My whole mating game changed when farming arrived around twelve thousand years ago. No longer did I chase food across the prairies, food came to me. Farming caused us to live in small communities that individually developed ways to continue procreation. Males wanted sex at any cost. The society might as well make use of this enthusiasm. This static life form enabled more permanent unions between males and females. To live in communities, rules were required. The people that made the rules tied it up with the hocus-pocus of nonsensical thoughts that go through our brain. Rules were made for procreation, peaceful cooperation, trade, land use, training of the young, and hereditary procedures. My human friends were using much more than their reptilian instincts. Knowledge and procedures had to be passed from generation to generation. The people that made the rules became to be called religious people. They created a set of rules for the operation of society. If they did not get the rules correct, that society faded away to be replaced by a set of rules that worked. If we make too many changes to the rules in this century, our way of life will disappear. The Christian West is suffering this at present. It is on the road to disappearance.
We were already using language when we started small farming communities twelve thousand years ago. Language is much more than a communication tool. Language is used in our brain to order our thoughts. I ask you: “What did you do yesterday?” ..... Pause for you to think..........“What did you do yesterday?” You order your thoughts using language. It took years to teach you to speak and consequently to use language to order your thoughts.
Many reptilian instincts were thrown out to accomplish community life. Logic is used in language to override all our reptilian instincts. Males can be told to: “Man up” and they happily go away to be shot. Kamikaze pilots can be welded into an airplane. Women can be told to marry who they are told to marry for community relations reasons. However, they would have lived better than the life in a cave where the man was only interested in one thing. Community life enabled the energy of the males to be harnessed for the benefit of women and society. The message given to males was: “You want nooky. Work for it.” And: “You mistreat her and we will deal with you.” In 1970, at the age of nineteen, I went on a University Pot-Holing expedition to the High Atlas of Morocco. A young local lad was our volunteer guide. He invited us round to his family hut for food. Talking about arranged marriages, he said:
“I don’t like your system. You expect everything to be wonderful. But it is never as good as you expect. In our system, our parents are good people and they look after our interests. They choose a good bride for us. We don’t expect it to be wonderful, but it is always much better than we expect.”
There is much logic in this. On a recent visit to Marrakesh, I saw a loving smile between a male and his young wife the likes of which I never see in the West. In the West, we are too calculating. We even analyze the relationship whilst it is in progress. Our current relationships have an element of constant doubt. An arranged marriage has none of these issues. It may be a good time to bring in an element of parental assistance in these times of matrimonial Armageddon. No one gives you ‘unconditional love’ like your parents. Parents should be your biggest support base, not your enemy. The in-laws should never be ‘outlaws’. Never forget the assistance that can be given to you by your parents and in-laws. In a society, even the old bloke on the park bench has an investment in your relationship and the general wellbeing of the community. We are all in it together.
So right from the beginning of farm societies, the use of logic in the formation if male-female pair-bonds had advantages and disadvantages. As hunter-gatherers, we tended to do what came naturally and as communities, we tended to do what came logically. If logic aligned with nature, all the better. If logic collided with nature, logic won. It is popular to suggest that this was a ‘man’s world’ and males engineered the system for male benefit. But the testimony of my womanizing acquaintances tells a different story. Males would have a much more exciting life jumping into different beds on a weekly or daily roster. Monday is Mary. Wednesday is Jade. Friday is Sarah. This leaves Saturday for partying and chasing women. Man is more likely to bed hop, given a chance. If man had set society for man’s benefit, he would not have restricted his sex life to one woman. If man had set up society for the benefit of society, he would have promoted monogamy and freed women from the burden of the workplace. If women had set society up for their benefit, they would have entrapped males into bondage and sent them out to work, whilst they did as they pleased. They would dress up in bright clothes, dress their man in plain clothes and parade their slave around with the aim of demonstrating his earning capacity. The tying one man to one woman is for the benefit of the woman, offspring, and society. Tying the man to one woman harnessed the energy of the male to the benefit of the one female for her benefit and the benefit of society. I sometimes tell this story:
“When we first created communities, it was the women that got together in groups. The man was wandering the forest and was invited in, provided he behaved himself. If he was well behaved and did the various assigned chores, he might receive bedtime amusement by a girl that chose him. Any male that did not ‘tow the line’ was ostracized or ‘dealt with’ by the other men. They learned that if they tied one male to one female, they could harness the energy of the male. When a female has a baby, it is clear who the mother is. However, it is not clear who the father is. If a man only sleeps with one woman, it is clear who the father is. Thus, the man can be told: “This child is the result of your ‘nooky’.” The man is then encouraged to look after and teach the ‘system’ to the child. There is a tendency for the man to fall for the woman that he is ‘bedding’.”
Under such a scenario, it is the male that is enslaved to the woman. Not by chains, but by the mental chains of desire for regular ‘nooky’, societal expectations, and more. Under such a system, the mothers teach the males to conform to the authority of women. Many a male has told me how their mother taught them: “You never hit a girl” and: “Don’t answer your mother back”. I hear some graphic stories of how their mother instilled this into the male mind from a young age. I can tell you that it is very difficult to break the rules set into my male mind by my mother. I cannot ever mistreat a female because my mother ‘said so’. The mother sets up a contract between males and females carried into later life. Unfortunately, the bewildered modern male is finding that this contract is no longer valid. I now hear males talk about mistreatment of females in sexual arrangements. I never heard these things when I was a younger man. Fifty years ago, we would never have dreamed of treating females in this manner. Girls are turning up in hospitals battered and torn from sexual activities. The male phallus was designed to enter the vagina and remain there until completion. Elsewhere was considered an embarrassing mistake. Males are not following the rigid discipline instilled by mothers to maintain the status quo. The mothers encouraged the males to work hard and ‘bring home the bacon’ for their future wives. Thus women were significantly freer to visit friends and take up pursuits other than work. They also got males to run the society and make the decisions for the betterment of a society, meaning for the benefit of women. When a male makes a decision, he uses simple logic. He weighs up the facts, checks what his wife thinks, and makes a decision that may even be detrimental to himself. Imagine two males have an argument. Fighting erupts and fists flail. When the fight is over, one might say to the other: “Sorry mate. My mistake. It’s yours. All over. Issue closed. See you another day.” A common male-talk joke is: “If you have an argument with a woman, even if she is wrong, she will get nasty.” In a relationship, this usually means that she bans nooky for a month. The male is ‘in the doghouse’. Then he does something to ‘make up’, even though it was not his fault in the first place, and he is rewarded with an evening of great nooky. Females may have seen an advantage in allowing males to ‘run the show’ provided women were the primary beneficiaries. Take for example the sinking of the Titanic. (Or was it the fault-ridden Olympic with the name-plates changed?)
The Titanic Sinking. [Source: HistoryFreak.]
The women were all put in life rafts and the men went down to their deaths in the icy water with the ship. RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner. It hit an iceberg and sank in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1912. She was carrying an estimated 2,224 passengers and crew. More than 1,500 died. Lifeboat capacity was only 1,178. The rule of the times was: “women and children first”. Without question, the males stayed on the sinking ship. Only 700 of 1,178 lifeboat places were occupied. They accepted that female lives were to be saved in preference to males. As a matter of personal honour, the males refused to board the lifeboats until it was certain that all women had been given preference. Male lives were basically irrelevant. Most of the males stayed on the doomed vessel aware that they faced an icy death in the water that was two degrees below zero Celsius. The lifeboats had not been filled to capacity. It would have been ‘most’ inappropriate for a male to get into a lifeboat. Numbers of fatalities are not clear, however, the best figures available are:
Thus, a full eighty percent of the males died. Moving forward one hundred years to 2012, the protocols had changed. The Concordia sank in 2012. The theme song to the film: “Titanic” was playing in the dining room of the Concordia as it hit the rocks. The evacuation of the Concordia had none of the dignity of the Titanic. “It was every man for himself.” The word ‘man’ is appropriate as male would jostle with female to get off the boat. Even crew members jumped aboard lifeboats before passengers. The male deference to females instilled by mothers is evaporating and females are worse off for the change. During the evacuation of the Concordia, there were reports that: “Men pushed past women and children to reach lifeboats.” Some say that: “there was no respect for the tradition of women and children first”. Even the Concordia captain abandoned the ship before passengers.
The concept that female lives were somehow more valuable than male lives was instilled into the young boys by mothers which was them reinforced by the males of society. In 1852, the HMS Birkenhead sank. It is reported that the soldiers stood to attention while the women and children boarded the lifeboats. The majority of the males died. It was described as “a piece of pure and exalted manhood.” (‘Manhood’ thus meant deferring to women.) In 1854, the paddle steamer SS Arctic sank. The media branded the male survivors as “cowards” because woman and children died. In 1857, the SS Central America sank. Women and children were put on lifeboats by males at the expense of their own lives. The males that died to save the women and children were glorified in the press for their “gallantry”. (Gallantry is thus equated to dying to save the life of a woman.)
The Neolithic Revolution is the name we use for the change that occurred twelve thousand years ago, when humans discovered how to cultivate crops and how to domesticate animals. Interestingly, the Neolithic Revolution occurs independently in separate parts of the world. The reason may have been the ending of the recent ice age. The animals moved but us humans preferred to stay put. So fences and tethers were invented. The Neolithic Revolution only spread to areas which we could farm. In the jungles of the world, our old hunter-gatherer lifestyle continued all the way through to the twentieth century. Lack of salt was one of our biggest problems in our newly settled communities so we learned to trade. All manner of pair-bonding developed from the times of the Neolithic Revolution. Before anybody starts yelling at this book, was arranged marriage any worse or better than the vagaries of jungle sex? Our ‘marriage for love’ in vogue at present seems to be a bit of a disaster at best. It survives on government handouts. ‘Marriage for love’ is not natural if it relies on the surviving marriages throwing into the pot to fund the failed marriages. If fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, we are talking about a failed system. If females cannot find males to marry them, we are talking a failed system. If unresolvable differences are occurring in marriages, then at least one party is refusing to resolve a difference between a pair that was originally created out of the love of each other. We are not talking about farms where a ram is put amongst the ewes. We are not talking about bulls in a paddock of cows, although, I never saw a cow protesting to the bull. So the problem has little to do with our natural instincts as determined by our DNA as held in our reptile brain. Our reptile brain would quite happily have nooky with a reasonable mate. The problem lies in our neocortex. The very essence of ‘irreconcilable’ difference can only occur through the logic of our conscious brain, the neocortex. A little more conciliation and the relationship is full steam ahead. The internet lists numerous statements such as:
“Make-up sex is wild and extremely gratifying sex that people report having experienced after having had an intense fight.”
The topic is common enough to have its own name: “Make-up sex”. Two person’s neocortexes are arguing over something petty in a manner to damage a relationship that is more precious than the item over which they are quibbling. The result being they bang the hell out of each other, either in the courts or in the bed. How stupid is the human neocortex? (The bedroom uses emotion and the reptile brain. The courtroom uses logic and the neocortex.) This next comment is topical:
“Once you’ve had an orgasm or two, both people are satisfied and most people don’t remember the argument, let alone what it was about.”
Back to the Neolithic Revolution. Marriage since this time has always been a fundamental cornerstone of human social, economic, and relationship networks. If the parents choose the partner, they choose the future family in-laws. If you choose, you are also choosing your future in-laws. You are marrying the male and his family. If a girl is attempting to ‘marry-up’, she is purposefully marrying for gain with hopefully a bit of love thrown in. Her decision is influenced by gain and status. All pretence that the relationship is solely guided by love is pretence. Deceit may be involved. Similarly, a male inflating his assets is being deceitful. If girls choose to reject males from the ‘wrong side of town’, we not talking about relationships that were created only for ‘love’. Status is involved as well. It is not love alone if you happen to fall for your cousin. This is banned even if you scream: “Love.” I wonder if two male cousins can marry! I wonder if two female cousins can marry! That would get the ‘politically correct’ fruitcakes steaming.
A study by Apostolou of one hundred and ninety hunter-gatherer societies has some interesting results. The arrangement of marriage by parents or close kin was the primary mode of marriage in eighty-five percent of the sample. Shock - horror. However, there was an extremely high chance of marriage leading to children and a family in a long-lasting family unit protected by society. Compare this to today’s situation. Currently, a girl may have to woo a man for four years with regular sex in the hope that he might ‘pop the question’. He might then disappear and she loses a four-year investment at a crucial time of her life when time is of the essence. The girl may have to go through the four-year procedure another two times. In the words of one sixty-year-old lady on her failure to create a lasting marriage and raise a family: “Why did it have to happen to me?” She had assumed that marriage and family would arrive and it never did. She may have screamed about an arranged marriage but she would be in the song:
“Every summer we can rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight”
“Grandchildren on your knee.”
Choosing your perfect partner is currently making marriage somewhat elusive. By the way, an arranged marriage is not the same as a forced marriage. Forced marriages, where consent has not been given by the bride, is even treated as illegal in Islamic law. Even the Muslims have increasingly taken to the internet to find a spouse. Surely, if we have one hundred girls in a room and one hundred boys in a room, we should be able to get the bulk of them married off to each other. Why is it taking girls so long to find a man and wait forever for him to propose? If he fails to propose, then the girl has to start all over again. One can hardly blame a male for refusing to marry on the basis that he is scared that the marriage is going to destroy his emotional health.
We tend to think that our lifestyle and our earlier agricultural lifestyle were better than the lifestyle of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Hunter-gatherers had great mobility and great scenery. We go on holidays to compensate. They ate a wide variety of nutritious foods including meat, fish, and plants. In contrast, farmers are stuck in one place all their lives. Agricultural lifestyle is prone to pestilence, sabotage, fire, and crop failure which leads to starvation. Starvation does not occur where there are multiple food sources. A financial system is required to complement an agricultural system. A financial system is required to allow food to flow to a city whilst the farmer is held in debt. Financial systems are horribly prone to abuse, dominance, and collapse. Financial collapse is to be dreaded and sends us straight back to a hunter-gatherer existence but without the skills to survive. Massive loss of life occurs. Agricultural diets are mostly corn, potatoes, wheat, or rice. These diets lack protein, vitamins, and minerals. Men enjoyed the challenge of hunting and they had the joy of meeting others on their travels. Some estimates suggest that hunter-gatherers worked limited hours and had great quantities of leisure time whilst their children played around them. The gathering of plants was a social event for the women with their children in proximity. Some believe that the expressions: the “land of milk and honey.” and the “Garden of Eden.” refer to the idyllic historical hunter-gatherer environment. It is highly likely the hunter-gatherer was far happier than the field labourer or the office worker of today. In times gone by, hunter-gatherers lived on the best land. Unfortunately, they have been relegated to the worst land.
It is thus not appropriate to assume that modern life and modern marriage is better than that of our ancestors. Hunter-gatherer societies may have had fixed roles for each gender, but everyone learns all basic skills for survival. But males and females were equally responsible for food acquisition and appear to have had equal status. The problem today is not who has the higher status and the greater control within the family and within society in general but that there is a bun-fight over the issue. Men are getting scolded whether they are condescending to women or contemptuous of women. As one smart girl, Tanika, said to me: “They are guilty of things they haven’t even done.” The problem has become the bun-fight rather than the relative status of women versus men. Like a war between countries, the damage can take a long time to heal. The fight over control and influence is causing more damage than the transfer of power and influence. If women want to run and control everything from nations to families, they are welcome to it. But they may drop like flies as they need stress leave and buckets of anti-depressants. I gave up on the obsession with success a long time ago. It is not worth it. I’d rather enjoy my day all over town talking to interesting people than fight the corporate status game for the chance of a desk closer to a window and a better parking spot in the corporate carpark. Who would actually work if they didn’t have to? Imagine your little desert island where you wake up, walk outside and pick your breakfast off a tree. Go fishing for a while with good mates. You will dig a few nuts up in the afternoon with the children, neighbours, and the neighbour’s children and have a damn good romp in the sack at night with a spouse. A spouse that adores you. Perhaps you prefer to sit in a windowless room with flickering fluorescent lights and a never-ending pile of files to work through endlessly waiting for five o’clock to catch an overcrowded train full of faceless zombies that are similarly burnt-out. I often say to girls:
“You can have all the jobs if you want them. We didn’t want them in the first place. We were told that we had to work to support a wife an family. I tell you — you’ll all finish up on anti-depressants. People only get paid to work because it is not enjoyable. But you must be aware that man’s natural state is to be lazy and cause trouble. If men are not kept occupied in society, they are going to become problematic. Look at the increasing jail populations as males are pushed out of the workforce.”
In the hunter-gatherer society, the old person was valued because they held the knowledge from the past. We have books and the internet now. But I do get asked a lot of advice by the teens and twenties about relationship issues. Thus this book. I really don’t understand why we assume that we can have happy peaceful marital relations whilst there is a war over individual rights. You may have the best psychologist in town who says: “You have a complex. Take these pills and come back and give me more money next week.” Perhaps it should be that psychologists should visit psychiatrists and psychiatrists should see psychologists. They can practice their sorcery on each other. They have strange ideas that problems all relate to a penis or a clitoris. They think that the people have been sexually molested without knowing it and people want to have sex with their parents. They think everyone has a problem and that every person should give monthly fees. They try to fix overthinking with more thinking. They are the leading edge of fruitcake science. In a nation-state controlled society, anyone searching for truth can be sent to them to be ‘adjusted’ and medicalized.
Great arguments are put forward for equality whilst one gender has the authority to ban conjugal relations. Beware, there is also a massive difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. With equality of outcomes, fifty percent of front-line troops must be female. Fifty percent of tax must be paid by females. Fifty percent of roof-tilers must be female. Be careful. This could bite you and take a long time to unravel. We may need disabled access to airline cockpits for disabled pilots! Here is a graph showing the disparity in tax paid by males and females. There is a 200% disparity. Males pay more tax than females. If women want ‘equality’, they need to pay more tax!
Males pay the bulk of the tax. Here is a graph showing tax received by males and females.
Woman are the major recipients of tax. The research is suggesting that male taxpayers are the only ones that make a positive contribution in taxes. Male taxpayers are paying women to exist!
Anyone that needs to see a psychologist, or take legal or illegal drugs has failed the rat race. Gracefully bail out. Some handle the stress better than others. I don’t handle stress well, so I bailed out and do less stressful work. My advice: “Don’t go for stressful jobs. Let some other mugginses do the stressful jobs.” Go have some fun with your children. Send the blokes out to work. Work has knobs on it. Work is not fun. Work is work. You may be extremely lucky and get a job that is enjoyable — but don’t expect it. The opposite is more truthful. You were sold a lie at the hand of the corporate controlled state. Same trick — different century.
Civilization involved the creation of cities. Farms were required that produced more than the farm family ate. A money system enabled food to move to the city. Debt or transfer of manufactured goods removed money from the farmers. This kept the farms productive. Farms need to be kept in debt so that they produce for the city. Jericho appears to have been our first real town in about 8000 BC. We had about two thousand living there. The first full civilizations occurred in Mesopotamia and Egypt around 3100 BC. Great rivers are a crucial part of the city story. For our purposes, we can say that city-based civilization started about 5000 years ago. Marriage became institutionalized when we became civilized. Marriage practices vary from arranged marriages, to courting. There may be restrictions on acceptability such as religious intolerance. Some common religions have marriage arrangements that are close to apartheid. They can only marry someone from their own race or religion. There may be significant money or gifts involved. The roles of the genders vary. The ‘Western’ trend at present is to persuade the women to work as well as raise a family. This is a big change from just decades ago when females could trust the man to bring in an adequate income for a family. Society wanted males to earn more because they were supporting a female and a family. Thus, even women were accepting of males earning more because the male was supporting a female and children. Males were not paid more for the benefit of males but for the benefit of supported females. The propaganda has been interesting. It was obvious that males were working in the factories, offices, and fields. The women were persuaded that males were taking all the best jobs. If there was an inequality it was that most men were working and women were not working. The onslaught of the demand for ‘equality’ could mean that males got as much work-free-time as women. Women were getting more work-free-time than men. Society was oppressing males by making them work. The propaganda demonstrates human gullibility. Women were told they could be: “freed from the kitchen and work in a factory.” Our neocortex did not decipher that: “Kitchen is not a slave camp.” and “Slavery to an assembly line is not a liberation.”
The reality is that the world of work is a world of wage slavery. Males only had the choice of who should be their wage-slave master. Males were not told that they could be freed from the factory and spend more leisure time with their children. No! No! No! Women were to be freed from freedom and put into servitude in factories on work contracts just as the bloody Bolshevik invaders did in their deadly Communist takedown of Russia. No more fun with the children. Do what the propaganda dictates: “Get into those factories and work, work, work. Spend your whole week waiting for the weekend. Forget relationships with males. They are bad for you. Don’t have children. Too much trouble. Work in a factory instead.”
Daphne describes her career:
“When I was young I was a policewoman. I thought I could do exactly as the men did, then found out the truth about our differences. The thing, this exciting career really wasn’t all that. Ninety percent boredom, ten percent adrenaline. I knew so many men who spent their entire career waiting to retire. That’s how I learnt the truth about this whole situation. Feminism glorifies careerism, but for the majority of people, it’s just a job. The majority of men do their job to provide for their family.
I remember being in a holding cell one day with other policewomen. We were all talking about wanting to leave and we all agreed how lucky we were we had the option. Just because feminists whine on don’t be mistaken. The majority of women, like the majority of men, appreciate the other sex. That made me appreciate what men do.”
The nice lady of sixty-four at the fuel station says that she distinctly remembers at a young age feeling sorry for males because they were required to work all their lives. It is quite amazing what a bit of propaganda can do.
Shirley writes:
“This article perpetuates the lie that women will have careers and find fulfilment in them, rather than doing what women have always enjoyed doing — having kids and enjoying family and social life. Ninety-five percent of women won’t have a ‘career’ — they will have a ‘job’ — which will be tiring, stressful, and largely pointless from the perspective of life goals and personal fulfilment. Of course, most of them only figure this out by the time they are thirty-five — at which point it is all but too late to change course.
I look around me at work and the most miserable, abject and confused women are the ones who sacrificed having a family for the meaningless, paper-shuffling hassle that they call their ‘career’. Instead of enjoying family life, they go home to their place and feed their cat... how dreary, how grim.”
Ministry gets really carried away about what we call ‘Political Correctness’. Political Correctness means the avoidance of language and actions that insult, exclude or harm people who are already experiencing disadvantage and discrimination. It is then used as a cudgel against any person or activity that is ‘normal’. It is hinted that normal people are oppressing all minority groups. Father Christmas gets in trouble for saying: “Ho Ho Ho” — because he said it three times! The term ‘Politically Correct’ was borrowed from the English translation of some Chinese Communist texts, particularly those from the deadly communist Cultural Revolution where persons of ability were ‘shouted down’. This is much better than the French Revolution method of silencing dissenting persons — they had their heads guillotined.
“The LGBT agenda is about depopulation to encourage people who would otherwise have had children are in an environment where they do not need to. It is also about making us docile and to emasculate men as gay behavior is normalized through the BBC and similar propaganda channels. In order to destroy the West, the globalists use minorities who are given special privileges in the name of ‘equality’ to form an alliance against traditionalists.”
Loriman jumps in with:
“And so we have ended up with this worldwide disaster that women are just beginning to wake up to. And wake up with anger when they realize that they have been conned out of also having their own children having left it too late.”
Female writes:
“Men aren’t our enemies — they are our friends.”
Ministry writes about the con disguised as feminism:
“Feminists are cultural Marxists and the fight for freedom was about providing a means for women to live independently from men so that they wouldn’t pair bond and would not have children. That is what feminism is all about. Feminism has been successful as people believe that it is about helping women but that is just the deceitful guise required to achieve its agenda. Look at how successful it has been in destroying women’s and men’s lives as well as leaving them sterile. Every trick in the book is used to destroy the European people.” [Italics for grammar corrected.]
And:
“No successful couple can last long when the complementary nature of men and women is being eradicated.”
Nikita Khrushchev, President of the USSR, is reputed to have said in 1959:
“Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have communism. We won’t ever have to fight you; we’ll weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” [Unverified.]
We assume that the Iron Curtain fell due to the collapse of communism, but it may have been to further communism. But my current thinking is that the fall of the Iron Curtain was so that the more successful form of communism spread to the areas where communism had collapsed. As the English language spreads into the old communist countries, Western communism called Feminism and ‘Political Correctness’ can seep into the communist countries. On stays in Ukraine, Poland, and the Czech Republic, I detected that they were getting the concepts of Feminism where women freely marched off to jobs and avoided having children. The damage is not as advanced as in the West, but it is moving in that direction. Ukraine is entirely white and smart young women pushing prams in town centres is common.
Nikita Khrushchev also said:
“I once said, ‘We will bury you,’ and I got into trouble with it. Of course, we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.”
He also said:
“The press is our chief ideological weapon.”
Women have been propagandised in the modern age to encourage them to think that wanting to be wives and mothers expressed a lack of drive and ambition. It revealed a fault. Thoughts of children was faulty thinking! So — even thinking about wanting children was a sign of a faulty brain. The real agony comes from the missing out on motherhood. Successful women are realising too late the joy of having a family. So many women will have to admit to themselves that it was a mistake not starting a family. Even the expression ‘Successful Woman’ is faulty. It suggests that success for a woman is defined in terms of career. No one gives a toss about the carreer of a eighty-eight-year-old woman least of allthe company she slaved for. She wouldn’t even get past the front gate of the company to use the toilet let alone be offered a cup of tea for her forty years or work servitude. She would not even be alloweed to use the canteen even if she paid for the cup of tea. Succcessful carreer was a way of getting males to work hard to supply money to females.
Leigh Philips writes:
“Leigh’s experience reflects that of thousands of women, born in an age of feminism, whose careers and love affairs dominated their 20s and 30s, only for them to realise, as their fertility waned, that they wanted to be mothers and raise families after all..”
The so called ‘Successful Woman’ realises, too late, that her achievements no longer mean quite so much as having a family may have done. Yet again there is buried illogic. ‘Successful Woman’ has bee synchronised with doing what patriarchy demanded men to do — work at paid labour. It is still in my mind that my hugely popular and ‘Successful Mother’ is recognised, not for her fine teaching, but for her mothership. At a recent family wedding, she was the hero, the matriarch, the centre of attention. People came up to me out of the blue and said that they would like to meet her, not because of her teaching career but because she was the mother and granny they idolised. I took them across to meet my mother as if they were meeting a rock idol.
The communists could not get the workers to revolt in the West, so they turned the women against the men. As in communism, what they said and what they did not match. The outcome was no good for anyone except the oppressors. Perhaps the people will work out who engineered the takedown and take down the oppressors. As I sometimes say: “The organized organize the disorganized.” The reality is that the general civilization are never organized. Some ideology will come along and oppress them in the name of looking after them. Currently, the left is winning by defining the acceptable thinking in society with an unusual brand of system-wide illogic.
To accept the concepts of the ‘equality ideology’ is to deny the differences in the makeup of the human being. Males and females are different and similar at the same time. It is the difference between male and female that makes the relationship exciting, purposeful, functional, and productive. The difference between the functionality allows females and males to have different roles whilst allowing dignity and mutual respect between the genders. The male and the female are significantly different physically and mentally. Our bodies function in different ways. Males happily admire women for their qualities without wishing to become female or take the role of women. Women admire males for their qualities and abilities without wishing to emulate them nor destroy or damage them. The two form a harmonious union where the female and the male complement each other in an arrangement that enables mutual support. A nurtured relationship has the potential to provide happiness, satisfaction, and a meaningfulness to their lives. The success of these unions is an essential component of civilization. In the words of twenty-eight-year-old Adina:
“Blokes can do the blokey things and girls can do the girly things.”
In the words of an old lady that I met walking down a quiet residential street:
“Men can be the men and women can be the women.”
Marriage has always been the formalization of pair-bonding for the benefit of society. It provides a safe and secure environment for the raising of a family. It starts with little more than a twinkle of an eye but develops into its own functional unit. The relationship relies on mutual admiration and support. The initial excitement and bonding creates a togetherness that the bible calls: “one flesh” that takes the couple through the many challenges of parenthood about which they were not initially aware. The challenges can become more complex whilst the ability to handle the challenges increases. Support for the marriage is needed from all available quarters of the society. The family unit is the only entity capable of giving unconditional love and support. It is being destroyed. It is not helped by the behaviour of single women either. Psychology Today cites a report when the author states: “In fact, one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.” This is nonsensical as he is cheating with the single girl so his is a proven cheater. The single girl also demonstrates a lack of moral principle by sleeping with a married man. Observant bloggers describe this behaviour in single women in the oft stated comment: “The best way to get a girl is to already have one.”
Many millennia in our past, the climate warmed and the forests receded. As humans, we started to migrate into the savannah where our diet was composed of vegetation and scavenged meat. We eventually learned to make tools, hunt, and kill our own meat. The meat-based diet appears to have caused babies to be born earlier which required more care from mothers. This occurred during the period between 1,800,000 years and 23,000 years in the past. The offspring that were the most likely to survive were from males and females that joined together to form the very first marriages. These relationships probably lasted about four years which was long enough to give stability to the young. After the four years, the male might wander off and repeat the process. This might explain the four-year issue in males where they become questioning of the relationship after a period of besotted devotion. It also matches the peak in the divorce rate at four years.
Around 23,000 years ago, we started to grow our own food which changed the relationship between female and male. Men were possibly stronger and were less physically involved with childrearing and so tasks tended to get separated as our men worked the fields and our women stayed closer to home. We invented the plough around four-thousand-years ago. This allowed productive arrangements where males tended the land.
Marriage then became the union between a woman and a man that was supported by the community. Our new agricultural way of life tied us to the land which meant after the four years there was less reason to wander off to find new mates. The relationship became marriage where the couple stayed together for greater than the four years enabling prolonged care and upbringing for the children. Marriage became a community-backed contract. The whole situation was ‘normalized’ in religious law. These arrangements gave some assurance to the males that the children they were raising were biologically theirs. It also gave some assurance to the female that the male would not leave them destitute. The nation-state usurped the religious law. This then became a struggle of ideologies as a means of control and influence. Communism claimed to benefit the working class but did the opposite. Feminism claims to help women but does the opposite. Communism claimed that the rich were the bogey-men oppressors. Feminism claims that the males are the bogey-men oppressors. Same story — different century.
The object of marriage was centred on the desire of men and women to see their children survive. In terms of evolution, the children with the best upbringing survived against the odds. Marriage became part of the evolutionary process because it produced the best-adjusted offspring to keep the system going. Marriage was not a procedure designed to enslave females. Marriage was mutually convenient for survival and created the most sustainable life system.
The religions put in various other appropriate rules such as preventing individuals from marrying a cousin, second cousin, stepmother, stepdaughter, widow of an uncle or brother, or anyone within seven degrees of separation from yourself.
In modern hunter-gather societies, there appears to be no tribes that practice one-lifetime sexual partner. Most seem to have lots of sex with many people. Anthropologist Thomas Gregor reported eighty ongoing affairs amongst the thirty-seven adults in the Mehinaku village in Brazil. He also suggests that nuclear family was not part of the hunter-gatherer culture. In tribal cultures, the extended family, which be the entire village, is the place where children are raised.