Anyone searching for an example of the damage that feminism has inflicted upon our people need only look at journalist Jackie Brown and see the confession that she has written and which features on the Daily Mail’s website: here.

Jackie Brown tells her own story with all of its short-sightedness, selfishness and stupidity far better than I can and so I will focus upon the wider issues that her individual case hightlights.

While no reasonable person would want to deny women equal rights and equal opportunities, and if a woman has a strong desire to pursue an employed career instead of devoting her time to the natural female role of creating and nurturing the next generation of our people during their formative years, then she should be allowed to do so, but her choice must be an informed choice and that means she must at an early age be exposed to arguments in favour of motherhood and such arguments must be given at least equal status to any of the alternatives considered.

Sadly, from the 1960’s onwards, young women from school age onwards have been encouraged by our educational system to regard motherhood and procreation as something that is either, ‘second best’, or worse, a lifestyle option that is the option of ‘last resort’ for women who are ‘good for nothing else’.

Feminism is a product of the selfish attitudes that became popular during the latter part of the last century and the origin of which we find in the planned deracination of our people that was encouraged in preparation for the advent of mass uncontrolled immigration and the multiculturalism and multiracialism that was to follow.

Feminism is a mode of thought fixated on the individual and the fulfilment of the physical, mental, spiritual and material needs of the individual. There is no place within feminism for the sublimation of individual needs to the immediate or longer term interests of the group or of our society as a whole. Feminism does not provide and nor does it fit within a complete belief system and it is therefore quite literally an ideological aberration.

Allow me to explain:

If we take a nuclear family composed of a man and a woman and their two or three children, such a situation in microcosm provides for ‘succession’, in that while the children are young and dependent upon their parents the parents will be able to cope and provide for the needs of their children.

Similarly, when the parents grow old and infirm, they will have two or three children able to look after them and cater for their needs during their twilight years. There is a complimentary relationship between one generation and the next, as one generation succeeds the last and is in turn succeeded by the next.

If however, a woman decides that selling her time and spending her life at the behest of an employer is more important and fulfilling than motherhood and procreation, then the couple in question will find themselves in their old age a burden upon their one child – or perhaps with no children at all, a burden upon the rest of society.

Feminism asserts that it is a waste for bright and highly intelligent women to spend their lives tending to the needs of young children, and in a minority of cases this may be true, but it is not true for the vast majority.

It is not an easy task to raise healthy and well-adjusted children who will be useful and productive members of society, as the rising rates of delinquent behaviour among our younger generations can testify. If we leave child rearing to the least able and least intelligent of women, then we cannot be surprised as we grow older to find increasingly that standards begin to fall and that the younger generation that succeeds us in all walks of life are less conscientious, less professional and less able to cope than we were in the past.

Furthermore, given that it has been proven that heredity plays the major part in the transmission of intelligence from one generation to the next, it is the height of stupidity to encourage disproportionately the most intelligent women to pursue a lifestyle that will result in them having few if any children, while leaving it to the least intelligent women to produce the bulk of the next generation.

If a woman dies childless, then unless her career has resulted in her inventing something truly momentous, such as a cure for cancer, her opportunity to uplift and benefit mankind by improving the genetic quality of future generations will have been wasted.

With automation and increasing computerisation, almost all work processes can be made redundant and either be done by a machine or by a semi-skilled machine operator. However, the one task that cannot be delegated to a machine or a semi-skilled machine operator is the task of providing the genes for high intelligence; the task of producing a healthy baby and of nurturing it lovingly and with intelligence during it’s formative years. This is something that only a skilled, responsible, reliable and highly intelligent woman can do.

Clearly therefore the role of procreator is the most valuable role for responsible and highly intelligent women and every other lifestyle choice is of secondary value, unless of course the woman in question is destined to invent something truly momentous like a cure for cancer.

Without our best women devoting themselves to procreation, our society becomes poorer with each successive generation; as fewer people, and what is more, fewer able people, struggle to cope with the demands that life places upon them.

Our task as nationalists is to combat the spread of feminism and the influence that this aberration exercises upon our womenfolk. Our task must be to encourage our most able women to have three or more children. Whatever else they do in life they should have their children first and pursue their academic careers as a secondary element of their lives.

By Max Musson © 2013

# # # #