Note: This article is also available in Portuguese and Romanian.
Italy, The United States, The Congo, The United Kingdom, South Korea, Denmark, Australia, Mexico, India, Japan, Canada and Spain. It is a very disparate (and only partial) list of countries, a blend of east and west; an extreme mix of languages and cultures spanning the entire planet. However differentiated in terms of societal norms and governance, however stark the surface contrast, all these places do have one very powerful and prominent thing that inextricably weaves through the fabric of their very existence, uniting them.
It is the same common thread that now runs through many other familiar entities: The Pentagon, Federal Express, The European Union, conservative political parties, Rock and Roll Music, The Prime Minister of England, nearly every criminal code on earth, The Australian Parliament, Country Music, liberal political parties, all Fortune 500 Companies, Oxford, Fox News, The United Nations, The Salvation Army, The Ford Foundation and The New York Times.
All these institutions, these countries, cultures, corporations and constructs have in common that to a greater or lesser degree, usually greater, they have been impacted by the spread and influence of gender feminism.
We see it in the wholesale acceptance of manufactured research results and bogus statistics supporting the feminist narrative that are parroted without consideration or vetting by media outlets, state functionaries and political candidates (regardless of party) worldwide.
It is visible in the exponential rise in draconian laws that eviscerate canons of law that have stood for centuries; railroading innocent men into shackles and making them the property of a prison-industrial complex that has risen into prominence in the last fifty years.
It shows itself in college “honor courts” that have become star chambers, meting out life-altering consequences without proof, without even meeting the paltry new standards coerced by a corrupt presidential administration.
We are bombarded by it from the media, bombastically pounding us with disinformation and blackmailing us with the shame they have been instilling in us for decades.
We often joke, and with good reason, about the stupidity of feminists. After all, have you ever seen Futrelle in a debate, watched Sarkeesian damsel herself while complaining about damseling, listened to Rebecca Watson try to convince skeptics that an invitation to coffee is a threat and social issue for women, or read a few lines of Ally Fogg just after he tells you he is not a feminist?
In fact, in the realm of feminism, particularly online, stupidity is regarded as good breeding; an asset that will get you to the top.
But the question remains, if feminists are so stupid, then why is feminism now the dominant ideology on the planet, affecting almost every institution, political apparatus, provider of every level of education, as well as every law enforcement agency and corporate entity known?
If feminists are so intellectually vacant, then why are we here, without resources and struggling mightily to skate by on guile and creativity in order to do anything about the supposed idiots?
The answer to that is as simple as it is forbidding.
Feminism is not for feminists. Feminists are idiots, but they are the useful idiots in the description previously reserved for Soviet sycophants in cold war America.
Feminism, in reality, is for governments and corporations. And it is the most effective tool for control of the masses since the riot baton and water cannons.
I think, as we look across the map, from Stockholm to San Diego, from Tokyo to Toronto, we are not seeing a world that has just bought in to the gender dominated ramblings of a bunch of morons that could not cut it in STEM. Nor are we seeing the work of regressive female troglodytes sporting Doc Martins, one eyebrow and lip hair that aspires to be a moustache.
What we are seeing is a chain of governments, and just as importantly their powerhouse corporate interests, that have figured out the “secret” to inflicting whatever serves them on the populace without causing significant resistance.
They have found that the best method for making people toe the government line is not with iron-fisted restrictions on freedom of speech, the press and the right to assembly. Those are old world strategies still at play in some Third World regions, but not in the industrialized world. Much too passé and inefficient.
First World governments, and even some who barely qualify, have discovered that they can control the masses with aggressive gynocentrism.
The method for doing so is not that difficult. All it takes is a little time, a little money, and more than a little basic understanding of human sociobiology. In fact, if you play your cards anything less than sloppy, you can control the masses with enthusiastic help — from the masses.
There are some basic laws that form the foundation for this kind of control. They are based on characteristics that trend heavily in the respective sexes. They are not 100% fixed, and there are exceptions, which of course means they are not laws in the scientific sense. The term law is used illustratively, not literally.
The exceptions are pretty rare, though. There are very few of them comparatively; not enough to get in the way of asserting control if you are committed to it.
Discussing these laws requires some advance qualification. In them you will see many blanket and highly generalized statements about men and women, much of it unflattering. Keep in mind two things. One, these laws deal with specific areas of sexually rooted behavior and attitudes. They are not intended as any kind of complete description of men and women. They are merely microcosms.
Second, the criticism is balanced. Not out of an orchestrated attempt to be egalitarian, but because the behaviors to be found here are more or less of equal proportion in both men and women. I am not painting one as better, more moral or more principled than the other, because that is not the case. When it comes to the human weaknesses that allow and enable this particular kind of tyranny, men and women find themselves in the rare position of being absolute equals.
So let us begin.
The Laws Regarding Men and Women:
- Men will not oppose anything perceived to benefit women. Protecting women, and providing for them and their children, is an innate instinct in men. Note that the law says “perceived.” It matters not if a particular thing actually benefits women, or if in fact it harms them, if the perception is popular that a particular thing benefits women, men will support it, even at their own expense and to their detriment.
Men will attack and shun other men for violating law number one. This relates to enforcement. The perception qualification still applies. In the social, legal and political realms, men will attack, verbally and physically, men who are perceived to either harm women or who oppose anything perceived to protect women. In fact, in the minds of men those two things, harming women or opposing an attempt at their protection, are literally the same thing.
Men have almost no limits to how far they will go regarding adherence to laws number one and two. This includes the fact that men will have their own families ripped apart by corrupt courts, in the process suffering false allegations, alienation from their children, loss of home and income, staving off suicidal impulses, and ultimately react to it all by seeking another wife and telling men who experience those problems that they need to shut up, or man up, and take it. They will view a man who does not support VAWA as a man who supports domestic violence and a man who does not support rape shield laws as a man who supports rape. The list goes on.
Men will not complain collectively about anything that happens to them as a group. This crucial law is particularly beneficial to achieving complete governmental/corporate control. Attacks and affronts to men as a group will not cause a collective group reaction. Ever. You can imprison them, beat them, steal their property, demonize their sons, psychologically destroy their children, relegate them to the streets, tax them and spend their money on other groups, and as men they will not react. Again, ever. Indeed, men will, in accordance with laws number one and two, assist the state in the furtherance of such abuses as long as the dominant public perception is that it is done under the auspices of protecting women.
- Women will not oppose anything perceived to benefit them as a group. On the surface this may seem innocuous and even just human, but it extends into some pretty inhuman areas. As a group, women will not oppose anything, no matter how destructive it may be to others, and ultimately themselves, if they perceive an immediate benefit. They won’t, as a group, oppose all male Selective Service, all male genital mutilation, taking the lion’s share of resources produced by men and redistributing it to women or any other injustice that works in their favor. They will not oppose clearly oppressive and unConstitutional laws, as long as they perceive a benefit to women. They will not oppose the complete disappearance of men from education and the workplace, as long as they perceive it works to their advantage. That list goes on as well.
Women will attack and shun other women for violating law number one. The women who violate that law are frequently considered “traitors” to other women, and they will be marginalized and ostracized. The nature and scope of the attacks against them are generally less extreme than those against men, but they are completely real. Women will attack and shun other women for supporting any ideas that do not include women as the primary and often sole beneficiaries of social services, special legal protections, government subsidies and even deference to opinions. Women, by and large, are women first and women only.
Women have virtually no limits to how far they will go regarding adherence to laws number one and two. This includes willingness to see their own children psychologically damaged for perceived personal advantage and seeing male loved ones abused and even destroyed by the state and other entities for the advantage of other women. They may experience outrage over how that abuse and destruction impacts them and the men they hold dear, but it will not translate into a meaningful outrage over what happens to men as a class.
Women will complain collectively about whatever happens to them as a group, regardless of whether it is really happening. The only requirement is that some level of perception of a problem be there. Women, as a group, will complain for decades about long debunked injustices against them, and refuse to even entertain evidence to the contrary. Men will do this, too, but for women, not for themselves. The point of law number four for women is that it informs government and corporate entities that in order to create social momentum sufficient to pass laws and justify political policy, all it needs to do is frame information, accurate or not, in a way that paints women as victim class. Sociobiology will take over from there.
These are the laws on which modern tyranny is built. Why? Because these laws determine what people will vote for and what they will tolerate. Again, they are not presented so as to pass moral judgment on men or women. These traits are an innate part of the human condition in both sexes. Faulting women as a class for blindly taking advantage of unfair laws is only as legitimate as faulting men for enabling and abetting the exact same thing.
These laws are passed with both sexes working in cooperation to do it, and failing to recognize that also blinds us to the possible solutions, whatever they may be.
What is important here is to take this understanding of the predictability of attitudes and behavior innate in men and women, and see how those things might be exploited to exert control over the masses and intrude unreasonably into private life, which might just be a clue as to how it has already happened.
What would we do if we wanted a government and/or a corporate hegemony that could work unimpeded toward any end it wanted, and without the nuisance of law or civil rights concerns getting in the way?
A good place to start is to disempower the average man (not the .01% at the top and who will remain there regardless). Make the average man a default criminal, not even fit to sit next to a child on a plane. Turn him into a looming, potential threat that demands some kind of management. Treat him as a potential rapist and an abuser. Tie it all to the protection and advantage of women.
Set up law enforcement and legal apparatuses that are geared primarily to interdict on masculinity itself, or rather the version of masculinity being sold by those in charge. Use it mercilessly. Throw due process and presumed innocence out the window. Make it socially unpopular to even object to it. This works especially well in minority communities who will complain vociferously about racial profiling, but will fall silent when the discrimination is based on sex and is against men. Count on the silence and enforcement for non-compliance guaranteed by the laws that govern men and women to be in overdrive here.
Check that one off the list, too.
Men are much more likely to challenge authority, e.g. their own governments, when the well-being of their families is at stake. It is therefore essential to strip away male authority and presence in the family home. Make divorce easily accessible, even popular, profitable, and stack the deck against men in family courts. The laws of men and women will ensure they stay largely silent about it, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how much harm it causes, even as it destroys children. And it won’t matter in the long run, those children will grow into consumers, too. Money from damaged people spends just as well.
Some of them will grow into criminals because of these abuses, but they can be incarcerated. That too is a business.
Tick the box on this one, also.
Remove men from education and any part of the workforce in which being a man is not absolutely essential. Keep men in ditches, trucks, fishing boats and the unemployment line. Make them as unattractive as possible for the possibility of starting families that they might eventually want to protect from a government out of control with power. Use them to wage war when corporate interests demand it, and if they are married, assist the wives in finishing them off once they return from the front, broken or deemed dangerous. They won’t complain. They may kill themselves, but they won’t complain. Women won’t complain, either. In fact, both will actually feel good about it, or at least act like they do. It is in the sociobiology. Remember the laws.
This one is In progress. Outlook promising.
Systematically indoctrinate women into the mindset that they are victims, feed them disinformation until they feel they are owed the right to inflict whatever harm they want to on the criminal class, and provide the state services needed to assist them. A fabricated wage gap becomes a gender gap. An imaginary glass ceiling becomes a very real glass wall in almost no time. A status as sole victim in domestic disputes becomes a license to attack and then call state functionaries to haul off your victim.
Give women a false sense of empowerment.
It is easiest to do this as you make a public display of the disempowerment of men. They will see it happening in front of their eyes and then swear it is a man’s world because on some level they know that crazy belief is fueling the actual disempowerment they are witnessing.
Shame women for valuing motherhood more than professional life. Help them view their children and especially their husbands as hindrances, rather than assets. Socialize them to value work and the state over motherhood and family. Push them toward low paying (but taxable) jobs, while binding them to state-provided subsidies like WIC, food stamps, welfare, child support and alimony. Make them obedient taxpaying consumers that support feminist governance because for many of them it will be the difference between just being poor and being really impoverished. Make them financially and psychologically dependent on their own enslavement.
Tell them they can achieve the top, then point them toward the middle and lock them in. Do all this and put a gun in their hand that they can use on men at will, and they will be obedient servants of the state for life. Remember, as long as they perceive they have the advantage, that they are empowered, even sitting there in a corporate cubicle, missing their child with dark bags under their eyes, they will act like puppets on a string.
Done, done and done.
The point here is that feminism is not a sweeping movement for change or a way to liberate women (and allegedly men) from the burdens of their sexual role in the world. It is not a movement for equality or justice.
Feminism is nothing more than a government tool by which governments can roughly double the number of taxpayers; by which civil liberties can be swept aside so that money can be extracted. It is a way to eviscerate freedoms on every level, while getting the population to do the bulk of the work to make it happen. It is a way to insert government control into every possible aspect of modern human life, from the bedroom to the boardroom. It is not stupid. It is fucking brilliant in an evil sort of way.
The most valuable tool to make that happen is the X%.
Who and what are the X%? They are the small percent of men and women that ultimately cause the most terror and the most additional impetus to not violate the laws governing men and women.
The fact is that all women are issued the gun that they can use to cause egregious harm in the lives of men. Most of them don’t do it. That is not a blanket pass because most women (and men) will stay silent while it happens to others, but the fact is that only X% of women will beat a man then call the cops on him. Only X% of women will falsely accuse men of rape or domestic violence. Only X% of women will ruin the lives of their children just so they can get back at a man for daring not to love them any more after years of her abuse.
The same holds true of men. In them, the X% are the men who stand up most vocally for injustice and hatred and to help blind people to what is happening. Men like David Futrelle, Michael Kimmel, et al, the occasional rabid white knight that shows up here to tell us that women never lie about rape, the British politician who says men should be put in chains and forced to support women. In their ranks are also the men who will hunt down and beat and sometimes kill other men in order to provide the service of proxy violence to women.
The rest of the human species, the great majority, are just the ones that obey the laws of men and women and thereby ensure that all this shit continues to go down without reaction.
Other than the men who turn violent, the law, the real law, will do nothing to stop any of it. By ignoring the conduct of the X% it spreads a clear message to the others who might just change their minds at some point.
Oh, and by the way, X% is no small number of people in the western world. It is a fuckton of them. They serve as a visible example to everyone of what the rules really are, and who will get away with what.
They advertise the true order of things.
And the true order of things is that governments and corporations are increasingly taking over our lives and our minds. Feminists are not a bunch of nut cases that have taken over the world. They are just a bunch of nut cases that have assisted some really smart and devious people in erasing any impediments they might have ever had at putting a leash on all of us.
And now comes the N%. That would be us. Much smaller than the X%, but growing, even as the X% is shrinking, or at least starting to be exposed to a couple of firsts that they don’t much seem to care for.
The truth, and public humiliation.
I’d call that a good place to start.