic, I’ve found that many men resent this fact, construing it as some sort of moral failing on the part of women. But it is not. It merely reflects the hard-wired biological differences between the sexes.
Sex places different pressures on males and females. Eggs take more energy to produce than sperm, and females alone have to bear a pregnancy. And in over 90% of mammalian species, females provide substantial parental care while males provide none whatsoever. Thus females make a much larger parental investment in each offspring than do males. Parental investment increases the reproductive success of the offspring receiving it, while simultaneously decreasing the parent’s future reproductive success by consuming resources that could be spent on additional offspring.
Differences in behavior between the sexes came about as a result of these differing demands. A female’s potential reproductive success is relatively small, and is limited more by the number of eggs she can produce (or pregnancies she can carry) than by the number of males she can convince to mate with her. In contrast, a male’s potential reproductive success is relatively large, and is limited more by the number of females he can convince to mate with him than by the number of sperm he can produce. This difference in potential reproductive success allows us to predict that males will compete with each other for access to mates, while females will be selective about with whom they mate. Sexually, males are adventurers and risk-takers, while females are risk-avoiders.
These differences in reproductive strategies manifest themselves in behavioral and physical differences that go beyond sex. The competitiveness of males drives them to take risks more frequently, not just when appealing to females, but also in day-to-day decision-making. Car insurance rates are higher for teenage boys than for girls for precisely this reason. Risk-taking “raises the stakes” of many decisions, increasing the potential rewards but also increasing the consequences of failure.
This risk-taking makes evolutionary sense, because males are far more expendable than females. If all women were killed except one, the race would take many generations to return to its original size, if ever. Yet if all the men were killed except one, the remaining man would have his work cut out for him, but the race could theoretically repopulate within a generation. Since males are not as necessary for the maintenance of population size, males tend to take more risks, be more aggressive, and tend to work towards establishing themselves higher in social hierarchies than do women.
But if women are inherently conservative, then why are they generally more supportive of left-wing causes than men? First of all, in spite of the leftist rhetoric about progress and radical change, the leftist emphasis on social welfare, social planning, and anti-competitive egalitarianism has an obvious appeal to risk-averse females. Furthermore, in spite of the leftist posture of always being outsiders, the left now controls most of the authoritative institutions of society: the educational system, the news and entertainment media, the churches, etc. Leftist opinion is the “status quo.” Women are brainwashed to accept it and loath to criticize it, for fear of the risks to their social standing, their employment, and especially to the well-being of their children.
But more women support the White racialist movement now than in the past. I know this from personal experience. I have been reading racialist-oriented USENET newsgroups (and web-based bulletin boards, once the technology was developed), ever since I first went “online” back in 1994 or 1995. I posted a personals ad on Stormfront years ago, shortly after the personals section was created. I didn’t receive any responses. I did the same thing just several months ago, and was contacted by a number of women.
Part of the reason may be that women are more comfortable expressing politically incorrect ideas anonymously on the internet, a far less risky prospect than espousing the same views openly.
But surely that is not the main reason. For the same reason that women have been slow to take up the White nationalist cause, women may eventually become its strongest and most uncompromising supporters: their maternal instincts. More women are joining the White nationalist cause as it becomes increasingly evident that the health and welfare of future generations of Whites is at stake.
Aside from the love and protection my own mother gave me (which continues to this day), my first encounter with female maternal instinct came when I was seven or eight years old. At a lake near my old school, I observed a mallard duck leading her ducklings. Curious boy that I was, I ran over to the ducklings and picked one up. Although most adult ducks at the lake were apprehensive about approaching humans even when they were sharing food, the mother turned, came right up to me, and started quacking loudly. When I knelt down, she proceeded to flog my arm with her wing until I released the duckling. I was shocked at the length this mother would go to protect her baby. She went from risk aversion to quite possibly risking her life, but the underlying biological imperative was the same.
I have the feeling that more White mothers will begin behaving like that mother duck, once they can no longer ignore the fact that the world their children will inherit will be worse than the one into which they were born. In the meantime, more individuals need to stick their necks out, especially young men. Future generations of our race are counting on us.
Excellent article.
I’m getting more and more positive about our future as White people. It’s not that I think we’re going to “win back” America or Europe necessarily. It just seems like a lot of our people are coming to their senses and we will be able to create some sort of smaller nation of Whites who are explicitly racial.
“But if women are inherently conservative, then why are they generally more supportive of left-wing causes than men?”
Because women in the USA (and elsewhere) are very often more in thrall to the Jew-produced mass-media sewage which daily flows in to so many American homes: women in the USA and elsewhere watch much more talmudvision (TV) and Hollywood movies than men, and also read other junk like implicitly leftist/cosmopolitan fashion mags. All of this Jewish mass-media propaganda has warped their minds over a period of decades — as well as leftist academia which is dominated by race-denying Jews and their White liberal allies.
A large number of American women are straight-up TV addicts, watching 3-4+ hours per day — and so are many American men, but they don’t seem to be as strongly affected by the propaganda contained therein. Also, more and more American men seem to be abandoning TV for the internet, while many women are still stuck in the daily TV cycle. This is because TV watching is a purely passive activity better suited for female personalities, while the internet is more (inter)active and thus better suited for most male personalities.
If you are a male I recommend not letting your wife or children watch talmudvision or Hollywood movies unless you have carefully screened the material first. Cut off the gutter-trash cable/satellite TV and use Netflix or another service to provide wholesome entertainment for your family.
If men lead, women will follow.
End of discussion.
“Furthermore, in spite of the leftist posture of always being outsiders, the left now controls most of the authoritative institutions of society: the educational system, the news and entertainment media, the churches, etc. Leftist opinion is the “status quo.” Women are brainwashed to accept it and loath to criticize it, for fear of the risks to their social standing, their employment, and especially to the well-being of their children.”
Indeed. Women are naturally more conformist than men, less likely to question the status-quo — women are followers, and only very rarely leaders. Once pro-White views start to become more widely accepted in the coming years, you will see more and more White women jump on the pro-White bandwagon once they start to see some of their female friends, family members, co-workers, and so on doing so.
If men lead, women will follow.
End of discussion.
Exactly right. A few others have stated as such on the previous two threads by HRW and Denise. Women will follow and they do want strong men. White men have failed them; though in our defense, we have been subverted.
Good post, Mike. I remember reading it years ago on your old web site.
Excellent post, Michael, and exactly right in every regard. Biology is everything, and once you understand that, human behavior is no longer inexplicable.
Like White Preservationist said, women are more conformist than anything … better term than conservative, I think. But that’s a minor point. Another minor point is to, please, remember that there are exceptions to every rule. There are some of us women who do not behave in the ways you describe (I, myself, find it very hard to socialize with other women — it’s quite a struggle for me) — but I realize we are the exceptions. Still, don’t forget that we are out here, or you might miss the chance of marrying one of us! :-p
“…once they can no longer ignore the fact that the world their children will inherit will be worse than the one into which they were born….”
This is was I was also saying over on Denise’s post (where the comments are now closed) — the way to get to White women is to SHOW them (videos are a great medium, I think) EXACTLY how their children will be adversely affected by the direction our society has taken. By show, I mean really SHOW — keep it simple — no graphs or tables or stats that will make most women’s eyes just glaze over. Appeal to the emotions.
Don’t bother talking about how many White women are raped each year by Blacks or Muslims or whatever … not a crucial enough point for women ironically (or not?). The KIDS — that’s what’s going to get their attention.
I mentioned this set of videos on the other thread — this is the sort of thing that will make a woman completly incensed — it did me and I have no relation to this kid! — one little kid completely sacrificed to political correctness and the tortures he was made to suffer at the hands of immigrants: “Muslim Racism in Norway“.
Rollory said: If men lead, women will follow.
Yup!
Thanks, Michael!
Great post and comments! 🙂
Mothers/Women do have a nurturing and protective characteristic; Men are altruistic.
Fathers/Men are altruistic.
Yes, but only if those offspring survive to reproduce. If they are unable to survive because of the lack of male parental investment then there is no advantage.
Thank you, Michael, I thoroughly enjoyed the read. I totally agree with it except for one sentence:
“Women are brainwashed to accept it and loath to criticize it, for fear of the risks to their social standing, their employment, and especially to the well-being of their children.”
I thing both men and women fit into this category. The social standing – now that’s the most important thing (or at least neck and neck with job). It is oh soooooooooooooo important to the shallow, self-absorbed, 30-something crowd of the new millenium.
But more women support the White racialist movement now than in the past.
Is the proportion changing or just the volume? StormFront is much, much bigger as a whole in recent years than it was back in the ‘bulletin board’ days.
Yes, but only if those offspring survive to reproduce. If they are unable to survive because of the lack of male parental investment then there is no advantage. – Desmond Jones
—
Desmond,
Fantastic point!
I’ll take Quality over Quantity any day.
Michael,
Great post. That’s very close to my own view of the matter. When I get the time, I will read through the other threads and share my own thoughts.
Yes, but only if those offspring survive to reproduce. If they are unable to survive because of the lack of male parental investment then there is no advantage. – Desmond Jones
–
Desmond,
Fantastic point!
I’ll take Quality over Quantity any day — hence what has largely contributed to the White race’s high qualities.
Hunter,
You can scratch #14, it was a duplicate post on my part.
Thanks,
-Kulak
One thing I never see discussed in this topic seems to me the most obvious: White women are by leaps and bounds more beautiful than any other races’ women.
On the beauty scale, it’s not even close.
Why, then, would a White woman fear competition from non-White women?
What does mass immigration mean for the average White woman?
It means this: their status rises enormously, as they now have multiple men from all races holding them up as the ideal, while the simple fact of their existence means that 50% of their competition isn’t even in the race.
Try to imagine, gentlemen, living in a world where what is now happening meant that your sexual status would rise to the top and all women would hold YOU as the ideal.
We cannot expect women to join us.
We lead, they will follow. The rest is just noise.
It means this: their status rises enormously, as they now have multiple men from all races holding them up as the ideal, while the simple fact of their existence means that 50% of their competition isn’t even in the race.
—
Do any of you remember a few months ago commentator ‘Matamoros’ did a post on this very issue??
He made the very same point, and spelled it all out in great detail.
I believe it was an ongoing commentary of his with Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife.
Anyone remember what date it was posted?
Kulaks,
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/author/matamoros/
Next time, simply click on the name of the contributor under “author” in the upper right hand corner of the front page and up come all their entries/posts.
Lurking Anon,
Thanks buddy!
A lot of guys are hypocritical, they complain that women aren’t submissive and feminine, then harp on the fact that they aren’t rebellious and go along with the system. A lot of women have just been raised to value the wrong things.
Elizabeth Wright has an interesting post on her Issues & Views blog. Hunter, I’d love to see you and some of the other authors of posts on this website analyze her viewpoint:
http://issuesviews.blogspot.com/2010/04/you-cant-have-your-country-back.html
I have to strongly disagree with this. White men are particularly susceptible to the TV, just different channels than the women. Show a White man a documentary dressed up in scientific jargon, or a military doc with fancy hardware, and they will accept all the background propaganda into their subconscious without knowing it.
Women will often apologize or make light of their TV habits – admitting that soap operas and celebrities are a guilty pleasure. Only men pretend that their TV watching is somehow “educational” or “keeping informed” etc.
Think of the hours and hours many white men spend watching FOX News or listening to talk radio – and how absolutely *seriously* they take it.
Nope, TV works on men far worse than on women. If only men took their TV actors as unseriously as women take theirs – only men *vote for their favorite actors to be President*
http://www.morphizm.com/images/observations/levine/reagan/reagan_bonzo.jpg
How many people still remembered Reagan primarily as an actor? He was more known for being governor of California, and unlike California’s current governor, he was never a superstar actor.
23Joanne Dee
Elizabeth Wright has an interesting post on her Issues & Views blog. Hunter, I’d love to see you and some of the other authors of posts on this website analyze her viewpoint
Her point of view is warped from the start, as she incorrectly or at least insufficiently describes Jews as white, such as Frank Rich and Sarkozy, and wrongly portrays their beliefs as representing white people as a whole. That’s completely ridiculous. It’s like the old minstrel show with whites in blackface, but they’re Jews in whiteface.
H. Rock White, well Arnie is another good example. White men in California voted for their actor to be Governor, then the rest for President. By his second term (maybe the entire time) he was reading his lines off of index cards and often would read the wrong ones.
White men didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan out of cold intellectual calculation, they voted for him because he was funny, had some great zingers, and had a winning personality. It’s no different than women voting for Hillary because they want a woman in charge, or voting for a JFK type because they think he’s handsome.
Men flatter themselves – the majority of white men in the US vote on their emotions they get from watching television. It’s just men wouldn’t talk about a candidate’s dreamy eyes, instead they’ll say they’d have a beer with them.
Remember the white conservatards swooning over Fred Thompson, the TV actor? Droll.
Mark #26,
Dude, check out her blog, she is absolutely no hypocrite at all on the ‘JQ’ – regardless on how she may describe them terminologically.
—
Joanne Dee,
Elizabeth is one of my favorite bloggers. Good recommendation on your part.
Elizabeth Wright has an interesting post on her Issues & Views blog. Hunter, I’d love to see you and some of the other authors of posts on this website analyze her viewpoint:
http://issuesviews.blogspot.com/2010/04/you-cant-have-your-country-back.html
She seems to be a black right-wing anti-semite. Nothing much to do with gender, aside from a very feminine dwelling on the ‘human cost of the war’ (which is actually very small, especially compared to previous wars).
Also obviously aware of the JQ and discusses it in reference to foreign policy, yet refers to Frank Rich as ‘white’. Perhaps since she is black she only is interested in the JQ insofar as it refers to foreign policy and never felt any concern over Jewish involvement in the ‘civil rights movement’
Also incorrect to claim that McCain is supported by ‘Tea Parties.’ The Tea Parties did not begin until some months after Obama took office, and the Tea Parties are supporting McCain’s opponent in the Republican Primary, J.D. Hayworth.
How many people still remembered Reagan primarily as an actor? He was more known for being governor of California, and unlike California’s current governor, he was never a superstar actor.
—
H,
I wonder how many social CONservatives remember (or, more poignantly, wish to remember) that Ronnie ‘Raygun’ (as hippie Abbie Hoffman used to call him), as governor of California introduced the United States first no-fault divorce laws — opening up a horrible Pandora’s Box of anti-family and anti-male misandry that has greatly contributed to the gender problems between our men and women — and of course the White racial demographic decline that followed. Exactly what we are talking about today.
I did some research into that after some comments on that article I wrote the other day, apparently California courts were basically just granting ‘no fault’ divorces using contrived legal reasoning already, also there was a problem with creating fake accusations in order to get the divorce.
A better idea would be to limit divorces to couples with no children under 18.
KNL
Excellent point. Ronald Reagan is perhaps the most underrated actor and overrated President in history. He was a creature of Hollywood and the first President to be wholly a media creation. The Kennedy kids actually had a real political machine they got from their father. Reagan was simply an employee hired early on to do basic government propaganda, then when they realized how well that worked – they hired him for bigger things.
That this silly stooge is respected among the supposedly pro-white conservatards show how far we have to go.
If I had a choice between Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, I’d pick Nixon.
Thanks VVD 🙂
Thanks everyone for your feedback. I originally wrote this article in 2005, and while I’ve had a lot of life experience since then I still think I have the fundamentals correct in this piece.
@Eileen, #7: Nice point regarding the need for emotional appeal vis-a-vis bland statistics.
One of my own personal gripes with the “movement” has been the tendency of the higher quality elements of White Nationalism to eschew real-world, street activism in favor of “meet, eat, and retreat” dinners or purely intellectual online debate. In doing so, they have ceded the stage of public activism to the neo-nazi types who scare away the people we need to attract. I think public demonstrations can reach women in a way that online media cannot, by showing that intelligent white men have the balls to get out there and defend their views in public. I commend Hunter Wallace and his comrades for confronting Jeffrey Imm in this manner back in February. Likewise for Andrew Yeoman of the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), who organized a protest against the current practice of allowing children into the Folsom Street Fair event in San Francisco, a predominantly gay s&m leather event held in public.
I joined BANA because I recognized it had a winning strategy, which emphasizes the importance of a positive attitude. It’s far better to do things right ourselves than to criticize others for doing them wrong.
For quite a while the Pro White movement has been viewed as a bunch of swastika waving Nazi’s because some in the movement still think that screaming “Sig Heil” while waving the swastika flag is a great way to go about things. It turns out that it is a waste of time and effort. Your everyday White woman does not want to be associated with that type of thing and you can’t blame her.
White women have become the main prey for predators of all races. They simply want to be protected and we must do it. Over at http://www.whitenewsnow.com we have adopted an approach that is attracting many females to participate in common sense racial discussion.
32 – “Ronald Reagan is perhaps the most underrated actor and overrated President in history”
He was a mixed bag. I certainly liked it when he vetoed sanctions against South Africa, but his amnesty was a disaster. I think he was generally a good person, but Reagan’s own favorite president, Calvin Coolidge, was a lot better.
2 – “A large number of American women are straight-up TV addicts, watching 3-4+ hours per day ”
Oprah has been an enormous corrupting influence upon American women, even otherwise conservative women.
Joanne, #12: Point taken regarding men being susceptible to social programing with regards to social advancement, pay, etc. Hence the fact that many will, privately, share race-realist views but preface their statements with “I’m not a racist, but…” or something similar.
I think such men comprise those Elizabeth Wright deems “undeserving” of having their republic back. I concur.
“For the same reason that women have been slow to take up the White nationalist cause, women may eventually become its strongest and most uncompromising supporters: their maternal instincts.” I’m White and in my seventies and my guess is that women are not so concerned with the ethnicity of their offspring as men are. However, it seems to me that black Africans are the worst race and that Islam is the worst major religion. White women might be likely to support a strong anti-Muslim movement.
#26 Mark – Sarkozy is not white – probably Sephardic.
#37 – Michael, I totally agree!
One way to approach our women on this is to do some basic eduction about non White men treat women.
An easy compare and contrast example is the lower races of Muslims – like the Pakistani Muslim men flooding in to England/UK.
Here’s a good educational video about Pakistani women having acid thrown in their faces by Muslim men, all for something trivial like not washing up right.
White Western women are certainly confused and mixed up about so many things, but most will understand the reality that the Third World, non White men are generally brutal, backward and abusive to women.
Here’s the BBC video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8616815.stm
“A better idea would be to limit divorces to couples with no children under 18.”
That’s completely wrong.
There’s no evidence that divorce harms children who were already born in a way that matters to any measurable life outcome.
The harm of no fault divorce is ACTUALLY inflicted on the race by preventing the conception of children not yet born, and on the racially beneficial institution of Marriage itself by deterring Men from getting married in the first place.
If the court system of granting divorces for blatantly made up reasons, the answer was judicial reform, NOT no fault divorce.
The whole idea that one party in a marriage can, with no serious provocation like adultery or bruise causing violence, FORCE the other party in the marriage to go through the emotional and financial hell of divorce is the height of madness.
It takes marriage from being a commitment to being a extortion ring whereby the more economically productive member of a marriage (almost always the Man) lives his entire wedded life with the sword of ruin yielded over him by his spouse.
No fault divorce is murdering marriage by turning Men off of marriage.
Not to mention all the Men who’ve been turned into Alimony Slaves, and who’ve driven to the depths of despair by their place as someone’s Husband being spat on and treated as nothing by a perverse and evil legal system.
The only good thing about No Fault Divorce is that by killing Monogamous Marriage, it may help pave the way for Polygamous Marriage.
If only we could import the marriage laws of Sharia, without importing any Muslims.
Then we would live in heaven.
If only we could import the marriage laws of Sharia, without importing any Muslims.
What are our options here?
Create a new religion?
Orthodox Mormonism?
Is there anything else?
Anarchism or certain strains of libertarian political victory might do it. No rules about marriage at all and no welfare state. Although that seems even less likely than a religious solution.
Reginald: “The only good thing about No Fault Divorce is that by killing Monogamous Marriage, it may help pave the way for Polygamous Marriage.”
Polygamy is not superior to monogamy. But, with the future Economic Depression, you may get your wish with polygamy becoming inevitable-resulting from economic necessity. How sad, common Whites not being able to start their own families?
The ones who most likely benefit from your scenario, are the very Corporate Big Boys killing our race right now.
Also, what do you do, if a very successful CEO-who wants to more White women than he can ever remember-has very flat feet? Or, if he is a carrier for a disease like Hunington’s? What if he is sexually perverted, likes gay anal sex and sexual intercourse with Black and South American women? Do you want those characteristics owning a monopoly on our women?
I also believe, Mass Polygamy will make it more likely non-White women could gain access to the former White ethostate!
It is notable that the only racially healthy form of marriage we have practiced by Whites in this Country is happening outside the reach of the legal system.
Also it is happening in a conservative and specifically Mormon religious context.
Still, I think a promising route would be for the Leftist State to actually become stronger, and to eat away at the current conception of marriage by forcing Same Sex Marriage on all 50 States via the Supreme Court.
Even if Anton Kennedy turns out to be against that step, there’s a very high chance that Obama will be able to replace at least on of the other 4 possible holdouts before his Presidency is up.
Once this full scale judicial fiat is effected, a fiat which will crucially apply to States with significant numbers of Polygamists, there will be absolutely no legal case that could be made against the full recognition of Polygamy.
It will then become very important for Liberals, and especially Liberals on the bench, to strongly be pressured into acknowledging the Pro-Polygamy position in public.
They may resist for a significant amount of time, but their defenses will BREAK DOWN, if only to reduce their own cognitive dissonance and fear of having their authority undermined.
“They may resist for a significant amount of time, but their defenses will BREAK DOWN, if only to reduce their own cognitive dissonance and fear of having their authority undermined.”
And, this will be another way they betray their Populist bloc.
Of course, they already have on immigration policy and International Trade. Next, they will make sure the average White man cannot get married.
“But, with the future Economic Depression, you may get your wish with polygamy becoming inevitable-resulting from economic necessity. How sad, common Whites not being able to start their own families?”
I’m not going to say it isn’t sad. Monogamy could’ve lasted at least a few more centuries if people had more foresight.
But Monogamy in it’s current form has become something that deserves to die.
It’s really bad enough to say to high quality Men interested in marriage and family that they can only have one wife, but nowadays on top of that we say “You can only have a wife well past her prime, after Men who lack your interest in the future of the Race have used her as a harlot for decades.”
High quality Men interested in marriage and children need to get back the comparative reproductive advantage stolen from them by feminists, and they need to get it back with interest.
“The ones who most likely benefit from your scenario, are the very Corporate Big Boys killing our race right now.”
The dynastic ones, the ones who take a longer view of things and lack the selfishness that’s correlated with lower fertility, will.
This will be eugenic, partly because Whites could stand to have a combination of assertiveness and high IQ bred into them.
“Also, what do you do, if a very successful CEO-who wants to more White women than he can ever remember-has very flat feet? Or, if he is a carrier for a disease like Hunington’s?”
No system is perfect.
As long as Polygamists are no more likely to have flat feet or Huntington’s than the weighted average father of children today, there would be no disadvantage relative from the standpoint of the traits passed on to the next generation.
Bishop Williamson of the Society of St Pius X says what women need from their men is the three Ls: to be listened to, to be loved and to be led.
This is the same Bishop who the German courts and government are trying to extradite for HoHo denial.
The SSPX position is that men and women are complementary, with the woman made to focus on the family and the man made to focus on society. The woman being the heart of the family and the man being the head of the family.
I’m not committed to Catholicism but I agree with this aspect of their doctrine.
I’ve been lectured on doctrine by the Bishop at a male only retreat in the West of England. The Bishop is a learned man with many good ideas even if you don’t agree with his creed