Piggybacking on the previous post (and perhaps modifying it), here is a research paper (h/t Irving) authored by Chateau VIP guest Satoshi Kanazawa which uncovered some ugly truths about sex differences in xenophilia (pathological love of foreigner).
For foreign conquest and alien rule, the evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that women should fear alien rule much less than men, but only so long as they are reproductive, because they then have a good chance of being spared by the conquerors and have the option of marrying into them. Accordingly, the analyses of the Eurobarometer data show that young women are much less xenophobic than young men, but the sex differences disappear around age 50. […]
Interestingly, a separate analysis (not shown) demonstrates that the interaction term between sex and age in a combined sample of all ages is not statistically significant, except for religion. It means that, at least for nationality and race, women do not gradually and linearly become more xenophobic over the life course. They suddenly become qualitatively more xenophobic sometime between the ages of 40 and 50.
The entire paper is a great read, beyond the salient finding quoted above. Kanazawa is a skilled messenger of evolutionary psychology, even when putting forth theories that are more speculative in nature than established fact. Kanazawa’s basic contention – that wars are fought ultimately for access to, or protection of, pussy – dovetails with the CH premise that the sexual market is the one market to rule them all.
Anecdotally, I have heard far more support for rapefugees, and more generally for open borders, from young White women than I have from any other group of people. (The men I know don’t bring it up, but a few of them, when forced into a conversation about it, hemmed and hawed or meekly cosigned their girlfriends’ opinions. Even the alphas are susceptible to this inglorious path of least resistance.)
The women might not truly believe what they claim to think about letting in Muslim refugees — CH Maxim [X] explicitly advises watching what women do instead of listening to what they say, for the two are quite often at odds, especially in a mate market context — or they might believe it only insofar as they are signaling their conformity to GoodWhitethink, and otherwise don’t feel very strongly about helping rapefugees and throwing open the borders to the third world.
Whichever it is, there is no doubt young, single women (and yes, this includes single White women) vote IN DROVES for the antiWhite leftoid candidate on the presidential ticket. Kanazawa would appear to be onto something regarding the evolutionary psychology underpinning the easy acquiescence of young fertile women to invasion by foreign conquerors. And, as is becoming dishearteningly more obvious, when invasion isn’t looming on women’s horizons, invitation extended to the foreigner to traipse into their White homelands will substitute nicely.
To swipe a page from the Alinsky playbook and pin a suitably baneful term on the phenomenon: women suffer from ignorant xenophilia, and the cure is (*smarmy liberal voice*) education.
I hope that I’m getting a skewed impression of women’s true feelings regarding border control and White demographic displacement, because if I’m not then the fate of our White nations is sealed, barring repeal of the 19th Amendment.
Alternately, a YUGE increase in the population of marrieds and decrease in the age of first marrieds would also improve the electoral prospects of proto-nationalists, because married women tend to vote like their shitlord husbands. Care of children and preservation of family has a way of focusing female minds.
On a hopeful coda, data analysis of profiles on the OKCupid online dating website tangentially contradict Kanazawa’s finding that maximally fertile White women fetishize foreigners more than do men. If dating preferences can be extrapolated to immigration preferences, then White women want to import swarths as much as they want to date swarths… which is to say, not much.
COMMENTS:
* These past three days it’s been interesting seeing CH’s take on women’s sexual and maternal motivations for The Invading Hoards hoards, as they dovetail with my own views quite a bit. The sexual motivation translates to more competition between men (though she may not necessarily give up her sweet Tang to the invaders, she knows that all they need is a sniff to get the competition rolling)
The maternal motivations seem to translate to Mutterly Merkels and U.N. “Goddesses” being overcome with compassion for the poor unfortunates. (basically childless wall-tards and slut-tards and lib-tards focus on other “children” when they have none of their own to worry about)
I wouldn’t rule out feminist motivations either: take CH’s maxim “the goal of feminism is to maximize female sexuality and to limit male sexuality”. Inviting hoards does both. Also, it seems to really really annoy the local males. A win, win, win for feminism.
* If a people are conquered then the woman can quickly accept alien rule. This perhaps isn’t the best example because of the similarity between the ethnic groups, but when the Germans quickly swept through western Europe in WWII a lot of women swooned for them. In Norway,10% of young women were reported to have a German boyfriend. Fast forward to the German defeat and those same women were pariahs and their mixed children outcasts. One thing about the Germans though is that they didn’t go Mongol on western European women. Eastern European women didn’t share the westerner’s views on German men.
An important factor when considering attitudes about breeding with outsiders is how the resultant children will be treated. From what I’ve seen mixed kids are not treated as well, that has to give a non-retarded women pause for thought. On the other hand why would a guy give a damn whether a kid he is going to abandon anyway is not as well accepted as a full breed.
Another thing is novelty. If 2 different races exist together and one of those races is quite rare then women might see that rarity as enticing, but as the population of that group increases the novelty wears off.
So, if a women’s people are conquered she can adapt, but I don’t see any reason to believe that they would want them conquered.
As far as women supporting the invasion, I don’t think it’s because the invaders are making their loins slick. I don’t hear any news about German women lining up to get gangbanged. Instead I here about invader parties being thrown and German women being aghast at the degenerate invaders behavior. And invaders being excluded from nightclubs for being as grabby as I was when I was 12 years old.
I think the invaders might have provoked a maternal instinct. Women are more concerned when a creature is presented as being victimized and the media and government has been cramming that propaganda down the German people throats for a long while.
* CH is my Wellness Space, in which my soul is soothed by the righteousness of free opinion. But spare a thought for our German brothers and sisters being crushed beneath the jackboot of Reichsfuhrer Merkel, who made a deal with Google and Facebook to keep the German people from speaking their minds, and whose Gestapo cracks down on German patriots while ignoring invading rapists.
Germany, you haven’t been gang-raped so hard since Versailles. If only you knew your own strength, you would stand up and end it.
* This is butt hurt talk. Women are like children and easily misled, pressured, and fooled into doing individually and collectively self destructive things. It’s not a matter of payback and it’s not like these guys are only targeting the most liberal, activist girls. Even if they were, those girls are simply being stupid and childish and their “wants” need to be ignored. Without white women, we have no white children and no white civilization. They need to be protected . . . from others and from themselves.
* We cannot condemn them for their hard wiring, but must just install the right programs onto their hard drives.
Long ago there probably lived women who preferred death to submission. But they were an evolutionary dead end. The story of man is the story of conquest and chaos, and in such circumstances, evolution favors those women willing to smile at the victor over the fresh corpses of their husbands. So after a thousand generations of warfare, only the genes of morally-adaptable women have survived.
So are women immoral? It’s irrelevant. Just be the victor.
* Children have been raped. Gang-raped. Slim White sluts are still OUR sluts. Even the blue-haired manatees are the butts of OUR contempt– not for theirs.
If Western women deserve punishment, what sort of pussies would offshore that job to feckless hordes of shitskin scum?
Justice for Europe means compiling a death list of every foreign rapist who has passed unscathed through the courts (180 hours of community service!) and hanging them. Which is a nonnegotiable. These black and arab and whatnot Muslim scum must not live in peace, must not die in peace.
Really Laguna, I’m surprised at you. You’ve been for joining the Foreign Freikorps, and now you would acquiesce to letting Muslims take over and destroy Christendom forever just so you could vicariously wallow in the shameful false gloat of seeing party girls get their colons perforated by filthy infidel scum? Lara Logan probably was no paragon of what we would like to call journalistic integrity (as if such a thing has existed in a hundred years) but apparently she will never shit straight again. I wish this fate on no one– not even the prolapsed pozzers. But I DO wish, very much, to hang all those who groped her or any White.
And after that George Romero clip of a White female being pulled into the subway abyss, you and all of us should be Hatelifting and mentally stewing in righteous thoughts of getting our Spetsnaz on.
Killing Muslims even to protect fallen White women is not white-knighting. We make the rules, we set the basement on what civility means. Which, being White and Christian, is thankfully a lot higher than what it means for goatfucking Bedouin.
And no faggotry could surpass the faggotry of allowing our women to be broken, just to sit around playing backgammon with fleabitten semites and mouthing false prayers five times a day. Recall yourselves! Destroy the invader, restore the family!
* It’s taken some time for me to reach this point, but it dawned on me recently that I genuinely don’t care what women think of the Muslim horde, or the BlackLiesMatter bowel movement, or the Eskimos, or any of it.
I’m not upset by what women think about these issues. I do not care.
At some point it just dawned on me that, as a White man, it is my civilization, and that of my fellow White men, whether it stands or falls.
Yes, we need good women and they are at the heart of our civilization. But it is a civilization built by White men, for White men and women and children to share, and it has been and still is opposed by competing civilizations owned by competing men of the Other. For some of the Others, we may ally with them; others we may directly oppose; still others we may live side-by-side with in a truce.
But these White women — bluehaired fatties and all — are Ours. If there’s justice to be doled out, it is White men who should be doing it.
It’s like that Chrisopher Walken bit from the video “The Lion” that’s been posted here a few times: the lionesses start coming up to the resting lion and “making trouble,” giving the jackals and hyenas the idea that the lion is weak and that it’s time for them to move in to the lion’s domain. The lion doesn’t sit around and watch the jackals and the hyenas kill and eat the lionesses and the little lion cubs thinking “serves her right!” or “I told you this would happen!” No, he just gets up and tears the shit out of them. Then afterward he probably smacks the lionesses around, fucks them and makes a few more lion cubs, and, seeing things are once again set to rights, kicks back again.
* Yes, women are adult children and need to be treated as such. Giving them total control and complaining about the result is silly.
Merkel belongs in the kitchen with the rest of the SJW princesses, not at the helm of Germany, that’s the real problem. It is our job to put them back there, whatever it takes.
You may as well let your dog drive your SUV and not talk to him for a week because he crashed it. He’s growling at you because he doesn’t know WTF he’s doing and he needs help.
I do not give one single sh1t about dating women at this point but I still hate the people who hate me. This ain’t about ding dong tingles, this is about our future.
Men who cannot rise above their base desires are not worth much more than the women.
To acquire the kind of discipline needed for the fight we need to un-j@w ourselves and re-learn stoicism.
* The sight of them being molested and raped irritates me, sure, but I remain largely unmoved. What we are witnessing is justice in action. It’s payback time.
Before you go white-knighting abroad, ask yourself what you get in return.
What have you asked of White women in return for defending them? What will they give you? What are you fighting for? After the smoke clears, are you going to accept the same feminist social order that got us here in the first place? If not, have you negotiated it with white women? Have you signed a contract?
Don’t be a fool. If there’s anything we have learned at the Chateau, it’s that never make woman your mission. Women aren’t worth it.
We go to Germany to fight for God, Germany, Europe, liberty, our ancestors, honor, glory, revenge, justice. We go to test ourselves, to push our limits, to fulfill our duty.
Love and pussy are incidental to our primary mission.
* One of the first objectives of the coming Nationalist revolution and civil war in Europe should be the elimination of voting rights for females.
If the White femcunts and their white-knighting beta-boys don’t like it, then fuck ’em.
* Women’s suffrage is a core milestone of decline.
Women votes = Feels > Facts
Votes by feels = liberal decay, cucks, mudslime invasions, J3ws exploit, Miley Cyrus and Bruce Jenner heros, …and on and on…
* Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women make decisions about the perimeter results in what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”.
Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in female captives. Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed)
So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping everybody in need, regardless of their group (say hello to refugee crisis).
Studies shows that women tend to support everybody in need, while men tend to help only those from their ingroup. They show that women favor outgroups more than men. Thus, we can expect an ingroup with high levels of female influence to be very interested in helping refugees from other groups, and to be more foreigner friendly. (say hello to refugee crisis)
Unfortunately the forum software does not allow me to post the links for all the scientific studies. You could try to Google for the data.
“Men exhibit a stronger tendency to favor the in-group over the out-group than women”
“Moral identity importance tends to increase donations to out-groups, and not to in-groups. How-ever, this occurs only for consumers with a feminine gender identity. For consumers with a masculine gender identity, moral identity importance increases donations to the in-group but not the out-group.”
“Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives”
“Women are more supportive of affirmative action and efforts to achieve racial equality.”
“Women are more egalitarian than men.” (Definition of egalitarian: Someone who believes in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life, and advocates for the removal of inequalities among people).
“Women are less conservative, less “racist”, and less punitive than men.”
This is how we can explain the spread of tolerance and the demise of nationalism in western countries. As female influence grew, nationalism became unpopular. The nationalist countries are only those with lower levels of female influence. (Japan, China, Russia, Arab countries, Israel, Eastern Europe, etc.)
Women are less xenophobic than men. Therefore, a society with high levels of female influence will be less xenophobic, and more open to foreigners.
So this is why jews are supporting feminism – a feminized society will not be a nationalist society, it will be tolerant society, and will be blind for the jews in it’s midst.
Women are also more mainstream. They do not like extremes. So you will rarely see them taking political positions where they risk being called a bigot. Women prefer safer and non-confrontational political positions, where society will approve their behavior and pat them on the back.
In Scandinavia for example, women vote for the pro-immigration parties, while men vote for the anti-immigration parties. In Sweden, women were only 35 percent of those who voted for the anti-immigration party, the Swedish Democrats party.
The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists.
Fjordman,argues that Swedish feminists, by popularizing victim mongering behavior, quotas/affirmitive action, by supporting the welfare state, and by being against “bigotry” and “hate speech”, created an environment that is particularly well suited for the spread of other parasitic groups who also, like the feminists, behave like victims, demand quotas/special treatment, demand more welfare handouts, and want to silence criticism and free speech.
Scandinavia is currently the most egalitarian area in the world. It strives for equality – income equality, gender equality, etc. There are major cultural differences between the Nordic countries and the US. In the US, capitalism is King, and income inequality is very high. On the other hand, Scandinavia is the area of the world with the lowest income inequality, and with the lowest gender inequality. It is the area of the world with the largest foreign aid budgets (as a percentage of gdp). Scandinavia is in top ten of the Good Country index. Sweden and Norway took more refugees per capita than many other countries such as Britain, Canada, or the US. Sweden is number one in the world for imported refugees per capita, it beats everyone else.
Sweden is a good example of a feminized society. It is the country with the highest level of female influence in the world. So it strives for equality for all, it is more altruistic, and it is more friendly towards foreigners and refugees. Just the way women are.
More male influence in society = more xenophobia. More female influence = less xenophobia, which leads to better environment for jews, and other minorities as well.
So the problem with feminized society is that it leads to very low levels of xenophobia (dislike for ethnic outgroups), and very high levels of foreigner acceptance, which leads to liberal society, “tolerance”, refugee crisis, foreign infiltration (the increase in female influence leads to increase in jewish influence, and vice versa, those influences reinforce each other), illegals crisis, lack of ethnic unity/cohesion/solidarity in the feminised group, etc.
* An alpha doesn’t have either Snapchat or Instagram, and if he does even have a Facebook, he never comments on girls’ pics, and rarely elsewhere. It’s too much like being the lone male hanger-on in an all-female group.
* This Freudian effort to turn everything into something sexual ignores the bigger issue of survival. Women will acquiesce more to power because they can’t fight back like men can. If Kan’s theory was right then women would always approve more of immigration, but they don’t. In a nationalist society women are more nationalist. Women are always more approving of the ruling orthodoxy, and now the West is controlled by Jewish media owners who push immigration and destroy any politician who opposes them, so women become more approving of immigration. Also, at all times women are more prone to choose the option that leads to less conflict, and when immigrants are already in the country they will be more prone to listen to those who talk about managing the situation instead of reversing it, which would mean war.
* So, yesterday in DC another gang of dindus “randomly” attacked a White couple waiting on the subway platform. No pre-attack encounter, nothing robbed, just a “random” beat down. Barely a mention in the media, just one local news article about it . . . move along, nothing to see here . . . say a prayer to St. Trayvon of Skittles that the victims feel privileged.
Here’s the link to the article:
Here’s the bit that caught my eye, a quote from the White woman on the receiving end of the beat down:
“At this point, I just feel like if someone wants to attack me, they can,” said the female victim. “I don’t really feel safe on the Metro anymore.”
Maybe, just maybe, she’s waking up to the fact that, yes, Virginia, if “someone” wants to attack you, they can. And they will. The only thing that’s standing between you and hordes of feral mudskins are White men and the civilization we built and (for now) keep running.
