Hillary Clinton’s trip to India is giving us flashbacks to the blame she instituted immediately after losing a rigged election to Donald Trump in 2016. She’s once again blaming others for the sins of the Democratic party and herself.
The infamous and corrupt Democrat made comments recently that were scapegoating at best. She blamed racism and misogyny for her loss while taking stumbles in front of the cameras, while most of the blame fell on “white men” who somehow coerced women into voting for Trump.
Back in 2016, and well into 2017, Hillary blamed anyone she could but her criminally corrupt self for losing the election, so really, this isn’t a big surprise.
During her appearance in India over the weekend, Hillary made a scene claiming she lost the 2016 presidential race in part because white women didn’t stand up to the men in their lives pressuring them to vote for Donald Trump. “We do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” Clinton said at a conference in Mumbai, India. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever believes you should.”
Clinton had been asked why about 52 percent of white women voted for Trump, despite the “Access Hollywood” tape showing him using vulgar language in the days before the election. While being interviewed on stage by India Today editor-in-chief Aroon Purie, Clinton accused Trump of running a “backwards” campaign that appealed to racists and misogynists. “I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product,” Clinton said. “So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.”
She also claimed Trump’s message to voters was: “You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs. You don’t want, you know, to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are.”
Are women individuals or not, Hillary? Can they decide things on their own or not? You can’t have it both ways. If women are so independent, then they made their own decision on whom to vote for.
Men embracing their masculinity and biological heritage has not been the easiest path the past few years, at least, for those who care about being labeled a “toxic” curse hanging over the history of the world. For me, frankly, I am indifferent to the gnashing and wailing of feminists and the social justice cult. They are a paper tiger and always have been. Beyond that, it’s almost impossible to live in rural Montana without being a capable man (or living in a family with capable men), so even if I wanted to become some kind of liberal my-little-pony metrosexual, the environment simply would not allow for it. I would get eaten alive, or I would have to leave.
It is this lesson above all else that I would like to impart here — masculinity can only be abandoned when the environment is sterilized and controlled and entirely “safe.” Put any feminist out in an uncontrolled and dangerous environment (like the wilderness) for a few weeks, and it won’t be long before they will beg for someone with all those “toxic” masculine traits to come and help them.
In fact, though scientists rarely undertake any social experiments to explore this reality (due to science in our era being heavily tainted by identity politics and liberal bias), there are many examples of the vast differences between genders on display in survival shows such as the Bear Grylls show ‘The Island’. The British reality series originally featured a group of thirteen men left on an island with nothing but a few tools and the clothes on their backs. Their goal? Work together to survive for one full month.
After accusations of “sexism”, the show started its next season with a group of men and a group of women given the same task. The show had various versions and copycats in other nations, some featuring competitions between the men and the women, but the end result was invariably the same regardless of the country.
While having their own setbacks, the men’s groups do decidedly better in every case, not just because of superior strength, but also superior organizational ability (an evil masculine trait). In the American ‘Survivor’ version of this experiment, which had the groups in proximity to each other, the women inevitably depended on the men for aid.
The reality is, when push comes to shove society cannot function without psychological traits that are decidedly masculine. This is why matriarchal (or feminized) societies generally collapse or are highly dysfunctional and regressive. For an example outside of the jungle, read this article by a female entrepreneur who had a utopian idea to build a company made up only of women – a company which suffered complete gridlock and bankruptcy only two years later from employee discord and laziness.
Because of the inadequacies of a culture without strong male presence, feminism and “social justice” as ideologies instantly lend themselves to socialism and collectivism. In fact, it’s hard to separate one from the other.
Socialism provides the governmental and legal bubble that helps to protect people who cannot or will not protect themselves, and collectivism forces capable people (mostly men) to do all the hard labor necessary to keep a system functioning and safe “for the sake of the group,” whether they want to participate in that group or not. In the beginning this is done through taxation, entitlement programs and the centralizing of wages into metropolitan areas. In the end, it is done through unabashed slavery. If you want to see an example of this simply look up the end result of the Stalinist and Maoist models – a productive minority is always tasked (or forced) to feed, house and clothe the non-producing majority.
And this is how these people hope to live out their entire lives — blissfully sheltered from unpredictable environments that require technical know-how, independent ingenuity or decisive and sometimes violent action.
Feminism in particular seeks the destruction of all masculinity as a prerequisite to a supposedly safer world. To illustrate, take a look at this article published by the ever-establishment, ever-collectivist Bloomberg titled “How To Make Better Men.”
The article is typical propaganda, falsely associating masculinity first with institutions that do not define masculinity as well as attitudes that are not necessarily only attributed to men. The goal here, of course, is the demonization of men in general through association with already-established negative events and symbols. Bloomberg ties men and male behavior to the scandal surrounding the recent string of accusations of sexual aggression in politics and Hollywood.
To be sure, these institutions and industries in particular seem to attract a certain type of deviance, not that all the accusations made so far should be treated as fact. Prosecuting someone in the media and in the court of public opinion is not the same as prosecuting them in a court of law. The #MeToo movement is mostly a farce on par with the witch hunting displayed in The Crucible; relying solely on stirring the frothing fervor of the mob rather than generating facts and evidence.
That said, the cases that do seem to be provable illustrate a pattern of narcissism and sociopathy common in the entertainment industry and in politics, and this is a problem among men AND women within these cultural structures. Just look at Hillary Clinton and her treatment of the women that threatened her husband’s career.
And despite what feminists claim, narcissism and sociopathy are not inherently masculine traits. Many women display these character flaws constantly, but in slightly different ways from men.
Is it wrong for a man to pressure a woman into sexual activity through leverage or force? Of course. But is this a “masculine” behavior, or a sociopathic behavior? Bloomberg and the feminists want to condition you to assume the two are interchangeable.
Now, many other behaviors that have been wrongly attached to rape in order to demonize men are in fact masculine and are not negative. Is it an assault for a man to tell a woman on the street she looks good? No. Is it an assault to be direct with a woman or to pursue her for a relationship? No, as long as she doesn’t tell you to back the hell off then all is fair game. Is it an assault to look at a woman and think thoughts you would not share with your own mother (unless you are a freak)? No, not at all. In fact, you will find that many women PREFER a man that is direct over a man that walks on eggshells and is constantly apologizing for acting on what is biological and natural. It is feminists who are complaining about these behaviors, and feminists do not represent women in the slightest.
How do feminists plan to weed out masculine behavior that has sustained civilization since the beginning of recorded time? They hope to accomplish this through public schools. First by propagandizing children (like Bloomberg propagandizes their readers) into believing that traditionally masculine behaviors are “bad.” Boys should be more calm in class, sit still, be quiet, less high strung, they should cry more and share their feelings, they should be admonished for playing violent games such as war with sticks and their imaginations, they should be taught to be vulnerable and less ambitious, they should be, for all intents and purposes, feminized.
Beyond the circus of sexual issues dominating the media for the past few weeks or the feminist final solution, I will say that the violence of action is indeed a predominantly masculine characteristic, and honestly, we need far more of it.
It seems to me that feminism and social justice, whether knowingly or unknowingly, feed into the establishment power structure and allow it to thrive. Encouraging men to be weak, indecisive, indirect, fearful of group condemnation and fearful of their own aggression makes a society less secure and more malleable. Masculinity is often raw and unpredictable. It makes sense that potential tyrants would seek to diminish it so that they do not have to worry about sudden rebellion. In ancient times, invading armies would target the military age males of a culture and kill them off. They would then assimilate the women and children, and young boys would be raised to defend the banner of the conqueror.
Today, this is being done in a different manner. Men are being castrated symbolically in media and film, or castigated through our educational system as a nuisance. We are being encouraged to abandon all the qualities that make us a threat to the establishment, in the name of social tranquility. But of course, in the end only the establishment benefits, and “tranquility” is certainly not guaranteed once we fall on our own swords.
Believe it or not, though, I am hopeful.
The tides have been turning against the feminists and the social justice cult lately. And contrary to popular belief, this is NOT because of Donald Trump. If anything, Trump’s popularity is merely a reflection of the vast and growing backlash against the extreme left and the cultural Marxism they promote.
When there is a social backlash, it usually results in people immediately educating themselves on everything the offending movement originally condemned. Meaning, if the feminists hate it then it is probably good. Will this encourage men, and the millennial generation in particular, into finally pursuing technical prowess, physical and mental toughness, independence and self sufficiency, personal security and self defense and the ambition to build something better? Will our dwindling Western populations see a resurgence of child births? Will the newest Generation Z, growing up in the midst of an increasingly difficult economic environment, adhere to more masculine traits by necessity?
If there is any indication of such a return to masculine roots, it will probably become visible in 2018 as the influence of the feminist agenda continues to wane. We shall see. If not, then the Western world is in dire trouble. For if we do not make manliness “fashionable” again and soon, it might be bred out of our culture entirely. And with this loss, a cultural death is guaranteed.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
Men embracing their masculinity and biological heritage has not been the easiest path the past few years, at least, for those who care about being labeled a “toxic” curse hanging over the history of the world. For me, frankly, I am indifferent to the gnashing and wailing of feminists and the social justice cult. They are a paper tiger and always have been. Beyond that, it’s almost impossible to live in rural Montana without being a capable man (or living in a family with capable men), so even if I wanted to become some kind of liberal my-little-pony metrosexual, the environment simply would not allow for it. I would get eaten alive, or I would have to leave.
It is this lesson above all else that I would like to impart here — masculinity can only be abandoned when the environment is sterilized and controlled and entirely “safe.” Put any feminist out in an uncontrolled and dangerous environment (like the wilderness) for a few weeks, and it won’t be long before they will beg for someone with all those “toxic” masculine traits to come and help them.
In fact, though scientists rarely undertake any social experiments to explore this reality (due to science in our era being heavily tainted by identity politics and liberal bias), there are many examples of the vast differences between genders on display in survival shows such as the Bear Grylls show ‘The Island’. The British reality series originally featured a group of thirteen men left on an island with nothing but a few tools and the clothes on their backs. Their goal? Work together to survive for one full month.
After accusations of “sexism”, the show started its next season with a group of men and a group of women given the same task. The show had various versions and copycats in other nations, some featuring competitions between the men and the women, but the end result was invariably the same regardless of the country.
While having their own setbacks, the men’s groups do decidedly better in every case, not just because of superior strength, but also superior organizational ability (an evil masculine trait). In the American ‘Survivor’ version of this experiment, which had the groups in proximity to each other, the women inevitably depended on the men for aid.
The reality is, when push comes to shove society cannot function without psychological traits that are decidedly masculine. This is why matriarchal (or feminized) societies generally collapse or are highly dysfunctional and regressive. For an example outside of the jungle, read this article by a female entrepreneur who had a utopian idea to build a company made up only of women – a company which suffered complete gridlock and bankruptcy only two years later from employee discord and laziness.
Because of the inadequacies of a culture without strong male presence, feminism and “social justice” as ideologies instantly lend themselves to socialism and collectivism. In fact, it’s hard to separate one from the other.
Socialism provides the governmental and legal bubble that helps to protect people who cannot or will not protect themselves, and collectivism forces capable people (mostly men) to do all the hard labor necessary to keep a system functioning and safe “for the sake of the group,” whether they want to participate in that group or not. In the beginning this is done through taxation, entitlement programs and the centralizing of wages into metropolitan areas. In the end, it is done through unabashed slavery. If you want to see an example of this simply look up the end result of the Stalinist and Maoist models – a productive minority is always tasked (or forced) to feed, house and clothe the non-producing majority.
And this is how these people hope to live out their entire lives — blissfully sheltered from unpredictable environments that require technical know-how, independent ingenuity or decisive and sometimes violent action.
Feminism in particular seeks the destruction of all masculinity as a prerequisite to a supposedly safer world. To illustrate, take a look at this article published by the ever-establishment, ever-collectivist Bloomberg titled “How To Make Better Men.”
The article is typical propaganda, falsely associating masculinity first with institutions that do not define masculinity as well as attitudes that are not necessarily only attributed to men. The goal here, of course, is the demonization of men in general through association with already-established negative events and symbols. Bloomberg ties men and male behavior to the scandal surrounding the recent string of accusations of sexual aggression in politics and Hollywood.
To be sure, these institutions and industries in particular seem to attract a certain type of deviance, not that all the accusations made so far should be treated as fact. Prosecuting someone in the media and in the court of public opinion is not the same as prosecuting them in a court of law. The #MeToo movement is mostly a farce on par with the witch hunting displayed in The Crucible; relying solely on stirring the frothing fervor of the mob rather than generating facts and evidence.
That said, the cases that do seem to be provable illustrate a pattern of narcissism and sociopathy common in the entertainment industry and in politics, and this is a problem among men AND women within these cultural structures. Just look at Hillary Clinton and her treatment of the women that threatened her husband’s career.
And despite what feminists claim, narcissism and sociopathy are not inherently masculine traits. Many women display these character flaws constantly, but in slightly different ways from men.
Is it wrong for a man to pressure a woman into sexual activity through leverage or force? Of course. But is this a “masculine” behavior, or a sociopathic behavior? Bloomberg and the feminists want to condition you to assume the two are interchangeable.
Now, many other behaviors that have been wrongly attached to rape in order to demonize men are in fact masculine and are not negative. Is it an assault for a man to tell a woman on the street she looks good? No. Is it an assault to be direct with a woman or to pursue her for a relationship? No, as long as she doesn’t tell you to back the hell off then all is fair game. Is it an assault to look at a woman and think thoughts you would not share with your own mother (unless you are a freak)? No, not at all. In fact, you will find that many women PREFER a man that is direct over a man that walks on eggshells and is constantly apologizing for acting on what is biological and natural. It is feminists who are complaining about these behaviors, and feminists do not represent women in the slightest.
How do feminists plan to weed out masculine behavior that has sustained civilization since the beginning of recorded time? They hope to accomplish this through public schools. First by propagandizing children (like Bloomberg propagandizes their readers) into believing that traditionally masculine behaviors are “bad.” Boys should be more calm in class, sit still, be quiet, less high strung, they should cry more and share their feelings, they should be admonished for playing violent games such as war with sticks and their imaginations, they should be taught to be vulnerable and less ambitious, they should be, for all intents and purposes, feminized.
Beyond the circus of sexual issues dominating the media for the past few weeks or the feminist final solution, I will say that the violence of action is indeed a predominantly masculine characteristic, and honestly, we need far more of it.
It seems to me that feminism and social justice, whether knowingly or unknowingly, feed into the establishment power structure and allow it to thrive. Encouraging men to be weak, indecisive, indirect, fearful of group condemnation and fearful of their own aggression makes a society less secure and more malleable. Masculinity is often raw and unpredictable. It makes sense that potential tyrants would seek to diminish it so that they do not have to worry about sudden rebellion. In ancient times, invading armies would target the military age males of a culture and kill them off. They would then assimilate the women and children, and young boys would be raised to defend the banner of the conqueror.
Today, this is being done in a different manner. Men are being castrated symbolically in media and film, or castigated through our educational system as a nuisance. We are being encouraged to abandon all the qualities that make us a threat to the establishment, in the name of social tranquility. But of course, in the end only the establishment benefits, and “tranquility” is certainly not guaranteed once we fall on our own swords.
Believe it or not, though, I am hopeful.
The tides have been turning against the feminists and the social justice cult lately. And contrary to popular belief, this is NOT because of Donald Trump. If anything, Trump’s popularity is merely a reflection of the vast and growing backlash against the extreme left and the cultural Marxism they promote.
When there is a social backlash, it usually results in people immediately educating themselves on everything the offending movement originally condemned. Meaning, if the feminists hate it then it is probably good. Will this encourage men, and the millennial generation in particular, into finally pursuing technical prowess, physical and mental toughness, independence and self sufficiency, personal security and self defense and the ambition to build something better? Will our dwindling Western populations see a resurgence of child births? Will the newest Generation Z, growing up in the midst of an increasingly difficult economic environment, adhere to more masculine traits by necessity?
If there is any indication of such a return to masculine roots, it will probably become visible in 2018 as the influence of the feminist agenda continues to wane. We shall see. If not, then the Western world is in dire trouble. For if we do not make manliness “fashionable” again and soon, it might be bred out of our culture entirely. And with this loss, a cultural death is guaranteed.
***
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
Americans have more luxuries and more opportunities to lay back and do nothing than perhaps any other country in the world. Perhaps that’s why on a global scale, the U.S. is one of the laziest countries on Earth, according to a Stanford University study. [1]
The great Ron Swanson once said:
“The whole point of [America] is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, that’s beautiful.”
Sure, it’s a quote from a sitcom (“Parks and Recreation”), but it appears that an awful lot of Americans actually live this way.
Stanford researchers used step-counters installed in the smartphones of about 700,000 people in 46 countries to track their walking activity. The study was massive – 1,000 times bigger than any previous research into human movement, according to Scott Delp, a professor of bioengineering who co-led the research.
The findings, published in the journal Nature, show China is the least lazy of all nations. People living in Hong Kong, especially, are very active, with individuals walking an average of about 6,880 steps per day.
Indonesia was found to be the laziest country, with Indonesians only walking about 3,513 steps.
Americans averaged about 4,774 daily steps, which is pretty close to the worldwide average of 4,961.
Source: USA Today
But average number of steps didn’t always coincide with more obesity in the study. Obesity levels can be more accurately gauged by calculating “activity inequality” – the difference between most active and least active. The team found that in nations with higher rates of obesity, larger gaps existed between those who walked a lot and those who didn’t walk often at all.
“For instance, Sweden had one of the smallest gaps between activity rich and activity poor… it also had one of the lowest rates of obesity.” [2]
Gender was found to be a significant factor in country-to-country activity inequality. The study found that men were more active than women, including in the U.S. That was not the case in every country, however. For example, men and women in Japan exercised a similar amount. [3]
Jure Leskovec, a computer scientist at Stanford and a co-author of the study, said:
“When activity inequality is greatest, women’s activity is reduced much more dramatically than men’s activity, and thus the negative connections to obesity can affect women more greatly.”
The scientists hope their findings will contribute to public health campaigns aimed at reducing obesity and support policies designed to make cities more “walkable.”
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
In a recent study, two common drugs used to treat both hair loss and prostate problems were shown to cause long-term erectile dysfunction (ED) in young men. The younger the men, the bigger the risk. [1]
The medications in question are known generically as finasteride and dutasteride and are sold under the brand names Propecia, Proscar, and Avodart.
In the study, men under age 42 who took one of these drugs for more than 205 days were nearly 5 times more likely to have long-term problems achieving an erection compared to men who took the drugs for less than 205 days, the researchers wrote in PeerJ.
Dr. Steven Belknap, a research assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said in a statement:
“Our study shows [that] men who take finasteride or dutasteride can get persistent erectile dysfunction, in which they will not be able to have normal erections for months or years after stopping finasteride or dutasteride.” [1]
Both drugs work by blocking the conversion of testosterone into 5-alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT), the hormone’s more active form. DHT can lead to male pattern baldness because it dampens another chemical signal in the body that spurs hair-cell growth.
For the study, researchers looked at data on over 12,000 men in the Northwestern Medicine Enterprise Data Warehouse, a database of medical records for patients treated at Northwestern Medicine. The team focused on men ages 16 to 89 who had been prescribed one of the drugs at least once between 1992 and 2013.
Researchers looked at both the dosages of the medications the men were prescribed as well as the length of time the men took the drugs. In addition, they looked for any diagnoses of sexual dysfunction, including low libido, ED, and persistent ED.
The investigators found that 1.4% (167) of the men who took either finasteride or dutasteride developed long-term ED. That’s a pretty small risk, but the condition lasted a median of 3.5 years after they stopped taking the medications. About 4.5% of the men developed shorter-term ED.
Overall, the risk of ED was found to be higher in men who took either drug for long periods. In young men, longer exposure to finasteride posed a greater risk of persistent ED than all other assessed risk factors. [2]
The latest findings may have an impact on prescribing information for the medications. In 2012, the FDA changed the labels on Propecia and Proscar to reflect the reports of long-term sexual difficulties. According to Belknap, those risks aren’t always presented to patients the drugs are prescribed to.
The drugs’ current prescribing information states that the risks are not worsened by taking the medications for longer periods, and that stopping the drugs clears the problem up. Nearly 1,300 finasteride-related lawsuits suggest otherwise. The researchers noted:
“Some reports describe men with symptoms beginning within days of initiating finasteride and persisting for years after stopping finasteride.” [3]
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.
