Anti-male bigotry rampant in order to reduce western population. By Thomas Harrington at Brownstone.
Imagine the following message in a public space: Caution: Area of Frequent Attempts at Reputational Destruction by Females
I have never seen a sign bearing the above message in any public space, nor do I want to.
Similarly, I have never seen a sign near a heavily African American neighborhood that says, “Caution, entering an area in which your chances of being the victim of a violent crime are statistically proven to be much higher than in other places.”
And again, I do not want to.
My reasons for not wanting to ever read these things are, or should be, self-evident to any reasonably thoughtful person: it is never permissible in a society that purports to be democratic to have the state apparatus cast moral aspersions upon an entire subset of the culture on the basis of that subset’s immutable characteristics.
But men are now fair game for such bigotry in the West:
And yet, in many municipalities in the US and Europe there is a trend toward posting signs in public transport that, in various levels of explicitness, point toward all men as being gropers and harassers in potencia.
For example, on a recent ride on the transport system of the Catalan Government I was informed, via messages on the wall of the rail car, that public entity will have “Zero tolerance with male violence” in the public areas it administers. …
How do they demonize men?
How might you gain a preemptive victory against increasing legions of often quite justly pissed-off males?
Easy. Use the culture-planning tools at your disposal as a member of the ultra-elite to systematically denigrate the “toxic” nature of traditional male attributes.
And there is no better way do this than to do this than to seize upon one of the more ugly manifestations of traditional male behavior — sexual violence — and use it as a cudgel to discredit male attributes in general, including positive ones like the setting of hard limits, physical bravery in the face of hardship and unjust governance, and the desire to protect valuable social norms and traditions against the erosive forces of planned or unplanned social entropy.
Why do they demonize men? Why is this particular form of bigotry ok with the globalists? What is intended to achieve?
For some time now, it has been clear to anyone who has taken the time to look, that our current super-elites have an enormous disdain toward the vast majority of the human beings with whom they share the planet …
For example, Curtis Yarvin … has spoken openly about the coming “dire problem” of what to do with what he calls the “mindless mass,” which is to say the excess of useless human beings …
His solution? To house and feed them but keep them enclosed in a virtual world, supported by high quality virtual reality …
But, of course, an even better approach than this one would be to ensure that most of these useless eaters never get born in the first place.
They want to reduce the birth rate so they share the planet with fewer “useless eaters”. Here’s how they are doing it:
One [approach] is to run campaigns designed to convince confused and/or mentally ill teenagers that mutilating their sex organs is a lasting solution to their current unhappiness. Another is to rhetorically elevate abortion from the status it has had in all virtually healthy cultures up until now — a regrettable but perhaps occasionally necessary evil — to that of an unmitigated cultural good.
But perhaps the simplest one of all is to convince one or the other side of the male-female dynamic that their would-be partners in procreation generally cannot be trusted to safeguard their own well-being or that of their would-be children.
Hence, the current effort on public transport and in other public spaces to cast doubt upon the ability of the men in those places to act in a civilized and dignity-supporting manner.
And it is working. And if you don’t believe me, take the time to speak to the 16–35-year-old cohort of women in your life, especially if they attended a “prestigious” institute of higher learning.
Just as sure as they “know” that in every generation previous to their own queer-beating was a widely accepted and widely enjoyed sport among most straight men, they are “sure” that a happy and respectful complementarity of function in relations between men and women rarely, if ever existed in the past, and that the reason for this was that most men simply could not control their inherent need to dominate women and prevent them from becoming happy and fully developed individuals.
Is it any wonder that births are reaching historically low levels in most Western countries?
Yes, economics has a good deal to do with this phenomenon. But blaming it all on that obviates the fact that people have tended to reproduce through thick and thin throughout history. …
Young females are notoriously the most amenable to propaganda. Hence the anti-male bigotry:
And so here we are, with government-financed signs in public places that subtly but clearly suggest that people born male should be viewed by women not as noble protectors or carriers of wisdom or the many other positive things they often are, but as lurking vectors of violence.
Who wins with that message? It’s certainly not most men, nor for that matter most women.
It does work, however, for those super-elites who for reasons related to their obsessive drive to control resources as well as the comportment of their fellow human beings would like to see more social atomization, weaker families and communities, and ultimately fewer useless eaters to contend with.
And it is practiced on western populations, not African, Muslim, or Asian:
