Getting rid of abortion and other forms of contraception would automatically lower female influence.
Free access to those things is what causes female influence, as it gives women total control over their own fertility; total control over what type of person makes up the next generation, and whether there will even be a next generation.
For the white race, it’s been a disaster.
I was tempted to leave the previous entry on women as sticky for a while. But now Jack Frost has responded to the commenter I quoted there:
I agree there’s a correlation [between feminism and the deranged altruism that invites millions of non-whites to invade our lands]. But it’s only an interesting one because, unless I’ve misread you, you are also suggesting that there’s a straightforward causal relationship between female “influence” and willingness to accept immigrants. But willingness to accept immigrants correlates with a lot of things: relative national wealth, underpopulation, whiteness, and Christianity all come to mind immediately. Conversely, an unwillingness to accept immigrants correlates positively with being already overpopulated, relative national poverty, non-whiteness, and non- (or anti-) Christianity. The causal relationships are debatable.
Also, from a racial point of view, there’s no difference between immigrants who come voluntarily and people who are imported against their will. We should remember that even before feminism, the white men of the New World were importing negro slaves and breeding with them, along with the indigenous non-whites. So it’s clear that a lack of feminism doesn’t necessarily protect race.
One thing that seems unarguable to me is that the cause of female empowerment, and also a low fertility rate, is the availability and widespread use of scientific birth control, including abortion. If we imagine for a moment that these techniques had never been invented, the West would have a much larger white population than it currently has. Since women would always be getting pregnant, they’d have remained dependent upon men, and feminism as we know it today would never have come to pass. If you want to get rid of female “influence”, the quickest way is to eliminate all forms of birth control.
Night of 3rd-4th January 1942
Recruitment of the SS—Himmler’s value—Origins of the SS and the SA—Women love males.
The SS shouldn’t extend its recruiting too much. What matters is to keep a very high level. This body must create upon men of the élite the effect of a lover. People must know that troops like the SS have to pay the butcher’s bill more heavily than anyone else—so as to keep away the young fellows who only want to show off. Troops inspired by a fierce will, troops with an unbeatable turn-out—the sense of superiority personified! As soon as peace has returned, the SS will have to be given its independence again—a complete independence. There has always been a rivalry between troops of the line and guards-men.
That’s why it’s a good thing that the SS should constitute, in relation to the others, an absolutely distinct world. In peace-time it’s an élite police, capable of crushing any adversary.
It was necessary that the SS should make war, otherwise its prestige would have been lowered. I am proud when an army commander can tell me that “his force is based essentially on an armoured division and the SS Reich Division”.
Himmler has an extraordinary quality. I don’t believe that anyone else has had like him the obligation to deploy his troops in such constantly difficult conditions. In 1934, “the old gentleman” was still there. Even afterwards, a thousand difficulties arose.
Being convinced that there are always circumstances in which élite troops are called for, in 1922-23 I created the “Adolf Hitler Shock Troops”. They were made up of men who were ready for revolution and knew that one day or another things would come to hard knocks. When I came out of Landsberg, everything was broken up and scattered in sometimes rival bands. I told myself then that I needed a bodyguard, even a very restricted one, but made up of men who would be enlisted without restriction, even to march against their own brothers.
Only twenty men to a city (on condition that one could count on them absolutely) rather than a suspect mass. 
It was Maurice, Schreck and Heyden who formed in Munich the first group of “tough uns”, and were thus the origin of the SS. But it was with Himmler that the SS became that extraordinary body of men, devoted to an idea, loyal unto death. I see in Himmler our Ignatius de Loyola. With intelligence and obstinacy, against wind and tide, he forged this instrument.
The heads of the SA, for their part, didn’t succeed in giving their troops a soul. At the present time we have had it confirmed that every division of the SS is aware of its responsibility. The SS knows that its job is to set an example, to be and not to seem, and that all eyes are upon it.
The men of the Nordic countries have been softened to this point, that their most beautiful women buckle their baggage when they have an opportunity of getting their hooks on a man in our part of the world. That’s what happened to Goring with his Karin. There’s no rebelling against this observation.
It’s a fact that women love real men. It’s their instinct that tells them. In prehistoric times, the women looked for the protection of heroes. When two men fight for the possession of a woman, the latter waits to let her heart speak until she knows which of the two will be victorious. Tarts adore poachers.
Above, Botticelli’s 1494 painting Calumny of Apelles which depicts a wrongfully accused man on trial, surrounded by a series of menacing women, each one made to represent a different moral failing. Below, a couple of slightly edited posts from the comments section of The Occidental Observer. They were posted yesterday by a commenter whose native language probably is not English:
I think it is very clear that the more male influence there is in society, the more xenophobic that society is. The more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society is.
Have a look at Sweden—the most feminised country on Earth. It has accepted much more refugees per capita than Germany itself. It is Number 1 in Europe for accepted refugees per capita. And many people are calling Germany crazy. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany.
What is causing this pathological altruism? Jews? There are very few of them in Sweden, although they do control some of the media. I think mister [Kevin] McDonald had trouble proving that pathological altruism in Sweden is caused by Jewish influence alone. It is not caused either by the fact that they are northern peoples either, since northern peoples were way more xenophobic a hundred years ago. [MacDonald’s article: here] Then no Muslims were allowed in Northern Europe. No non-European minorities. It was totally populated by white people. And before a hundred years ago America was way more xenophobic as well. All of Europe was more xenophobic.
So what caused the decrease of xenophobia in the US and Europe? Simple: the increase in female influence. Since females are less xenophobic than males, the more female influence there is in society, the less xenophobic that society will be.
This is why countries in Eastern Europe are still hostile towards immigration and multiculturalism and are totally white. In Eastern Europe there is no feminism at all. Women there are more feminine. They are all male-dominated countries; most people in Eastern Europe even don’t know what “sexism” is. White men there are still violent and to be a macho is not considered to be something bad…
I don’t blame or hate women, since that’s their nature. Don’t expect them to fix the problems of the white people. But I do believe that any group that does not control the behaviour of their women—especially their birth-rates, marrying rates, and phenomena such as women politically siding with other groups against their own men—sooner or later ceases to exist.
So the problem is with white men, who don’t keep their women under control, and instead idolise women and think they are angels, or perfect beings. They are not. They are simply humans, who can make mistakes, have weaknesses, and are far from perfect.
So it is white men to blame, for being unable to keep their women in check.
Night of 15th-16th January 1942
A woman of genius
—The Arts must be protected.
It’s claimed that women have no creative genius. But there’s one extraordinary woman, and it irritates me that men don’t do her justice. Angelica Kauffmann was a very great painter. The most illustrious of her own contemporaries admired her.
For Linz Museum I can think of only one motto: “To the German people, that which belongs to it.”
The Munich Pinakothek is one of the most magnificent achievements in the world. It’s the work of one man. What Munich owes to Ludwig I is beyond computing. And what the whole German people owes to him ! The palace of the Uffizi at Florence does honour not to Florence alone, but to all Italy.
26th January 1942, evening
Women in politics.
I detest women who dabble in politics. And if their dabbling extends to military matters, it becomes utterly unendurable.
In no local section of the Party has a woman ever had the right to hold even the smallest post. It has therefore often been said that we were a party of misogynists, who regarded a woman only as a machine for making children, or else as a plaything.
That’s far from being the case. I attached a lot of importance to women in the field of the training of youth, and that of good works. In 1924 we had a sudden upsurge of women who were attracted by politics: Frau von Treuenfels and Matilde von Kemnitz. They wanted to join the Reichstag, in order to raise the moral level of that body, so they said. I told them that 90 per cent of the matters dealt with by parliament were masculine affairs, on which they could not have opinions of any value.
Everything that entails combat is exclusively men’s business. There are so many other fields in which one must rely upon women. Organising a house, for example. Few men have Frau Troost’s talent in matters concerning interior decoration. There were four women whom I give star rôles: Frau Troost, Frau Wagner, Frau Scholtz-Klink and Leni Riefenstahl.
1st March 1942, evening
Jealousy of women.
In the eyes of a woman, the finest of dresses at once loses its charm—if she sees another woman wearing one like it. I’ve seen a woman suddenly leave the opera at the sight of a rival who had entered a box wearing the same dress as herself. “What cheek!” she said. “I’m going!”
In the pleasure a woman takes in rigging herself out, there is always an admixture of some trouble-making element, something treacherous—to awaken another woman’s jealousy by displaying something that the latter doesn’t possess. Women have the talent, which is unknown to us males, for giving a kiss to a woman-friend and at the same time piercing her heart with a well-sharpened stiletto. To wish to change women in this respect would be ingenuous: women are what they are. Let’s come to terms with their little weaknesses. And if women really only need satisfactions of that sort to keep them happy, let them not deprive themselves, by any means!
For my part, I prefer to see them thus occupied than devoting themselves to metaphysics. There’s no worse disaster than to see them grappling with ideas. In that respect, the point of disaster is reached by women painters, who attach no importance to beauty—when it’s a question of themselves! Other women are extremely careful of their appearance, but not beyond the moment when they’ve found a husband.
Social prejudices are in the process of disappearing. More and more, nature is reclaiming her rights. We’re moving in the proper direction. I’ve much more respect for the woman who has an illegitimate child than for an old maid. I’ve often been told of unmarried women who had children and brought these children up in a truly touching manner. It often happens amongst women servants, notably. The women who have no children finally go off their heads.
I often think of those women who people the convents—because they haven’t met the man with whom they would have wished to share their lives. With the exception of those who were promised to God by their parents, most of them, in fact, are women cheated by life. Human beings are made to suffer passively. Rare are the beings capable of coming to grips with existence.
Night of 10th-11th March 1942
Feminine jealousy is a defensive reaction
—Some stories about women.
In woman, jealousy is a defensive reaction. It surely has an ancestral origin, and must go back to the time when woman simply couldn’t do without the protection of a man. First of all, it’s the reaction of a pregnant woman, who as such has all the more need of protection. She feels so weak in those circumstances, so timid—for herself and for the child she’s carrying. And this child itself, how many years will it take to gain its independence! Without the protection of a man, woman would feel exposed to all perils. So it’s natural that she should be quite particularly attached to the hero, to the man who gives her the most security. Once this security is obtained, it’s comprehensible that she should bitterly defend her property—hence the origin of jealousy.
I knew a woman whose voice became raucous with emotion when I spoke in her presence to another woman. Man’s universe is vast compared with that of woman. Man is taken up with his ideas, his preoccupations. It’s only incidental if he devotes all his thoughts to a woman. Woman’s universe, on the other hand, is man. She sees nothing else, so to speak, and that’s why she’s capable of loving so deeply.
Intelligence, in a woman, is not an essential thing. My mother, for example, would have cut a poor figure in the society of our cultivated women. She lived strictly for her husband and children. They were her entire universe. But she gave a son to Germany.
“If a woman has only manly virtues, we run away…”
—Nietzsche
“Never trust a woman
even if she has borne you seven children.”
“The tongue of woman is her sword, which never rusts.”