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. 


Popular posts from this blog

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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators  —  who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes  —   who have fallen victim to the groupthink phenomenon, responsible for their nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes; and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their professed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's