Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males
Questions and Comments
SIMON SHEPPARD AND OTHERS
Hello Mr. Sheppard, I’ve been following your website for some time now and have been greatly impressed with your presentation of important and undiscussed themes. I live in the U.S. and needless to say the analysis of female misbehavior is never broached much less scrutinized in an honest and courageous manner. My compliments. You have piqued my interest, as it seems to be approaching something like epidemic levels. I was wondering if you would answer some questions.
Please understand that I must limit the time I spend answering individual queries. Many issues are dealt with on the website and in my publications, and I cannot write a book for each individual correspondent. That said, thank you for the thoughtful and methodical way you have arranged your questions. You have kept them to a specific theme, and most are not already answered in other pages on the website. Numbering questions makes the task of answering them much easier.
1) You have mentioned that females prefer colored males because they are more responsive to females’ signals. Yet I have also read that overly eager or responsive males are regarded with contempt by most females. This sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me. Do females prefer males that respond to signalling or to those who do not?
At one level, women prefer males they can manipulate, and signals are their preferred method. Darwin commented that “savages” were more responsive to signals and he was, of course, right. However, there are many other aspects to it. For example, she may be going with an immigrant to spite her males, who have not lived up to her expectations.
Consider this situation: A female has a male admirer, who calls round and tries to court her, and who she has “on a string.” She has established the power balance nicely – she dictates the terms of their relationship, which she has not allowed to go beyond an intimate friendship (thus she has a relationship without troublesome demands for physical sex). However, she feels horny. If she invited her prospective suitor to her bed, this would disturb the power balance she has worked so hard to achieve. The male would see it as Consolidation of the relationship, and want more. So she goes out one night, picks up a black with little more than a crook of her finger, and dumps him straight after. That’s all he wants and that’s all she wants. All fine – for her.
A correspondent adds: “Maybe also they are reluctant to deepen the relationship with a white man, because he is regarded as being harder to get rid of. Blacks are easy to get rid of, or so she thinks at first. They are not seen as serious father material, but do get very jealous and possessive later. Seen it happen here with Maoris. They are all sweet, pathetic, needy, loveable rogues, but a few years down the track the fists start to fly, literally. By then the woman is a hopeless loser and doesn’t have the power to get rid of him anymore – especially if drugs entered the scene.
“Females are thinking short-term here, but when they get older and less desirable they cannot spite white males anymore, and the black’s power over her is increased. By then she attempts to escape, but cannot.
“Often a woman will harbour fantasies that white men are wimps because they will not try to take her off the black men. She is forgetting that no self-respecting white man wants a coal-burner, and will not lower himself to competing with blacks.”
For a white man to be regarded as a “catch” he must be confident and seem unattainable. Females oblige males to be dishonest to obtain sex and the more powerful the female, the more dishonest the male must be. At the same time, the female instinct is to make the task of the male as difficult as possible, for evolutionary reasons (see ‘The Female As Enemy’).
2) Does Affection Beneath operate to any degree with inferior i.e. ugly, poor, undesirable white men? I ask because I can envisage a scenario in which inferior whites take the place of Negroes in the dynamic you have detailed, notably if there happens to be a dearth of blacks for whatever reason? However it seems that they don’t. Do you agree? And if so can you kindly explain why?
No, Genetic Martyrs are not in the same category as Negroes, although I did speculate a female type “Liability Girl” who goes with tramps (look up Male Breeding Competition also). Affection Beneath is the mechanism underlying the caretaking and protective instincts, and for the instinct to be invoked there must be some vulnerability or debility in its object. I remember a psychologist in Holland telling me that his female patients would express guilt concerning their behaviour towards children and animals, but never towards men. My thesis is that white men are above white women in the AB sequence, but Negroes are below, and believe this is fairly obvious. Their artificial promotion confirms it.
3) What of “superior” black males. I refer to athletes and celebrities and their various white “groupies” and admirers. Affection Beneath does not fit as easily in explaining this phenomenon. What am I missing?
There is no evolutionary precedent for television, or the mass media in general. People have no in-built resistance to it and this certainly accounts for its extraordinary influence. Any celebrity, whether black, white, or green with pink dots, who has been lauded in the mass media, has effectively been ‘defined as a Paragon by the tribe.’
Considering how advantageous it can be for a female (or her offspring) to attach herself to a successful male (Cherie Blair, Alessandra Mussolini, Hillary Clinton are immediate examples), it is unsurprising that females flock to them. To females especially, TV is reality and authority is always right.
4) In detailing the white female/non-white male complex, you have ignored the role of colored females. How do they respond, how are they affected by this activity? Does their existence play any part in any of this?
In Amsterdam at the end it was obvious that black females were left over. The white men were digging holes in the road while the black men spent all their time chasing white women.
It is worth remarking that in many Negro cultures it is the women who possess the ‘work ethic’ and do almost all the work. A left-wing journalist in Britain asked a black woman who had recently given birth whether the father had been present. “Present at the birth?” she said, “He wasn’t there ten minutes after conception!”
A correspondent adds: “There is one aspect I haven’t seen analysed by you. And that is the increased options stemming from immigration. Immigrants are mostly male. Each new male on the scene gives the female one more to choose from. Even if a woman herself will not marry a North African male, somewhere in her unconscious she is doing the accounting, and she tends to accept immigration, as that male perhaps will snatch one of her competitors. The same with men. We have a tendency to accept a sexy and slender submissive Asian. In Norway, some years ago (nowadays, talk of races/cultures has almost been muted), it was quite common for Norwegian women to characterize Asian women as whores, which they usually are when they marry a non-prime Norwegian. But they were not really concerned about morals. They were just seeing their sexual attraction falling by a fraction for every Asian hooker arriving by airplane.”
5) Could you say a few words about female sexuality in general? Specifically whether physical desire plays any role in their behavior. By personal experience as well as by observation it seems that they are often as, or more libidinous as men. Females of all ages and conditions moreover. There seems to be a general disagreement upon that head. Intelligent and knowledgeable seem to be of decidedly different opinion. I myself incline towards the opinion that they are more susceptible to physical desire. Any comments, observations?
As stated elsewhere, the natural domain of females is relationships, the natural domain of males is things. Females are highly, even totally sexual, but that sexuality is expressed in relationships, not in physical sex as it is for males. Females who seek physical sex are expressing a male characteristic (think of the clitoris as a vestigial penis).
A good illustration is the female love of telephone. Females love to talk, but the reason females love the telephone so much is that it enables them to have a relationship (to them, sex) without any danger of physical sex. There is no doubt that females get sexual thrills by avoiding physical sex (e.g. a girl exultantly cycling away from a man who had tried to continue a conversation).
Adolescent (or early teenage) girls are a peculiar contradiction – both delightful (youthful, highly fertile and attractive) and revolting (spiteful, rumour-mongering and back-biting). One can posit that here female sexuality is most overtly expressed, as that sexuality is played with and explored like a new toy.
I did notice that when a woman is aroused (e.g. in a bar and wanting to take a man home) she seemed to want servicing immediately, and regarded any delay almost as an insult. So while sexual frustration for males is practically the normal state of affairs, for females it can appear unbearable.
There are also probably some cultural differences here. American women seem to me to be rather assertive, and thus express a more masculine side. Recall that when Europeans migrated to the US, the more retiring “stay at home” females did just that – stayed at home. It is also noteworthy that when the Spanish colonized South America, they hardly took any women with them at all, with the obvious outcome.
Plus, I’m sorry to say, I’m aware of anecdotal reports which suggest that Englishwomen may be particularly bad for preferring non-whites over their own men. It may be that the higher the culture (i.e. the greater the tendency to sublimate sexual drives to science, high art etc.) the more eagerly females seek to offend their males in this way. Little of this cruelty will be directed at non-white males because of AB. The instinct just isn’t there to be satisfied. This also supplements the answer to your Question 2.
The concept of envy – the hatred of the superior – has dropped out of our moral vocabulary... The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea... Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities. Joseph Sobran, April 1997
|Scene in Ireland, probably Cork, 2007: Woman looks smug at the destruction of thousands of years of genetic lineage|
Average men continue to be outraged by this perennial female adulation of either sociopaths or extremely good looking men who use them up and move on. They see no rationality in such a warped set of preferences. The key word here is rationality. The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it’s emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that’s the key. It’s irrelevant that they offer no real future. In a nutshell, they’re crass entertainment like ditzy afternoon soaps. I know so many of you men were certain there was some stunningly profound answer to this question, but there isn’t. Sorry for the letdown. Angela Fiori, ‘Feminism’s Third Wave’