It seems strange to me that all the girls want to get jobs. These are jobs that males didn’t want to do in the first place. They are called jobs because people would not do them if they were not paid. Males were only working because mothers and women generally wanted them out doing something useful even if it was boring, stressful, and dangerous. The males were told they had to work to feed a family and obtain status. Males were made competitive. Under this doctrinaire, men are brutally competitive for available jobs and competitive in the workplace. There is no soft landing for a male. If the male cannot get a job, he blames his inadequate skillset. If he does not catch a pig in the forest, he hunts harder and longer. He does not blame the forest or the pigs for bias.
The young have been raised on television to think that they might grow to become movie stars, millionaires, or rock stars — but it doesn’t happen. The message given to girls is: “You can do anything. You can fly to the moon. You can become a CEO.” which is backed up with the suggestion that men had taken all the best jobs.
The message was that males had been oppressing women. Males had created patriarchy to disadvantage women. Everything about men was bad. The solution was illogical. Women’s demand was to be like men. If men were bad, why emulate men. Logic would have it, that if male behaviour was reprehensible, men should rise to the higher standards of women rather than women descending to the despicable behaviour levels of men. Neither were men offered the ‘servitude’ of home time instead of the ‘freedom’ of working as a linesman hanging off electricity poles in icy cold winds.
For some reason, women had to emulate the activities of men and not the other way around. Men were not encouraged to stay at home in droves. Women were tricked into jobs that men did not want in the first place. Who would work if they did not have to? Who would not work five days instead of six? Who would not work four days instead of five? Who would not work three days instead of four? I have three days off this week, but it would be nice if it were four days off. I’ve just had two months holiday for my annual round the world trip on cheap air-flights and this week, I only work one day. It’s great. I can get on with writing my book.
If males have resentment, it is that they cannot get a job and give their income and support to a female and her offspring. When asked, males tell me that they don’t mind working to support a wife and children. Their mothers trained them to be subservient to a female and they are happy with the arrangement. It is the mistreatment they are concerned about. They will happily work for a wife and children provided they are not mistreated. Mistreatment need not be physical, but is prone to be emotional. Men are not strong emotionally and they got further training to hide their emotions when young.
The ugly ‘patriarchy’ is a division of roles based on natural biological gender differences. It was something that young males were taught so that they would take responsibility. Responsibility is the key to male engagement. When males take responsibility for something, they will put their full effort into it. If not responsible, they are prone to become destructive. Responsible males were much more useful to females than destructive males and so the mothers taught responsibility to their miniature men, and they did so with vigour. This blogger comments: “Women hit less often than men, but, and this is a very big but, men usually beat as a result of women’s insistence.” Males were made ‘responsible’ for their actions.
Patriarchy originally meant that the man was ‘head’ of the family, which in practice meant that he worked all hours and made family announcements based on his wife’s instructions. He did the miserable paid work because paid work is the type of work that people would only do if they were paid. Paid work is ugly work. It is mostly the joyless body-damaging work in grossly horrible working conditions.
A wife’s instructions take the form of whispers in his ear: “Wouldn’t it be nice to have a bigger house.” So he makes an announcement that he is “going to take on a second job.” The definition of patriarchy was altered to give it a negative connotation. It was rephrased to suggest that it oppressed females rather than benefited females. The promoters of feminism have created a myth that patriarchy is an original sin. It is the source of all evil. This is a false illusion. Patriarchy was created or supported by females to give the illusion that males were responsible for family provisioning and for the operation of society which effectively meant that they operated for the benefit of females and offspring.
Look at any family and you can see the woman rise to the peak position. Patriarchy gave males a role in what would otherwise be a female-dominated family. Feminism only survives because patriarchy was dominated by women’s desire to get the men to run things for their benefit. It is how feminism came to dominate so quickly. If women were ‘under the thumb’, feminism would never have got off the ground. They would never hae had the free time to discuss what was ‘missing’ from their lives. Patriarchy is what made our society successful. “Men thought they were in charge. Women knew they were in charge.” Patriarchy is the best social system in history. Patriarchy is not your enemy. Patriarchy is your friend. It fools men into thinking they have to run everything, which they do for the benefit of — guess who? — women. Gender roles were assigned in society for a purpose — to benefit women — so that women did not have to compete or compare themselves with men. When women have to directly compete with men, they tend to lose. It is better that women control men to do all the unpleasant and stressful tasks in society for the benefit of women. Patriarchy released women from all provisioning roles. Patriarchy required that men dedicate their time, energy, and lives for the betterment of women and children. No society survived if women did not nurture children. Patriarchy enabled them to be released from all non-essential activities. Thus, it was a system supported by females. I believe that it was initiated by women to release them from all roles other than nurturing children. The control system was access to sex and a social conditioning of males by mothers. Just look through any local paper — there are pictures of males in sport and building skyscrapers and pictures of women wearing idiotic clothes and impractical shoes. Why? Because women never had any intention of working. Men were the work slaves of society. What does a woman look for in a male? — his earning capacity and his assets. If he is attractive, that is a bonus. As soon as I bought my first house as a twenty-eight-year-old high school teacher, I had women chasing me everywhere I went.
Feminists re-defined patriarchy as a system of dominance. It was the dominance of men by women masquerading as a system where men dominated women. Patriarchy is a matriarchy in disguise. The whole system relied on mothers training little boys. Men were trained to give up their freedom to provide for women and their children. Girls were taught narcissism so that they were happy with the arrangement of all assets being transferred to females.
It should not be forgotten that feminism was funded and promoted by males. Males operate the media system and carefully propagandize the feminist goals. The clever move to convince women to work doubled the size of the workforce which has the economic effect of halving the value of work. House prices rise to take two incomes. I often state that: “Land was provided free for all living creatures to share.” Humans drew lines on the land which allowed banks to collect interest on the fictitious money that they issue. House prices rise to the limit of affordability and so two incomes are now needed to raise a family whereas previously the man’s income would be sufficient. The house that I live in was built in 1940 in North Perth, Western Australia. It was originally purchased at a price affordable by a large family with one income. Only ‘dinc’s tend to move into this area now. Dincs means = ‘Double Income, No Children’. Women now state that they “have to work”. This might explain why Wall Street bankrolled the Bolshevik coup d’état — and the feminist movement.
Out of interest, when the Bolsheviks took over Russia by force. Russia’s gold went to the West and not to the people. Western corporations moved in for the kill; Ford, General Electric, International Harvester, Caterpillar etc. Gulag slaves, whom Trotsky (real name Bronstein) dubbed White Negroes, worked harder and cost less than those employed in the West. Over one thousand Gulag camps were created across the bankster colony. The United States and Britain invested heavily in the blood-soaked Soviet regime. Bolsheviks to effect their satanic reign over Russian Christian people. Jack writes:
“I took Russian History at the college level and no one told me ‘who’ the Bolsheviks were. Can you believe it? I found out years later through informal research in the age of the internet.”
Financed by US Federal Reserve bankers who were actually Rothschilds affiliates who used money stolen from the Tsar to set that bank up in the first place. The Bolsheviks arrived in Russia to murder, loot, and enslave tens of millions of Christians — innocent Russian Christians. Even the heavily whitewashed Wikipedia has the information when you search for ‘Yakov Sverdlov’. It is correct that the power of the Tsar was absolute, and very few had a political voice, and almost all citizens were peasants, it is worth noting that Russians during the reign of the last Tsar had freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. They had the protection of private property and had free labour unions. One joker says:
“It’s anti-Semitic to discuss about the Bolshevik revolution, holocaust, and 9/11 outside the accepted version. Repent and make penance by watching Hollywood WWII movies and reading Anne Frank.”
Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in a 1920 issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” The noteworthy British political leader and historian went on to write:
“ There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary.The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.”
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington:
“The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”
Feminism is a social Revolution.
The Netherlands’ ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later:
“Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”
Feminism encourages women to put work above nature. As a side product, a war has erupted between males and females that is of no benefit to anyone. Men did not work for their personal benefit — they worked for the benefit of their master and children. They even got on one knee to beg for a position of subservience.
Courting and coupling have occurred throughout history and is common to the entire animal kingdom. It is entirely instinctual. Male seeks girl. Girl seeks man. Marriage is different to courting.
We had courting and coupling when we were reptiles. We had courting and coupling before speech, language, and logical thought. Marriage is a human invention that was essential for the creation of civilization. Marriage tied one man to one woman for the benefit of society. I sometimes say that “males were tamed by females”, but I have to be careful who I say it to. It was found that when a man is tied to a woman, he ceases to be problematic and starts to work for the benefit of family and society. It is essential for a society to keep males occupied to prevent trouble. Males in our wild past were a violent and lustful beast. They were tamed and their violence and lust were put to work for the benefit of society. Male violence and lust are most clearly demonstrated during the invasion of nations. The current system of mothers training their sons to be respectful to females is an essential component of civilization. The mother’s influence over males is essential for peaceful society.
It is this motherly influence that turns males into malleable males in preparation for control by a wife and a role as a father. It is all very subtle. It is the effort by females to keep males occupied that keeps the male in his civilized tame form. The term ‘rough diamond’ means a male that has a rough and tough exterior but a kind heart inside. In reality, it means that he can be controlled by a woman. ‘A good man’ is, in effect, any man that can be controlled by a woman! It is the training of males to take on the role of fatherhood that enabled the building of civilization because it prevented males from being a troublesome beast. Mothers take an active role in making the male into a controllable man. If the male is out of work, he is disrespected as an ‘incompetent breadwinner’. The social expectations on males are still immense. Even the terms like ‘real man’ are defined in terms of what is useful to females. Romantic means he grovels to his woman. Hollywood and Feminism have changed the definition of manliness from the “quality of being brave and strong.” to having “fucked a lot of women.” James Bond comes to mind. Manliness can now mean the size of one’s private parts. In fact, they are not so private anymore. His ‘private parts’ entered so many ‘foreign ports’ that they could be described as ‘public property’. A ‘real man’ previously described a man that had of qualities which women desire, ranging from having money, being affectionate, kind, good father, faithful, muscular, tall, dark, and handsome. [9] It manipulated men into behaviour patterns for the benefit of women. The insult: “You’re not a real man.” is used by women to bully males into acting they way they wish. ‘Manliness’ can now be used to describe a male that beds numerous women on a weekly basis rather than a male that will compromise his self-respect to please women. [9] A ‘real man’ has become a term that means that he dumps any girl that uses the term: ‘real man’. ‘Real Woman’ is less well defined.
Amongst many other errors, it suggests that she ignores the input of others. It suggests that she can live alone. How long does that work?
The family unit became the building block of civilization. Without caring families, society goes off the rails. Thus marriage needs the assistance of society to make it work. That is why our forefathers, both the mothers and the fathers, told the girls to keep their legs together until they were married. Keep the boys at bay until they are married off was a female-created cartel supported by males. The mothers and fathers of today stand against a hurricane of propaganda suggesting otherwise. As one pastor chatting with me in a café described the television: “Andy. Television is Satan’s pulpit.” In the U.S.A., seventy percent of the inmates in the jails were brought up in single-parent families which is a euphemism for a female-headed, but father-less, family. The majority of the other thirty percent were brought up in a family where the father lacked ‘influence’. He was either often absent or had been undermined by the mother. “Your father is a deadbeat!” The mother sets the standards and the father reinforces them. That makes this blogger’s comment fascinating as it is different to my upbringing:
Duncan: “When I was a little boy I was beaten by men and women. Teachers, parents, friends of my parents, parents of other little boys — just about any adult — would beat me or slap me around casually, sometimes raging with fury, other times just kind of happy slapping for Jesus. Generally, I found the men easier to predict, they didn’t seem so outwardly angry as the women. Women hit less often than men, but, and this is a very big but, men usually beat as a result of women’s insistence. Without this virulent insistence, I might have been beaten much less.”
Strong healthy families are crucial to the well being of society. I picked up one women’s magazine that had written across the front: “How are other women having better sex?” This is Satan’s Pulpit at work. This type of hype is breaking the very institution that is the bedrock of our community. The media is one of the reasons that the people of the Middle-East call America the “Great Satan”. They dislike the American media and the influence it has on the Christian West. They see the New York and Hollywood morals as destructive to society.
No-fault divorce is a disaster for women because it and the perceived bias of the family court have made younger males reluctant to commit to marriage. Marriage rates are down forty percent in Australia since the 1970s when no-fault divorce was introduced. For every one hundred women getting married in the 1970s, there are now only sixty marriages. There is little point in arguing for better rights outcomes for women if marriage does not occur.
Irrespective of fault, no-fault, money, no money, the divorce process is emotionally devastating. The potential emotional Armageddon is enough to discourage any man.
One study found that women initiated nearly seventy percent of all divorces. [1] Douglas LaBier wrote a report titled: “Here’s why wives report more dissatisfaction with their marriages than their husbands.”. He said that during his consultation experience it is common for the woman to express dissatisfaction about the state of the marriage, whilst the man is likely to report that he is troubled by his wife’s dissatisfaction. The male tolerates the state of the marriage with less complaint. [2] My addition is that as a male we are likely to say: “Well, she has had three children. Be tolerant.” As somebody said to me the other day: “Soldier on”. According to Gad Saad: “when it comes to mate choice, women are in the driver’s seat.” He then says: “I think that women’s greater likelihood of seeking to end a union is a further testament that when it comes to ... mate rejection — the ladies hold much of the power.” According to the National Center for Health Statistics, [U.S.A.] [4], about fifty percent of marriages in the United States end in divorce, and about eighty percent of the divorces are initiated by women. Irrespective of the reasons given in the resultant blame game, it is a big discouragement to males in the marriage game. Throughout history, we have never had a problem getting girls to get married, but we always had a problem getting males to get married. I am not interested in a blame game. Girls start to say: “But men this” and “men that”. But this is irrelevant. Men and women are different. It is not compulsory for males to get married. They have to be enticed into it. We cannot yet force males to marry females. To add weight to my comments: amongst marriages to college-educated women, ninety percent of all divorces are initiated by college-educated women. This makes it a dire forecast for any man who makes the mistake of marrying a college-educated girl. [6] Out of interest, put ‘college girls’ into a web-search. It won’t take you long to find what they get up to when they leave the influence of home. Many of the degrading acts on ‘college girls’ are inflicted by ‘college girls’ and filmed by girls. With the high divorce rate, the males will just not bother with marriage. As I often say: “Education is not a win.” Education makes you logical. The resultant constant relationship analysis makes maintenance of a relationship difficult. No one is telling young girls that if they choose the education path that they will have a rocky matrimonial path ahead. It is not just the girl’s age, it is also the way education encourages a person to use neocortex logic to over-ride subconscious. Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are ignored in favour of logic. Yet the smile is the primary method of communication in the creation of relationships, so the educated woman is at a disadvantage due to the modification of her thinking procedures.
The average age of first marriage in the United States for women is twenty-seven and twenty-nine for men. [8] In 1990, for women it was twenty-three and twenty-six for men. In 1960, for women, it was twenty and twenty-two for men. This is an incredible change. In Australia, the average age of first marriage for women is thirty and thirty-two for males. In Thailand, for females, it is twenty-one and twenty-four for males. In Ukraine, for females, it is twenty-five and twenty-seven for males. [8] In Australia in 2015, there were 113,595 marriages registered and 48,517 divorces granted. Barely half of U.S. adults are married — a record low. In Australia, the median duration from marriage to divorce is twelve years. [2015] The median age at divorce for males was forty-five years of age and the median age of females was forty-two years of age. [2015] [5]
As people have been encouraged to marry later to the benefit of the corporation’s workforce, the age differences between couples has increased as well. [7][3] However, the divorce rate has risen. The statistics support one of my claims that relations created between twenty-eight-year-olds are much shallower than relationships started between teenagers.
I don’t tell males about this or we will not get any of them to marry. If young males get to hear the truth about marriage statistics, there is even less chance of getting males to marry.
So, to the girls that can’t find a partner, most of the problems were not created by girls. However, marriages are still occurring. You need to get to be one of the positive statistics and as a society, we need to improve the statistics.
Girls have been told that they could be “freed from the kitchen”.
However, a job is not freedom. This image depicts factory work as akin to slavery:
Whereas this is apparently oppression:
This simply puts women under the same exploitative work situation as males.
They then suffer the same stress and work problems that previously plagued males. They lose the freedom of their own time and time for freedom. They lose freedom of though as employers retain the right to fire those that speak out of turn.
Girls are told they can “do anything”. The suggestion is that: “you can become a CEO. You can fly to the moon.” But this is a lie as there are only a few top jobs. To be the best, she has to better her peers. She starts to believe that something has made her special and she is better than her peers. This is dangerous to one’s mental health. We are all born equal, not better. To set out in life believing that one has to be better than others is a one way street to disappointment. Girls are told that they have the “potential” to do “great things”. She should not waste that potential. We are creating girls with unrealistic superhero dreams. The propaganda has girls chasing jobs that they come to hate that puts them on anti-depressants, makes them unhappy, and leaves them devoid of grandchildren in older age. A job is a job and it ends up owning you — not the other way round. The job does not give you status, it makes you a worker — a replaceable cog in a heartless machine. You are the omelette for whom they broke some eggs.
They are sold stories about going to the moon. They are being built up for disillusionment. The burden of expectation is a recipe for depression and anxiety. It will likely impede relationships. One such successful lady lawyer reported that she had “a self-image so low that I cannot look at myself in the mirror without hating myself.” She is not alone. One blogger comments:
“I remind her American girls are wrong, feminism is bullshit, and being a career girl rewards you with a cat, an apartment, chocolate and ice cream and around 200-300 different men. I also introduce her to my 40-year-old girlfriends who are decent women, but bought into the career lifestyle and explain how lonely they really are.”
The media and its male operators and financiers had the ability to influence the mindset of the masses. In the West, they managed it better than in the East. They had refined the system and used television, music, films, and newspapers to modify the mindset of Joe public. The people were like turtles who cannot tell the difference between a jellyfish and a plastic bag. They have successfully manipulated the mindset of women. It is scary that they can do this. The mindset of the public has been changed irreversibly. The prosperity of western nations will be brought down by feminism morphed into ‘Political Correctness’. Dissenters will be silenced and there will be little will to resist.
Courtney Martin, the author of ‘Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: How the Quest for Perfection is Harming Young Women’, wrote: “we are a generation of young women who were told we could do anything, and instead heard that we had to be everything.” Well, I don’t know about you, I am just happy to be myself. Sod other people’s expectations. People love me because I am ‘me’. Trying to be perfect is tedious and exhausting. It is totally unnecessary. The quest for perfectionism pushes the girl to find the perfect partner. They don’t exist. The perfect man does not exist. I am remarkably imperfect. I astound myself daily with my imperfections. The perfect woman does not exist. Only real males and real females exist. The desire for perfectionism will make one analytical of one’s every move and analytical of every aspect of any prospective male. This will show through in subconscious ways and the male will run a mile.
In some work fields, the girls don’t even want to do the jobs that have been set aside for them. In Australia, the military cannot fulfil its ‘quota’ of twenty-five percent of female combatants. Very few girls want to be in the military in jobs that had been ‘unfairly’ taken by males. To force the statistics, an Australian Defence Force recruiter, referring to male applicants, reported: “Yes they can apply — but only women will get the job.” They still can’t push the statistics to twenty-five percent even with a one-hundred percent bias to women, a heavy advertising campaign, and a drastic reduction of physical requirements to four pushups. Girls just do not want to be in the army. Girls are selective about the work they are prepared to do. Girls not holding half the defence force jobs is described as oppression by feminists even though girls clearly don’t want to work in the army in any significant number. Yet conscription of males in times of war was never described as oppression.
Girls simply do not form queues at army recruitment offices but they dominate in primary school teaching. But that is called success. Its all a bit screwball really. In discussions, so many say to me: “but feminism is a joke!” What upsets me is that it is primarily a joke on women.
Girls were told that they should consolidate a career, and start a family later. They were not told that finding a male to fall in love with them is incredibly more difficult at twenty-eight than it is at eighteen. Besides the issue of youth and looks, the twenty-eight girl has forgotten how to be eighteen. When I say: “Excuse me.” to an eighteen-year-old, she spins around and looks at me with wide eyes and a gleaming smile. When I say: “Excuse me.” to a twenty-eight-year-old female she slowly turns around and looks at me with suspicion and an ugly glare with the implication that I might be a pervert. Big difference. In the conversation, the eighteen-year-old listens with fascination and wide eyes. The twenty-eight-year-old says: “I don’t agree with that.” and pauses to think of some reactionary reply. I need to shake the tree a little to correct the situation.
There is no compulsion for the male to marry. The male still has a choice in this matter. “I don’t agree with that.” is simply a conversation killer. She might just as well have said: “Go away!” If the male detects that he is being micro-analysed, he will run. The girl is likely to draw up a list of required characteristics in the likely candidate. Any male that fits the list is likely to be sleeping with every girl in town and the analytical investigation will be detectable by the male. She might as well have ‘Go away’ tattooed on her forehead.
So, I have a monumental task in this book to explain the situation and put you in a position of finding a male who cares for you enough to relinquish his freedom. Lucy said to me: “Andy. We have got this wrong. It should be family first and then career.” Unfortunately, it was too late in her life to do anything about it. It is not uncommon to hear boys say: “If I found the right girl, I would marry her tomorrow.” The task I have is to make you the ‘right’ girl. Males are still getting married, but to others. We need to turn things around so they marry you. A few weeks ago in a scrappy hostel in Tbilisi, two different young men it two separate conversations nattered with me and discussed their intention towards girls they had met within the previous week. They were discussing marriage. They trusted the girl within days. Have you found a trusting man in the west? Trust has disappeared, and it wasn’t the males that changed.
There is a matter of urgency. I say to girls: “How long will it take to go out with a man before he trusts you enough to ask you to marry him?” You will exceedingly lucky for him to ask you to marry you within two years. At four years, he is prone to run away.
As the reader of this book, you look at the marriage problem as a problem for you the individual. I look at the problem of marriage as a problem for society. The church view on the institution of marriage is summed up by the Archbishop of Perth as: “The institution of marriage is important in providing a stable environment in which children can ideally be raised by their natural mother and father and the deepest meaning of sexuality.” Thus, marriage is bigger than the individual desires of two people. When two people get married, they make promises not only to each other, they make a promise to each of their families in front of their friends. They make a legal promise to the state and often they make a promise to their religion. The weakest link is the state. The family and the church considered the marriage to be binding but the nation-state has made this bond non-binding. It is only the nation-state that holds the marriage as non-binding. The promise has no weight and is easily revoked. Marriage has become an oxymoron, a revocable commitment. The state turned it into a commitment that is not a commitment. The church considers it a permanent bond between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation in a manner that benefits society. The nation-state has pandered to the individual but it will soon have to grapple with the immense cost to society of the family breakdowns. Those that control the state prefer persons to be reliant on the state than on family and church, even if the nation is impoverished by so doing. Thus to get a male to marry, you need to demonstrate to the male that this is permanent. You need to go to church simply to demonstrate your belief in the permanency of marriage. It might also be a good source of prospective males. Perhaps go to different churches for a greater range of prospective males. You will also be able to mention your church in conversations.
Although the book is called “The Secret”, the book is a compendium of all the things a girl needs in the exciting but scary journey into life. Some of this book may shock you to the core, but that was intentional. I even used the word ‘fuck’. Society made sex a subject of taboo. I look through the window and all animals are having sex, but they don’t feel guilty. Even the trees are having sex. Sex was made into a taboo topic that was not to be talked about so that women could control male sexuality. So that old ladies could say to their male slave: “All you ever think of is the ‘s’ word.” Sex is portrayed as being naughty. This concept must be maintained to control male enthusiasm. It is another part of ‘The Secret’, the method by which women have historically controlled males.
I have discovered that the girl has built into her a remarkably simple mechanism to get a male to fall in love with her. Nature also provided women with mechanisms to maintain the devotion of a male. This enables the male to be submissive to the female. Our logical approach to life is causing us to ignore these inbuilt procedures. A young child has the ability to get the mother to love through smiles alone. A similar skill in females causes a male to fall in love with the girl. We have to consciously make our subconscious operate to do so. All of the items that create and maintain a relationship are operated from the subconscious. Logic is counterproductive. I have to teach you the tactics. Thus, you need to read on. But if you want to know about real oppression, this is real oppression. It was common and the Christian males toughened up and rectified the situation:
Christianity toughened up and created armies because its people were threatened by other religious ideologies. It was necessary to stop other races, classes, and creeds from taking advantage of their good nature. The crusades were a delayed reaction to previous Muslim aggression. Muslim aggression was felt in many countries. India’s resistance to Islamic invasions started in 636 C.E. and continues to today. Muslim warriors started by desecrating Hindu temples and colleges, slaughtering monks and priests, and unleashing a reign of terror to impose Islam and subjugate the Hindu population. K.S. Lal estimates that around sixty to eighty million people died in India between 1000 and 1525 as a result of Muslim aggression. [11]