WHERE ARE THE GIRLS?

This is the time-honoured enquiry made by young men arriving at a party where the presence of the opposite sex isn't immediately apparent. The same enquiry may also be made in relation to the glaringly apparent absence of the fairer sex in what the media like to term 'the extreme right wing of Australian politics'. What is meant by this is nationalism.

If the right to left political continuum could be colour-coded - blue for boys and pink for girls - the right end would be a deep blue, the centre would be lilac, and on the left would be a fair amount of pink speckling. If validation of this theory were needed one would only need to attend, say, a meeting of International Socialists, and then visit a meeting of anti-immigration enthusiasts and compare the results. At the Nuremberg-like, mother of all get-togethers of over-enthusiastic anti-immigration enthusiasts at a certain beach-side locality several years ago, only a sprinkling of pink petals bobbed in a swirling sea of testosterone. Why is it so? as an eccentric, televised scientist used to ask as the experiment gave the repeatable result yet again.

A quick search of the internet reveals a depressing lack of research into this phenomenon. This perhaps could be ground-breaking investigation. A premise this exploration will assume, much to the chagrin of feminists who constitute many of pink sprinkles on the left (so it doesn't matter) is that there are fundamental differences between the sexes apart from the obvious physical ones. The physical differences being so pronounced, it should not surprise that men and women also inhabit different mental worlds. Biology is destiny (this is fingernails scraping on a blackboard to Feminists).


Why would it be that the Left is attractive to females? For starters, that is where Feminism is situated on the political spectrum. It should be borne in mind that we are discussing here the New Left - not the musty old Left that died with history's failure to conform to the prediction of capitalism's collapse, not to mention the collapse of its home in the Soviet Union. What we are indeed concerned with here is the New Left. Along with Feminism as its star recruit, the New Left is concerned with every shade and hue of 'social justice', with perhaps the sole exception of the injustices still suffered by white, working class men. They evidently ended up in the dust and rubble with the Old Left. High ranking union officials like to pretend that that isn't the case, but to paraphrase the once lovely Mandy Rice Davies, they would, wouldn't they - given their pampered, jet-setting life styles.

Within the Left there is a curious twist. Notwithstanding its thorny, knotty nature, it was resolved with silk-like smoothness. How it was done must remain one of nature's impenetrable secrets. The conundrum was the towering contradiction posed by Feminism's strident defence of 'women's rights' confronted by the Left's general championing of multiculturalism which, by definition, had to include the brutal trampling of women's rights that is the hallmark of our growing Islamic sub-culture. Without discussion, without riotous, blood-spilling committee meetings, this issue seemed to be resolved the way a flock of birds suddenly, without communication, decides to change direction. This pocket of resistance was quietly surrendered to the enemy. Multiculturalism trumped Feminism. Like the pedophile uncle, this matter is never discussed.

With its perennial and 'selfless' concern for society's victims, it is perhaps only natural for the Left to be a lure to women who after all are the carers and nurturers of the race. This should not be a controversial statement but in a world sadly turned upside down, it is. How though could they not be carers and nurturers by nature given the role they play in the incubation and care of the race's new arrivals. Unfortunately this natural bent has been exploited many times over for commercial and political gain. The historically low wages and poor conditions of nurses is an obvious example. Using women to inspire men go to war is another. If woman, who is a gentle pacifist by nature, is urging men to go to war, that war must be an entirely just and unavoidable enterprise.

There are of course exceptions to the rule. Our self-styled antipodean Joan of Arc, Pauline Hanson, personified that exception. It could possibly be argued though that it was precisely because of her rarity as a woman on the wrong side of the political tracks that she became such star - a created star at that - created by the media which once they had discovered that the creation was a monster, did their level best to kill it.

While Pauline's trajectory was arcing across the firmament, a parallel career was virtually flat-lining below it. This was the challenge extended to the political establishment by Graham Campbell, a rogue Labor Party politician and former minister who continued to hold the federal seat of Kalgoorlie as an Independent. Campbell was immensely experienced and was loaded with the concomitant political savvy. He was saying most of the same things as Hanson, only much more intelligently, but because of his being ignored by the media and 'starved of oxygen', be died a slow, political death.

Scientific fact: whereas men think predominantly with the brain's left hemisphere - the home of cold hard logic - a woman's thinking is shared evenly between the left and the right hemisphere which is where we are thinking when we are said to be thinking with the heart. To present a hypothesis, which admittedly would be extremely difficult to test, we need a lifeboat packed with passengers who've just escaped a sinking ship. In the water surrounding the boat other survivors are struggling, screaming for help and trying to get into the boat. If those already in the boat were all female, the struggling unfortunates would be helped into the boat. If those in the boat were all male, it would be quickly realised that if any more were allowed to board the boat it would sink and no-one would have any chance of survival. Accordingly, steps would be taken to prevent that eventuality even if it meant smashing heads with oars. The left side of the brain would be whirring with rationalisations about the greater good. The monster of a moral dilemma is neatly resolved. The ladies' boat is headed for the bottom.

In modern times though, it must be admitted, women have toughened up, but largely in the wrong direction through having been led up the garden path by Feminism. Most women, at least to some degree, have been affected by what has been called 'an ideology of pure selfishness'. While initially addressing long standing injustices, it veered off, once the injustices had been for all intents and purposes remedied, into where all causes based on victim-hood end up: in a perpetual war against a largely non-existent enemy. The non-existent enemy in this case was of course men - all men. The energy this struggle sapped from women left little to be used in the fight against real enemies. The all pervading 'awareness' of 'patriarchy' and men in general as the oppressors left little room on the mental screen for projecting the image of a tyrannical, global elite hell-bent on usurping the natural rights of men and women everywhere, and busting nations in an insane pursuit of transforming the world into one, great serfdom.

To be sure, that this could be happening, at first sight, seems so breathtakingly incredible that it is not difficult to see why it is dismissed by so many as paranoid delusion. That this perception could be easily swept aside by means of even the most rudimentary research - needing of course motivation in the first place - goes without saying. But perhaps a more important aid in lifting the curtain on what is coming is a capacity for abstract thinking - the ability to see what isn't. Judging by the huge male preponderance in the fields of philosophy and invention, it may not be too outrageous to claim that men may be just a little more gifted than women in this department. (Before the high-heeled shoes begin being thrown, the much fabled women's intuition is duly noted.)

To be able to see what isn't, one needs to be able to extrapolate from what is, as well as current trends (especially when those trends show no sign of ever stopping or changing course) to see what will be. Agreeing in advance to the obvious poor value of anecdotal evidence, strong motivation urges the inclusion of just one small sliver. When a young, intelligent woman was told that Australia's current immigration policies would eventually lead to Australians becoming a minority in their own country, she was scornful. 'Do you really think that could ever possibly happen? she wanted to know. Because Australia since its settlement has been an essentially white country, she was assuming, notwithstanding rolling breakers of third world immigration, that it would always be so. To someone extrapolating from current trends it was obvious that it wouldn't.












The same woman apologises profusely whenever expressing anything that could even remotely be construed as a 'racist' sentiment. Whenever this happens, one cannot escape the feeling that this reaction is identical to that of a religious person on letting slip a heresy. This leads to another possible reason why women are essentially uninterested in nationalism.

To anyone with experience of raising or teaching girls it would be readily apparent that they are different to boys - in terms of their being better behaved - girls good, boys bad. When girls turn into women they retain their predilection for being good and being perceived as good. It's not for nothing that they have been termed 'God's police'. When, for example, Western society was still strongly influenced by moral values, the demarcation line between 'good' girls and 'bad' girls was as clearly defined as the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsular. Many's the man who married the girl of his dreams simply because it was the only way to fulfill that dream in the carnal sense.

Times sure have changed but maybe not in women's still wanting to be good in whatever way society deems 'good'. With media, the education system, the churches, governments and bureaucracies lecturing us to the point of hypnotism on the evils of nationalism, and even worse, being concerned about your race, is it any wonder women may be tempted to avoid this yawning den of iniquity? To some women, being seen leaving one of these nests of nationalist malcontents would probably be worse than being seen leaving a house of ill repute.

On the other hand, there is evidently a sizable proportion of the male population who don't mind being seen as 'bad boys', in fact even reveling in it. This is perhaps where most of society's rebels have come from. This might be where we should be looking for nationalists - provided they have the additional attributes of a capacity for independent thinking and a store of moral courage.

So now at least we might have some idea of why the girls are missing from the party. However, as Mr Marx (not Groucho) so succinctly put it: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however, is to change it." How do we get the girls to the party?

Angelic, gentle, pure and sweet is how man has seen woman since even when she was covered in primeval mud. But she also has another side, hidden most of the time but nevertheless only quietly dozing. It is terrible and frightening. But how to awaken it?
What does she care about more than anything else in the world - even the one who thinks he is number one? It is of course her children. It is for these she will fight like a tigress, and if necessary, gladly die.

It must somehow be communicated to the women of this country that the future is extremely uncertain at best, and as perilous as a battlefield at worse. A dark future, perhaps difficult to see now, is nevertheless heading toward us with gathering speed. As individuals more concerned with shopping, celebrity antics and soap operas than with the survival of our race we are lost. Atomised, the way those who think they own us want us, as we are invaded by those who think and act as collectively as bees in a hive, we have no chance. Our children have no chance. As they come to adulthood in a country that should have been theirs but find instead the ruins of a collapsed tower of Babel where they are the objects of scorn of a hundred different tribes they will scream their rage and pain into the wind: 'Why were we betrayed so? Why such a miserable inheritance?'

By a strange twist of synchronicity, as this essay was nearing completion, the perfect ending was stumbled upon. Provided by F. Roger Devlin in "The ‘Reafricanization’ of the West", American Renaissance, June 2008, it cannot be improved upon.


'Many racially conscious whites worry about the absence of women in our ranks, but I believe they have it backwards. We do not need women on our side to succeed politically; we need to succeed politically to have women on our side. As soon as we start winning, the ladies will find our arguments plausible, our faces handsome, and our jokes witty. Direct political action by women is not part of the European tradition; respect for the vital female role in the family is. When we have done our work, they will gladly do theirs: bear our race’s children.'
(http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/06/index.html)