The Advantages of a Patriarchy against the Barbarism of the Matriarchy
Are men naturally non-interventionists and women naturally censorious and interfering?
Is our nanny state the result of feminine values predominating and a national manifestation of feminine neurosis and irrationality?
Is Western civilisation doomed if it does not address this problem? Surely it must pull itself back into masculine preoccupations of analysis and rational problem-solving as opposed to feminine displacement activity?
History is replete with patriarchies while matriarchies are unheard of. Is it because matriarchies are by definition incapable of practising anything as civilised as reading and writing, because its natural state is simply breeding, emotionalism and barbarism?
The refusal to address the problem of single mummery is the chief reason why we have ever-declining educational standards which successive governments are too frightened to address for fear of giving offence to the illegitimate and the mothers of the illegitimate, and of course the female-dominated teaching profession.
Those who are illegitimate will have fewer inhibitions about having illegitimate children and so the rot slides down its slippery slope, and we with it.
46% of babies are now born out of wedlock.
70% of our prison population were singly-parented.
And still the liberal establishment will not speak out against single mummery.
Do such incompetents, cowards and hypocrites deserve to rule over those they regularly denounce as extremist, such as the BNP and the Muslims?
Feminine neurosis does not affect women alone. There are many emasculated liberal men who subscribe to all the irrational values of feminism and are permanently frightened of giving offence. Many of them are prominent male politicians. Some of them even support the paedophile tax (of paying £64 to the government to "prove" you are not a paedophile), even as they know that it would do nothing to protect children. These men are either eunuchs or drones.
Is it not time they were sent on their way, in favour of courageous, principled rational and masculine leadership or at least by women capable of thinking in these terms?
Good husbandry is a after all male concept. It means delegating that which needs delegating while you get on with more important matters. Women need to be kept properly occupied or they will simply interfere and impose their irrational emotionalism on everything and everyone else, to the detriment of society and the civilisation that that society is part of.
Is our nanny state the result of feminine values predominating and a national manifestation of feminine neurosis and irrationality?
Is Western civilisation doomed if it does not address this problem? Surely it must pull itself back into masculine preoccupations of analysis and rational problem-solving as opposed to feminine displacement activity?
History is replete with patriarchies while matriarchies are unheard of. Is it because matriarchies are by definition incapable of practising anything as civilised as reading and writing, because its natural state is simply breeding, emotionalism and barbarism?
The refusal to address the problem of single mummery is the chief reason why we have ever-declining educational standards which successive governments are too frightened to address for fear of giving offence to the illegitimate and the mothers of the illegitimate, and of course the female-dominated teaching profession.
Those who are illegitimate will have fewer inhibitions about having illegitimate children and so the rot slides down its slippery slope, and we with it.
46% of babies are now born out of wedlock.
70% of our prison population were singly-parented.
And still the liberal establishment will not speak out against single mummery.
Do such incompetents, cowards and hypocrites deserve to rule over those they regularly denounce as extremist, such as the BNP and the Muslims?
Feminine neurosis does not affect women alone. There are many emasculated liberal men who subscribe to all the irrational values of feminism and are permanently frightened of giving offence. Many of them are prominent male politicians. Some of them even support the paedophile tax (of paying £64 to the government to "prove" you are not a paedophile), even as they know that it would do nothing to protect children. These men are either eunuchs or drones.
Is it not time they were sent on their way, in favour of courageous, principled rational and masculine leadership or at least by women capable of thinking in these terms?
Good husbandry is a after all male concept. It means delegating that which needs delegating while you get on with more important matters. Women need to be kept properly occupied or they will simply interfere and impose their irrational emotionalism on everything and everyone else, to the detriment of society and the civilisation that that society is part of.
Comments
I am writing to congratulate you for your blog. It's important to have such brave words like yours to denounce the madness heterosexual relationships are in, and to recover some kind of sanity for the well being of our societies. I am a 39 single man who lives in Mexico City. When I was younger I didn't want to marry before I could get some financial stability and maturity for such a big responsibility. However, over the years I have witnessed a steady deterioration of the marriage as an institution due in much to the fact that there is a permanent hate speech against men and masculine roles in society. As any decent man in the world, I perfectly agree with the right every woman have to have a life of their own, a career, a job, a business. However, most of modern women today practice a deep misandry which makes you feel worthless. I have even wondered of looking a wife abroad, Easter Europe, Asia, etc. Places where feminism hasn't gone so deep in women's souls. Keep doing the good job!