Question: Don’t you like women? Are you queer or something?

Simon says: I like women, when they aren’t out of control. But truth is more important than sex. (Females oblige males to be dishonest to obtain sex.)

Question: Do we really need another type of psychology? For example, your definition of projection is different from others. Aren’t things complicated enough?

Simon says: It seems that the more important something is, the greater alacrity certain elements show in dominating it with the intent of confusing matters. Projection (discussed on the Basic Psychology page) is probably the single most important psychological mechanism. The whole spirit of the Procedural Analysis system is to simplify, not obfuscate, and new terminology has been introduced only when it was unavoidable.

What orthodox psychology calls projection I call Freudian projection, because it is merely a particular instance of a more general phenomenon. We can assume that others share all our characteristics, not just the undesirable ones. An honest person expects others to tell the truth. Here projection is believing that another will think or act the same way. This has been an intermittent lay-usage of the term projection in the past.

In Freudian projection, persons possessing malevalent characteristics but who are unwilling or unable to perceive themselves as a Protagonist, will believe that their Opponent feels and would act the same way as they. This can lead them to strike pre-emptively, at which point they become the aggressor. Jews during WWII imagined that Hitler was developing nuclear weapons, leading to the Atom Bomb. Orthodox psychology can hold that Freudian projection is a “defence mechanism” but it wasn’t much of a defence mechanism then!

Question: Are you a Nazi?

Simon says: No. Hitler was Austrian, and hence had no right to lead Germany. But Hitler’s writing about ‘The Big Lie’ certainly seems a good appraisal. Churchill was a chronic drunkard, in hock to the Jews and instigator of the “terror bombing” of civilians; Roosevelt was a non-entity and cripple with a chip on his shoulder, also completely in the Jews’ pocket; and Stalin was a malformed Georgian psychopath. Of the four dominant men in that insane period of World War II, Hitler was definitely the best of the bunch.

Question: Are women inferior?

Simon says: Yes. A complex masculinization sequence takes place in the male brain a few weeks after conception (interruptions in this process probably account for male homosexuality). This is one reason why males vary much more than females, as noted by Darwin and many others subsequently. The default state in mammals is to be female: female gestation is normally entirely straightforward. In other words, males are more evolved.

Question: Some men act more like women than women themselves. How do you explain that?

Simon says: Since males vary more than females, and some males possess female characteristics, the situation arises in which some males express female traits very strongly. This is why the best chefs are male, even though – because of their higher sensitivity to taste, smell etc. – females are generally better at cooking. Similarly, some females express male characteristics but this is probably less common, for the simple reason that females with male characteristics will tend to produce fewer children.

Question: According to you taking a partner of another race is a female characteristic. So why do men do this, particularly taking Oriental women?

Simon says: Females’ natural domain is relationships (their expression of sex), the natural domain of males is things. Since males excel at manipulating things, the female imitates the male. Seeing that the female is superior at manipulating relationships, the male imitates the female to a large extent.

There is also Affection Beneath to consider. Affection Beneath is the mechanism underlying the caretaking and protective instincts. Clearly some debility or vulnerability must be present for affection to be inspired. It is patently ridiculous to feel protective towards something or someone that is more powerful than you, or who poses a threat to you.

Due to the media promotion of women, government legislation etc., this has become the case. Women have become more powerful than men, because men’s traditional response to female excesses, aggression, cannot be used. Men are now at a disadvantage.

However, we should take care not to be deceived by superficial appearances. Oriental women, for example, may appear submissive, vulnerable and so forth but this is just a role. Several (notably Darwin) have commented that women in other cultures can seem on first examination to be subordinate, while digging deeper it is discovered that things are not as they appear.

The debility in this case is that they are non-White, and the male needs someone to protect, particularly from all those “nasty racists”!

Question: Who, or what, is this Big Sister you keep talking about?

Simon says: Big Sister is all those groups which express female characteristics, and thus employ female procedures. Thus, ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether women are distorting our perception, freemasons secretly support each other using subtle signals, the media confuses males to make them easier to manipulate or politicians say anything to gain power. All are employing female policies. The female policy is to conspire (act together, especially against a common enemy). Many female procedures have evolved to compensate for the greater physical strength of the male, and if he cannot use his physical strength against the female he ends up at a disadvantage. (N.B. procedure < policy < strategy – the latter is defined in game theory as “a complete specification of what an individual will do in any situation.”)

A conspiracy does not have to be secret. For example, feminists demand that males do not discriminate against women but they support other women (and males expressing female characteristics, such as non-Whites) at practically every opportunity. The conspiracy is not so much secret as unacknowledged or unrecognised. (Hypocrisy – a form of ambivalence – is a female characteristic; its bed-fellow is superficiality.)

Question: Does the above mean that you advocate hitting women?

Simon says: I am no advocate of physical violence against women – I just don’t like what happens when it is not available as a last resort. It could be said that women are like children: most do not need a physical expression of disapproval, but if it is denied those that do, far greater trouble ensues. Perhaps in the future punishing women will be a police role.

Question: What do women want?

Simon says: The short answer is everything. Women are never satisfied. There is a theoretical basis for this view, including consideration of what is probably the dominant female sex-effect, the Satiation/Insatiation Effect. This is little documented, but summarised by ‘the more sex a woman gets, the more she wants.’ The sexually sated male is generally content but the female’s status, and therefore her power, is further elevated by every additional admirer she has: there is absolutely no limit to this. The female’s insatiatiable appetite provides the impetus for her demands, but this appetite is based on false perception and is merely an evolutionary mechanism to allow her to rapidly exploit advantage, especially since her reproductive period – the period in which she is able to pass on her genes – is considerably shorter than it is for the male.

Question: How can we return to full employment?

Simon says: Kick out the women, who are only imitating in any case. Women really do belong at home, looking after their husbands. The majority would be happier there too.

Question: How are we to restore integrity and serious debate to politics?

Simon says: Disallow women from voting. Women follow their false instincts and merely vote for the politician with the widest smile. Women probably also account for the modern phenomenon of voting intentions being decided in the few weeks before an election, disregarding the politicians’ record over the preceding term.

Question: How are we to reduce the enormous numbers of cars on the road, which cause so much environmental pollution and havoc in our overcrowded cities?

Simon says: Get women out of them. All they use them for is picking up children from school, who would be happier on a bus anyway, and delivering over-priced greetings cards.

Ultimately though, the root cause of many contemporary problems is over-population. Over-population would be the number one problem except that it is Jewish and feminist control of our discourse via the media which prevents such problems being addressed.

Question: Did the Holocaust really happen?

Simon, and many others, say: No.

Question: Are you anti-Semitic?

Simon says: No. I am not anti-Arab.

Question: Are you anti-Jewish?

Simon says: If I owed you £10 but were able to convince you that £5 was the same as £10, i.e. eroded your discrimination, I could only repay you £5 and be £5 better off. If a group, or race, were able to convince others that race was insignificant, that group could take over the banks, the media and the governments of nations without opposition. This is precisely what the Jews have done, and it is not sane to respect a group that is defrauding us of our identity and our wealth. Nor can it be wrong to hate evil. (See further ‘What Jews Do.’) It might be added that someone doesn’t have to be a Jew to be Jewish (Jew-like); neither is every Jew a fraudster. But certainly many fraudsters, especially the biggest ones, are Jews. The scale of the theft is so huge that they have their hands in everyone’s pocket.

Question: How are we to correct the enormous evolutionary damage suffered by the Occidental peoples in this last, insane century?

Simon says: In the future, a licence will be required to have children: this would merely be a formalisation of the earlier practice of parental, and church, consent for marriage. If a couple fail certain genetic tests, no licence will be granted. (See also Darwin’s remarks about reversion.)

Question: What’s the World Church of Xion supposed to be about? I don’t understand it.

Simon says: Without writing a historical essay, it goes something like this: In medieval times the Catholic Church sold “indulgences” so that, for example, if you wanted a bit of hanky-panky with Franz’s missus while he was away at market, you could make a suitable payment to church funds and be absolved from the sin of adultery. This is said to be how the Church got much of the money to build its fine buildings. The granting of indulgences went on for quite some time, until Luther stuck a notice on a church door somewhere and Protestantism was born. It was helped along when Henry VIII adopted it – he created a church that would grant him a divorce. The Xion sub-site toys with the theme of indulgences and has a few hidden gems which didn’t find a suitable place on the main site.

Question: Surely your psychology experiments and observations are invalidated by having been done by you alone, and will inevitably be subject to bias. How can you claim objectivity in these circumstances?

Simon says: For a start, males are more objective than females, having more compartmentalised brains. Complete (i.e. perfect) objectivity may be difficult, even impossible, but having that as the goal helps us to attain something approaching it. My observations (biased or otherwise) may be taken as you like but their real value was in helping develop the theoretical framework which is Procedural Analysis. A theoretical framework only has to be consistent within itself, i.e. internally consistent. If there is inconsistency then I would very much like to know about it, so it can be corrected.

[1998]