Femininity; or lack thereof (- X)

If supposedly a universal force/God made nature and then nature made us, then by following nature, we are following God. This logically makes sense, Right? Yes, it does. Since the dawn (or creation) of mankind, we have always followed this ideology. Everything we did across the world was in the progression of nature and God being dominant ie gender roles being practically mandatory in all societies with the polytheistic ones being always having the deities of fertility being female.

We must turn to just passed the Victorian age to see the first decline in femininity. The Suffragette movement – which had moved to violence and domestic terrorism (via post box bombings) had finally been allowed to influence British law by bringing in the Parliament Act 1918[1] which allowed women over thirty and that was then reduced to 21 in the 1928[2] amendment. But what does this mean? And why did this happen?

Let’s look at the overall society at the time to truly understand the plan. The west was getting ready for women to go into businesses, government, education and media and if you read my essay (Out of the Ashes), you would realise these four sectors they would enter into are the domains of the Cathedral. These were the new foot soldiers of progress and each part of the Cathedral had a significant advantage with women being given equality in all aspects of society.

The Cathedral -

Education is there to increase the amount of ideas and also increase their principles of equality and progressive doctrines (due to universities almost always being more left-wing). It is also very good for the university to have women for the mental health aspect as the courses are sometimes extremely mentally taxing and thus a women care is better for a student than a mans are they are highly adept, even from a young age, in the field of emotion. Furthermore, women overall, do have a better obedience level and are less likely to come distracted or simply bored by the subject, making them much better subjects in the education system over boys as they will, on average, work harder and with less obstructions. Thus, that, coupled with women have a higher average IQ over men, we can start to logically see the understanding why any educational entity would be more than happy to take in such a beneficial demographic into their establishments.

Governments get an advantage due to them being based on voting and virtue signalling. This means they just have to do something nice for Group X and usually for that election Group X will be loyal to them, helping them in power. However, if we look at who brought in such an act – that being the Liberal Party, we can begin to understand the reason. Originally, women voted more right wing when compared to men (due to religiosity) as we can see is an advantage for the then Centre-right Liberal Party under David Lloyd George (for the Parliament Act 1918) and then for the more traditional conservative party a decade later. However, due to the decline of the religion, women have picked up feminism as their dogma and ran with it, making women from the 1960’s[3] onwards start to shift strongly to the left to the point where men are now pretty much right wing and women are left wing – meaning the Cathedral now uses women as its foot soldiers to push its progressive agenda instead of the university men of old who used to question religion to the point of becoming atheist and liberal.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/8-9/47/contents/enacted [2] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/case-study-the-right-to-vote/the-right-to-vote/birmingham-and-the-equal-franchise/1928-equal-franchise-act/ [3] https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-71#:~:text=Although%20men%20and%20women%20vote%20at%20similar%20rates,deliberation%2C%20representation%2C%20and%20legitimacy%20in%20the%20democratic%20process. However, the worst thing from women in politics is zealotry. Fiercely unattractive women who have no other skills but to destroy beauty. We can see this in the current year with legislative body shaming and the like with these zealous women (whom are almost always on hard left party factions) weaponising sexism against beautiful women in terms of jealousy. We have seen this with cancelling of models on billboards and track girls from racing, yet these were only a few years ago – we can expect this to get worse. A woman with no husband, no children and no other skills in life except to pander to the masses is a dangerous woman indeed. Look at all the women involved in destroying the west – Sturgeon, Cortez, Abbott. The trend becomes ever clearer when you read more and more in depth because fundamentally the party is all they have.

The media would love women as they showed their worth in the first world war by coercing men into joining the conflict by use of the white feather. It is often well known that men will usually listen to women and their desires for an increase in status – be it to mate with the said women, or to seem more loyal to the cause they are in – either establishment positions like a good family man or loyal to opposition movements – ie the punks and other ‘rebellious’ an avant-garde groups. As we can logically deduce from this, women ultimately control the standard of masculinity whether they intentionally know it or not. This is due to them possibly declining men who they deem ‘not manly enough’ or whom shows more feminine qualities such as cowardice (as shown in the war) even if it was fully justified. Men’s fundamental need to pass on their genes usually overrides their own need for survival thus ‘bending over backwards’ just for children. Well, lets say this is weaponised by the media and thus you have a generation (or three) of young men and women being told by an authority voice what the new masculinity is and thus the young women taking on this duty to police it and believe that this new lack of masculinity is good for their genes and thus becoming attracted to weakness – ousting stronger, more masculine men into the fringes. We can see this now as many women seeing normal masculine behaviour such as violence, domination and competition as ‘Toxic Masculinity’. However, do not twist my words into violence and domination being towards the wife, quite the contrary because that’s not being a masculine, that’s being predatory, which true, heroic masculinity opposes. I am suggesting that when a man learns to compete and destroy and then dominate his supposed ‘enemies’ and ‘threats’ to protect his wife and children, he will be far fairer handed and gentle with both but strength and power from a proud husband on a national scale is dangerous to the progressive plan and thus its up to them to crush them through school brainwashing.

Business gets a massive boon from the suffrage movement – perhaps it could be argued that it’s the biggest. In economics, whenever something loses scarcity it becomes less valuable. Now let’s say we put millions of women are put into the workforce at once – that would mean the value of each person would drop substantially. Who cares if he quits his job over low pay now? We will have women at the door willing to take his job. Unions will also be crushed by women ‘empowerment’ as this work force, as just mentioned would drop a working mans pay to the point where his would struggle to have both a traditional family and a well fed one. Thus, two options would happen – women would be forced from looking after the family into going into work or him hoping there is another job out there.

The economy of job relations-

But let’s look at the current progress of job relations – We must, pretty much as standard, have a university degree to get the most basic of jobs. Now we can see who benefits – formally traditional families being ‘retrained’ through the progressive machine of university, making the business of university very rich and brainwashing them at the same time and then as the new generation enters the workforce, you will see an increase in skills and experience begin to skyrocket for ridiculously low paid jobs as the standard education level shoots up. Think about who benefits. Not the worker. Not the customer. Its only the businesses and universities. Do you think that a worker really wanted to spend £30,000 in a degree on computing and being forced to listen to progressive agendas just so he can work at tech support? Oh God no. The job market has forced him to. However, we cannot be just blame women but fundamentally they were the first demographic to be weaponised at crashing wages and the importance of workers which has been hastened by the escalation of university qualifications and immigration of both low and high skilled workers who will compete with the British at all tiers of the economy.

So, why women being in the four parts of the cathedral so bad? Well, originally, it could be seen as very good. Smaller Businesses having a better chance of staying afloat due to them being able to have a higher chance of finding vacant jobs faster before the whole company falls etc. Yet, long term it has devastating effects on society.

The Long-term effects of feminism -

We must look back to our creation to understand our natural roles. I will explain my point in extremely rudimentary terms, but it is mankind in its purest essence – men fight and gain money, wealth and power and kill anything trying to threaten them or his family. Women’s nature is to reproduce and protect the children at any cost.

If we use the basic viewpoints we can see how the long-term problems will arise in society. The first problem with women in the work place is competition. We can logically work out that if men and women are unsegregated then they are more likely to be around each other and thus strike up bonds and bad blood. Either one is a lose-lose situation for society. If men and women strike up friendships at work, there is a chance that it could lead to something further, which, if one of them is married, would lead to a disaster in the domestic sense. This is due to them being around a ‘mate’ for 9 hours a day, five days a week which would confuse the body into an almost semi-permanent condition where both of the workers would be unable to not see each other (usually due to it being such a confined space like an office or such).

However, even worse is the ability now to hide adultery. Oh, you had sex? Its fine, you have condoms and birth control basically relegating sex to a purely sensual and hedonistic action instead of one of passing on the bloodline. Let’s take this further and now we use abortion like an everyday occurrence. Regardless on your position of extraordinary events on abortion, you should, and most likely will agree, that abortion after casual sex is deeply immoral. You are willing to sacrifice your own genes (regardless of if you think it’s a life or not) for pleasure. That’s total disrespect to yourself aswell as your ancestors and what they have gone through just for you to bypass nature for fun. I find it simply sad that people are so animalistic and self-absorbed that they will not just wait for sex after marriage – for if you are doing it for sex, then why get married in the first place if you can get what you want without commitment and then we see why marriage has dropped to an all time low.

The second problem is ‘bad blood’. Considering there is only a select amount of positions up for grabs at any one time, it puts unhealthy competition between the sexes. Men and women should never have to fight for the same position but instead be separated, equal in importance and complement each other. We can see this ‘war of the sexes’ has been pushed by capitalists in the form of feminism – ‘A women can do anything a man can’ which, of course, like all groups, has bred extremists – these ones being in the form of zealous militant man haters, pushing some weaker men off the edge and into the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) and Inceldom to counter the misandry with equally hate filled misogyny.

The first outcome (adultery) causes morality and trust to degrade in a relationship, but, if put on a wide enough scale it will end civilisation. If we quote the great Saladin of Jerusalem he stated: ‘If you want to destroy any nation without war, make adultery or nudity common in the young generation’. We can agree that this fantastically sums up that we are closing ever closer to the edge. Sexual immortality is extremely important. If we look at the report by the Oxford Anthropologist J.D Unwin[1], we can see that any deviation from the norm (that being monogamy) in mass society will lead to the entire civilizational collapse in three generations.

The Four Rules of Education -

Well, that time frame, plus the true final push of feminism (and subsequent lack of housewifery and thus transformation lesser men) can see those taking the most radical positions (‘Feminazis’, Incels and the like) have pretty much a guaranteed chance of being childless unless they abstain from their position. Women being in the work place will mean that they are less likely to have children as the follow what I call ‘The Four Rules of Education’:

1) they wish to focus on their career as they have invested so much money into their education

2) if they wish to have children, it would be at a later date (due to it being simply stupid to do a three/four-year degree and spend £30,000 on a degree just to be a housewife)

3) The age they decide they have kids (lets say 28) would seriously reduce their chance to have more children than the replacement rate (2.11 children per mother) as they have neglected their most fertile period of their life for work

4) and that is based on the assumption that they can find a mate. This is due to women usually finding wealth and influence attractive in a man (because in nature they must look for the best source of resources for their offspring). Thus, that’s why the man with all the women is usually a guy with a multimillion dollar company and turns up to companies with a Ferrari. If a women makes more money than 99% of the whole population, her mating pool is extremely limited as firstly she would have to be the breadwinner of the family which is simply a perversion of biology and thus the vast majority of men would be threatened or turned off that a women can be a ‘better man’ than they can leading to her most likely being childless.

The Government of Hungary has even attempted to halt the rate of replacement by using incentives by going tax free for the household after the fourth child[2] and has poured huge amounts of money into the scheme and the evidence so far has shown a general stagnation of Hungary’s child of around 1.5 children per household. There was however, a quite large increase in marriage from the evidence shown, but that didn’t correlate directly into birth-rates. This is most likely due to women still likely following the Four rules of education (as seen above). This scheme, if evidence doesn’t show any difference in the next few years will crush the country economically as the tax payer will be putting a large share of their money into this failed policy. It is possible that it may change, but the evidence so far looks like it’s extremely unlikely meaning economic incentives are now not an option.

[1] https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin [2] https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-hungary-experiencing-a-policy-induced-baby-boom

The Rules for Women -

So, how is the ‘three generations time frame’ important. Well, let’s look at when ‘the final push of feminism’ came into place – the late 1960’s. This was the generation of the Baby Boomers, and thus continued and got worse during the Millennial and the Gen Z eras. We have gone through three generations of gradually older parents and crashing birth rates[1], so bad in fact that part of the migrant crisis was to prop up our population. I suspect we are looking down the barrel of our own destruction if we do not radically change. I suggest a few rules for women in the new society to realign us back to medieval times (however, if you disagree, then you can adapt it how you want).

The first rule is to repeal the Parliament Act 1918 and all its successors to eliminate the large left wing biased voting bloc on the election to bring in a more ultra-traditional government in power at least until the church becomes influential again (or hopefully to the point of a theocracy).

The second rule is to subsidise university to women to the point where they get it two thirds off their university course so they do not feel as forced to spend time in careers and have an easier choice for being a housewife but not restrict them on education as they should have a right to understand the world like a man can (so they don’t have a brain like a slave but an actual human).

The third rule is to segregate every workplace and institution of education by gender to reduce inter gender contact as much as possible as the sheer chance of temptation will be lower and thus, adultery should begin to decline, even if it’s by a small amount, if not a total restriction of women from work to focus on child bearing.

The fourth rule is to ban immodest clothing. If you treat yourself as a piece of meat, you are more willing to do immoral things as if you don’t care what people say about your clothes then you don’t care about what people think about your actions. You cannot claim ‘You are not respecting my body’ when you are borderline naked in the street or wearing clothes blatantly trying to attract the male gaze. You can celebrate your body with more modest clothing. Being a woman isn’t just about how many men you can bring into bed with you, it is about counteracting male aggressive behaviour with a calmer, more emotional and more personal touch in any situation. Quite frankly, if me, a male, has to tell you what a woman is and should be, then maybe you should rethink your own viewpoint on femininity.

Finally, the fifth rule is that there must be good moral women that we exalt. No more Kim Kardashian posing naked in front of a camera with alcohol, but instead a woman who love her children, her husband and her community. Usually, when you meet an ultra-traditional woman, you will feel much safer around them due to them being more giving to the people around them – accepting their purely feminine nature to kind, caring and the heart of the household. (obviously there are some who are indeed just putting on a friendly mask, but its in the vast minority).

(I do also suggest some sort of restriction on false sexual assault accusations but due to this being a rather difficult beast to tackle I decided not to open this can of worms during this essay)

Conclusion -

These rules may be ruthless and draconian but fundamentally, a society that cannot guarantee its next generation is doomed to collapse. Militaries and police are around to protect the society and thus create a stable enough condition for children to be made. This is the same for laws and economies. A civilisation has two choices at the point we are at – either we drop our borders, protective forces and laws as they are practically useless for a dying society, or we become return to old and see our birth rates fly through the roof to the point where we can surpass the rate of replacement and have a net growth of European descendants. All else has failed – education, monetary incentives etc but now there is only one option left – repealing the legislation that has caused chaos for a century and time and options are quickly running out.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Fertility_statistics