Masculin

Feminist ideology has tried – and unfortunately with some success – to convince the world that masculinity is toxic and that men should therefore be mentally amputated in a feminine direction and women the opposite. Because then we will probably get a more peaceful world without violence, they say.

Is that how it is?

Instead, we have recently developed a generation of millennials, a portion of which has evolved into weak-pissing sociopath whiners. But it started with the first narcissist generation in human history, the baby boomers, the 1968 rebellious generation who were semi-adults in the 1960’s – should anyone feel compelled to accuse me of being an old asshole who goes after the youth.

Let’s jump right into it and then pick up along the way with the regular stilted statement: Men are biologically, sexually, neurologically and mentally created with the ability to exercise violence (read on and understand why I use the term violence).

Then you can try to pour a lot of gender-disrupting soy and various chemical-hormonal disturbances on the boy, so that he will deny his nature and become a girl. Next, you can choose to pump him with brainwashing and propaganda and politically correct guilt-shame-fear, so that he will deny the impulses that have not yet been eradicated chemically and hormonally – which is so diligently done. You can try to teach little boys not to play with war toys and things that go bang and tell them, that playing with Barbie dolls is much better for them.

It is destructive in ALL ways to amputate the gender-specific in men – AND women! Man is by nature created for violence = hard physical work and man has used his physique for as long as the human race has existed to defend himself, his woman, his children, his old, his close-vulnerables, his family-clan-society-nation – and to go into the forest and kill an animal. The man has a warrior- and hunter instinct with associated physique, sensory apparatus and consciousness. Without man’s use of his biology, no human society would exist today. There would be no architecture, cities, sewers, ships, cars, roads, or any of the stuff of civilization that requires physical strength to piece together. Technology would not exist, because man thinks technologically-analytically. Philosophy and systemic thinking would not exist, because it is specifically masculine to systematize and abstract.

This includes – and this is VERY important to understand! – that in the masculine culture there has always existed a cultural instrument to master and control violence. There has always been a discipline and an ethic around violence. Men have always had to learn self-control and have always extolled the principles of self-control as virtues. Violence without honor has always been frowned upon and considered animalistic and undignified.

If you don’t like the word violence, then instead say strength, will, muscle power, focus, single-mindedness, whatever. It is about viewing the masculine element on its own terms, so that boys grow up as men and know their strength. The violent offender has not learned this discipline and does not have that ethic. The psychological profile of the abuser is either an absent father figure or a father who himself is undisciplined violent or unsupportive / appreciative of his son. Here the cause moves back a generation, for how did the father become a violent wreck?

Hmmm, it’s probably something genetic, so there’s probably an injection of… NO! Psychopathy is not genetic, it is a neurological trauma, a brain injury that occurs before the child is 2 years old and therefore irreversible. Reason: neglect and lack of love, which could just as easily be due to a failing mother. Or unfortunate circumstances (rare). Or deliberate trauma-based mind control (occurring in elitist reproduction of a non-empathic ruling class).

A similar perversion in the opposite direction occurs with girls who are brought up to deny their femininity and exposed to politicized concrete-lip ideology in practice. They lose their true feminine strength and develop into shrill whining bimbo-bitches, wife tyrants and oppressors of both the men, themselves and their children. All the while, according to the twisted cultural Marxist feminist ideology, they pretend to be the complete and exact opposite!

Culture symptoms

In the wake of the feminist culture-disruptive gender disruption wave, we are now experiencing the most bizarre and media-borne phenomena, the Emotional-Industrial Complex and Emotional Incontinence (Paul Joseph Watson). The following cultural grotesqueries are either a direct result of feminism or have run as supporting parallel movements as part of a wider culture-destructive project:

• The culture of offense calls for everyone to feel offended—and to never fail to express it uninhibitedly.
• Young and older children with a pronounced lack of self-esteem, who in far too many cases develop self-hatred, cut themselves, fantasize about operations and implants to make them look like some warped ideal – or develop suicidal tendencies.
• Sloppy underexposed vegan Soy-Boys with backbones like earthworms and Bimbo Bitches who scream their constantly overexposed egos in your face.
• EMOs, whiners, victim role players, bleached vampires.
• Selfie narcissists who constantly ‘document’ themselves and throw their no longer private lives out on various social media for 5 seconds of paltry attention.
• Absurdity and pornification of sexuality – then the hell do you think that little brother has to drink himself hard to get it up and standing and live up to some porn stud performance… by which he can NOT get it up and standing!
• A perverted string of bizarrely ideologized LGBTQXYT sexualities that the media is trying to establish as the new, the real diversity sexuality.
• Demand for boys that they must externalize their feelings, because the feminazis call that ‘liberated’. OK, maybe they should just demand their poor baby boys to ‘untie’ their balls and … cut them off! Seriously, there are militant fascistoid feminists who can seriously demand this sort of thing.
• Soft wet pastry men that women and even feminists basically despise, because for what do they need such slobs who are not willing to stand up and defend them if THEY are being assaulted? And who, by the way, they don’t want to have sex with, because they never provide a counterplay in bed.
• Mental-emotional breakdowns as open screen entertainment. Well, I think it’s very strong that you show your vulnerability like that! Which definitely deserved to be broadcast.
• Spelt-mothers who give their children developmental damage because they don’t get enough life-giving fats and 12-year-old girls with performance anxiety and nervous breakdowns who develop borderline anorexia and years later in their hard-pumping business careers in tight pantsuits collapse due to stress and must be registered on long-term sick leave due to stress.
• Galloping divorce rate, shared children, boundless and thus constantly conflict-seeking curling kids.
• An epidemic of breast cancer as a collectivized psychosomatic response to the denial of the precious female attributes.
• Feminist backlash: Silicone and botox culture, where the frustrated wife carpenters and their insecure daughters pay to be cut open and implanted with a substance that the body hates and immediately begins to expel, which can take years.
• Silicone boobies, there are some types of men who stare at you, but when they grab the thingies, they might not be so attractive anymore. Unless, of course, the same men have had autosex with rubber animals before, and then it could be the same.
• Gender neutrality: the erasure of human gender, which must be imposed on children from the start.
• Wokeness culture – it accelereted after this article was written. And holy crab !! We thought it was bad till then …

Anti-emancipation

What the gullible and naïve feminists never grasped – not then and not now – is that the behaviourists, the social engineers who created and marketed their cult, their designer ideology, had something quite different in mind than their emancipation. Women were by no means the primary target audience, they were only a secondary means. The real target was the men. The woman became a tool, a weapon to hit men and masculinity. The masculine element had to be suppressed and ultimately removed, because it stood in the way of the big wet dream of the corporations’ and governments’ total control of the human masses. The globalists definitely did not like strong men with strong opinions.

The nuclear family was a bulwark against abuse by corporations and governments. The globalists wanted a world without gender, without families, without villages, without traditions, without nations, without races, without the right to own anything. They wanted human slaves, human animals (Darwinism) without human strength and human culture. In traditional society, the woman was the queen of her own queendom and was honored as such, but this queendomhad to be destroyed. The woman had to enter the labor market for the same underpayment as men and preferably less. The propagandist statement was that the woman was oppressed in her realm by the oppressive man and should ‘free’ herself from the oppression. The Socialist-Marxists just ‘forgot’ to account for how the man had been systematically oppressed, exploited and blunted by the extreme barbarism of industrial society against the working man in a neo-feudal society where EVERYONE was oppressed – even the oppressors.

The man thus became both the primary and the secondary target of a gender-cultural attack, but feminism created, via female seduction and via its clever appeal to female dominance, a patent for being oppressed and a victim role that could be used freely and without responsibility for manipulation .

The feminist boom is a post-WW2 phenomenon, because while the men were at war and in command let themselves be shot down or shot down other men, the women sat in the factories in the homeland manufacturing weapons and supplies. When the war was over, the women wanted to return to their homes, but here the industrialists who had profited from the war put their propaganda program into action. Feminists over the next few decades were indoctrinated in scorn and contempt for those women who wanted to care for their families, and bombarded them with sleazy and made-up Marxist platitudes such as false consciousness, petty-bourgeois, reactionary, anti-class. The class phrase is in itself a grotesque label, as the feminists rarely came from the so-called working class, but were often high-strung academic whores with a silver spoon up a certain place.

Feminism – a dual-gender PSYOP

We have it from the horse’s own mouth. Feminism was not developed by women and for women but by men and for men, specifically men from a very specific malevolent segment. It came out directly in a conversation between Aaron Russo, American Jewish filmmaker, and another Jewish-Khazar interlocutor, a member of the Rockefeller family, the family syndicate that has been, if anything, the prime contractor for the American nihilist project, the simulacrum (everything is pretend- about-loser, in the words of the philosopher Jean Baudrillard). Russo describes how Mr. Rockefeller asked him what he thought about feminism. Russo unsuspectingly replied that it must have been something about emancipation and equality. Rockefeller replied again: You are an idiot! WE funded women’s liberation and WE owned all the media and the Rockefeller Foundation. It was all about getting the women into the labor market so that we could tax the women, which we couldn’t do before, and at the same time ensure that we got access to the children from an early age, so that the family could be destroyed, and the State could become the children’s new ‘family’.

Close reading: note the expression ‘we’ as tax collectors. The IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, is a private enterprise and none of the money collected goes back to the citizens but by the back door to the overlords of the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds. Rockefeller also refers to itself as The State. That’s how powerful that family was, and that’s how much control they had in shaping the United States in the 20th century. Feminism just adds to the long list of their abominations: the oil industry > oil-related globalized warfare, the pharmaceutical industry > drug-related disease and mass death, the destruction of the American school and education system, systematic tax evasion via the Rockefeller Foundation, oligarchic think tanks like the Council of Foreign Relations, the coup by the American national bank The FED … the list goes on for several densely written pages.

Not only was the oligarchy responsible for the design, the CIA was also involved, because they financed Gloria Steinem’s feminist magazine Ms. Magazine. Like the Rockefellers’ motif, it was about divide and rule, because the family had to be divided in order to be controlled. Like the youth uprising that the CIA considered their psychological operation (PSYOP), which was supposed to separate young from old and children from parents. Just like the drug culture and the hippie movement, because what could strong and confident men and young women come up with: to stand in the way of one of the CIA’s other operations = the Vietnam War.

In other words, the feminists were instrumental in removing the man as a protective factor for the family, so that the family institution could be destroyed, so that the industrialists could score double income and tax dividends, and so that the children could from the start become available to the State and be trained as brain-dead slaves in the Rockefellers amputated Prussian school system (read John Tailor Gatto). The women had to betray their husbands and children and family and stand up as whores for the global-fascist oligarchy – pardon my French.

The feminists, like all other variations within Marxism, harbored the deepest contempt for the abstraction they called the working class and the man, i.e. all men in the whole world. The pitiful product of their crusade was:  the soft man! Imagine a poodle-dog-haired, Lennon-bespectacled toad with a peace sign in his trouser pocket showing up in the shed with a bunch of sweaty construction workers and being a worker with the working class. No, well. So they instead became academics (if they got good grades at school) or teaching assistants (if they got bad grades or had to have an easy student job), and when 35 years later they ran into a midlife crisis due to sexual self-suppression and mental neurotic identity disorder, had to they went into therapy, so they could get in touch with their inner Stone Age man. Should we cry or laugh here? For the poor flawed masculinities of an effeminized slipper hero culture, it was nevertheless a real problem.

Feminism sought to remove the most important and productively-complementary element between men and women: polarity. The paradoxical and hypocritical thing is that while the feminists celebrated their sick ideal of the sensitive man without aggressions… or whatever they said, they of course were totally turned off when they saw him in action. They simultaneously developed erotic fantasies of being fucked by a mechanic’s journeyman with pomade hair who reeked of sweat and oil and asked her to shut up for just as long. Here one could perhaps ask whether she would not have benefited from something completely third and more… fully cast?

Feminism falls under the concept of subversive perversion. The term originates from the cultural Marxist and Frankfurt School philosopher Herbert Marcuse. Along with all possible sexual and behaviourist perversions, Western culture was to be broken down. The working class had been dumped as a historical driving force – Marx had effectively flopped, and the slave society, the Soviet state, was not exported to the West as expected. Instead, they bet on marginalities who could perform via victim roles: women, ethnic groups, gay-lesbians, anything could be used as long as they could participate in the play: the holder of the victim role is by definition always right. After this article, the LGBTQ+++ and the wokeness cult has gained groteque dimensions.

Gender neutral

The latest shot in the arm in ridiculously bizarre pretexts is gender neutrality. Here you have to seriously take care of your head! There is something completely derailed and dead-end-like about a culture where, for example, Danish politicians can find themselves feeling offended that the ‘man’ on the light curves is not gender neutral, so now they want to waste a a lot of money to replace 100,000 pieces of glass with new gender neutral stick people. WHAT!? Who else but stupid or pathological politicians, who obviously can’t find anything more meaningful to bring up in Parliament, can even think of wasting our time and energy and society’s resources on this kind of childishness?

In Sweden, where feminism has penetrated far into the government, it is now required that you may not address girls with “female” and boys with “male”, but call them. Asexuality put into the system. The sexless inhuman must be the last step in the winding down of man before the cyborg, the meat robot. Here, feminism has taken on the character of a purely nihilistic-satanic project.

And by the way, where did the Swedish and German feminists go when immigrant hordes consisting of young men from Africa and the Middle East gang-raped over 1000 German women? Where did the sisterly solidarity of the Swedish feminists go when Sweden arrived in second place in the world in terms of rape frequency – second only to South Africa? They didn’t lift a finger, because in the meantime it had become politically correct to be raped by a bunch of immigrants. When a Swedish rape victim presented her case years ago, the feminists went after her and screwed her!! What gigantic hypocrisy!

Psychopath

A favorite icon of feminists has always been Pippi Longstocking. Red stocking-long stocking. Uh, she’s probably brash and independent and makes a lot of disruptive noise, and the kids love it. Excuse me, Pippi Longstocking basically has the psychological profile of a psychopath! She has no parents and she waits every day for her father to show up. In today’s Swedish feminist hell, she would be forcibly removed. The ideal is therefore the child without parents, completely according to the book of the Rockefellers – and the Jesuits. In Zionist kibbutz communities, the children were forcibly removed from their parents, because it was the collective that had to raise them. The author of the bestseller about Pippi, by the way, left her own daughter in the care of others for the sake of her career and personal adventures. Interesting isn’t it?

Speaking of Jesuits, their main thesis for children’s education is: Give me the 4-year-old child and I will give you the adult. The sitting Jesuit Pope, like his predecessors, has serious problems with the fact that he is so ‘fond of children’ – pedophile = love of children, yes yes.

Q&A

Hmmm, what you said about porn is something men invented, and porn is oppressive to women.

Then you probably haven’t followed the developments, honey. It is now considered femi-liberating to twerk and flash ass and tits. There are Pussy Riots and pussy power in the air, and it’s politically correct as hell. Even back then, it was a political manifestation to take to the streets in bare breasts and demonstrate.

One feminist proclaimed that she encouraged her daughter to have as much sex as possible before she turned 15 because it would be liberating for her.

Young girls on Facebook and Instagram put their organs on display to get attention, and the half-clothed models in women’s magazines (as it was called back then) aren’t forced to do that, are they?

You’d better worry a little about what your 10-year-old daughter is doing on the Internet when she closes the door to her room. You have also approved of her watching cartoons on television that are crammed with children being sexualized + various occult-satanic symbolism. She also sits and stares at music videos with Lady Gaga, Beyoncé and Miley Cyrus, and if that’s not an overload of pornified, pedophilicized, occult-satanic image injection, then you haven’t been looking properly.

Well, we as feminists don’t want to be seen as sex objects. It is enormousz oppressive!

OK, Bimbolina, if you don’t stand up and present yourself as an object of men’s desire, how are you going to get sex? Take a step back and listen to the way you and your giggling girlfriends talk about the men/boys when you have girlfriends’ night. Well, I think he has a nice ass, and you can really see the bulge in his pants – fnihihis…! Is he then a sexual object, for your desire? Yes, of course he is!!

One of the feminists of the 70s – was it Erica Jong, I’ve forgotten the name, but she wrote feminist must-read books back then – made a very telling admission in her old days – finally, and hats off to her. She said: Now we (the feminists) have preached all our lives that it was sinful for men to lust after women. It was oppressive and sexist, we said. We didn’t want to be sex objects. But now we’ve come of age, and now they don’t bother lusting after us anymore = we simply don’t have sex, because they don’t bother us.

The truncheons should probably have thought of that a bit sooner before they jumped on the train car and drove off. As Danish feminist-sing-a-songwriter from the 70s Trille sang: Hey Sister, if you can’t see the comic, we’re standing here with the braids way down the mailbox…it’s like the trouser elastic has broken…

And we have to promise that both braids and elastics got stuck, and most women could sense that the shrillness of feminism was too embarrassing. The slogans became a little worn and faded. It’s just the thing about cultural marxist scumbags that when they get one over their necks, they pop the same body part, sneak along the panel and keep a low profile for a while, then show up at an opportune moment with a new shrill version of it same old fluid in a new bottle. The feminists of the 00s and 10s have developed in a militant and borderline fascist direction. It is fashionable with ultra-polarization in the world today.

Well, feminism is about women’s rights, isn’t it?

Sure honey, is it the right to take a life that you are thinking about? Besides the fact that abortion is basically infanticide, which it is, regardless of Dr. Mengele-types among doctors have argued that a fetus is not a human life, so feminists today in the United States have helped to further stretch the boundaries of when one may take the life of a fetus. First, it was extended to nine weeks before birth, equivalent to a premature baby. And now there are states that allow taking the life of a child right after it is born! The organization ‘Planned Parenthood’, which insists that they work for the liberation of women and that it is a woman’s human right to get rid of an unborn child – which itself has no rights, because it is not defined as a human being – turned out to be running a side business. They simply resell fetuses for industrial purposes. The more meat scraps, the better business, and we are talking about an extensive industry.

Or are you thinking about equal pay for equal work. After all, no one today disagrees with that. It just has nothing to do with feminism, it’s a purely technical measure: what are your qualifications, what do you provide, what do you earn? Period! The funny thing is that when it comes to getting equal parental rights for children in the event of divorce, the principle of equality suddenly ended for the women. Or what about forced gender quotas of m/k for garbage men, sewer workers, earth and concrete workers, oil drillers, long-haul drivers and soldiers?

Hmmm, but we don’t want such oppressive, dirty and heavy work…

OK, so we’re coming to a conclusion for that topic. It has never been about equality but about privilege. Fast forward.

Hmmm, but men just have so much testosterone that they become aggressive, everyone knows that.

I have bad news for you, darling. You don’t just hit off the center, you don’t hit at all. You haven’t done your homework, you have no idea how female, let alone male, hormones work, because all the feminist nonsense about testosterone and toxic masculinity is not only unscientific, it’s bullshit.

You say ‘you know’ without knowing. What is known is that testosterone is the man’s relief hormone. The woman’s ditto is two-component and is called estrogen + oxytocin. The stress and aggression hormone released by the glands that sit on top of the kidneys and are called the adrenals. Both men and women have them and they react to them differently. Men are geared neuro-physiologically to be able to tolerate high doses of stress and adrenaline, and can gear up again – on the condition that they are allowed to sit down and stare at the air. Women are not wired for high and prolonged releases of adrenaline. Their nervous system is far more sophisticated because they have to create and protect life. Their great strength is their sensitivity and ability to protect. They are wandering placentas, life-mothers as we call it in Scandinavia. When women have to de-stress in the society that has forced them to compete on men’s principles – which they have learned from the feminists who have pumped into their brains that they are equal, ie. is the same as, is the same with the men – then they need to socialize, listen to, talk the hell out of jakkedi-jakkedi-jak. Is there perhaps a conflict here when the double-working family comes home from work with stress at the same time? You bet! He wants to meditate in silence, she wants to yakkedi-jak.

He doesn’t need his ears ripped off, and she doesn’t need him not being able to listen-talk. The male gene is to pass out in an armchair after stress and stare blankly into the air, literally. The female gene is see-me-hear-me-love-me-talk-to-me. If he is not allowed to do that, he is doubly drained, and he does not do that in many families, because the children come home from their ‘work’ in the children’s prison called institution or school, totally exhausted and irritable, and where it is then expected of the ‘ right’, the well-behaved family man by feminists, that he must be 100% online and available. He goes to work again-again.

Let me tell you what it feels like as a man – if you’re into that sort of thing – to trigger testosterone. It feels like a wave of calm throughout the body. Can women sense when men have the right = high level of testosterone? Of course they can, and I should salute and say that the women who are not femi-fucked-up can feel it. A man who radiates calmness and strength is the perfect match for a woman who radiates love and care. Everything starts with that basic setting, and after that all possible grand bendings of the masculine and feminine elements in both men and women are possible.

Feminine in masculine – masculine in feminine

By the way, if there are men reading along here who are thinking: how do you trigger testosterone without going into sofa-zombie mode, there is an interesting little power technique developed by Daoists in the practice for men who is called White Tiger. Ladies, just close your eyes here and skip it (which of course they won’t). You take a firm grip on your balls and start massaging them. You try to find the point just before it hurts. Breathe down into the back of your back. You will gradually feel a release of testosterone that feels like a wave of calm. The exercise can be extended by reaching up under the glans and grabbing the strings that go up from the testes, the testicles (testosterone) – because that’s what they’re called in Latin – and give them a ride too. The Daoists have many other interesting exercises with the lower masculine pendulous part, but I will probably spare you those here. Just a hint: did you know that men can have multiple orgasms just like women? It just takes practice not to fire it.

When we begin to understand the gender dialectic, then we can begin to talk about adult men and women. A grown, whole and integrated man or woman can NEVER be oppressed by the opposite sex. One of the mantras of the 60s-70s narcissists and feminists was that you should never grow up. To grow up was to become petit-bourgeois, conventional (now that was a bad word), reactionary, settled, privet-fascist, villa-volvo-doggy – the slogans came in droves. The ideal in the youth rebellion was that one should be a life-long revolutionary, a rolling stone, a child for the rest of one’s life, liberated (as in irresponsible and pubescent). The 68s proclaimed that you were as good as dead after you turned 30 – they then had to move decades before the deadline as they got there. You have an ideal until it falls off the chair and is knocked over by reality.

A man must have an inner feminine element, the yin in the yang. The male artist has masculine courage, creative power and feminine sensitivity and intuition. Without the complementary element, he may be able to impress, perform, excel with technical perfection, break big bread, but it doesn’t touch anything.

A woman must have an inner masculine element, the yang in the yin. The female artist has empathy, creative care and the ability to compose. Without the complementary element, she may be able to touch anything, she has colors on the palette, but she wants nothing to do with it other than to touch (and be touched / looked at), and the structure is weak.

The strength is not to deny or fight one’s nature but to realize it. The nature of the man is that of the warrior. The woman’s nature is that of the mother. Both natures imply massive strength.