On Feminine Insecurity in Politics and Religion
An animal usually living in the vicinity of Man, and having a rudimentary susceptibility to domestication. It is credited by many of the elder zoologists with a certain vestigial docility acquired in a former state of seclusion, but naturalists of the postsusananthony period, having no knowledge of the seclusion, deny the virtue and declare that such as creation's dawn beheld, it roareth now. The species is the most widely distributed of all beasts of prey, infesting all habitable parts of the globe, from Greeland's spicy mountains to India's moral strand. The popular name (wolfman) is incorrect, for the creature is of the cat kind. The woman is lithe and graceful in its movement, especially the American variety (felis pugnans), is omnivorous and can be taught not to talk. —Ambrose Bierce, from The Devil's Dictionary
Hence it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact…that women are defective in the power of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. —Arthur Schopenhauer (ha! this guy was a shitlord)
What has caused more suffering than the stupidity of the compassionate? —Nietzsche
Today I write about a situation that has become all-pervasive in western culture. It is pervasive to the point that many people, especially younger ones, may not even notice it, sort of like a fish not noticing water. But anyone familiar with history (REAL history, not just “progressive” historical revisionism and grievance studies focused on the past) will know that western civilization has essentially been castrated since women have acquired political power, including the right to vote.
I should point out here, before going any further with this, that men and women are biologically different, both physically and mentally, regardless of any “everyone is essentially the same” hysteria insisted upon by feminists. This issue was obvious and not controversial until very recently, whereupon even “woke” scientific journals and textbooks have been claiming that men can menstruate and have babies. Anyway, one biologically conditioned distinction that I intend to emphasize in this little essay (or tirade, or whatever) is that, as a general rule, with many statistical outliers of course, women are more preoccupied with security than are men; they are much more fearful and timid, and much more willing to forfeit their rights and freedoms for the sake of feeling SAFE. Out of the innate compassion of the “fair sex,” they also are willing to forfeit everyone else’s rights and freedoms so that they can feel safe too, whether they want it or not, for their own good. Hence the so-called authoritarian Mommy State.
I should also point out before going any further that I am not a misogynist, and am certainly not MGTOW…though I suppose I was MGTOW by default during my thirty years as a celibate monk. I have always had a deep admiration for women, though not blinding myself to their weaknesses (and of course men have weaknesses too, so I’m not picking on them); and I am now in a really nice loving relationship with a wonderful and lovely female. So I am happily half of a heterosexual pair-bond now, and fully intend to keep it that way.
All that being said, the fact remains that women are, by nature, more insecure emotionally than men are. They also are, for example, more compassion-oriented, which also influences western politics profoundly, with a desire for all children to be fed and so on, maybe to the point of everyone having equal income and outcome (that’s Communism by the way), so that nobody will be deprived, underprivileged, and unhappy…but again, the main point here is that women tend to want SECURITY. Certainly the average female wants security more than freedom.
This means that since women have been granted political power, at least to the extent of being allowed to vote and run for political offices, western civilization has become softer, less aggressive, less austere, less inclined to respect courage and loath cowardice (oftentimes even praising cowardice, or just sympathizing with it), and more likely to protect feelings as well as life and property. It has gotten to the point that offending a leftist has become pretty much of a criminal act, and a newly imposed taboo—though offending right-wingers has become almost a virtue, if virtue still has any meaning among cultural Marxists.
I suspect that this preoccupation with safety and everyone being comfy comes largely through evolved animal instincts in the female human animal. Obviously, the Stone Age was a bit more dangerous than the Information Age, and women are physically less adapted to fighting and more more adapted to raising children than men are. Thus they naturally wanted a man to protect them and their offspring. This was a relatively good system, with a male protector and provider and a female serving as the emotional nucleus of the family and home, keeping things in order while the male was away hunting bison, raiding neighboring villages, or whatever. But the absurd notion, derived in part from pre-Darwinian Marxism, that people are born a blank slate with no innate human nature, and no innate psychological differences between males and females, has resulted in a warped understanding of maleness among “liberated” women who fear and resent the strength of men. Such “empowered” women have tried to phase out masculine virtues and even phase out (or utterly redefine) masculinity itself, preferring to marry the Government than marry a man. Still though, of course, they rely on men to protect them—if not a husband, then armed police enforcing the Mommy State.
So the obvious solution to this is for men to stop apologizing for being men, and for creating western civilization, stop taking the anti-male crap being flung at them from childhood, cultivate the “Divine Masculine,” and maybe even abolish the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1919, calamitously allowing women the right to vote. This last, however, would probably require a pretty radical collapse and reformation of society before it would be thinkable. To some degree the path of “progress” continues forwards until it crashes into the stone wall of unintended consequences.
There is, it seems to me, hypothetically, a religious consequence to feminine insecurity that has been part of western culture since ancient times, and is not entirely the doing of women, though it does seem an aspect of feminine thinking. What I am referring to here is the hysteria and intolerance of feminized ideologies. This is plainly obvious in the postmodern west, as compassionate leftists yammer away about compassion…but only for their own side. They want black empowerment and the end of racism, of course, unless the black person in question rejects the leftist mythology, in which case the person becomes “the black face of white supremacy,” or the “Uncle Tom house nigger,” or some such, and are hated by leftists more openly than are actual white supremacists.
Contradicting the new atheistic, spiritually bankrupt religion of identity politics is, as I have already mentioned, pretty much a criminal act now, quite literally; and if the person guilty of openly disbelieving hysterical drivel cooked up in some Grievance Studies department in some ultraliberal university, possibly cooked up by some diversity hire unqualified even to be there, I say if the person guilty of disbelieving this dreck isn’t arrested, then there’s still a good chance that their social media accounts will be banned, and their means of supporting themselves, as well as their reputation and social standing, will be attacked also by “well meaning” vindictive and insecure activists.
It really does appear likely to me that insecurity is a major cause of the hysteria and intolerance of postmodern leftism. It is largely a feminist movement, with feminized men supporting it as well as women and shemales, and it has absorbed, in my opinion, the instinctive and stereotypical emotional insecurity of the instinctive and stereotypical woman. And by woman I mean an adult human female, with paired X-chromosomes in every nucleated cell in her body, and generally also a pee-pee that goes in.)
So the way it works is this: women (and feminized men) concoct theories about humanity and human society based not on empirical facts (which are sometimes rejected as Tools of Patriarchal Oppression by lefty fanatics), but on emotional wishful thinking, on subjective FEELINGS. These theories do not fit empirical reality very well, as can be seen from their implementation by the Biden administration in the USA, as well as the ongoing fiascos in Canada, New Zealand, and much of the EU. Deep down, some of these people are not even stupid—they’re just indoctrinated and conformist—and so they have subliminal doubts about whether or not they are really on the right path. It’s not knowledge that they go with, but faith. Consequently the very existence of people calling them out as brainwashed buffoons troubles them more than is readily apparent. In order to feel SECURE or SAFE they want to dismiss troubling doubts—not by adjusting their beliefs to better fit reality, but rather by shutting up, by force if necessary, the unbelievers. Especially male ones who aren’t Muslims.
This hysterical intolerance is not new to western civilization, even though the unique absurdity and spiritual bankruptcy of the ideology may be. A similar feminized “progressive movement” or two, or three, have arisen before, even in ancient times. In America’s spiritual past life as Rome, there was also a hysterical, intolerant “progressive movement,” namely early Christianity. As I feel compelled to admit, the ancient Christians really did have some semblance of a moral high ground over most of the Pagans of that time; but even so, many of the ancient saints and martyrs, maybe most of them, were not particularly saintly. The result of Christian screeching intolerance is that all of the indigenous spiritual and religious systems of Europe were obliterated. Considering that this new religion, regardless of some relatively exalted moral principles, endorsed a rather feminine, compassionate, passive approach to virtue, turning the other cheek to violence, and promoting more or less socialist ideals of wealth redistribution (and free handouts have always been a major tool of the missionaries), and considering that the core of the official narrative is rather far-fetched (a Jewish carpenter turned miracle rabbi who lived in a province of the early Roman Empire was the only begotten Son of God Almighty, Himself a conflation of the Canaanite El with an Edomite and/or Midianite war god, who died for our sins—the first and most grievous of which was perpetrated by a man made of soil and a woman made from a bone when they were tricked by a snake into eating the wrong kind of fruit) as I say, this reformed messianic and apocalyptic offshoot of Judaism was feminized to the point and absurd to the point that its followers could tolerate nobody who rejected it. When the Christians got the upper hand they persecuted the Pagans, and members of rival sects of Christianity, more viciously than the Pagan Emperors ever persecuted them…much as the new lefty “progressives” will do to traditionalist heretics as soon as they get the chance. Marxism 1.0 was similarly emotional and faith-based, although it did retain some traditional masculinity, especially in the armed goons who enforced the system on the unarmed masses.
Christianity too, of course, retained some masculinity, with some of the most masculine votaries of the new western world view being howling Germanic barbarians and the monastic warrior sects. I am unsure why the ancient Germanic tribes converted to Christianity so easily, unless it was seen by pragmatic kings and chiefs as a very convenient way to unify the beliefs of the people. Maybe they just wanted to imitate Rome in that regard. I suppose the celibacy of the warrior monks also could be seen as not particularly masculine, sexually anyway. But the new left in the postmodern west have started off emphatically anti-masculine, and thus irrational, insecure, hysterical, and vindictive as soon as it caught traction in the western societal mainstream.
So, what is to be done about an emasculated and emasculating ideology trying to take over western civilization, and at the verge of totally succeeding? We can be sure that draconian intolerance will be implemented as soon as the likes of Justin Trudeau and other Mommy Police-Staters get the chance. The only option is to destroy the ideology to the root, in the best case scenario by voting the fools out of power, boycotting “woke” corporations, reforming the educational system, red-pilling as many ordinary people as possible, and reinstating masculine virtues (such as courage, love of freedom, unflinching determination, austerity, stoicism, etc.). If we are fortunate we won’t even have to fight them in the streets, although if we do they won’t last very long, especially if the goddamn legal system isn’t under their control. Offending nutless degenerates is a practical necessity in any case, and for better or for worse, they offend very easily.