Ladies, don’t freak out. Read this through to the end and control your feminist rage until the end; you will probably be pleasantly surprised by the conclusions if you can manage it.
This post proves in detail what any normal person that has ANY level of historical knowledge already knows: no civilisation in the entire history of humanity has EVER functioned with women in charge. And the current absurd (but intentionally orchestrated) attempt at gynocracy has already resulted in what is essentially civilisational collapse. The phenomenon is primarily focussed on the West (aka Caucasian civilisation) because that is historically the people who have best resisted the efforts of the Satanic forces that promote gynocracy (Talmudians primarily, pedovores, pederasts, weak, effeminate, homosexual “men”, the mentally ill, and of course women in general (because like children, they mostly simply don’t know any better, it’s like asking a kid in a free candy store to choose to eat ham and broccoli instead)).
Most specifically, proper Catholicism (no longer existing in the Vatican and only espoused today by 1958 Totalist Sedevacantist Catholics) is the best system under which human beings operate.
In proper Catholicism, men and women each have their expected and complementary duties to fulfil, and society at large is also geared towards protecting them all (both men and women and especially children, which is precisely NOT the case today) in not the absurd, unfair, and ultimately tyrannical and evil “equality” false narrative, but rather, as is logical and true and correct, more broadly in terms of their ability and agency.
In a proper patriarchal society, women have less say in the running of things at an institutional, political, and practical sense of society, their influence is not direct but rather indirect (as is female nature in general anyway). Men will create harmony or discord in the world, and women will do so in the home. The woman is not “oppressed” but rather valued, cherished, protected, looked after, and praised for her role as mother, wife, grandmother and nurturer and raiser of children. The social expectations placed on her are those she naturally enjoys most and is best suited for. And similarly, less responsibility on certain matters also means less culpability. In a patriarchal society a woman will (and should) get somewhat milder sentences for the same crime committed by a man. Take as a hypothetical situation a man that drugs a woman to have sex with her. His punishment should be severe and possibly even capital. But should a woman drug a man and then have sex with his unconscious body (but hypothetically erectile function unimpaired) the punishment would not be as severe at all. Even if the crime was essentially identical and filmed on video, the natural tendency is to punish the man far more for than the woman. And I think that’s fine and normal. And has been that way for millennia.
Similarly, women get lower sentences even for murder, and again, I am not opposed to that, with one exception: the abuse of their own children (women are statistically the biggest perpetrators of this by the way) or the murder of their own children, which last should always be a capital (death penalty) crime for everyone.
The duties of each of us stem from our capacity to act in accordance with reality. In other words, your ability to:
- perceive reality objectively as it actually is instead of distorted by your personal biases, emotions, or mental defects, and then,
- Act accordingly (whether for good or evil),
Defines your level of responsibility.
And with greater CAPACITY, come both greater RESPONSIBILITY as well as CONSEQUENCES for failure.
If a child falls asleep at the wheel of his tricycle, the damage is likely small, not so the adult male pilot of a 747.
And contrary to all the lies we have all been told for decades, the simple reality is that women have less capacity for the correct perception of reality than men. This is empirically demonstrated any time anyone ever bothered to test it, in pretty much any field of endeavour. And we all really already know this, just as we know children have even less capacity for it than women. And again, this is not “controversial” it’s just a fact.
And no amount of exception to the rule changes the broad statistical fact. Just because YOU or some woman you know is the exception does NOT change the overwhelming statistical reality. And as we have seen before, the difference is not tiny.
Given our current state of affairs however, it is my contention (and has been for a very long time, about 40 years in fact) that things will not be able to be “forced back”. That is, I very much doubt a sudden rush of incels will force women to become “good Catholic wives”. In fact, I can’t think of anything worse, because in effect, what THAT “society” looks like is something we already have, it’s called Islam.
Which is actually the opposite of actual Catholicism in most respects, being as it is one of the many Satanic religions.
But in any case, there would never be such an army of properly Catholic men doing any such thing. There CAN be an army of Catholic men creating proper Catholic enclaves, villages, whole towns, monasteries, and even city states, but Catholicism is founded on the individual’s inalienable God given right to CHOOSE. There is no forced marriage or conversion in Catholicism. You need to choose it. And if you do you are implicitly and explicitly saying you believe and devote yourself to the best of your ability to that system of belief.
As a woman that means knowing that your duties are those of a wife and mother primarily. That your duty is to your husband first in all things but the physical safety of your children, and his duty is to you in the same way but with with the added point that he also has many more duties that extend outside of the family unit that are his to exercise when he should.
Catholicism “seems” oppressive only under the lens of the current dystopia, but is in fact a partnership of harmonious fluidity between a man and his wife and between them and their children and between their family and those of all of their neighbours.
It is also exceedingly hard to do and achieve in the current zeitgeist marinating in the lies we have all been drowned in from birth.
A woman that has lived in the dystopia as it is will likely have a body count that is scandalous by any even remotely Catholic standards.
A man that has done so while “following the rules” of the dystopia is likely a broken shell, or some kind of metrosexual/homosexual neurotic who worries about his inherent “privilege” and fears the fury of a woman on a par with that of trained attack dogs. Conversely, a man that refuses to bend to the dystopia is likely either in jail, harassed by multiple ex-wives, or juggling a harem while presenting a façade to every woman he meets while harbouring a certain level of contempt for them all.
So… even IF such a couple get together, the idyllic romance of it all immediately shifting to a soft focus of fields of poppies, a half-dozen blonde children playing around their wholesome mom and dad as they head off to Church on Sunday and picnic by the lake later, is not how it works.
The woman will have to let go of a LOT of the solipsistic-sustained bullshit feminism has inculcated and colonised in her head, which to be blunt about it, and list, will feel like:
- Learning her opinion is not only not the most important, but is often wrong or even irrelevant
- She is a second class citizen
- She has no time for herself
- She is a sexual slave to her husband’s brutish needs
- Her voice is not heard or cared for
- SHE is not heard nor cared for
- She is just a breeding machine
- Her children are a constraint
- Her husband is an arrogant fool and/or misogynist and/or psychopath and/or narcissist
- She is just the maid/slave of the house
- Her husband does not care about her or respect her as an independent person
- He does not understand or care about her concerns and problems
Conversely, the man will feel/think as if:
- His wife is blind to reality
- She is lazy
- She is selfish
- She only cares about herself
- She does not respect him
- She does not understand his concerns or care about them
You will notice the female list is longer and at least double the size of the man’s. That’s because as has already been demonstrated, women hallucinate reality, and do so in an OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE DIRECTION.
See the linked article further above, where women perceive reality as 80:20 instead of 50:50 as men do when perceiving attractiveness in potential sexual partners.
Even then those numbers don’t tell the full truth of the warped perception women have, because that 20% of men they find attractive (as opposed to the natural distribution which is 50%) is ALSO skewed towards ephemeral fantasies and NOT objective reality so the actual percentage of women that even CAN perceive reality correctly is not 20% but something less than that!
I am not aware what the real number is nor of studies done on a large enough scale to show it, but we do know women are disproportionately influenced by the “choice of the masses”. If 5 billion women say 2+2=5 they are overwhelmingly more likely to say it too. So I would guesstimate (optimistically in my opinion) that the real number is around 10% of women that have a generally good ability to perceive reality as it is.
And the future of Western civilisation very much depends on them.
It will be the women who voluntarily see, choose and understand their role and then commit to it that will produce the next generation of men and women that CAN rebuild civilisation, throw off the yoke of the pedovores running things, and with any luck make them extinct too, and build a future too bright to even imagine right now.
The men too will need to change.
It is unlikely that the metrosexuals will suddenly all become sensitive alpha chads, but those men who retained their testicles and somehow avoided becoming a ward of the state in some prison for the crime of simply still being men, will ALSO need to undo some of the programming.
It means, mostly, ejecting a bunch of red pill and men’s right activists bullshit, which are the male equivalent of feminism if not quite as toxic perhaps. It also means that they will need to learn to ungrit their teeth, realise that war is out there and not also inside their home.
If the women need to learn to trust the men fully again, the men need to learn to be trustable too. It is a delicate balancing act and one primed to fail by the zeitgeist of the world. Women are taught men are all unsafe (especially the masculine ones) and men can see the women are unreliable and untrusting so they too become guarded. Conversely, if the woman lets all her defences down, gives herself fully, and commits, the man used to war will possibly take her for granted and become bored of her, not distinguishing her from the dozens of others that have given themselves to him physically (because that is the zeitgeist of the era) but whose minds and souls held little or no attraction for him.
So… no, it is not easy ladies and gentlemen, but I firmly believe the future is primarily in the hands of the women who will be most capable of Logic, self-reflection, and the objective interpretation of reality. Certainly in the first part of it.
In the second part of it, where those women pick men that are still men, those men too will need to first of all abandon the hedonism of the age, and focus on the future of their children. And in doing so, on the cherishing, nurturing and guiding of those women, and of their children too, with a hand that despite being calloused and scar-filled by life, is gentle and kind with them.
These are hard tasks for both men and women, and there will be little guidance or help in any such path. The only sliver of it I have found is in proper Catholicism, to whatever degree you may be able to understand, absorb, or integrate it in your life.
So… why the subtitle that women will follow if men implement it? Because for the women that can be proper women, that 10% of mythical quasi-unicorn-mermaids, they will need a man that is actually still fully a man.
To him, and only to him, can they reasonably expect to produce something new and better than even before. So in the very first instance, YOU, sir, still need to be a MAN in the first place. And need to have been smart, fast, and brave enough to not bend, rebuild stronger if you got broken, but never bend, and then, when she does come along, her job has been done . It is up to you to:
- Recognise her
- Lead her properly through the swamp of her own mind that is still swamp, yet…
- Make her feel safe and loved as you do
Now… ideally such a woman will also make it easier for such a man by taking care of his armoured heart so it softens, but… gentlemen, don’t count on it, because the nature of woman is what it is. Even so, don’t resent her if she does not do so. Even if she is willing, even if she is able, it can take time.
The key is to learn to distinguish those who can from those who can’t. No easy task, as many will fake it convincingly for a long time.
So… while men absolutely do have the duty to first of all be men, and secondly to learn or maybe re-learn, to be the right kind of man, the future of civilisation, I truly believe, rests on that minority percentage of women that can be objective and see reality as it is while controlling their natural impulse towards solipsism and the hallucinations it involves.
The hard part is that even then, those men and those women will make mistakes, hurt each other, get things wrong, as all humans do. And the current zeitgeist is geared to make everyone jump ship at the first (or hundredth) obstacle. Keeping at it is a lost art, a lost science, and, almost, a lost religion.
I keep going on about Totalist, 1958 sedevacantist catholicism for a reason.
Do your own research, don’t take my word for it. If you are a man you may want to read The Crusades , by Harold Lamb. If that does not inspire you, I doubt anything will.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
