The Importance of Choosing Your Mate

by Carolyn Yeager, August 2007 
copyright Carolyn Yeager 2007

How we go about choosing the right mate with which to produce offspring - the future of our race - is a matter far too important to leave to a young woman’s fear, ‘feelings’, or fantasy. Once again, we point to popular culture and media as the culprits teaching girls that ‘love’ and ‘falling in love’ will inevitably just ‘happen’ and when it does, it will be right for them to be swept along in its wake. If you have children, give them this article to read, or if they’re too young to understand it alone, read it to them yourself. It’s never too early to introduce our youth to racial sexual values.

Though it is often said that it’s a man’s world, women have always maintained the power to select when it comes to mating. This is an instinctual trait that nature has given the female so she can secure the best, most compatible genetic material available to her with which to endow her children. As in our distant past, it is still within woman’s power today to give or withhold her sexual receptivity, for Aryan men do not normally force themselves on women.

In some non-Aryan societies, this is not the case. Among Fundamentalist Islamics, for example, their concept of male dominance combined with the idea of uncontrollable male sexual needs has developed into a belief that the female must surrender to any male - in accordance with her own passive or non-resistant nature - which has led to the veiling of females in public. Among Africans, casual non-committal sex and even rape is accepted as the norm, leading to the world’s worst AIDS epidemic.

Aryan men and women evolved far different, more enlightened relationship patterns. But we are currently under great stress because of a hundreds-year-old Jewish effort to infiltrate and control our societies, and to introduce inferior races into our living space. Our young women, if they are to be warrior women, need to know that since 1945, when the Jew was once again released as an economic and social influence in all Western nations, young people have been subjected to intense conditioning to break down their natural resistance to mixing and mating with other races.

Preference for our own kind is innate – it echoes a deeper subconscious impulse to protect the hard-won qualities the race gained during the course of evolution. Those who now label it xenophobia ignore the fact that ‘aversion to strangers’ is what has enabled great periods of civilization like the Elizabethan Age of England’s 16th and early 17th centuries to occur, and abandonment of this aversion coincides with periods of decline, increased loss of character, and impaired stamina and vigor in the general population.

The humanistic sciences have been distorted and “forced” along a propagandistic pathway that disregards essential facts of evolution, race and nature, such as the merits of inbreeding. Uniting two similar streams of hereditary tendencies (inbreeding) will bring latent defects to the surface, cleansing the stock of impurities. Cross-breeding (the mixing of the conspicuously dissimilar, whether in plant, animal or man) tends to hide inherent defects, not exterminate them, and the miscegenated stock grows more and more polluted.

Breeding matters

Cross-breeding can also bring about the phenomenon of reversion, which Charles Darwin described as the cause of “the degraded state of so many half-castes.” England’s Prime Minister David Lloyd George explained it to the House of Commons in 1939 as he spoke about bud pruning and graft-crossing his apple trees. “Unless you are very careful … the old stock breaks out and … destroys the tree. You do not get either a pippin or a Bramley … the tree is so utterly muddled between the one and the other that it produces only sour desiccated crabs” – the primitive fruit from which apples derive.

Reversion constitutes the loss of the qualities, often rare, which a race may have slowly acquired through isolation and inbreeding. It has become a distinctive type which has stabilized and breeds true; breeding true is the distinguishing mark of the thoroughbred. With hybrids and mongrels it’s common for one part of the body to resemble one parent and another part the other parent. If the parents are disharmonious, this can result in disharmonies in the offspring, e.g. large bodies with small internal organs or inadequate circulatory systems, which tax the organism. Or the independent inheritance of legs, arms and trunks that don’t match up, as well as facial features which combine to produce something far less than pleasing.

Along with physical anomalies, personality weaknesses are also produced, ranging from simple indecisiveness to anxiety and more serious mental instabilities. This leads us to the consideration of occupational differences, which, while being less serious than race, can still be problematic. It may sound a bit extreme in the year 2007, but history tells us that having similar family vocations/occupations is a reliable indicator for producing more stable-minded offspring. The Elizabethan Age, when trades, crafts and professions were passed on from father to son for generations, with daughters also marrying ‘into the trade,’ was a period of England’s greatest sanity and health, when a true aristocracy of craftsmanship and skilled workers flourished. By this method of garnering strength through several generations, lunacy and mental derangement was restricted to a few ill-mated Royalty, while the common people cultivated character, and men of high achievement, topped by the incomparable Shakespeare, were produced.

Vocation reveals personality. Note the prevalent occupations of the Jew throughout history: junk dealers, pawnbrokers, mercantile middlemen, money lenders, lawyers, pornographers and propagandists. Do the same with the other races and you will find that none have exhibited the natural productive capacity of the Aryan, whether it is in building trades, industrial trades or agricultural production. If we carelessly mix our genes with those whose life work is too different from our own, there is greater likelihood that our children will be confused and indecisive about what direction to take in life.

Some comments on telegony

On a final note, the subject of telegony is of interest. It’s a controversial belief, denied by the bulk of current establishment science, which goes back to Aristotle and alleges that the heredity of an individual is influenced not only by its father but also by males with whom the female may have mated previously. The idea is that the entire female ovum apparatus is affected by the sperm and hormones injected by the male, thus characteristics from an earlier partner can “show up” in the offspring with a later partner. Breeders call this "throwing back" and physiologists call it "infection of the germ". The known absorption of many substances through ostensible membrane barriers, as proved with the use of beauty and cellulite creams, nicotine and other type patches, gives some basis for the theory.

Up until a few decades ago, all the leading biologists had either subscribed to the telegony doctrine or admitted that "infection of the germ" was well within the bounds of possibilities. According to breeders, evidence of telegony has been found in nearly all the different kinds of domestic mammals and birds, with most stress being laid on the horse and dog families. So, whether telegony is truth or fiction, it always makes more sense to err on the side of caution when dealing with something this important to one’s well-being.

If we are wise, we’ll follow the advice of Professor C. D. Darlington of Oxford, who said back in 1958, “The nation which takes thought for its own genetic future is most likely to have a future.”