Toxic Femininity Manifest as Political Tyranny

America’s left-right divide, which would be better described as the Democrat-Republican divide, is somewhat convoluted. People have what are called “belief clusters”; this is a phenomenon where people who feel very strongly about some series of issues will develop other beliefs based on the fact that they perceive that people “on their team” share these beliefs.

The structure of these clusters is fundamentally American. While they are shared in a large part by other Western countries, that is simply due to American influence. Countries with less American influence culturally, such as France, have a rather different definition of the left-right divide, while someone like Nigel Farage in the UK is effectively a carbon copy of an American conservative (Farage is somewhat more liberal on social issues, but we’re going to be doing broad strokes here).

It is clearly illogical that a leftist would root for both the Ukraine and Palestine, given that the Ukraine and Israel are both proxies for a globalist Western hegemony. Just so, it is illogical that a “small government conservative” would support massive corporations partnering with the government to crush the middle class. But Russia and Israel have been packaged together as “white oppressors,” and multinational corporations writing US government regulations has been packaged as “free enterprise.” Positions have shifted some because of the rise of Donald Trump, and this has been generally positive for the right. Conservatives have become more critical of big business and the “Project America” empire-building strategies of the neoconservatives. Meanwhile, in response to Trump, the left has entered into a hysterical tailspin, acting purely on emotion and developing positions that would not make sense to the historical left.

However, despite the seemingly arbitrary clustering (which is in fact not arbitrary but based on manipulation by special interest groups), there is an underlying identity to both left and right. Excluding some strange outliers, you can follow logically why each side believes what it does, and when an issue pops up, it’s not difficult to determine which side of it people will fall on. Clearly, leftists were going to support BLM and coronavirus brutality, while rightists would be against these things.

Simply, the underlying divide between the two sides is based on masculine vs. feminine impulses. Although he doesn’t frame it in those terms, you can find a good analysis of the thinking of right and left in Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind.” Haidt lists six moral concerns that people feel intrinsically, and provides documentation showing that politically liberal people drastically prioritize fairness and harm-reduction over loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Conversely, conservatives care about these things much more equally, while slightly prioritizing all of them over fairness.

The divide lines up between masculine and feminine impulses rather neatly. Women tend to be nurturing and largely disregard harsh realities (men who have feminine traits tend to follow women on this), while men understand that the world isn’t fair and you need authority based on hierarchy in order to maintain order. Support of stricter social norms is also in line with a prioritization of order. Certainly, voting patterns show this, with women always voting more in favor of socialist and utopian type policies and men endorsing more traditional concepts of social and economic order. Married women tend to vote conservatively, while men raised by single mothers (or weak/absent fathers) tend to lean left.

The entire modern left-right divide is only possible because of the enfranchisement of women. The end of this project is necessarily absolute tyranny.

Natural Left and Right Positions

There are core issues which the left and right will always hold naturally, based on these primary feminine and masculine impulses each side has. All of these issues are ones that do not require any facts to understand, and can be understood purely based on an immediate emotional reaction to the thing. (As we will explain below, if the issue is complicated and requires facts to grasp it, marketing campaigns can be launched to create angles and convince either side to support anything.)

Innate masculine values are embodied in religion. “Justice, Truth, and Beauty” are often listed as the highest moral values in the Christian religion, and this would be the case for all major religions the world over, excluding Hinduism and Judaism (the latter is not really a “major religion,” but rather a small, fringe cult that is only major in the sense of its global influence, which is greater than that of all other religions combined). Note that while Buddhism is often portrayed in the West as a lovey-dovey religion with feminine values, this is plain nonsense drummed up by the likes of the fake philosopher and scam artist Alan Watts as well as other 1960s-era perverts. However, the fetishization of Hinduism by the hippies (the hippies representing peak feminine values) was on-point, as Hinduism is a religion that denies the objectivity of truth and celebrates the ego. Excluding the cult of the Dalai Lama, most Christians would agree with the underlying moral framework of Buddhism. The same would be true of Islam or Confucianism, if the underlying values were to be separated from their cultural contexts.

While the hippies dabbled in “Eastern Mystic” nonsense, atheism became the de facto religion of the left, as atheism is purely a celebration of the self and a denial of all natural order and authority. In the atheist moral framework, higher values are replaced with ostensibly utilitarian notions. Justice is replaced with “equity,” truth is replaced with “lived experience,” and beauty is replaced with “individual preference” and “perception.” It is all just vapid egoism, which is the defining character of the feminine spirit.

We will go through a few simple examples of things that are innate to each orientation.

In-Group Prioritization

The right will always view things in terms of in-group and out-group, which naturally leads to racism and nationalism. Conversely, the left, with their extreme prioritization of fairness, believes that all people on earth are the same, and therefore if one group is more successful, they should be punished for that success in order to level the playing field.

After the Reagan Revolution, it was primarily the Republican Party that was pushing for mass immigration, claiming that this would be good for the economy because it was good for mega-corporations. However, during the Bush years, the immigrants were still ghettoized, and it was rare that suburban whites ever even saw them, so the in-group defense mechanism had not yet triggered. During the Obama years, it became visibly clear that the country was being overwhelmed with foreigners, which led to a massive backlash against immigration by the right. Unfortunately, the right is still afraid of being called “racist,” and most will not say “we don’t want these people here because they’re a different race.” However, the Elon Musk H-1B debacle has really opened up some room for the right to define what it means to be American, and the answer to that is going to have to be: “a European person or I guess an African descendent of slaves, although that second group is different.”

Jews have gotten away with effectively claiming to be part of the in-group of whites by visibly looking similar to whites and by pressing the ridiculous and totally emotionalized falsehood that there is something called “Judeo-Christian.” The opposition of right-wing whites to being called “racist” is simply extended from the fact that while they don’t prioritize “fairness” as the highest value, they do think it is important. Rightists also prioritize personal agency, and therefore want to avoid judging people on immutable characteristics. However, it is not long ago that right-wing whites were aggressive in their declaration that their in-group was a racial category, so I am certain we will get back to this point in the near future.

I am very thankful for Vivek Ramaswamy denouncing whites as pathetic losers. Ramaswamy was viewed by right-wingers as being “us” because although he didn’t look like us, he talked like us and seemed to value the same things we value. When he then claimed that Indians are superior to white people, everyone immediately recognized him as “not us,” and surely made the connection with his visual appearance. This is a huge step in the right direction.

Ben Shapiro as a member of the “Jewish right” and his media corporation “Daily Wire” are really the only remaining relevant forces in political culture still pushing the idea that “America is a series of ideas.” Right-wingers, being supporters of order and the sanctity of natural hierarchy, do not typically have an affinity for abstract notions of identity and are going to default to “blood and soil” nationalism. “Nation of ideas” is a concept without any intrinsic meaning, without any hard reality behind it, and therefore it is something that will appeal to the feminine nature of the left, as they can nihilistically imagine that it means whatever emotions they are feeling at any particular time.

The left also believes that they are tasked with spreading equality to all people on earth, and building a global utopia that transcends in-groups completely, a world where everyone is exactly equal to everyone else; the purest form of fairness. This utopianist theory posits that everyone will live in peace and never suffer harm. Because whites have tended to have a higher standard of living historically (although that isn’t really true now, it’s a lingering perception), the left does not think it is enough to raise up brown people, and must also drag down whites (and increasingly Asians) in pursuit of this utopia.

The Objectivity of Crime and Punishment

The right-wing or masculine-oriented mind will always prioritize order based on hierarchy, and therefore they will always have a strong sense of justice. This means that they will not have a particular sympathy for criminals.

The leftist agenda to turn criminals into victims has gotten very extreme in recent years, with such concepts as “restorative justice” being put forward (and acted upon) to make the argument that black people should not be punished in the same way as whites. However, this attitude of “sympathy for criminals” goes back to the introduction of the “insanity defense,” which allowed criminals to claim they are not fully responsible for their crimes because they have mental problems. The companion of lessening a punishment because of the criminal’s personal problems is the federal “hate crimes enhancement,” which says you are committing a worse crime if you do it while feeling a certain emotion (this allows whites to be targeted and punished more severely).

For right-minded people, a crime should be punished the same across the board, as creating these modifiers turns justice into something subjective, when it should be objective. This largely bypasses the inane academic debate over whether consequences for crime should be punitive or a deterrent. It should obviously be both, but justice is an end in and of itself.

When the George Floyd fiasco happened, many on the right were doing events in support of the cops. This was natural enough, given that the left was claiming that there shouldn’t be any cops (they’ve memory-holed it now, but that was actually the argument being made at the time). However, the right is not associated purely with cop-worship, and is always prone to supporting vigilantism when it appears that the cops and the larger justice system are not working.

Daniel Penny, the man whole subdued and choked out a violent black on the New York subway, was universally supported by the right, as was Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot several violent antifa members at a BLM protest, while the justice system that attempted to prosecute these two was viewed as acting tyrannically against justice. Luigi Mangione was more controversial on the right, though many viewed his killing of a criminal insurance boss as justified (while Ben Shapiro was out defending insurance companies).

The pro-authority impulse among the right can be twisted into supporting tyrannical behavior, as it was after 9/11, when most conservatives supported giving unnatural and abusive policing powers to the federal government.

Currently, the left is giving large support to the federal cops and intelligence agencies as they view them as working to help oppressed groups and prevent authoritarianism. This is the result of a major campaign by the media to highlight members of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other federal agencies as anti-racists opposed to the patriarchy. Given that the federal cops have never really promoted natural and objective ideas of justice, it is logical enough that they find their support base among the left.

Paternalism (Which Should Really be Called “Maternalism,” Frankly)

While pro-order and therefore pro-authority, the masculine mind has strong inclinations towards personal responsibility and man’s personal agency. The nature of hierarchy demands competition, and therefore individuals must be responsible for themselves. This leads to strong beliefs about the importance of personal freedom, and opposition to state paternalism.

The feminine left on the other hand believes that the government should be a kind of “mommy” figure, taking care of the population as if they are children. When women first got the right to vote, the first three things they did were ban prostitution, child marriage, and alcohol. The alcohol thing didn’t stick (even while it is heavily regulated, including a lunatic age restriction and “drunk driving” tyranny), but prostitution and child marriage remain illegal. Leftists have also pushed for seat belts, motorcycle helmets, forced insurance, smoking restrictions, vaccination mandates, the pension system, and the entire welfare state.

Right-wingers tend to react negatively to any program that seeks to tell individuals what they are allowed to do in their own lives if those choices are not impacting others.

The absurdity of the left’s pro-abortion slogan “my body, my choice” was put on full display a few years ago when they pushed for vaccine mandates. The left has never believed that a person’s body is their own, and the slogan was designed to sell the idea to people based on an appeal to notions of personal liberty. Again, the first thing women did once enfranchised was use the state to regulate what people were allowed to do with their bodies. On a basic level, women do not respect personal autonomy, because they operate on maternal instincts and when politically enfranchised, treat everyone like little children. When a woman “nags” a man, that is fundamentally what she is doing: attempting to correct his behavior as she would correct a child reaching to touch a hot stove. The entirety of women’s political behavior amounts to a state-level nagging operation with the purpose of controlling other people’s bodies.

The rightist instinct to defend personal liberty was bastardized when the government/media pushed for legalizing homosexuality, which should have triggered right-wing notions of sanctity and purity, but was overwritten by the drive for individual freedom. Given that it is now clear that homosexuality is not a “victimless crime,” this is all being reevaluated. It would have been clear that normalizing homosexuality would infringe on children if people had looked at the data, and many Christian groups were spreading that data at the time, but the data is always irrelevant when it comes to public opinion on literally anything. It had to become obvious that homosexuals are predators before anyone would understand it.

The opposite happened with child marriage, where individual liberty was overwritten by a false sense of the sacred and pure. Leftists have successfully argued that child marriage violates the purity of girls, and therefore most right-wingers are opposed to it. The data shows that girls being sent by their fathers into early, often arranged or semi-arranged marriages, leads to happy families, while allowing a girl to go around having sex with whoever she wants leads to suffering for the girl and ultimately a total collapse of society. But that data is not relevant to the political discourse. (While the right has begun to reverse on the homosexuality issue, it might be a while before people are willing to question core feminist doctrines designed to create a sexual utopia for women.)

Arbitrary Left and Right Positions: Opposition and Support for Various Wars

Political instincts are based on the masculine-feminine dichotomy, but the masses are not particularly clued-in on very much, and therefore when the issue is in any way complex and requires facts to understand it, marketing campaigns can be used to sell them various things based on these underlying drives.

Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, became known as “the father of public relations” after he developed a method to use psychological techniques to appeal to the base drives of humans in order to sell them products. (There is a good documentary series about this called “Century of Self,” which I highly recommend.) All marketing is designed to appeal to various drives, and in theory, anyone can be sold anything if the marketer is good enough at his job.

Let us consider the political divide in relation to the base of support for various wars through the lens of how they were marketed, as this is likely the easiest place to analyze how simple it is for the government/media to convince either side of anything not grounded entirely in an immediate and instinctive reaction by using a framing that appeals to their base orientation.

If we exclude the evangelical-Zionist obsession with Israel (which is a big and largely separate issue, which I will touch on later), the Middle East wars were sold to conservatives on the basis of a need to protect the homeland from strange foreigners who want to hurt our people. They were also sold as revenge for 9/11. Self-defense, hostility towards out-groups, and serving justice to enemies are all concepts you would view as masculine.

Liberals were largely opposed to the Middle East wars, because they viewed them as harming people. Obviously, all war harms people, but they were opposed to the idea of innocents being caught up in the violence. Women and feminine-minded men take a very nurturing view of brown people, who they view as less capable of defending themselves and therefore in need of protection. They viewed the wars in the Middle East as bullying type behavior by a strong force against a much weaker one.

There was also masculine-oriented opposition to the Middle East conflicts, represented by the Ron Paul movement. The framing there was that America was wasting resources on wars that didn’t benefit Americans and we weren’t even getting revenge against the people who did 9/11. It was also consistently pushed that the government was using the wars as an excuse take away people’s personal liberties. “Neoconservative” was largely understood to mean “Jew,” and it was put forward that we were fighting wars for an out-group. However, all of this required an intellectual analysis of the situation, which meant that it couldn’t ever be a popular position, because in a universal suffrage democracy, everything in the popular mind must necessarily be reduced to base emotions largely disconnected from facts. The masses of people do not have the time or the inclination to understand anything beyond the surface level, and they will generally go along with whatever they hear from the people in the media who they agree with on things they understand better, to wit, “Rush Limbaugh is right about the Democrats and the gays, so he must be right about these Middle East wars.”

Before the Middle East wars, conservatives viewed Russia/communism as a legitimate physical threat, a superpower that had the capacity to take over the world. While this also lines up with masculine impulses, it is fundamentally different than the reasons for supporting the Middle East wars. Russians didn’t look different, which made them less offensive to the in-group prioritizing mind than Middle Easterners, but the fact that Russia could realistically win a war against America made the conflict appealing to conservative Americans.

While leftists might not all have outright supported communism (although many did), they largely opposed the Cold War mentality, and certainly opposed the various proxy wars, most notably Vietnam, which flared up during the Cold War. There was the same pity for the Vietnamese as “weaker,” and the general sentiment about the Cold War was that “we should all just get along,” the schoolmarm type impulse that women have. (Women will always try to prevent competition between boys, while men will typically encourage it, even when it can involve physical harm. Women’s attitude towards war is often based on viewing both sides as little boys who should stop fighting on the playground.)

Fast forward to the Ukraine war, and things had flipped, with the liberals aggressively supporting it and conservatives largely viewing it as a pointless waste. There were various political variables involved, and it simply came down to the powerful people who wanted this war realizing that they should focus the marketing for the war on liberals rather than the conservatives who had traditionally been the war-supporting type.

Though the marketing campaign ultimately did come down to appealing to leftist “fairness and harm reduction” emotional motivations, this was not initially obvious, and it clearly could have gone either way. When Barack Obama was running against Mitt Romney, he mocked the Republicans for claiming Russia was a threat, saying “the 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back” (“X called and wants Y back” was a popular joke template after the turn of the millennium). Baby Boomers remembered the Cold War, and could have at that time been convinced to view Russia as a threat, which Romney tried to do. However, when Trump became popular, and was seen as a real threat to the establishment, the left began pushing the idea that he was in league with the Russians. This whole thing appears to have originated with the neoconservative Bill Kristol, who initially commissioned the “dirty dossier” about Trump, which was later handed off to the Clinton campaign. Obviously, Trump was despised by the left, who viewed his masculine persona as representing all of the things they oppose, and through this marketing campaign, Vladimir Putin and all of Russia were classified by the left as part of a “fascist alliance” that opposed homosexuality, feminism, and other leftist values based on fairness and caring for the weak.

Because of the way things had already been framed since 2015, by 2022, the left was very ready to support a war against Russia, so this is where the bulk of the marketing campaign for the war was focused (note that much of this leftist anti-Russia material was also spread during the State Department-backed revolution in the Ukraine in 2014). The Ukraine was framed, almost entirely falsely, as a bastion of leftist values, including homosexuality, feminism, and multiculturalism, under threat from a very bad masculine culture which sought to enforce draconian Christian authoritarianism on them. Putin and Trump were effectively the same person in the minds of Democrat voters. While the left may tend to oppose violence, the claim by the people marketing the war was that Putin was trying to exterminate everyone in the Ukraine and therefore the only option was for them to “defend themselves.” The fact that it was the Ukraine that started the war all the way back in 2014 was not relevant, because again, facts are never especially relevant to these narratives.

There was (and to some extent still is) an attempt by right-wing politicians and media organs to sell the Ukraine war as an extension of the Cold War, presenting Russia as a real threat to America in the same way the USSR was. However, most people on the right took the masculine view that what happens in the Ukraine is none of our business and we shouldn’t be wasting our national treasure on it while creating unnecessary conflict with a foreign nation that should be an ally. The fact that the marketing for the war had been so focused on the Ukraine being a homosexual and feminist “democracy” country, and Russia being a Christian patriarchy, also effectively made this particular war impossible to sell to conservatives.

Finally, the new wars in the Middle East, started by the Jewish state of Israel, have created a situation where both the right and left are reverting to the positions they held after 9/11. This is a nauseating development, as it seems it could destroy all of the progress that was made with MAGA and the opposition to foreign wars that was created by that movement. Trump’s masculine arguments against wars basically hinged on the fact that America is already the most powerful country in the world and therefore any war is a waste of our time and money, and people in wars all over the world should be expected to deal with their own problems, as none of it has anything to do with us. But the Israel issue has flipped that entire narrative on its head.

What’s more: Ben Shapiro and others on the “Jewish right” in America have taken this opportunity to push leftist-style thinking onto the right. Much of the propaganda involved in the marketing campaign for Israel’s wars has to do with Israel being a helpless victim which needs to be protected. What’s more, the “Jewish right” has successfully called for censorship and “canceling” of people who oppose the war, with feminine-oriented claims about how “speech hurts people.” Senator Josh Hawley, an “AIPAC Republican,” successfully lobbied for the Congressional TikTok ban based on the claim that “China” was allowing Americans to see images of what Israel is doing to people in Palestine.

The reason that the right is endorsing Israel’s war, and calling for the US to do more to help Israel slaughter people, is that the Jews have successfully campaigned to make conservatives believe that Israel is effectively a part of America, that they are members of our in-group and therefore we should consider an attack on Israel as an attack on America. Further, Moslems are always going to be viewed as an extreme “out-group” due to their vastly different culture and physical appearance.

It is certainly frustrating to see the American right sliding back into this neoconservative mindset, but it’s simply obvious that it would be just as difficult to convince them that Israel is no different than the Ukraine as it would be to convince a leftist that the Ukraine is no different than Israel. There is a timeline on which the right would be supporting the Ukraine and the left supporting Israel. The Ukraine war could have been sold as the return of the USSR and a threat to the American homeland, and therefore supported by the right, and Israel’s wars could have been sold as a group of feminists and homosexuals defending against barbarous Islamofascists, and thus supported by the left. The views people develop on these “complex” issues involving facts are based on the nature of the marketing campaigns pushed by the government/media.

Women’s Love for Rules Manifest as Tyranny

Political leftism has become tyrannical, and although Trump might be a bright patch on a dark road, it is clear that we are destined to live under a complete tyranny if things continue on as they have been going.

Another important aspect of feminine nature is that it is geared towards consensus building. This is a function of the way women naturally interact with one another in a community. Anyone who has observed women’s behavior knows that they will constantly compliment one another, and they will reach agreements with a kind of hive mindset. Although women have low respect for masculine notions of establishing order from hierarchy, women are obsessed with control, and obsessed with rules, again as a result of their desire to treat everyone like children. Because women lack an internal moral compass, they do not place a qualitative value on rules, instead simply loving rules for the sake of being able to enforce them. Women will glob onto the established power structure, regardless of what it is.

The “coronavirus pandemic” scam and the extremist paternalism that went along with it was the apotheosis of the nanny state, where women succeeded in being able to treat everyone in society like a little child. The government was able to enforce a dress code in the form of the mask mandates, and able to tell people when they were allowed to play outside through the lockdowns. This kind of attack on basic human freedom, the government locking people inside of their houses ostensibly in order to protect people from themselves, was the most extreme tyranny in all of recorded history and it was only possible due to the feminization of our society.

The masks and lockdown movement then led into a forced vaccination movement. (One can argue that they never actually “forced” anyone to take the vaccine, though that was what many were calling for. But they certainly did coerce people, firing them from their jobs if they refused and restricting their movement in public places.) The obsession with forcing the vaccines on people then led to an alliance between the left and the multinational pharma giant Pfizer. Many noted that the left had previously been strictly opposed to large corporations and the medical industrial complex in particular, but this was another situation where the marketing was key to perception.

The flip-side as we know was that the right rebelled against pharma and the medical industrial complex, and this has led to the right embracing Bobby Kennedy and taking positions similar to those of a 1990s health food hippie lady. We should remember that a few years ago, right-wingers would have had a positive view of pharma, believing marketing campaigns about how these are entrepreneurial companies using the free market to cure disease. As something of a health fooder myself, I view this as a very positive move for the right, and it is interesting that it came about as a direct result of the overreach of the left.

Another example of the brutal rules-mongering of the nanny state was the censorship agenda. People may forget that the original claim regarding the necessity of abolishing the free speech rights of Americans was that if you said mean things on the internet, people would read it and kill themselves. They then claimed that if you were racist on the internet, you would trick people into committing mindless acts of violence. The final big push was related to the pandemic scam, when people were told that if they voiced disagreement with government policy regarding lockdowns, masks, or vaccines, people would die as a result.

The stated ideology behind all of this censorship is that individuals do not have the ability to process information, and therefore words that they read on the internet can possess them and cause them to do things. This is a complete denial of human agency and a denial of free will itself, and it certainly brought into question the core premise of democracy, which claims that everyone in society is a fully actualized individual capable of determining how the government is run. The government and media claimed that mass censorship is necessary for democracy to function. The conclusion you would have to draw there would be that if people cannot objectively look at information and they will make decisions purely based on whatever information is put in front of them, then by censoring everything other than the mainstream media, we are creating a situation where the mainstream media dictates the behavior of the people and the direction of society as a whole.

The coronavirus insanity and the crackdown on the freedom of speech demonstrate toxic femininity manifesting as outright tyranny.

Women’s Enfranchisement Must be Revoked

Having a society which is divided into two halves is patently ridiculous and unsustainable, especially given that one of the two sides is made up of people totally disconnected from reality who lack even a basic interest in understanding what makes a healthy environment in which humans can flourish.

The solution to this problem is obvious: women must be disenfranchised and removed from civil society, or at least from public life. There is no real way around that. Leftism as it exists today is the embodiment of toxic femininity. The men who have these views are a small minority of males, and would be irrelevant if they did not have empowered women fighting alongside them. What’s more, the overwhelming majority of leftist men would not have this disposition if it were not for the empowerment of women making these ideas acceptable.

We also have a system where boys are forced to be controlled and viciously abused by women throughout their entire childhood and well into adolescence. These men then go to live their entire lives as servants to women. The mother is the first tyrant. Even if an American boy has a father in the home, which many do not, the father is almost certainly completely subservient to his wife. Further, schools are packed full of women, and most boys have little to no input from adult men. This ends up breaking many men, causing them to develop a kind of Stockholm syndrome where they identify with their abusers.

When confronted with the truth about the nature of women and how it has shaped our dystopian reality, some on the right will revert to blaming all of these problems on the Jews. While I am personally very comfortable with blaming things on the Jews, people who attempt to blame Jews for the behavior of women are simply incapable of emotionally dealing with the reality of what women will become if you incentivize all of their worst instincts in the way Western society has done.

It’s true that virtually every bad idea on the left or the right originates with the Jews, but Jews are a very small part of the population, and they would not be able to wield the influence they wield if it were not for a large part of the population being willing to go along with them. The primary population that goes along with them is white women. We now have all of these nonwhites in our country, and many of them are willing to vote Democrat and support various agendas, but how did they get into our country in the first place? It is a result of the enfranchisement of women.

No country that has maintained masculine values has opened their borders. It is only white countries and all of these countries are feminist countries where the discourse is totally dominated and directed by women. It was Angela Merkel who opened the gates in Europe and flooded the continent with millions upon millions of poor, violent, useless “refugees.” Recently, Giorgia Meloni in Italy ran on a platform of getting rid of the immigrants (a “right-wing woman”), and she ended up more than quadrupling the amount of new arrivals and has yet to deport anyone.

I have often pointed out that if you look at the pictures of pro-immigrant protests, you will notice that if you only look at whites, at least 9 out of 10 protesters are women. The men who are there generally appear to be husbands or boyfriends that were dragged along, or men who showed up to try to meet women because they know these protests have a more favorable sex ratio than anything else in society.

You’ll see the same thing if it’s a BLM protest, a pro-Ukraine protest, a pro-vax protest, or a protest supporting anything else you hate. Meanwhile, recent large scale protests against immigration in the UK and Ireland, and the Canadian anti-lockdown protests a few years ago, are overwhelmingly male.

Obviously, this should not be surprising if we understand leftism as the embodiment of toxic femininity.

It’s fair enough to say that “not all women think this way.” That is clearly true, but it is also irrelevant. Saying “not all women are toxic supporters of the globalist-Jewish agenda and therefore we should allow them to participate in public society” is like saying “not all blacks are criminals, therefore I’m going to walk around in dark alleys on the South Side of Chicago at night.”

The participation of women in public society, and the way that this has created modern political leftism and triggered a cascading wave of more and more extreme tyranny, is the core of what is happening in the West. This is difficult to confront, because there is no obvious solution to this problem, but it is the truth.