Good image to ponder, for those who like to label any woman who disagrees with them, as a "feminist".

Alistair

It makes its point. The following are some thoughts in response to the women question: what they are; how they fit into politics in general; how they fit into White Nationalism in specific; whether we ought to appeal to them directly; and whether this appeal ought to take precedence over other appeals.

The fact is that if you let them, women will control discussions by defining disagreement as bad manners. They do this instinctively, biologically - only a few of the brighter ones, strategically. Women feel everyone should agree. Isn't that what getting along means? The idea that there are things more important than getting along does not occur to them, because to them there isn't anything more important than getting along. Women's socio-biological function and concern is birthing and binding families, and in that regard harmoniousness is the very definition of success. But politics is about big groups of people dividing and fighting, whether openly and literally, or veiledly and sub-substantially through democratic elections. Family life is about smoothing over differences, soothing hurt feelings, and rendering the thousands of interactions of our daily intercourse mellifluent. The difficulty comes when the fighting and the soothing escape their proper spheres. What could be worse than a family that fights all the time? Itz hell on earth, as those of you who've gone through the stages culminating in legal divorce will know. Well, politics IZ divorce. Divorce in perpetuity. And if squabbling family is hell on earth, then hell, too, is the nation governed by women biologically unfit for it, which is to say women in general. The worst of both worlds, itz. Nothing wrong with men, nothing wrong with women. Nothing right with men and women outside their spheres. Fighting these eternal truths of sexual nature will drown our societies as surely as fighting the waves as the undertow drags us out to sea. Instead, we must go with the flow. We must appreciate and understand our differences, use their force to support us rather than swamp us. We must accept reality, and pay it continual attention. Men must make themselves men, and lead. Women must help the men, allow them to lead, and chip in sensible remarks, in modulated tones, from time to time. And make everything happy and smooth running by providing offspring and sex and cookies and iced tea. Has the rarest woman the Paglian, the Kingian mind? Then add her mite she shall. I couldn't and wouldn't stop her. No competent woman ever has been suppressed by males; every competent woman has been helped, usually decisively, by males. But let's not murder our commodious life by making the exception the exemplar. "Reality exists" - the beatitude that never misleads. The discussion of women is part of a broader discussion of biological tendencies at war for control of human arenas. Differences between sexes, as differences between species, must be understood, that outcomes may be attempted. Our concern is with finding the best possible arrangement for the perpetuation of the conditions most amenable to normal White people.

Not only do women feel everyone must get along agreeably, they also feel they should be catered to. Perhaps this expectation carries over from suitor selection, but certainly this feeling that whatever-she-says-goes, is amplified into universal commandment by today's jew-spectered Propasphere. Put these tendencies and trends together, turn to politics, we discover that women think it basic courtesy that you agree with their opinions. This, after all, is how women communicate. They take turns regaling stories insipid and pointless -- at least as their words hit male ears -- to the cooing and clucking of girlfriends. As does babbling to babies, this mild and really rather witless gabbling makes them very happy, and constitutes perhaps 80% of their mentation. Women do not biologically comprehend that men are bent on the nut of the matter, and deal, as a sex, in measurable specifics. Men are trying to figure out and solve something. Men pull their logic off the belt and measure up the problem in short order, cut a solution. Women don't grasp this. Men's size, speed, strength, rationality are utterly alien to them. They appreciate the results, but they have no idea where the results come from, nor how to effect them beyond manipulating or encouraging the man to produce them. Men smell nice and they feel safe around them, and they like the things men build, but their eyesight and mindset is too myopic for them to grasp process. Not understanding it, they can quash it without realizing it, malice aside. By the same token, men don't grasp women; don't see that they are essentially social connective material, between and within generations, families, and communities. They don't conceive, their logic organ jew-tube-tied, that women with opinions are neither funny nor cute, nor to be placated, but extremely dangerous, in the way of a fire thatz leaped the hearth. Men think themselves unmanly if they let themselves be pushed around by another man, but they are just as unmanly if they allow the same from a woman, no matter what televitz says.

Men and women discussing politics is a waste of time -- unless the man understands the nature of the female and is skilled enough to guide her in the proper direction. Otherwise he should either outargue her and refuse to back down when she starts womanning, or better yet, not argue at all. Treating women's political opinions as if they had weight is more dangerous than handing a five-year-old matches. The odd masculine-minded woman is the rarest exception, and the exception does not prove the rule, as the old mistranslated saw had it; the exception tests the rule. Seldom enough that we can ignore it is this rule found wanting.

The media jews supply women, as the masses, with crayons their limited reasoning and unlimited emotions latch onto like babies. A big batch of non-toxic, kid-safe brights and darks. Only the rarest woman -- the Paglia or King, who inevitably comes off as a man and in fact assumes the male sexual position with her lesbian lover -- would conceive to think to perceive, to analyze, to control, consider, and rebut jew-propagated terms and conditions. The sex just isn't built like that. I've known a lot of them, high, low, and in between - same thing. Women are much more typable than men. Their mental orbit is much smaller. Women are the same thing. It is fair to speak of Woman rather than women in a way that would be bordering on unfair for men. Almost all genuine human individuation is male. If women could think, history would bear evidence. The evidence it does bear is that women birth children, men birth ideas.

Her instincts tell woman that Authority is justified because itz Authority. As Authority's terms are a necessary part of setting and perpetuating the system, they are fully indemnified against charges of indecency, unmannerliness, or disrespectability. They are always appropriate, in any company. There is nowhere it is inappropriate to repeat the lie that "diversity is our greatest strength." Terms, epithets, jokes -- whatever the aspect of the regnant Orthodoxy in question, the impregnable woman soaks it up and makes babies with it. Authority is Right. The woman always feels that way, because thatz how she's built. Thatz what she is. Would you lead her away, you must overwhelm and replace in her mind Authority General with Authority Specific - yours. You do this by understanding her nature, and putting out behavioral drivers, to turn the metaphor to software, that her basic coding can hook to. If nine-tenths of your behavior meets what she biologically seeks, then deviation in certain thought patterns and behavioral patterns will be that much more endurable, and then plausible, then normal, the to-die-for defensible. Only deviate from the norm where necessary. Thatz an important rule. The norm is no joke. The message of "American Beauty" that there's nothing worse than being ordinary is the worst possible advice you could give a person. It is quite as difficult as you can handle to be ordinary, regular, and orthodox in the right way, trust me. Even Catholics have figured this out.

If you were right, you'd be in charge, the woman knows - in the way that women know all things, instinctively. In the deepest sense, she is not wrong. Women drive off tone and non-verbal cues, much more than whatever meaning she can sqeeze from the air over your vocal cords. That these responses of women are instinctual rather than analytical means at some level there's deep truth to them. Women orient toward respectability -- money, power, status, Received Wisdom, electronically propagated Fashion -- just the way plants orient toward sunlight, and with scarcely a wit more consciousness. Males must acknowledge the fact, and use it. So make money, and act "respectably" where you can. Only deviate where you must: the truth about jews and race. You will go down much easier with the women this way; it will smooth your supplanting the jew's mass-produced imitation authority with your own real, home-made and earned Authority. The farther you go in life, the more you will realize that fewer things are alterable than intially seemed. This makes controlling what you can control even more important. You can control women -- right after you control yourself. Do both. In functional terms, "might is right" is not just a bad idea, itz the law. Moralizing is the human version of chicken clucking. Inescapable as weather, but to be taken as the frilly dress around the hot, wet meat. People who talk about man as half-angel, half-ape are wrong. People who claim men are different in kind from animals are wrong. Man is an animal, vain and complex, and it can neither be argued away nor gussied down. You can cure & glaze the ham any way you want, but in the end the presentation -- the meet -- departs and the meat remains. Reality is not contingent on attitude. Reality exists. "Reality exists" is true definition of conservatism, of which racial factualism, as sexual factualism, is an important subset of truths. The smart guys will prove I can't prove reality's real, but you'll never find anything that refutes it, and thatz functional proof to my personal logician.

How many times have we seen it? If the wife says something dumb or simply wrong, and the man corrects her rationally, she grows offended and calls him rude, and by tone and manner implies he's committed a moral breach. The man, innocent, even surprised at her reaction, withdraws, chuckling, knowing from televitz that the woman, especially the angry woman, is always right. This nervous-chuckling withdrawal is where the problem begins. The man must hold his ground. He must not back down to placate the irrational female. The female will respect that and submit, and very soon it will become conditioned behavior. Women know instinctively that they cannot think. But if the prevailing Get-Along line is that they can, well, their stronger instinct is to submit to fashion in the interest of sociability. And so they do. They are told they can think, nay, must think, must Have Thoughts. Hmm, I have no thoughts, thinks the woman. "I must find some!" She opens her Cosmo, and... You see how it works. The jews tell women they contain fat and empty spaces not for forming babies, but for Important Thoughts. The women, looking left and right, wonder where the heck those thoughts are. They sure don't feel like they have thoughts. They don't feel Thought-ful! Well, Important Thoughts are no sillier than the bell bottoms and platform shoes that have been all the rage the last few years, no matter she personally doesn't think much of them, so...our heroine scurries off to outfit herself with some socially approved thoughts from Authority Gap. I scarcely need tell VNN readers who stocks and sells that jewwear.

No matter what the man says, the woman uses a term that overtly or implicitly categorizes him as ill-mannered or immoral -- evil, even. College women are reinforced in this natural tendency, outfitted with the verbal tools of oppression, and brainwashed into thinking they are analyzying when in fact they are simply stamping loaded terms. Few, very few, women realize the game they're a token in. It cannot be overemphasized that women are acting biologically and instinctively in labeling, no matter which power that manufactures the rubber stamps they wield. Thought is "mean," women feel. It feels cold and vaguely or sharply threatening, depending on the male's tone. They feel this instinctively. Thought excites their danger sense, thatz all they know. Thought separates. Thought divides. Women fear separation, division, and ostracism more than anything in the world. Better, always, to lip-gloss over bumpy, dull, cold-sored reality. The man, by comparison, has a much greater capacity for standing alone. Women don't care if the argument is against the end of the world, they instinctively leap to its social cost, their real and everlasting concern. Their only concern. Women are never for or against anything, women simply are. As perhaps the best example of the futility in trying to win over women, consider Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a beautiful and highly intelligent woman who knew that her heroic husband was right about the jews destroying America, but wished him to ignore the problem because she feared the cold shoulder in the ritzy New York department stores. Think about that for a while, let itz meaning soak in. Do you imagine, reader who thinks women can be won over, that you could make a better argument to your wife, or any woman, than Charles Augustus made to his and her relatives? Do you imagine your money and power and social status could more impress a wife than his his? Do you imagine your hypothetical woman runs in social circles where she's better able than Anne Morrow to see and judge the jew up close against her loving and trusted husband's words? Do you begin to see my point: that you win women by winning, so that you become the Amplified Authority -- and no other way? For all practical purposes, the mammiferous set doesn't come any sharper than Anne Morrow, who wrote a very well-received book, yet she was no more able to overcome her instincts than a dime-a-dozen working-class scold. Women have a nature, and it is unreasonable, perverse, and dangerous to expect them to overcome it. Their nature is to follow -- whoever is leading. Once that is understood, the rest falls into place. Women cannot and should not be expected to overcome their nature. Nor should they be lied to about their nature. Rather they should be taught what they are, and taught that it is a good thing. Both sexes, in fact, must be taught their natures, and their complementarity. That is the White and effective thing to do.

Those who tell us we must "reach out to women" politically are wrong. Women, most women, almost all women, will only cross the herd against themselves, and trying to argue them our way with them will fail. Success alone will draw them, not sycophancy, proffered emoluments, and endless tedious explanations. Rowdy, raucous, masculine discipline and Terminator-style implacability will draw the best and most of both sexes. Rowdy and disciplined at the same time? Yes. We need both the Apollonian and the Dionysian, the flesh and the bone, the spine and the blood. Women are more attracted to football players and rock stars than librarians, a fact the reach-outs seem constitutionally incapable of grasping. Society says we're bad boys, hey, letz run with that. Letz surf the wave of a tide we can't fight directly. Let's jew-jitsu it, and use their image to our advantage. The fact that the truth and the glory and the sexy fun are all on our side -- let's keep that our little secret, eh?

White racism is past the argument stage, and on to the assemble-the-winning-team. For too long White racialists have assumed the need to prove they're right. Better they assume it and act on it. That is the road to succeed. Winter patriots apply within. There's still time to sign up for Alte Kämpfer.

Before the revolution, few women will independently make their way to us save those following their man. As for the Earharts, these one-in-a-million gals will be persuaded by the same arguments that work on men, and so require no special campaign to win over what isn't there in the first place. Winning over the best men can and should be our goal, and with those good men will come the women and families. To get the men through the women, or go after the single women, makes no sense in a world of limited resources. We should fish where the fish are, and that means in the water, not the sand.

It is wrong to try to "sell" women directly on our cause, because this is a misconception of the female audience. Women simply repeat what is amplified. Their beliefs mostly mirror of the context in which they live. Your girlfriend will take on your coloring over time, that's the way of the world. Hit them directly, their response will always be, as long as jews control tv, that you are 'rude' or 'hate women' or you're a 'sexist' or a 'misogynist' who only wants to turbocharge her womb with ten sqwallers en route to 'deadbeat dad'-dom. The jews use the gooey, gluey nature of goy femmes against the 'guys' they've made of our men by exalting it into some sort of higher morality that must always be obeyed. It wouldn't seem that even 24/7/365 lying about small neurotic creatures leading around big, calm ones by the nose would work, but people are herd animals, even me and you.

Manipulation is natural to women; rational argument is not. As their biology gears them to connect people, they instinctively dislike anything that produces disagreement, and that includes anything sharp, cold, or logical - no matter how necessary. And that last bit is why it is extremely dangerous to make women and what they feel center stage. They aren't watching the perimeter, it wouldn't even occur to them. They are myopic in a way that, outside the sphere of the family, is pernicious to the orderly running of society. To say that the WN movement needs to attract women is at best a misconception. The best men must make the strongest appeals to undecided men, and win them over partly by argument, mostly by deeds and character. The women will go where the men lead. They always do. To speak in other terms -- respect, rights -- is to get lost in that thickest thicket of jew bullshit, feminism. Don't try to outjew the jew in appealing to women -- not while he has tv. It will not work. If we present our case as a nice white-salad option for self-absorbed modern career gal to lunch on, guaranteed failure will be the result. The safe and self-interested choice is the other way. The jews will always be able to offer better laws and tv treatment and consumer goodies and social status than we can, so if we accept the frame some in racialism would impose on us -- approaching the woman in terms of her self-interest -- we will fail. Every short-term advantage points Systemward, and the fatal longer-term disadvantage of gulping jewy jewman's yummy Kool-aid is precisely what she is genetically not built to perceive, like a cat lapping up spilled antifreeze. The men, with their capacity for objectivity and long-range thinking, are where virtually all of our effort should be directed. As we draw the best men, we will get with them the best women, and so create a functioning alternative context that alone of arguments, if you want to call a context an argument, will persuade uncommitted women. And by persuade them, I mean offer less resistance to their husbands who see in our new world the long-term stability needed for raising families.

The example of Anne Morrow ought to persuade any rational male of the futility of drawing women by reasoned expostulation, but let me bring up a second example because it is timely: Sandra Day O'Connor and her recent decision on the University of Michigan 'affirmative action' case. As I've said, women's instinct is to smooth differences, to mediate, to conciliate. Even the best women are scarecely capable of logic beyond the barest instrumental connections necessary to bake cookies. Again I emphasize we are dealing here with a female at the very highest rung of the social, intellectual, and political ladder. And, just like Anne Morrow, O'Connor's words prove her a woman consumed with not the objective facts of the case, the letter of the law, but the way her decision will make her look in the eyes of others.

O'Connor knows that the letter of the law says discrimination by race in college admissions is illegal. But she decides to ignore this in preference for what's fashionable and will sit well in the papers. She makes a liberal, illegal decision, then covers it with a lot of conservative verbiage intended to camouflage the essential problem at stake, cover her bases. How characteristically female: pretend there's no inherent conflict, make the in-decision that gleams you in the eyes of the Status-definers, gloss it all over with nice words for anybody who might be troubled by your illogical, literally illegal "decision." That is how women act most of the time. It is sex-linked and sex-predictable, and it is the reason that a female judge is an inherent absurdity.

O'Connor's basic "decision" in Grutter v. Bollinger is that universities can discriminate against whites, but they must never call it that, they must mask their anti-White racism as something else. Same result, but everybody -- women and liberals and Fashion-setting jews -- will feel better that we are pretending not to allow quotas. Heck, we might even trick some! Play around with the words, leave the status quo in tact, smile big and act like everybody's happy. An average man, asked to render decision, would have studied the facts of the case, stripped it to the essentials, based his decision on the letter of the law: Black students with vastly inferior scores receive prized, limited slots they are not qualified for in preference to genuinely, objectively qualified white students. The law says discriminating by race is illegal. Open and shut. The average man would have come up with the correct decision in this case. The woman O'Connor did what most women would do, given the Semitically Correct context. Fretted about everybody's feelings, and tried to ensure nobody would walk away hurt, written law be damned. All women are like that. Very few can make logical connections, and of the ones who can, even fewer can stick by them.

Women are adjectives and adverbs; men are verbs and nouns. Men are thing itself; women the trappings and wrappings. O'Connor's decision makes that clear. Women make terrible judges because their sexual instinct is to gloss over and gush myopically rather than clarify and check for precedents. Women have no judgment, as has been said. That is why they are insanely loving and ferally vicious. These qualities are part of female nature and they don't disappear because the woman dons a black robe. What disappears is the chance of living in a sane and orderly society.

Some typical comments from female O'Connor's decision, with interpretations from a logical white male... "The Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in attaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI...

Equal protection means discrimination - the ultimate reduction of female illogic: a thing can be A and -A at the same time. Women swallow this illogic unblinkingly because they are old hands at smoothing over irreconcilable differences. People incapable of logic should not be appointed judges.

"Student body diversity is a compelling state interest" that can justify using race in admissions.

There is not only no evidence that diversity aids education, and much that it destroys it, but the use of sociological claims, however trendy, objectively has nothing to do with the application of the letter of the law.

"Attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School's proper institutional mission..."

What female O'Connor considers the mission of the law school is irrelevant. Women never consider their feelings irrelevant because their feelings are their stock in change. This doesn't change because the woman is called "Your Honor." "Major American businesses have made clear that "But Mom, all the cool girls are getting their ears pierced..." ..."the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." What has this got to do with the law? Nothing. The woman is vaporing trendily, and in the most vacuously stupid cliches. But women have extremely low standards in almost everything, ever noticed that? The conventional nearly always satisfies them. The fact that a phrase is used by others is proof of itz merit, the woman instinctively thinks. It would never begin to occur to her to try to formulate her own idea. Phrases pre-made by others are plenty good for her. She just picks among them whichever suits her fancy at the time, like a woman in a furniture store, with a big checkbook full of hubby's money, deciding which male-conceived, male-manufactured, male-shipped dining room set she prefers.

"High ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential..."

"But Mom, all the cool girls are getting their ears pierced..." Always, always, always, what the producers of the status quo deem worthy is the only Law the woman follows. Male judges look to precedent; female judges look to the press.

"...to national security. Moreover, because universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a number of the Nation's leaders...the path to leadership must be visibly opened to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. Thus the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body." This is a straw man, because the schools are open to talent -- that is the very issue at stake, why they're discriminating against more "talented and qualified individuals" who happen to be white. Conventional words with conventional meanings repeated by a conventional woman. But to say 'conventional woman' is to make a redundancy. They're all conventional, it is their nature. Men lead, and women follow. Anything else is unhappiness leading to insanity.

Women have their place, but it is not in politics. A few can overcome their biology in that regard, but not many. The ones that can are naturally attracted to VNN. The ones that can't naturally fear and carp about us -- until we become Authority at which point they fashionably convert to our way of thinking. We laugh lightly and move foward because we are men, determined men, and we understand the forces at work. We do not expect women to save us, we expect us to save them. What men do, itz.

ALEX LINDER