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.

Population games

Here’s a little game I can play with my readers, and readers can try with their friends. Take a guess at the population of Liverpool, or Hull, or practically any other city for that matter, 400 years ago. To start you off, the 2011 Census gave the population of Liverpool as 466,400 and of Hull 256,400. The strong likelihood is that your guesses will be wildly out. The answers are given at the foot of this article.

The point is that the most pressing problem facing humankind today, by far, is overpopulation. It is this which underlies all the problems of environmental damage, plus housing shortages, the looming crises we now face of water and energy supply, and in the provision of basic services such as schooling and health care. Needless to say, the male instinct is to reduce the population while the female strategy is to increase it. There are numerous advantages for the female of a high population, while for the male, being territorial, having plenty of space makes him feel free and able to follow his instincts.

I have a private theory that human societies have not been in a state of patriarchy since around 10,000 BC. At this time there was a sudden increase in population; food also ceased to be plentiful. The method of population control had been female infanticide, since births are always a product of the number of reproductive females. Population growth has hardly abated since that time.

The cost of that loss of husbandry – especially white male husbandry, at least by example – is the greatest mass extinction of species to occur in 65 million years. Humans, by weight of numbers, are despoiling the planet. This process of mass extinction is now well underway.

Distorting reality

Distorting reality can be extremely advantageous and to a point, perception is everything. It can be altered to advantage, for example one could claim ownership of something which is not yours, or play on an imaginary injustice. The threshold at which punishment or subjugation is provoked in GTF can be altered. Who is perceived as victim, and who is perceived as perpetrator, can be all that matters. With fluid notions of truth anything which is of benefit can be deemed true, anything which is not, false.

Bending reality is not just the stamp of a Marxist political class, but a feminine trait; the male counterpart is cold, dispassionate objectivity. In the pure feminine mind belief is everything: if you believe it, it is true. One common expression of this is the view that anyone can be anything they want to be, if only they try hard enough.

An intriguing instance of female separation from reality is the tendency to discuss soap operas as if they were real life, which seems to be a routine phenomenon. This led to speculation about a ‘Reidentification syndrome’ in females. Its evolutionary origin is beyond the scope of this article, but it would certainly be a feature conferring reproductive advantage.

We may dismiss these cheap and tacky dramas, but they are probably a dominant factor in the false reality the media mind-benders have imposed. Soap operas provide a constant diet for females of relationships (sex for her), pregnancy scares and babies (ditto), scandals and gossip. It is female pornography. More seriously, they provide women with models for behaviour and normality which she will apply in everyday life. They teach her, exploiting her capacity for imitation, how to act, what to say, and how to say it. A Dutch friend related how he would watch one of these series with his girlfriend, and if an argument arose subsequently, she would repeat the words she had seen uttered on TV just a few days before.

The adolescent female idolatry of pop stars, and later film actors, is because effectively these individuals have been elevated to the status of paragon (ideal mate) by the tribe. This is the closest I can come to a parallel to the evolutionarily unprecedented power of the mass media.

Males impose reality

The male is active, the female passive. In the natural world males fight for territory, and the territory includes the females within it. She cleaves to authority, which in pre-history and for practically all recorded time has been her husband: under coverture, a husband was responsible for the debts, even the criminal acts, of his wife. Now her husband has been supplanted by the State, and he is allowed very little authority over her. Almost all authority has been monopolised by the State. Monopoly is a female strategy: females conspire and males compete.

For the female, reality is a constraint that is imposed externally. When she is divorced from masculine reality she loses all appreciation of the struggles and sacrifices which males have made to produce the amenities she now unthinkingly exploits, and the pleasures she now enjoys. An obvious contemporary example is communications technology, but a striking case I heard about recently is Beethoven. With his music Beethoven has given pleasure to generations, but despite achieving recognition as a musical genius by the age of 40, no woman would condescend to become the wife he yearned for. One is said to have averted a proposal from him with the plea that she “could not possibly marry an ugly deaf musician.”

During my primary investigations I arrived at a theoretical Proposition which shortly acquired two corollaries. One, that females will use any argument, however ridiculous, if it suits their purpose; two, that it is only necessary for females to know that an argument exists, and that a body of people concurs with it, to apply it. The female is physically weaker than the male and she uses her inborn talents like her verbal dexterity to compensate for that disadvantage. She may feel no more restrained in the use of these natural weapons than a wolf is to use its teeth, or a stag beetle its claws. Indeed, our instincts have evolved to confer advantage and nature encourages us to follow them by giving us pleasure when doing so, just as a cat purrs while playing with a half-dead mouse.

Power to get more power

Let us now consider the strategy of acquiring power solely to obtain more power. That a population could adopt this strategy is certainly a theoretical possibility, even if its presence in actuality is denied. The strategy would be extremely efficient, since no resources need be wasted on anything else but acquiring power. And the growth in power would be practically exponential, since each increment in power would increase the ability to acquire more.

We can see this now in the claims and demands which continue to be made, despite the enormous advances women have achieved in the last few decades. Now practically the entire British civil service is staffed by women while millions of men are unemployed. It may be that the female appetite is insatiable, since historically all constraints on her behaviour were imposed by the male. She has not had to control her instincts, as men have.

Not to be forgotten is probably the ultimate female strategy, operating in the long-term: the preferential selection of males with feminine traits as mates (e.g. monogamous males). It is due to this process that many males today express female characteristics. Plus, successful strategies are imitated. A feminine population is docile, impressionable and ripe for exploitation – indeed another theory states that the Super Feminine State becomes extinct. A more masculine and aggressive population will dominate and inevitably overcome it.

Turning normality on its head

One topical manifestation of female influence in Britain is what Chris Brand has dubbed “paedo-hysteria.” The targets are almost invariably males, and it is they who are tainted by association. Nowadays a female has only to make a claim of sexual impropriety, sometimes decades after the alleged event, to utterly disrupt the life of a partner, schoolteacher or media figure. Compare this treatment with that of the equivalent female crime (for in a masculine society it is considered a crime) of miscegenation.

After those primary investigations of mine I concluded that with the disinhibition of female instincts it was possible for normality to be turned on its head, and the proof of that is staring us in the face. Walking around some British city centres of an evening it sometimes seems that the only healthy-looking people are foreigners. One might see Slav couples with the woman (not the man) pushing the pram, or Japanese and Chinese couples, while British girls strut around with trains of young men in tow. Many of the natives are drunk or show obvious signs of drug-use.

In nature we see – for the time being at least – an infinite variety of adaptations which have evolved to confer advantage in species’ battles for survival against both their environment and other species. Humans however have additional faculties – language and a seemingly bottomless capacity for deception. Just a few of the strategies being employed are: claiming not to be furthering one’s group interests, using the media to falsely portray one population as victim and another as malefactor, and recruiting “useful idiots” by invoking superficially attractive, quasi-religious ideals.

Another obvious strategy being applied is taking advantage of the exceptional latitude Europeans allow their women, for example, playing on that symbiosis mentioned earlier. Successful strategies tend to operate on the individual and group levels simultaneously. Numerous devices are being employed by our rivals in what is now a global “struggle for life.” Competing populations are engaged in a subtle and complex contest for power in which distorting perception and altering reality is just another part of the game.

Population figures for Liverpool in 1590 vary between 500 and “over 1,000” depending on the source. It would certainly have been less than the 6,000 recorded 110 years later, in 1700. The population of Hull in 1570 was 4,600.