Feminism and the Destruction of the Western Nations

An article at the Unz Review, entitled Women In Universities (IU’s Provost Lauren Robel, Dean Idie Kesner) Show Why Women In Universities Are Not A Good Thing argues that women are destroying academia through "female-typical behavior", a notion upon which he expands by quoting some person saying: 

... females become upset more easily, making it more difficult to engage in unemotional academic disputations, because their logic is more likely to be overwhelmed. Females are also more conformist than men, which militates against challenging received knowledge and thus discovering new things.

This is bunk. Yes, women are different from men, thank God. But that does not make them unfit for academia. What is destroying academia is a whole lot of things, including the fraudulence, dim-wittedness, and bureaucratic mentality of most of today's so-called academics. And, yes, feminism is a powerful corrosive of academic excellence, and indeed, of academic sanity. 

Let me explain.

In 1951 Charlotte Whitten became mayor of the city of Ottawa, the first women in Canada to hold the mayoralty of a major city. Today, she is remembered chiefly for her remark that:

For a woman to succeed in a man's world she needs to be twice as good as a man.

 At the time Mayor Whitten spoke, her words were largely true throughout the Western world. Then, for most women, the main career opportunity was motherhood, and to distinguish herself in that role, a woman needed to raise distinguished sons.

As an incentive to faithfully performing that essential service to the race and to civilization, women were provided with a considerable measure of economic security by virtue of marriage and divorce laws. Moreover, the absence of legal abortion services gave women a powerful incentive to seek marriage rather than casual sex.

But there were always women who pursued careers and demonstrated that, if not twice as good as a man, some could certainly match the achievements of men. In those days, therefore, it was the case that for a woman to become an academic was, in itself, evidence of real ability.

Today, the situation is totally different. Virtually all the protections provided to women who commit to the raising of children have been removed, while casual, safe and sterile sex has been facilitated and promoted by almost every public institution from parliaments to parish churches, and from the media to the medical profession.

The result? A feminist revolt manifest not in the Lysistratan refusal to provide husbands and lovers with sexual gratification, but in the truly wicked refusal to perpetuate the race, pursuing instead the financial security of a career and, in the case of the most able, power.

Western society is now well on the way to extinction, with fertility rates far below replacement and without the slightest prospect of recovery, the population deficit being made up by immigrants of mainly alien race, religion and culture. Feminists in academia, are among the principle agents of this disaster, relentlessly justifying and propagating their self-genocidal ideology. Meantime, of the native reproduction, this now depends heavily on the welfare class, as more intelligent women, propelled by the feminist ethic, pursue sterile self gratification through career success. 

Intolerant Liberals

Those calling themselves liberals, used to say: "the answer to intolerance is intolerance."

 Today, those claiming to be liberals are, for the most part, not liberals at all, but crackpot PC totalitarians with no tolerance for anyone but their own intolerant kind. Toward such so-called liberals, the only reasonable attitude is intolerance.

But it should be understood that, for the most part, today's PC totalitarian liberals are merely the dupes of the globalist elite, their role to serve as cannon fodder in the cultural war to destroy the Western nations and the culture of Christendom.

It is thus for the globalist elite and their front men and women, the likes of Zucks, Bryn and Page, Hillary Clinton, together with Prince Harry and the rest of the offset-buying, jet-set crowd, that the greatest intolerance is due.

For the gullible masses, in particular the brainwashed products of the Western "educational" system, intolerance must be tempered with compassion together with aid in overcoming the grotesque political programming that is now a central feature of state-directed education, especially at the post-secondary level.

Related:
Piers Morgan on the intolerance of today's so-called liberals:

Quote of the Day, No. 79: The Problem with Krauthammer's Fundamental Law

Here's a post by the Maverick Philosopher with which it seems hard to disagree.

Krauthammer's Fundamental Law Here is Krauthammer's Fundamental Law: To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. It's cute and clever, a nice piece of journalese, but not quite right, although it gets at part of the truth. Krauthammer's 'law' conversationally implies that conservatives do not think that contemporary liberals or leftists are evil. But surely many of us do. Leftists routinely slander us with such epithets as: sexist, racist, white supremacist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and so on. This is morally vicious behavior and to that extent evil. My view is that many if not most so-called liberals are not good people. You are not a good person, for example, if you routinely dismiss legitimate concerns for the rule of law in the matter of immigration by accusing conservatives of having an irrational fear of foreigners. That is a vicious refusal to take conservatives seriously as rational beings and address their arguments. A second problem with Krauthammer's 'law' is that intelligent conservatives do not think of most liberals as stupid but as having the wrong values, or, when they have some of the right values, not prioritizing them correctly. Generally speaking, political differences reflect differences in values and principles, not differences in intelligence or 'information.'

There is one point, however, that I would question.

The MP states:

Leftists routinely slander us with such epithets as: sexist, racist, white supremacist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and so on. This is morally vicious behavior and to that extent evil.

But is this morally vicious, or is it simply evidence of an incapacity to think? Indeed, is it not the case that through the program of PC indoctrination led by schools, universities, legislators and media, the heirs to Western civilization are no longer, in a civilizational sense, Westerners or even civilized.

Having lost the essential ingredient of Western civilization, namely, the capacity for rational thought, we have largely substituted memes for arguments. That is not morally vicious, it is merely pathetic. We have become like a band of chattering monkeys, capable of settling a dispute only by the verbal equivalent of throwing shit.*

And if that is the case, then disaster surely looms, for a people unable to think, cannot long survive.

———
* This may well be unfair to monkeys.

The Trump Enigma: Imperialist or Nationalist

One of the basic lessons that can be gleaned from a study of multiple imperialisms over the past five centuries, is that imperialist warfare is always class warfare. Imperialism is always class warfare at home, and usually it is class warfare abroad as well. Both at home and abroad, it is the so-called “lower” classes, the workers and peasants, who are dispossessed by imperialist extraction. Workers and peasants—sometimes even slaves—make up the bulk of the military forces conscripted by imperialist powers. Workers and peasants at home are the ones whose labour was exploited to fuel imperial dominance. Abroad, the products of the labour of workers and peasants, and any productive assets they might have controlled, are usually what is targeted by imperialism. Any attempt to distract Americans from these basic, long-term, and inescapable empirical realities of class dominance and class divisions, any submersion of class beneath the weight of minoritarian identity issues, is by default if not by design an ideological program in the service of imperialism. The converse is also true: the rise of class consciousness in the US, or at least greater awareness of the plight of the working class, will erode the political support base for the increasing costs of maintaining empire abroad.
Maximilian Forte

The above quote from an essay by Concordia University anthropology professor, Maximilian Forte, draws attention to a fundamental enigma: is US President Donald Trump an American nationalist or a globalist imperialist. Trump's election campaign was clearly nationalist: it was for protection against both unfair foreign competition and jobs off-shoring by American corporations; it was for tax cuts to remove tens of millions of the lowest paid workers from the tax rolls while providing incentives for job-creating corporate investment in America; and it was for better relations with America's post-war rival for global dominance, Russia.

Yet as president, the Trump administration has pursued sanctions against Russia for its "aggression" in the Ukraine and its "threat" to the Baltic trivialities, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; attempted in defiance of international law to establish a permanent US military presence in Syria; and threatened further economic warfare against Iran.


So what is Trump: nationalist, imperialist, muddle-head, or devious operator either seeking to appease the increasingly exploited and aggrieved American masses while pursuing the US agenda for global empire, or alternatively, attempting to fool the globalist faction of the US elite with meaningless imperialistic gestures, while creating in the US a democratic nation state?

Who knows? Certainly not us. However, as one in favor of the survival and renovation of Western civilization, I take comfort in the frenzied Trump hatred of the NeoCon scum, and the"liberal" fascists for a politically correct society. That Trump seems better liked by rival states, Russia and China, than by globalist allies such as Germany, anti-Brexit Britain, and Islamified France seems to provide further ground for hope.