Feminizing the Decline

.

“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subway buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970

.

***

.
Quote from Sovereign Man (Regarding how various governments are encouraging people to have more sex because of the looming birthrate crisis):

"Last year, the Danish government promoted an initiative called "Do it for Denmark", encouraging Danes to travel abroad and have sex while on holidays. They even have a pretty racy YouTube video featuring a scantily clad gorgeous blond waiting to do her duty for her country and procreate.

Singapore as well has a catchy jingle about going out and making babies, brought to you by the same guys who did the Mentos theme song. 

The Swedish government actually spent taxpayer money on its new genitals song, so it can start indoctrinating children early on how to make babies. 

Here in Japan, which has one of the lowest birthrates in the world, the government is desperate to find solutions to what it calls its libido crisis. According to their data, Japanese men aren’t terribly interested in sex and the women find sex to be bothersome.

[...] Easily the most ridiculous solution they came up with is to impose a ‘handsome tax’ on attractive men. [...] The idea being that if you tax handsome men, then less attractive men would have more money and hence be able to attract women." 

(Read more here).
.
I think the problems aren't quite as simple as made out to be... and they are deeply hidden behind political correctness and the out-of-control feminist movement. It will take me a little while to bring this back around to low birth-rates, but please bear with me as I present my case.

Click Pic to Read "It's Not Marxism Because..."

Didn't Britain just declare 30% of executives are to be women, since gender equality is supposed to be economically beneficial and has been "proven" by reams of (activist sponsored) academic research? Norway did the same a few years ago - affirmative actioning in a 40% female quota for all of its major corporations' executive boards and positions.

One wonders then why the garbage collection system wouldn't also benefit from a change to 50/50 men and women instead of it being nearly 100% male. Ditto for the almost completely female nursing and education industries... oh... and the 70% of government workers that are female - all receiving about 30% higher wages than the private sector would be able to afford. Not only would these changes supposedly bring greater profits - as women's studies "professors" claim (without ever stating a specific study we can analyze) - but it ought to lower other expenses as well, such as worker's compensation for injuries, which are 94% attributed to careless, clumsy males. Therefore, making all the dangerous jobs like logger, fisherman, bush pilot, construction labourer, farmer etc. etc. 50% female ought to drop the worker's compensation rate by 50% as well! (See how this feminism inspired logic works?)
.

Click Pic to read "The Liberation of Men"

And since everyone points out that the average worker isn't any better off than he was back in the 1970's, why doesn't anyone dare to ask why that is? Could it be that doubling the supply of workers available (by pushing women into the workforce to compete with men) without a subsequent increase in demand for goods & services, would halve the income of the general worker, and therefore mean it would take two fulltime incomes to accomplish that which was previously paid for by one income? It's the freakin' Law of Supply and Demand, yet political correctness prevents even economists from pointing out the bleedingly obvious: The problem with wages is an over-supply of workers, which we've merely been papering over since the 1970's. Illegal immigrants still can't hold a candle to the effects of women entering the workforce enmasse over the past forty-five years.

Click Pic to read "Sex Sells" (Hypergamy Explained)

Further, and VERY importantly, women are hypergamous - They tend to marry up socially and financially, not down. Snow White married the Prince, not one of the Seven Dwarves. CEO's marry their secretaries; doctors marry nurses; factory workers marry waitresses... but what you'll have a hard time finding are female CEO's marrying an auto-mechanic, or a woman lawyer marrying a struggling poet. You can find evidence of this today in what are known as "Kitchen Bitch Marriages" - where the woman is the primary breadwinner while the male takes on a more domestic role. In such marriages, the divorce rate jumps from 50% all the way up to 90%. That's pretty clear evidence of hypergamy and the need for defined gender roles, if you ask me..

Thus, the more you pay women, the less men there are who exceed them in resources, and the less reason women have to "associate" with them, which I've heard somehow or other tends to lead to babies. This is a very large problem with women in the workplace - not that they shouldn't be there, but rather that the more successful they are, the fewer men they find attractive. Generally speaking, a woman making $60,000 a year does not find a man making $40,000/yr to be attractive. And a woman who makes $250,000 will need to find a man making around $350-400,000/yr to "trade up" to. The problem now for such a woman becomes that while she has shrunk her pool of hypergamously selected mates to only those above her level of income (which is very small in the scope of the population), the man who is making as much or more than her is hypergamously attractive to ALL women below him, right down to welfare queens. Thus, the highly succesful career woman has not only limited her prospects enormously by shrinking her pool of mates, but of the prospects she actually does finds attractive, she has to compete with a gajillion other women for his attentions. Truly, the handsome tax mentioned above is not as silly as it sounds. (Although it certainly goes against any principles I adhere to).
.

Click Pic to Read "You're Such a Tool! (Briffault's law)"

There are lots of parallels with the economy and the lack of sound money being the cause of the end of empires, but also to note, in the vast majority of cases throughout history, at their peak the genders turn on eachother and androgynize - men and women don't have separate roles anymore, but now compete with eachother directly in some genderless role neither of us is particularly good at. Who ever would've thunk it that women would find masculinity attractive and men would find feminity attractive? Certainly not feminists and academics, that's for sure. They think men should find women sexy for their earning abilities (men don't) and women ought to find men attractive for their metrosexual fashion sense, housekeeping abilities, and smooth, clear skin (women don't).
.
When Darius III got his ass handed to him by Alexander the Great, he lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." (It's true too - by the end of the great Persian Empire - at the time the most powerful in history - the men were effeminate and the women were leading battalions in the Persian army).

Click Pic to Read "Rites of Passage - Making Boys into Men"

In Rome they used to say that women married intending to divorce and divorced intending to remarry (starter marriages, anyone?). They also eventually had to pass laws forcing men to marry or forfeit their inheritances along with other such bachelor taxes, because marriage was such a complete and utter disaster for most men that they avoided marrying a decadent, sex-positive Roman woman at all costs, which most were. The government claimed they needed to pass laws forcing men to marry because the low birthrate was a jeopardy to the state, which it certainly was.

The Ottoman Empire lost its power and lustre when its birthrates fell into negative territory (below 2.1/couple) - sure it struggled on for quite a while, but with declining birthrates, they never recovered until finally they wheezed their last breath in WWI. No population has ever reversed a birthrate that dropped below 1.9/couple, and once it falls below 1.3/couple it is mathematically impossible to reverse the decline because of the "time gap" that it takes to turn babies into functioning, productive citizens. By the way, Japan, Spain & Germany are all at or below this 1.3/couple threshold. Most of the rest of the West is sitting around 1.5/couple - except for the USA which is still around 2.0/couple, but this is only because of the immigrant population. The "homegrown American" population only has a 1.6/couple birthrate. (Birthrates were 3.9/couple back in 1970).

Abortion Laws are one thing the West has an option of revoking which the civilizations of the past did not. Currently, 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, while half of women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45. If the government simply told feminists to get stuffed and made abortion illegal, the birthrate would jump 21% instantly. That's not a judgement on the morality of abortion - it is simply a fact. (And after all, don't we ask men to die in wars to save society? Having a few babies is the least our women can do - in the name of "equality"). And while making abortion illegal would not be a complete fix, it would certainly go a lot further than encouraging people to go on a vacation to have sex, or writing pee-pee songs to indoctrinate children into sexuality at an early age. (While at the same criminalizing every expression of male heterosexuality that pops up in society - there's that government inneffeciency for you)..

Click Pic to Read "A Woman's Right to Choose"

We probably coulda used some of the 50 million babies that were aborted in the USA over the past 40 years, couldn't we? Especially since many of those non-existent people would have also reproduced by now - that means that perhaps 75 million (or more) homegrown citizens are simply "missing" from the population. Note that this amount of missing people is about equal to the entire US population of the Baby Boomer generation... all of whom were expecting other people's children to fund their pensions and lifestyles into old age. It woulda worked, you know, if we hadn't genocided the children of tomorrow which we now need to be working and paying taxes to fund the elderly in their old age. This is kind of the story about the grasshopper having fun during the summer versus the squirrel saving a cache of nuts for the winter, isn't it? There's no such thing as a free lunch!
.

Click Pic to read "The Fraud of Modern Marriage (Women as Chattel)"

Check out the research of people like JD Unwin's "Sex and Culture" - he documented over 80 cultures that have risen and fallen over the millenia, and found that in almost all of the cases, when a culture was rising it was restricted in its sexuality, it had clearly defined (and by modern terms misogynist) gender roles which best utilized both sexes' skills, and women were directly dependant on their husbands for income, rather than dependant on government or other such means (Aristotle claims unreasonable dowry laws as the cause of men and women repelling from eachother in Sparta - and also directly attributed Sparta's demise to a declining birthrate because of women's wealth outside of marriage). Unwin also provides evidence that during the decline of cultures and empires, the sexes tend to androgynize - which actually pushes them apart rather than pulling them together - and thus, in the decline, a culture becomes feminized and therefore birthrates fall until eventually everything collapses... kinda like what's happening to us right now.

***

QUOTING A YOUNG WOMAN: "As long as mothers and/or wives don’t allow their careers to consume their lives and interfere with their God-given duties, then I don’t see a problem. Women have their own aspirations and dreams as well just like men (and no I don’t believe that the only reason people have careers is to make money)."

I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations.

Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.

One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesn’t?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.

Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.

But, look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).

A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!

And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?

.
Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot!

And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work fulltime jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here?
.















And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances.
.
Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.
.

***

.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Marketplace"

QUOTE #2, A MAN: "Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.

Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.

If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."                                                          ***

Click Pic for "The Suffragetts versus The Truth"

No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves personally, or with their own sex.

And, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” And I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.

Click Pic for "Any Gal of Mine" (Song/Video) - By Gina Ruberto

But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of both families and society - much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” out of respect for their husbands, but more so the other women thought well of them and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.

And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.
.

Click Pic for "The Wife of Noble Character"

.

***

As an interesting side-note on this subject, while Plato argued for the emancipation of women from their traditional role, he warned that women should not be encouraged to encroach upon the male role, to prevent what happened in Sparta. Rather, he philosophized, they should create a new role from which they can best serve society.
.
It's an interesting thought, isn't it?

What kind of new role could they have created? Well, since even today, women in the workplace claim they are willing to take lower pay in order to serve the community - and since women, socialized herd creatures that they are, claim repeatedly that they want their work to have a positive impact on society while also allowing them time to tend to children and the elderly in their families, why are we paying government bureaucrats to do all the social work that women once traditionally did in their free time before all this nonsense started?

Furthermore, if we returned to the mindset of the home being a place of production rather than consumption, what kind of value do you think a woman could create for herself and her family? In many cases, everyone would be better off financially - just do the math!
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

A Woman's Right to Choose

.

"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?"

Answer:

I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.

Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.

A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.

And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”

This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.

But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.
.
I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.

What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.

Feminists are quite aware that most un-informed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.

When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.

What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay.

Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.

But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”

In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman "sold" her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as "payment" for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman's "property."

In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.

But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?

So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.

Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”

So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joy-riding.

Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.

But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.

Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.

Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.

Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:

Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.

Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.

Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it!
.
You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.

But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?"

Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.

Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.

But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?

It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!

And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.

What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.

If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.

But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.

So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.

And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).

But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.

So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?

If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility.

A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.

Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?

“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.

“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.

“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.

Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?

Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they're toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?

Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”

It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.

What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?

.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
Chapter One: Introduction
Part 1: The Masculine Principle 
Part 2: Generalizing in a Politically Correct World 
Part 3: Peer Reviewed Research: The Holy Grail of Truth? 
Part 4: The Truth About Misogyny
Part 5: A Guide to Birdwatching
.
Chapter Two: Sexuality
Part 1: Male and Female: Equal But Different
Part 2: Sex Sells (Hypergamy Explained)
Part 3: Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers
Part 4: The Garden of Eden, Empty Vessels and Relative Truth
Part 5: The Myth of Tiresias and the Ten Pleasures of Sex 
Part 6: You're Such a Tool! (Briffault's law)
Part 7: Rites of Passage - Making Boys into Men
Part 8: Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager In The House?
Part 9: The Amazon Women (The Science of "Why Males Exist") 
Part 10: Testing, Testing... 1, 2, 3... Testing
.
Chapter Three: The Gender War
Part 1: The Fish and The Bicycle
Part 2: Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue With Women
Part 3: The Suffragettes versus The Republic  
Part 4: The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy
Part 5: The Suffragettes versus The Marketplace
Part 6: The Suffragettes versus The Truth 
Part 7: The Suffragettes versus Themselves  
Part 8: Father Custody and The Legend of the Selkie  
Part 9: The Fraud of Modern Marriage (Women as Chattel)
Part 10: Feminizing the Decline (Hypergamy & Birthrates) 
Part 11: A Woman's Right to Choose 
Part 12: The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace
Part 13: Have You Ever Seen a Herd of Bulls?
.
Chapter Four: The Pillars and the Plot
Part 1: The Powers That Be 
Part 2: It's Not Marxism Because...
Part 3: Cultural Pillars and Critical Theory 
Part 4: Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess 
Part 5: The Family Plot: The Past
Part 6: The Family Plot: The Present
Part 7: The Family Plot: The Future
Part 8: Following the Masculine Principle is the "Right Way"
.
Chapter Five: Conclusion
Part 1: Work With the World; Don't Fight Against It
Part 2: The Liberation of Men 
Part 3: The Want of Men Was Their Ruin
Part 4: One Man's Kingdom
.