Anyone who has had a political argument with a woman will know that they can repeat the orthodox line like a parrot. When I neared the conclusion of my psychological investigations, I discovered that women were fine with my theories until they realised my findings weren’t to their advantage – at which point their opposition became fixed regardless of any appeal to logic or reason I made.

The prevalence of females in “left-wing” activities is obvious, while it is plain to anyone who has eyes to see that nationalist meetings, certainly in Britain, are overwhelmingly attended by males. What is going on here? I contend that this illustrates a close association between the female sex and anti-nationalism. Given the evidence, there can be little doubt that there is a connection between opposition to nationalism and sex-psychology.

In my last article ‘Words as Weapons’ I explored some of the mechanisms by which the male instinct to protect his tribe (nation) is being inhibited. In this, its sequel, I explore at a yet more basic level the forces at work. A few animal behaviours shall be quoted to illustrate more complex human mechanisms.

Male feminism

One origin of male feminism is that males learn in adolescence that expressing sympathy with female attitudes improves their success. Thereafter their adoption of feminine perspectives can become automatic and largely unconscious. If this is not the dominant mechanism, then it is certainly a major one: the male deceives himself in order to increase his reproductive success.

Besides males’ self-deceit, females can inflict backwardness on males. In his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control , E. Michael Jones argued that sexual freedom has replaced political freedom:

‘Man at the beck of passion is in many ways like a particle with no will of its own, since reason, especially morals, is the sole source of man’s ability to govern himself. Once gratification of passion becomes the definition of ‘liberty,’ then ‘liberty’ becomes synonymous with bondage because he who controls the passion controls the man.’ (p. 59)

Males are distracted in the pursuit of physical sex, and in the sexual domain the female demands instinctive, animalistic behaviour. Here I am not talking about the sex act particularly, but about relational (i.e. sexual) behaviour. To have a relationship the male must conform to female expectations. Especially if there is a prospect of physical sex the female can insist on adherence to signals, and that the male know, without explicit requests, when he may act and when he may not.

Deference

Another ubiquitous mechanism between the sexes is that males automatically defer to the female. This is because of the valuable resources she carries and provides. The female has a limited supply of eggs and of course her role as bearer and nurturer of young is essential. This deference can be seen in the behaviour of some lemurs, where females help themselves to food out of males’ hands.

It is the male role to defend the tribe, since it is the male who has testosterone, greatly enhancing his ability to fight. This is also evident in the animal kingdom. For humans I apply the Game of Opposites, a consistent theme in male-female relations. The approach here is to analyse according to male and female strategies, tested against evolution theory. Other populations employ these strategies too: some populations (and one in particular) extend female strategies. It is not necessary to be specific, only to emphasise that this male-female model appears to be applicable to human behaviour generally. For example Going Too Far, which calls for subjugation or provokes punishment, is a female procedure we can see being employed by other populations (e.g. children, criminals).

Nationalist sentiment is a normal and natural male expression, likely even part of our genetic makeup, and understanding how males are being emasculated will help us identify the feminine trends in contemporary society. If preserving the integrity of the tribe/nation is a male instinct, then the female’s is the opposite. In stark biological terms, the male is endogamous (in-breeding) and the female is exogamous (out-breeding). By the Game of Opposites also, the male instinct is to encourage the strong while the female instinct is to nurture the weak. Of course immigrant populations are far from weak, but this is clearly how the feminine mind perceives them. This is reinforced by media wittering about “racism” and seizing upon any and all slights against them. To her they are vulnerable if not downtrodden, and a population on whom she can demonstrate her largesse.

This approach, called Procedural Analysis, is a theoretical system and to what extent it accords with actual human behaviour is for the reader to decide. It should be stressed that here I am talking about ‘pure female’ – the behaviour of females once they are absent of male influence, whether that influence is hormonal, personal or societal. In other words, we are considering theoretical, antipodal strategies denoted as male or female according to whether the strategy is evolutionarily advantageous for the female or the male.

Making things hard for males

Having got some of the basics out of the way, I shall now turn to a vital evolutionary mechanism, an elementary symbiosis between males and females. Females instinctively make life hard for males. Why has this mechanism evolved? Because it is advantageous. Indeed it may account in large part for humans’ exceptionally rapid evolutionary development. The female makes the environment adverse, and encourages competition between males (a separate but associated mechanism), to increase fitness in the male. The male must become more robust to prevail in the adverse environment, and from this both sexes shortly benefit. We see this mechanism in primitive form in the ovulatory behaviour of lionesses.

The domestic cat ovulates in response to copulation. With this, conception is practically assured, and this is one reason why cats are so abundant. Its much larger cousin the lioness however withholds ovulation until many matings have taken place. The male must copulate every twenty minutes or so for up to four days to trigger ovulation. The lion that is unhealthy, weak, ageing, incapable of protecting the progeny from another predatory lion – unfit, in the evolutionary sense – fails to procreate.

With humans, this process is applied psychologically. This is all very well within a homogeneous population but, like many female instincts, it becomes completely anachronistic in a modern setting.

Regarding “sex equality,” we can only marvel at the arrogance of a political class who think they can defy God, nature and every other historical test simply by making a decree or passing a law. After aeons of only having power over children, we are supposed to believe that womankind is going to shed millions of years of evolutionary refinement and suddenly acquire the powers of objective thought and rationality which men have developed over millennia. However many do believe it, because this absurd notion is given legitimacy using the propaganda techniques outlined in my last article, especially the inculcation of a false normality.

During those evolutionary aeons, any female who failed in her biological role of securing a mate and procreating became extinct. The genes of a female expressing male characteristics would have faded away, just as surely as if she had been born barren. For this reason, I contend, all female instincts derive from either mate-selection or child-rearing – female behaviour is always in the final analysis sexual. To allow these instincts to be applied to wider society is profoundly damaging to it. To give one example: the selection of political candidates who “look good on telly” and who must on no account be bald. According to the political dogma, women are to miraculously blossom into great composers and artists, competent scientists and strapping navvies. It would be comic if the effects were not so disastrous.