The greatest danger.

The greatest danger to the West is not Islam, nor is it unfettered immigration, poor economic policy, or even cyclists. The greatest danger to the West is our inability to respond to such external and internal threats. And the great modern inhibitor to decisive action is the feminization of our societies.

An insightful comment yesterday from regular commenter Allen on my post on women in politics.

There are five phases to this.
1. The beachhead, the one woman enters the field of play.
2. The reinforcement, she works so that more and more women are added.*
3. The consolidation, any competent men or women are slowly pushed out.
4. The meltdown, the now totally incompetent group comes under intense scrutiny for lack of ability. Misogyny is ruled as the culprit. It often includes tears.
5. The fratricide, sisters be damned, not when it means maintaining their own status as they are shown the door.

They are probably in the meltdown phase.

*Fully feminized men are kept on for appearances sakes, and it helps reinforce the belief structure the women have.

As far as the Turnbull cabinet is concerned I would have to agree with Allen’s assessment that they are in the meltdown phase. It should be noted, however, that phases two and three usually happen concurrently.

Here is an interesting post from Maggie’s Farm about women in medicine in the US from Dr. Joy Bliss. The comments are particularly thought provoking. It is just one small aspect of the ongoing feminization of our societies, to no discernible advantage. The only supposed upside given for the justification of more women is that more women is intrinsically good because it just is. It is as natural as the sun follows the moon.

One thing that I did not think to mention in yesterday’s post about women in cabinet supporting one another’s ideas is the contrary stance that would naturally arise from such a position. In other words, if they are supportive of women’s ideas due to their origin then they must by definition be unsupportive of men’s ideas for the same reason. Their sexualised political stance is not and cannot be one-dimensional. Such posturing does not exist in isolation.

That in Australia we have such a moribund state in the highest political office of the land speaks volumes for the nation’s ability to meet threats in a timely and logical manner. Islam is only succeeding now in the West because of our weakness, not from any strength in that most wretched of civilizational beliefs.

There is a general attitude in the manosphere that responding to women’s shit tests subsequently justifies them. I strongly disagree with this idea. Ignoring a shit test gives it power through the failure to act. The shit tests will as a consequence not only continue, but escalate. Some of the comments on Rollo’s latest piece are indicative of this posturing around men being “reactive” to the feminine imperative.

At the risk of being an iconoclast here at RM, harden the fuck up would ya? I get it, you’re making social commentary as that’s what you do here and it’s your purview. But you are starting to sound a shade butt hurt about all this FI shit Rollo.

Perhaps it’s an observation on behalf of the poor saps who don’t know better but really it’s demeaning to you I think Rollo.

You can’t ignore this shit and think that it won’t affect you or hope that it will go away. I find this criticism of Rollo to be particularly loathsome when you consider how much work and effort he has put into fighting the good fight. That this criticism comes from men who simultaneously posture at their own moral superiority due to their inability to act makes it even more pathetic.

Men in positions of responsibility have been ignoring the gradual encroachment of feminist attitudes for the past 50 years. There are individual shit tests and then there are national and even global shit tests. It is past time for men to start dealing with them in an authoritative manner. And it is past time for men to band together as a real band of brothers in the face of such an actual and present threat.

10 thoughts on “The greatest danger.

  1. Brandon

    I’m still smarting from the UK general election and my prediction failure. Upon reflection, and it’s an admission, I did not factor in the obvious May was a women. We had Thatcher and love her or hate her she dominated British politics.

    But upon reflection would a male Prime Minister with a workable majority have taken the risk of calling the last election? Hell no! Would a male Prime Minister have performed so abjectly on the stump? No. Would a male Prime Minister have been able or willing to avoid face to face debate on the television? No. Would a male Prime Minister have blown a 20 point lead? Nope.

    May failed in all these areas and nearly crashed Brexit. But she also did not learn and is now implementing her Red Tory garbage – transgender, gender, race pay-gap – manifesto.

    We now have Amber Rudd, her Protégé as Home Secretary creating more non policing tasks for the police. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863673/online-security-trolls-police-amber-rudd Tasks that can be done online by women police officers. All very PC. All very non conservative and another encroachment on our freedoms. Meanwhile the Prison service run down under May and Rudd is apparently close to rioting with many prisons out of control due to understaffing and liberal regimes.

    All over Europe women have been made Home Secretary’s or Defence Secretary’s and is it merely coincidental that we have seen spikes in violent crime, rape, illegal immigration and people trafficking. The ring leader is of course Angela, no children, Merkel.

    Women are not the whole problem but they do tend to get a bly and by their presence reconfigure the narrative. A women Home Secretary cannot easily call for a crackdown on illegal immigration or prison unrest, or acid crime or knife crime because nobody would really believe them. They can however wear a hajib and go on fact finding missions to the Religion of Peace.

    Like

    1. BWV

      See, here’s the thing: Women are not equally capable when it comes to jobs traditionally done by men. The West can pretend all it wants – but it has been, still is, and will continue to be pretending.

      Sure you can point to a few Queens, a few Prime Ministers, who functioned as capably as a man, but we’re talking about an earth that currently holds 7 billion people. The handful of great female leaders is statistically insignificant.

      Using affirmative action procedures to force more women into male dominated fields isn’t going to change that. Nothing is improved by ramming square pegs into round holes.

      The West is going to have to abandon some key premises and ideologies in favor of reality and it’s going to have to happen fast to stave off disaster.

      Like

  2. Bernd

    Step One: We demand you include us in your space.

    Step Two: We demand you change your space to accommodate us.

    Step Three: We demand you stop harassing us because you don’t like our demands.

    Step Four: We demand new laws or rules be enacted to remove “you” from the space “we’ve” created as you don’t fall in line with our vision of what the space should be.

    Step Five: Why don’t you go off and create your own space if you don’t like it? 🙂

    Like

  3. MarkT

    Has it ever occurred to you, that the extent to which you are correct that feminists and women in general are irrational, is also the extent to which they can never be that dangerous ? Or to put it in other words, the irrational is impotent in the face of reality, and can never be truly powerful in the long run. They may seize power at a particular point in history, but their power is ephemeral and ultimately collapses under the weight of their own irrationality and contradictions, just like any dictatorship always has throughout history.

    I don’t disagree with what you’ve said in terms of our society becoming over-feminised. In large part due to your insights, I’m increasingly alert to the negative impacts of that, particularly in terms of my boy’s schooling and the fact they have no male teachers. So it’s something I’m aware of and taking steps to mitigate within my own family, but I think regarding them as the “greatest danger” is to overblow and exaggerate their power, and grant them an importance they don’t deserve.

    Like

  4. John C

    I got this news link from Return of Kings, it is from LA times. It is about the change of the Boy scout of America to allow girls in.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-boy-scouts-girls-20171011-story.html

    Mind you if you read the article it mention changes in 1988. That once you read this you will understand why the Boy scouts are now allowing girls in and soon trans.

    “In the 1980s, Catherine Pollard, a mother from Milford, Conn., sued the group to overturn the ban against female Scoutmasters, alleging it violated sex discrimination laws. The lengthy legal proceedings — which went on for nearly a decade — drew international attention, and courts ultimately sided with the Boy Scouts.

    Even so, Pollard’s fight caught the public imagination, and in 1988, as the Boy Scouts faced mounting criticism from civil rights groups, the group’s national executive board voted to allow women in leadership positions — including Scoutmaster. Pollard became the first female Scoutmaster, and today, according to the Boy Scouts, nearly a third of the group’s volunteers are women.”

    Like

  5. Pingback: In The Mailbox: Weekend Edition : The Other McCain

  6. MarkT

    Thankyou to responding to my comment in your recent podcast, I’m flattered. You are incorrect however that there is any contradiction in my comments. I can accept over-feminisation is a problem, without accepting it is the worst most dangerous problem in the world as you were suggesting.

    The root of all serious threat to western civilisation (and evil throughout the world) is the failure to think rationally for yourself, and then act according to what you know is right. When rational and critical thought doesn’t happen it manifests itself in all sorts of bad ways. Political correctness and feminism are one manifestation of that, as I must say are the more unsavoury elements of the alt-right.

    Dictatorships are a serious threat to all lives if you get caught up in them, and this is where we’re ultimately headed if we don’t turn the tide of the West. I wasn’t trying to dispute that, just observing that even in this extreme form, where their power appears absolute and unbreakable, any regime or irrational belief system will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and lose power.

    I say this not to dismiss the danger, but not to lose perspective, and ensure that on a personal level you don’t assume that a few irrational women have more power over you than they really do Ultimately they are weak. Perhaps things are far worse in Australia than NZ. Of course we have PC and SJW rubbish, but when they push it too far they tend to get cut-down by the mainstream. Look at the majority of comments on the article below from a leftist commentator for an example of what I mean. Their power only exists so long as we let them get away with this shit.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/97931098/minority-control-over-a-large-majority-mystifies

    Another case in point are my comments about the over-feminisation at my boys school. It’s not as bad as perhaps you assumed. They go to a private Montessori school, a system of education founded by a brilliant Italian educationalist. You can google what it’s all about, but essentially it’s a system of learning based on individual freedom (within a structured context), critical thinking, and personal responsibility. Your comments about Dutch kids came as no surprise to me, because I understand that Montessori is perhaps stronger in Holland than anywhere else in the world.

    That’s the good news about the school. The bad news is that there are no male teachers there, and left alone the current female teachers tend towards a hippy/pacifist/environmentalist perversion of what Montessori was all about. They are generally careful not to push any particular belief system (that’s key to the Montessori method – kids have to come to conclusions themselves based on observation and fact). But occasionally their personal belief system gets the better of that, and they push some inane PC or SJW rubbish in their newsletters or school events, which I proceed to cut down forcefully. They know well and truly now they can’t get away with any of that shit whilst I’m a parent of the school, and my boys get the right perspective on things from me. So it’s not a serious problem. An example is that my 10 year old son for a school project was allowed to construct a massive 2m long paper aeroplane that was a recreation of Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan and ended WW2, and he met no resistance or encouragement to do anything different. Try doing that at any government school, regardless of whether the teacher is male or female.

    The over-feminisation part, and the reason I made my comment is that the female teachers don’t fully appreciate the need for boys to have more rough and tumble play and sport compared to girls. My boys loved it when they had for 6 weeks a male student teacher. I asked them this morning to try and explain what they liked better about him compared to their female teachers, and their answer was “he played sports with us that were rougher”. I also suspect there’s a certain feminine communication style that gets unwittingly pushed by female teachers at the expense of the more linear and direct method that males usually favour.

    So yes, I recognise over-feminisation is a problem, and I can recognise this at my boy’s school – but would I remove them from this school and put them in a private all boys school with more male teachers, like the one I attended? Not on your life, because where they go is far superior a learning environment, despite the flaw I’ve identified.

    Like

    1. The root of all serious threat to western civilisation (and evil throughout the world) is the failure to think rationally for yourself, and then act according to what you know is right. When rational and critical thought doesn’t happen it manifests itself in all sorts of bad ways. Political correctness and feminism are one manifestation of that …

      You’re putting the cart before the horse. Feminism is not the manifestation of irrational thought. Irrational thought is the manifestation of feminism. Women are irrational creatures. They thrive on emotional responses and personalising any problem. My point stands. We are entirely at odds on this issue.

      I am more than familiar with the Montessori method. Are you aware that it was founded by a woman? I went to a Montessori school for grades 2 and 3. I was so happy to get put back into a normal school; the teaching was essentially directionless.

      Like

      1. MarkT

        “Feminism is not the manifestation of irrational thought. Irrational thought is the manifestation of feminism”

        Feminism, and women holding any power had only existed for the past 100 years at most. For your statement to be correct, irrational thought could have only existed in the past 100 years, Clearly wrong.

        “Are you aware that it was founded by a woman?”

        Of course I am. Even by your standards, there are women that are exceptions. Rand, Thatcher, and Montessori are at the top of my list of exceptional women of the 20th century.

        “I went to a Montessori school for grades 2 and 3. I was so happy to get put back into a normal school; the teaching was essentially directionless”

        That is interesting. There are several possible explanations for that, which I’ve listed below with my own assessment of % likelihood:

        1. That Montessori is fundamentally flawed in a way I haven’t yet realised – 10% likelihood.

        2. That Montessori is not flawed, but the way it was implemented at your school was flawed and not true to the founding principles (anybody can call themselves “Montessori” without any system of accreditation) – 30% likelihood

        3. That neither Montessori or the way it was implemented at your school was not flawed, but there was something about your life at that age that required more direction from others than typical – 20% likelihood

        4. Some ,mixed combination of 2 & 3 – 40% likelihood.

        Whatever the explanation, I think it highly likely your ability today to question mainstream thought in the way you do, owes a lot to the influence of those 2 formative years in a “directionless” environment – where you had to think for yourself. Given how rare a Montessori education is beyond preschool years, it’s hard to believe this is entirely coincidental.

        Like

      2. Fair enough. I will then modify my statement to this – pathological irrational thought is the manifestation of feminism.

        As to Montessori positively affecting my ability to see through the rubbish, I cannot say, and we will never know.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s