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
# # # #
frederickdixon
- Edit
Couldn’t agree more, Max. Too many people who should be having children aren’t having them, and vice versa.The consequence? – a slow decline in the genetic quality of the race, or “disgenics”. I see that the government of China has adopted eugenic policies to improve the quality of the stock, while in the West such policies have been right out of favour since 1945 and are now banned by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Steve
- Edit
Depends on what you mean by feminism, if it’s one of the PC ‘isms, then it’s designed to destroy our society by a rachet effect, along with racism, sexism, anti facism etc.
jackdaw
- Edit
Hit the nail on the the head. Well done Max, keep up the good work.
Grace
- Edit
Whilst I agree that highly intelligent women (such as myself) should have plenty of children, it is us women who dread the idea of being stuck within four walls all day, every day for a good number of years doing nothing but physical, monotonous labour often with no appreciation and the idea amongst others that you have nothing to say (which often you don’t because you don’t talk to anyone but your husband and kids for days and the only brain work you do is helping your young kids with their very simple homework). If stay-at-home-mothers could study theoretical qualifications for free whilst they were doing their procreative part (say on-line) and could use these as access to higher education when they were ready to re-enter the workforce later on. This would save a lot of time for studying theoretical subjects later and enable her to go straight to any practical work that would take her time away from her family.
Another reason women don’t like to stay home and have kids is because of lack of money. Even in these enlightened times, some otherwise very modern men are happy to spend loads of money on toys, hobbies and designer stuff for themselves and their kids, they withhold money from their wives who may have just the child benefit to rely upon. I know one such relationship and the wife is searching for a job with her child just started nursery because of the threat of her child benefit being cut in which event she will be left penniless. She was hoping to be home until he started full-time school and then only part-time hours. Would it not be better to rid ourselves of foreign parasites and give the money saved to mothers who have at least three children (say the equivalent to the current Carer’s allowance) and also child benefit, this could amount to about £400 per month for the mother so that she has her own money.
Further, you touch on biological impulses that are being denied. The current order of society does not enable a woman to stay home and raise children and fulfill her natural social role. Women have evolved to be articulate, empathetic and highly pro-social. This stems from years (up until just after the Industrial Revolution) when she lived in extended family groups or clan groups (depending on the time period). The nuclear family is relatively new – most families lived with aunts, uncles, siblings, aging parents or parents-in-law almost all their lives. The only place for such interaction for women these days lies at work or social groups, which the housewife has no time or money for. It was found in the 1950s that women who worked part-time had a lower incidence of heart disease than housewives. It is now believed this was a result of lowered stress levels due to social interaction opportunities that women need.
It is all very well for men to say that women should stay home but please imagine being home all day and not seeing anyone and doing only repetitive work. Imagine never having your own money and the resentment of your partner spending on their own interests and neglecting yours. When housewifery gives intellectual and social stimulation and one’s own money then I think you will find women clammering to be at home once again.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I think you’re absolutely right. As the lucky husband of a highly intelligent, highly qualified, high earning wife, I’m the one who gets to stay at home all day being a house husband. It suits me fine (even if I’m not very good at it!). However, I do agree entirely with Max that high quality women must be encouraged to have more children and that motherhood comes first – that has to mean NOT a reversion to traditional gender roles but the “home and house” role falling to the partner with the lesser career prospects,to people like me.
That will mean something of a psychological shock for the sort of man for whom masculinity is a major part of his sense of personal identity, but the only advice you can give to men like that is to try to avoid high flying women.
Steve
- Edit
I also have done my at home with the kid bit.
But I also have a work ethic, though if I won the lottery or some such thing I could find plenty of things to do.
Brigadier
- Edit
Agreed. But why “3 or more”? By the standards of even 100 years ago, 3 is a pretty average figure and not a great number. I would like to see large, happy white families of more than 6 if possible!
As well as Feminism, this decline in the number of children and subsequent destruction of the family unit was also deliberately brought about through the legalisation of abortion and the promotion of contraception, which was once quite rightly seen as morally dubious at best and completely selfish.
School children are being told to go and get the pill, condoms, etc. So called medical services offer the morning after abortion-pill on demand and every pub you go into encourages its customers, under the influence of alcohol, to purchase condoms in the toilets.
Sex is promoted as an entirely recreational activity and all about short-term pleasure, this needs to end. We need to instill into our people a sense of duty regarding their family. Family is the foundation block of our society and needs to be protected from feminism, abortion, “birth control”, “family planning” and so on.
Grace
- Edit
I agree that we need very large families, mainly because we have let our population drop so low now that it is going to be very difficult (if we ever wake up, that is) to regain our share of the planet and to defend our homelands. However, in modern Western civilisation we need just 3 or 4 children per family to maintain due to advanced medical treatments and low mortality rates. We are fast approaching the point of no return (much to the Zionist’s delight) and we are wasting time negotiating the terms and conditions of our male-female relationships. Research has shown that fertility rates are moderately improved by increasing women’s access to suitable childcare and career options. If we sold the model of large families from 20-35 (easily enough time for 6 children) and then free education for women who had had at least three children (in a marriage) for 5 years if she so wished. Unfortunately, women are, and have always been, vulnerable due to their lack of economic independence. In the old days, men got everything as women were unable to hold property and inheritance after marriage (it automatically went to the husband as did the children in the event of a divorce). We need to hold the guilty party to account in the event of a divorce or philandering (I understand that it is not always men at fault) in order to convince men and women to take marriage seriously again. The old model of family is bad for women and the new model is bad for men so we need an alternative to both that reinforces the ideal of one man and one women creating a permanent family where everyone’s needs can be met. I hope that in the event of a Nationalist win in an election (one can still have hope) they don’t look at the past through rose-tinted specs as some Nationalists are prone to doing and can be creative enough to see the new and old problems and find a newer and better way combining the best of the old and the best of the new. I am just concerned that a knee-jerk reversion to the “good old days” may not be in everyone’s best interests and could seriously harm the very justifiable attempts to increase White numbers and presence in THEIR lands again.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Grace, I like the reference to “our homelands” – plural. Perhaps you were referring to the four countries of the United Kingdom, or to all white countries. But to me, as a British nationalist, “our homelands” are the UK plus what would once have been called the “white dominions” – Australia, Canada, New Zealand. These countries were once seen, and saw themselves, as new homelands for our race; Canada describing itself at the time of the silver jubilee of George the Fifth in 1935 as “the Great White Britannic Empire of the North”, New Zealand is described in a 1950s book in my possession as “a British country on the other side of the World”, in Australia in 1954 an opinion poll found that most people were content to remain British and did not want a separate Australian identity.
“Greater Britain”, it was called, that spiritual union of our four countries. It all seems very remote now, but people of British origin remain numerous, if not predominant, in all of them, personal and family links remain strong, and a revival of Anglo-Celtic consciouness – as a response to marginalisation and denigration – could yet achieve a renaissance.