Skip to main content

The Feminization Project

Has the female vote improved our lives? 

Should women have the right to vote? 

Should men and women treat each other as equals? 

Many today hardly take a second to ruminate over these questions, assuming the affirmative in each case. 

The truth is, however, that while these political developments over the past century may appear right and just, their effects are indisputable. 

Over the course of pretending that men and women are equal, we have perilously abandoned the truth that men and women are each endowed with unique qualities, affinities and instincts. 

Whether biologically, genetically or otherwise, they are not equal, and they have never demonstrated the capacity to be equal. 

What’s more, many social conventions have been born out of the inherent differences, those inequalities, which have suited households for centuries. 

While each household possesses its own unique dynamics, men have long been embraced for their decision-making, their alertness to foreseeable threats, their capacity to protect and provide, and their ability to think logically and logistically to plan for the future. 

In an environment where men are condemned for embracing their natural instincts and their traditional roles as leaders and protectors, women and their semi-male sidekicks effectively displace men from their natural roles; repress their innate instincts for the benefit of an academic agenda lacking substance, basis and perspective; feminize their civilizations and render them more passive, manipulable and vulnerable to control and despotism. 

In the face of a civilization of passivity, the man who boldly scrutinizes the inanity and follies of newfound conventions subjects himself to the ridicule of the feminized cult that wants nothing more than for the man to shut up, follow orders and abstain from challenging the new status quo. 

While men are not yet being exterminated en masse, the qualities that make them men are nearing extinction. 



Thus, while humans with male features and chromosomal composition will continue to populate the earth, they will be men only by the presence of those features, devoid of the real qualities that distinguished them and made them suitable partners, effective leaders and powerful protectors of their families. 

In eliminating these traits, the government and its exponents succeed in eliminating one of the essential barriers to government’s total control over society. 

Often marketed under more exciting, agreeable or even laudable labels, control is the only thing government has to sell, and it’s really the agents’ only object. 

And the business of politics is always good in that society which has fallen in love with the gilded notions of democracy, whose predictable ramifications are seldom unmatched by their popularity among impressionable, fad-favoring voters who proudly champion their causes. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would