The Triumph of Life: An Assault Upon the Values of the Current Society 11 страница

Thus men and women are the yin and yang of creation. One emphasis is not enough; both are required. Racial furtherance requires both the sexual act and the securance of a good environment for the product of that act. Men’s eyes will always wander to other females than their chosen mates because they are genetically geared to inseminate, period; women, on the other hand, will always resist such straying by their men because their sexual competition with other females means the diminution of the material support which their chosen mates could provide to their own offspring standing alone, offspring which women are instinctively geared to focus upon unlike the case with men who have a physiological need to spread their seed and little more. In other words, women, being instinctively geared to the well-being of the product of the sex act unlike the case with men who are geared instinctively to the commission of the mere sex act alone, cannot afford for their offspring to lose the material support from their fathers which occurs when that support is shared with the offspring of other females; rather, women need their mates to care only about the offspring that they have fathered with them. Hence why our race evolved for monogamy: while yes, men are genetically programmed to be inclined to copulate with more than one mate at a time as a means of furthering his kind, that genetic instinct is checked by the instinct of women which demands exclusivity. Though women complain about the polygamous inclination of men—their being ignorant of the fact that that inclination is part of their very DNA and thus outside of their control—women’s instinct and demand for monogamy has in fact won the day, at least in regards to the one man, one woman socially acceptable form of marriage which we currently possess; women have gotten their way that their men should not have more than one mate. Thus women should count their blessings that their men are generally monogamous in deed because the situation could have easily gone the other way. Monogamy is beneficial to our offspring because whatever material support the man can provide is bestowed to one family alone; he does not bestow it upon several women and their offspring thus diluting it accordingly. If a man has a thousand dollars, it goes to one woman and her offspring instead of being divided every which way to the detriment of same. The child derives environmental advantage when his father’s material support is not shared between the children of different mothers. By demanding that her mate copulate with her alone, woman ensures that her children receive the utmost advantage possible in the struggle for life.

It is as silly to decry the genetic instincts of a man as it is to decry the genetic instincts of a woman. Rather, they simply are what they are and they came into being because they further the race. Men are the driving force behind copulation; women are the driving force behind making sure that the product of that copulation has the most biologically advantageous environment possible. Both drives are necessary for the racial furtherance which is the meaning of life. Both drives complement each other: man is driven to inseminate, thus ensuring the survival of his kind; woman is driven to bring about the best material environment possible for that offspring. The race is furthered by the combination of the two drives.

Things may have been different had the White Race evolved in a less harsh physical environment; polygamy makes more sense in precisely those regions where it has been prevalent: warm climates where the individual material support of the father for one family is not as important; it naturally does not rule the day where monogamy is more biologically advantageous. In sub-Saharan Africa for example, there are no harsh winters which test the ability of offspring to survive without the undivided support of their fathers. Thus the instinct of Negro women to demand exclusivity (monogamy) from their mates was weaker than that which took place within our own race; their offspring could and would survive in Africa whether the father was monogamous or not. (We must exempt situations of mass famine which affect everyone equally. In that case, whether a people practices monogamy or polygamy is irrelevant because there is no food for anybody. There is thus no biological advantage either way in such situations. ) The scale was therefore tipped in favor of polygamy in sub-Saharan Africa accordingly and the scale remains tipped in favor of polygamy to this day when it comes to the black race, especially since the society in which Negroes live—generally either Christian or Muslim in its indoctrination—refuses to let any offspring starve to death if it can help it, thereby thwarting what would occur in a natural scheme of things. In other words, offspring by and large no longer have to face the consequences of their parents’ negligence and the woman’s instinct for the exclusivity of her mate’s sexual activity finds itself weakened thereby. Thus the social welfare system only fortifies the inherently polygamous nature of the black race, a nature which evolved over the course of many thousands of years.

It is foolish then to expect blacks to be as monogamous as Whites when they are evolved for polygamy over such a long period of time and when there is a “safety net” in society which does nothing to impel blacks in a different direction. There is no price to be paid for polygamy in today’s world—at least in regards to the chances of survival for the ensuing offspring—and the result is a society which constantly hovers between monogamy and polygamy with no clear, instinctive resolution in sight. In the natural world though, the black race’s inclination to favor polygamy (more than one mate at the same time) is undeniable and those who fail to understand that end up holding it to a standard that is simply not in its nature. We cannot expect blacks to care about adhering to a monogamous lifestyle the same way that we do Whites because they did not evolve for monogamy the same way that we did. Different races have different evolutionary histories.

The same can be said of any population where the biological advantages of polygamy outweigh the biological advantages of monogamy; traditions and institutions tend merely to follow biological advantage in this case. There is no more reason to favor monogamy on abstract “moral” grounds than there is to favor polygamy; the question is which practice tends not only to produce offspring but also to create conditions advantageous to their survival. Also, an abundance of males deprived of mates altogether can and does create an evolutionary pressure of its own; if too many males are deprived of mates, they will force the issue in their favor.

The failure to understand the tension which exists between man’s inherently polygamous nature and woman’s equally instinctive monogamous demand—a demand which is made for the sake of her offspring which is the point of copulation in the first place—is the cause of many if not most of the problems between the sexes. Women cannot understand why other women remain attractive to men even after they have been paired off and men cannot understand the jealousy that women feel when their eyes stray. Women cannot understand the compulsion that men have to inseminate and men cannot understand why women care a whole lot more about their children than fulfilling their sexual needs. Women cannot understand why men tend to fall asleep after copulation—their job is effectively done—and men cannot understand why women want to talk and cuddle after the event: by doing so, the bond between the pair is strengthened thus increasing the advantage that will accrue to the offspring that may have just been created; the woman needs the man to stick around and not leave her in the lurch since a new life, needing its father, may have just been spawned. The bottom line is this: it is in man’s nature to sow seed, it is in woman’s nature to see to it that that seed is given the best environment possible in which to grow. Thus the instinctive foci of the sexes regarding copulation are fundamentally different from one another, to the advantage of the racial whole.

This is not a matter of conscious choice so much as the hardwiring of our genes for different ends. There are exceptions of course but the exceptions only prove the rule. Women may sometimes, for example, choose a poor man over a rich one and it may sometimes be the man who seeks to strengthen the bond with his mate after copulation. However, that is not the normal course of things. Man’s goal is the creation of life; woman’s is the sustenance of that life. Each sex may well care about the goal of the other to be sure but the respective goals of the sexes remain what they are. A man is inclined to spread his seed around; a woman is inclined to limit it to her field alone. A man may love his mate but a woman will always love her children more than him. That is because it is biologically advantageous to the race that the man be geared to the creation of life while the woman be geared to its sustenance. Each attribute enables the race to further itself. Men know instinctively that they can always cause the creation of more children; women are adamant in the maintenance of the ones they already have. Men are willing to create life under lousy conditions because life itself is their object; women, however, put a brake on that drive to create life because their aim is the maintenance of life, and the creation of life and the maintenance of life are instinctive drives which sometimes find themselves in conflict with one another. Man’s instinctive focus is the immediate while woman’s is the long term. It is silly to denigrate either instinctive focus because both of them are racially furtherative and not a matter of either sex’s conscious choice.

Of course we are talking about natural inclinations here, not the freakshow which sexual relations have become today all too often in a society which seems to be resolved to overthrow every natural impulse, every natural desire, in favor of its own idiotic, artificial order of things. In the present society it is hedonism, not health, which rules the day as far as sexual relations are concerned and those relations no longer have much to do with why they exist in the first place: the furtherance of the race. Thus our people block that furtherance through artificial means or engage in sexual practices in which conception is not even possible, let alone fulfilled. No goal of sexual relations is even acknowledged, let alone sought. Every sexual act is deemed of equal value to that of every other—a proposition which in normal times and among normal human beings would and should be deemed to be absolutely ridiculous, if not insane. The pleasure of the individual person is what matters to people today, the consequences to the race be damned. Our men are expected to behave like women and our women are expected to behave like men. Our men are expected to change diapers while our women bring home the daily bread! Our men are expected to care for their children more than their mothers. Our women are expected to think and act like men: i. e. have “careers” and have full time jobs outside the home. Our men are expected to be “sensitive” while our women are expected to be tough. All of this is sickness, however; it is the attempted refutation of countless thousands of years of evolution which made the sexes inherently what they are. It is a result of the maniacal attempt to fulfill the thoroughly false and pernicious doctrine that “all men are created equal, ” as if creatures which are not exactly the same as one another could ever be “equal” to one another in the first place. To say that all men are created equal is to deny their inherent differences, their inherent natures, and their inherent roles in this world for the furtherance of their race. It is to render the world an incomprehensible, confusing, discordant, and idiotic place. No dogma—and the dogma of only a few generations at that—can possibly cancel out the raw biological fact that the creatures of this world are the product of countless thousands and indeed millions of years of evolution, an evolution which made them what they are: beings of unequal abilities, unequal natures, and unequal purposes as reflected by the disparate genes and anatomies that they possess. The values that people contrive within their heads do not negate the biological realities of this world; those realities exist all the same no matter what anybody thinks or would like to think. Every creature is the product of its own genetic structure and its environment can only act upon that structure as it is. The instincts of men and women regarding sexual relations are inherently different from one another just as their anatomy is different from one another; every physical difference in creatures is coupled with a difference in purpose. The function of every creature follows its form. Women are thus meant to have babies and men are meant to make that possible.

Notably, the riddle as to why women live longer than men is hereby solved: men, unlike women, have to lose life in order to create it; in order to inseminate women as they are instinctively driven to do, they must create and sacrifice countless numbers of their spermatozoa (i. e. life) in the process and that takes its toll upon their own span of life. Just think of the countless billions of sperm that must die in order for the race to live! Furthermore, even those men who remain celibate their whole lives still emit sperm in their sleep, but notably they tend to live longer than those men who are sexually active. The moral of the story is this: death is indeed the price of life whether we are talking about the fact that all of us are mortal as individual beings or that the male portion of our race must die a little within themselves every time their seed is emitted in search of the creation of new life. For that is exactly what we are talking about here: the male first creates within and expends life from himself in order to further his race into the future. He loses a few years from off of his own life span in the process, unlike the females of his kind who do not do so. This is why the gap between the life spans of men and women persists when all other factors are accounted for.

The denigration of stay-at-home motherhood by the present society, for its part, is about as stupid as it gets, for not only are women meant to be mothers and homemakers as a matter of physiological purpose and fact but nothing could possibly be more important for a race than the bearing, nurturing, and cultivating of new life to replace the life that is lost by that race on a constant and continual basis. What could possibly be more important than the bearing of new life and the raising of that life in a happy and healthy home? The push to turn women away from motherhood and to drive them from the home is thus one of the worst calamities to have befallen our kind. Women are not made better by turning them into men; rather, they are made worse. They forfeit the inherent power which comes with being the breeder, nurturer, and cultivator of new human beings. Not only is that status not somehow “inferior” to that of men but it is practically superior. No man can ever match up to it, try as he might.

The entire premise of “feminism”—perhaps the most erroneously named doctrine in all history—is misplaced at its core because it rests on the idea that women can only be whole, complete beings so long as they live like men when, in reality, they are at their best when their lives fulfill their own purpose in their own way. There is nothing “feminine” about “feminism. ” The idea that women have been “held down” by men throughout history represents a fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of the reality that women have their greatest power not by doing as men do within the hustle and bustle of their making a living in the outside world but by their being the mistress of the home. That is where their power lies and no place else. Let us remind ourselves what women actually do, after all: they, within their bodies, manufacture new life through their insemination and bring it into the world, and by staying within the home they are able to educate and stamp their children with their values, thus having power over their upbringing like nobody else. They are able to make a happy and healthy home for their families and by not working outside of that home—away from the home, that is—they are able to concentrate all of their attention upon that endeavor instead of attempting to be a jack of all trades but a master of none. What passes then for “feminism” within the current society is actually its very opposite: masculinism. It is the drive to make women imitate the lives of men instead of realizing and accepting the fact that women’s lives have value as they naturally are. It is the failure to actually appreciate the incredible importance of a feminine life and is thus the very reverse of what it claims to be. There is nothing “feminine, ” after all, about women mimicking the lives of men, nothing “feminine” about their forgoing motherhood, and nothing “feminine” about their setting up men as their idols whom they should emulate. Nor is being a homemaker “drudgery” any more than is a man’s labor in the outside world to provide for his family, especially considering the fact that there is very little that a woman cannot do at home anymore creatively in light of the advancements in technology; ask any man and he will tell you that the supposed “excitement” of his profession is overrated. It is, in fact, a woman’s privilege to stay at home while the man struggles in the outside world to earn for the family that income which is necessary to live a modern life. It is the man’s responsibility to do that while the woman uses what he earns to cultivate their home. Thus man earns the living while woman bears the life and nurtures and cultivates that life. It thus could not be more clear that there is no dishonor in a woman’s domestic role in life; quite the contrary, it is as honorable as it gets. A man who begrudges his wife for not working outside the home is not much of a man; a woman who begrudges her husband for his unshared “career” is not much of a woman. I include, however, the growing of food on the family’s land within woman’s unique prerogative though it is technically “outside” the home; since woman is a cultivator of life, it follows that gardening is uniquely suited to her nature. For that matter, women are also cultivators of beauty and what could be more beautiful to a man than coming home to a beautiful home, inhabited by a beautiful wife and beautiful children, bedecked with beautiful flowers? We can ask ourselves what sort of world it is which would scoff at such things, or which would delude itself into believing that such things are no longer possible.

That the economy of our people is so poor today that our women are compelled to enter the workforce in order to augment their husband’s income—that the income of our men is so low that it can no longer adequately provide for their own families in other words—is merely an indictment of the entire globalist, “free trade” economic system that has sold our people down the river. Obviously that system is a failure to any rational person when it is considered that there was a time when the husband’s paycheck was all that a family—and a large family at that—needed in order to live a comfortable life; women did not need to work away from the home and no self-respecting man wanted his wife to work as that would have been a source of shame for him that he had failed to do his job as the husband of his home. (We should in fact recall the actual meaning of the word “husband”: one who provides for others. ) Now all of this is gone of course—the just recompense for our labor, our shame at the prospect of our not being able to provide for our families without our wives having to enter the fray, and the concentration of each sex upon its respective, natural role which enabled them to be at their best—but in any event the solution is not to adapt ourselves to an idiotic economic system but to devise an economic system which comports with our true nature as the beings that we are. In other words, it is not our race which should be made to conform to an economic system, an economic system which enriches the relatively few, but rather the economic system which must be made to conform to the furtherance of the race which is, as always, the meaning of our lives. An economic system which does not allow for a woman of our race to have as many children as Nature allows, for instance, is trash, not something worth defending or maintaining. An economic system which forces the blending of the roles of men and women is no good and that is the case no matter what verbiage may be offered up in an effort to confuse people about its supposed greatness. The problem though is that people get used to the abnormal conditions of living which crop up all around them and quickly forget what a normal life is. Men and women feel stress and strain in their home life without understanding all of the reasons as to why that state of affairs exists. They just know that something is wrong without knowing who or what is to blame. We become habituated to a destructive state of affairs and lose the ability to even conceive of something better.

Without the understanding that it is woman’s role to bear life for the race, and the understanding that that role is of supreme importance beyond that of which men are capable, it is impossible to discern why the lives of women have always been given priority in times of disaster and peril. When, for example, a ship sinks at sea, it has always been women (and children) who have been placed first upon whatever lifeboats there are, men being willing to die so that the breeders of the next generation of the race may live. When the famous Titanic began to sink in the North Atlantic after hitting an iceberg for example, the call went out for “women and children first” and very few men as a result ever made it into the lifeboats at all; no matter how great a man may have been as an individual personality—whether as an inventor, an author, or whatever—it was expected and indeed demanded of him that he allow any and every woman to obtain her salvation first before he could do so for himself. This in fact has been the practice of White men for centuries: instead of using their power, strength, or “privilege” to save themselves when danger threatens, they have given priority to the females of their kind so that the race may live. So much then for the idea that women are “disadvantaged” by virtue of their sex! Without the understanding, however, that women are more valuable than men in the respect that they bear the very life of the race, the entire practice of protecting and defending women from harm before that of men would be incomprehensible and indeed unwarranted. After all, it is the very antithesis of the pronounced “equality” of the sexes which people prate about so much; certainly countless numbers of men throughout history have died in this instance because they didn’t accept the idea of the supposed equality of the sexes; rather, they believed that women were of superior value to the race and acted accordingly. Today though, it is impossible to justify a “ladies first” policy at all, in any respect, so long as women do not see it as their duty and role to bear children for the race; it would seem almost ridiculous today in fact for the captain of a sinking ship to give priority to the salvation of women when women are now expected and encouraged to live the lives of men as much as possible and couldn’t care less about being good wives and mothers. There is not the slightest reason to favor the survival of women over that of men without regard to the fact that women bear children and hence continue the racial stock.

Notably, the reason why children have always been saved first as well is because it was recognized that the women on board would never be willing to leave the boat without their children and that it was furthermore the responsibility of the women to raise that next generation of the race. There was no way that the women would be willing to leave their children on board while they themselves fled to safety and besides, they were the bearers and nurturers of the next generation both born and unborn alike. Children were hence not saved because they were considered more innocent or more intrinsically valuable in themselves. Rather, children were saved because the women were saved and children represented the next generation of the race, a race which must go on without the men if necessary. Through the salvation of the children, the race would repopulate itself in time; children had more time with which to work towards that end.

If a ship were to go down today, one could therefore sensibly expect the captain to refuse priority to the rescue of his female passengers on the basis that their current lack of interest in motherhood simply no longer justifies that gesture. One could hardly blame him for that sentiment, considering that only the protection of future life could possibly justify the sacrifice of the life of the present, the sacrifice of men in favor of that of women, children, and their continued life. Who could possibly say that women are more valuable than men without regard for the fact that they bring new life into the world? Has the man-hating tendency of our times gone so far as to make such a claim? Why should we decide summarily to save the lives of women before saving those of men if it isn’t the fact that women are capable of bearing new life?

Should a sudden calamity befall our entire race in the future and the population of our men should find itself decimated—by war or otherwise—it has always been instinctively understood that so long as a few men at least have survived and the female population has remained intact, the race can recover, though the practice of polygamy if necessary. One man can impregnate multiple women at a time whereas one woman can only bear the child of one man at a time. Hence polygamy is natural and polyandry isn’t. What is considered a hard and fast moral standard can and will make way for the need to replenish the stock. Thus what would seem to be an insurmountable problem—the great disparity between the members of men and women in a society—can in fact be remedied in a single generation; the men take on extra wives to make up for the numbers of men lost. The problem is quickly solved because the ensuing children are of both sexes.

The idea that women have held an inferior status to that of men throughout history therefore does not hold water. It represents a failure to recognize that there are different forms of power, that one need not have a career outside the home in order to be powerful. Power can and does exist for each sex when it is the master and mistress respectively of its own sphere, and the home itself is a sphere of enormous importance when it is properly understood. As the saying goes, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. ” When women control the upbringing of the children, control the food, and otherwise control routine life in the home, it cannot sensibly be argued that they are lacking in power. Indeed, they arguably have more power than the men. It is important though that men defer to that power where it is properly exercised. It is in a woman’s nature—and yes, such a nature does exist—to be inclined to a domestic life; women like putting together a comfortable home, like being the primary caregiver of their children, and like preparing food for their families. Those are not “cultural constructs” which have been imposed upon woman against her will but rather her instinctive interest, an instinctive interest that she possesses as does every other creature upon the face of the earth; those who would say that women lack any instinctive interests overlook the fact that literally every other race of creature upon the face of the earth evinces instinctive interests and that these instinctive interests do vary by sex. In other words, since every creature in Nature evinces an instinctive interest, there is no reason to believe that the races of men would be the sole exceptions as far as that goes. Rather, men and women are geared to certain and distinct modes of living and that is that. Taking the position that women have to take on the mode of living of men in order to be whole, complete beings is a slight upon women more vicious and indeed foolish than anything dreamt up by a male chauvinist. Women throughout history have in fact been far more responsible for their staying in the home than their men have. The idea that a “conspiracy” of men has “oppressed” women since the beginning of time is not only untrue but is dangerous to any kind of peace, harmony, appreciation, or understanding between the sexes; it also happens to disparage the very women it is supposedly aimed at liberating. After all, if men were capable of subjugating women for thousands of years, forcing them to live lives of inferior status and worth against their will, what does that say about any sort of intrinsic “equality” between the sexes? It destroys it, that’s what. The idea in fact presumes that women are innately inferior, that intrinsically “more powerful” men have held them down and the like. Thus one premise of feminism—that men have held women down—undermines the other—that men and women are “equal” to one another—and yet the feminist fails to grasp this basic fact, a fact which undermines the entire doctrine. The solution to the riddle of course is that women were not “held down” and that they have worth in their own right, in their own lives, without regard for what men are doing. Sagacious women throughout history have understood this and acted accordingly. They have resisted the temptation to cast themselves out of their homes and to mimic their men in their lives. They have understood that women possess their greatest power when they are at their most womanly, not when they ape the opposite sex. They have understood that it also takes strength and power to run a home and to not tolerate men butting into their province of things. They have understood that their control of the home gives them the power to shape the lives of their children and husband alike. They have thus understood that the home is the place where there is more power than anyplace else.

⇐ Предыдущая 9 10 11 12 131415 16 17 18 Следующая ⇒