The Unmitigated Faggotry of the Woke

In Parts 1 to 3 I covered the fundamentals of what the actual pillars of society are, unlike what most people believe. In part 4 I covered the individual man and how his beliefs create order or lack of it with regards to moving towards civilisation. Part 5 covered marriage and why it is the foundational cell of a functioning society, as well as the fact that absent this, that is, actual marriage, not the parodies of it we see all-round us, a civilisation that arises —if it arises at all, which is doubtful— will simply not be able to compare in any way with the Catholic civilisation that first created real, actual marriage. Or we should say, imposed God’s will regarding it. This part 5 is important to have read before reading this post on the Individual Woman, because otherwise some of the premises and attributes of women in general, established there with proof, will simply be misunderstood as “my opinion” here, instead of being taken as a biological fact.

Part 5a was a treatise on justice and its importance as a pillar of civilisation, and the fact that reinstating the death penalty for certain crimes is absolutely necessary. If you also pay attention to who wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout all the nations on Earth, and eventually managed to mostly do so, you will find the usual suspects, Judaic Zionists, Freemasons, or their Goyim minions. Which by now should not come as any sort of surprise.

But there was also an addendum, a slight tone-setter for this part 6, and it’s probably best you read it first.

Right. On we go! But first, the usual introduction:

This is the sixth in the Theoretical Models of Society series of Posts. Use the category of the same name or the Search Me function on the right-hand sidebar to find all related posts in the series.

It is generally helpful to a reader if they are already familiar with some of my other work, in order for this stuff to have the most useful effect on your life. In particular, The Face on Mars and Believe! would be the top reads to have done to have the generic global perspective of reality well in hand. Systema and Reclaiming the Catholic Church would have the most impact on a more personal level. On health/security/self-protection, and on the reality of Catholicism as it was (and remains with Sedevacantists) before Vatican II and why the Novus Ordo Church is not only not Catholic, but Satanic at its core. I will repeat this little paragraph on each new part, as I think it is important to have a general foundation if one is really interested in more than skim-reading before returning to the general slumber we are all being attempted to be forced into.

Having digested part 5 of this series (On Marriage) you will know that in general terms, women will tend to be far more solipsistic than men, and this is the case quite aside from anything else, as it is the logical consequence of the male/female dynamic due to their different biology.

But as described in part 4, which basically defined the utility as well as the description of what is an individual man that is ultimately a force for good, we now come to the same question concerning the individual woman.

As stated previously, men are the civilisers of a society. Their monopoly on force requires them to have always been the part of the family unit that faced the outside world, and dealt with it, meaning that the survival pressure for a man was essentially the objective universe; be this represented by inclement weather, natural predators, disasters and challenges, or even other men. As a result he developed a far more objective, logical and practical way of not just seeing things but doing them and even organising his fellow males into functional hierarchies that together could take on much larger scale projects.

Hence: Man is the civiliser and creator of any functional society. As such, the individual man could be considered the DNA strand within the cell (the nuclear family unit). A woman on the other hand, can be seen as the remaining entirety of the cell. The cell wall, and all the bits that keep a cell alive and functioning.

Unlike a man, a woman’s survival pressure was mostly other women. Absent other women, even a relatively unattractive and unpleasant woman will still get male attention and opportunity to be looked after. Such is the biological imperative for reproduction. However, introduce other women, especially prettier, sluttier, less scrupulous ones, and suddenly, the security provided by your man for yourself and your offspring is under serious threat, since you can be replaced. As a result, the dynamics in female relations differ enormously from those between men. Women are necessarily far more adept at social interactions, capable of having multiple agendas happening simultaneously. A process a simple male may even interpret as self-serving and manipulative, which it can be, but not unavoidably so.

It is true that only men create civilisations, but without women, there would not only not be any civilisations at all, but there would not even be a need for them! A world in which a man only has to worry about taking care of himself, is a far starker, simpler, harder and more brutal world.

Absent wife and children, a man is perfectly capable of living in a one room space where he has the capacity to make basic food for basic survival and a bed to sleep on. In ancient times this could literally be a cave and the extent of his possessions a few weapons and clothing. In modern times it’s a one room space with the ability to cook basic food for basic survival, and a subscription to the latest multi-player on-line gaming platform.

In short, men and women, in the natural order of things, complement each other and function in a natural harmony that is based on mutual sacrifice for the greater whole (the family unit).

Men, being more objective and logical, naturally have a far healthier and more positive understanding of this in broad terms.

Women, being biologically built to place their own welfare first, and being driven primarily by the emotion of the moment rather than the larger context, can (and do) make decisions in a possible long term marriage that can be destructive and based far more on their perception of “reality” on any given day, rather than actual reality as it is.

While a man, in the positive, tends to place his belief primarily in God and his own abilities and efforts, a woman will tend to place her belief in the man she chooses for a mate and how his actions (or lack thereof, or perception of same) affects her emotions.

While there are of course exceptions, this is the general order of things.

A woman in love with her man will go beyond the limits of reasonable or even valid levels of loyalty, sacrifice and effort. And even if it be the same man, if/when what she perceives as her “love” for him degrades, she can become equally cruel, deceptive and hateful towards him.

So, if women, in broad terms are less logical, more prone to react based on their emotions of the moment instead of reasoned motives, tend to be solipsistic and potentially manipulative, from a male perspective, what makes a good woman?

We need to start with the understanding that the presentation of a woman in the previous character, while potentially valid in broad terms, is an extremely limited and somewhat deceptive perspective; one that incidentally has been pushed relentlessly by (((the usual suspects))) in order to further erode the baseline of Christianity and indeed human performance: the nuclear family.

A woman in her natural and ordered place in life is someone that enjoys taking care of her children and husband and home, and thrives when being respected, appreciated, and loved for her doing so by both children and husband.

The average woman today is bombarded constantly with lies about what makes her life “worthwhile”. So are men, but given the difference in constitution, it is women who are most affected by it, and there is plenty of evidence on this now, one only needs to look at the disproportionate number of teenage girls that have been affected by the tranny agenda and attempt to “become male” which is really merely the recognition that social pressure (in the form of peers but also propaganda on TV, the internet and so on) is more effective on women.

If you have understood the differences between men and women, as already described, this is fairly obvious. Their being more susceptible to emotional and social events, they are easier to fool into taking seemingly polite, friendly, conflict avoidant positions on various issues, especially if presented as the “acceptable” majority view, were instead a strong, swift, and decisive response or action is required. Alternatively, they are more easily led into manufactured “outrage” at some perceived “social injustice”, where once again the main driver is a sense of social acceptance and cohesion (which is generally entirely false but manufactured artificially by mass media outlets, which today are simply the operative branch of the constant psyops we are all subjected to daily)

The West has largely been led deep into Clown World madness, primarily because women can be swayed to “tolerate” and then “champion” just about everyone and everything.

In these terms then, a good woman is one that has primarily overcome her deep need for “running with the herd”, keeping in mind that this is and intrinsic and biologically driven imperative.

There is a reason why traditionally in disasters the priority is on saving women and children. Aside the male imperative (also biologically driven) to be more ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for the safety of their woman and offspring, there is a linked factor, which is the one of relative diminished capacity. We protect children in part because they are simply less able to do so themselves due to their smaller size and lower ability to understand and respond appropriately to a serious situation. To a lesser extent, due to their propensity to process the world through their solipsistic emotions, the same is true of women.

This is why women used to not be allowed to vote, and why when the idea was introduced (by the same usual suspects) the vast majority of women did not want to be given such a “right”.

A sensible woman that is well ordered and balanced knows full well that she has far more power of persuasion and influence as a dutiful and loving wife without the right to cast a vote, than she does as a “strong independent woman” with a vote she can cast herself.

The solution, would be a woman smart and self-assured enough to take this “right” and return her behaviour in any case to that of a dutiful and loving wife, which casts her vote whichever way her husband does.

Although it should he obvious, it needs to be spelt out for far too many, that such behaviour as a “good woman” is deserved only by men who similarly behave as “good men” described in part 4 of this series.

But what of the unspoken concept that a woman’s life being filled with raising children, cooking, cleaning, keeping home and being loving and respectful to her husband makes for a boring, lonely, isolating, limited, suffocating and even dangerous life (because the husband can always drop her for the younger hotter model).

I would say that the primary crack in that narrative is the selection of husband. There is as much danger for a good woman that she may marry the kind of man that will drop her twenty years later for a younger model, that there is for a good man that to marry a woman that will divorce him for no real reason down the line and take half of what he has built along with his children.

That is the pivotal and cardinal point that needs to be addresses first, foremost and above all other issues.

The entire global zeitgeist, driven primarily by the Freemasonic country of the USA, and the vast amounts of “entertainment” that it produces, is geared to destroying, polluting and making the nuclear family as hard and impractical as possible to have and create.

Doubling the workforce by “empowering” women to serve a boss instead of making a home and raising children, for a wage that is now required just to maintain a survival level quality of life, was the first of many methods introduced (yes, always by the (((usual))) tribe of suspects) to make the traditional nuclear family go the way of the dodo.

Shortening attention spans (mobile phones, audio books instead of reading, video shorts and pretty much the entire sound-byte rich but content free dystopia we are all subjected to) produces people that are concerned with short time preferences and who become functionally incapable of planning for the future or even considering it.

The consumerism that permeates every aspect of our lives makes the chase for the next shiny but ultimately meaningless object the objective of a perennial dopamine rush with no reward at the end except an empty and childless grave surrounded not by family and friends but by the decaying and forgotten objects and toys we have accumulated over the years. Perhaps in the not so distant future, with only the standard sex robot/maid/butler android to hold our hand in the final moments, just before the harvesting of our organs routine kicks in.

Ultimately while it is true that it is men that create civilisations, it is women that maintain the social fabric to a very create extent. Men may indeed need to build the structure that holds it in place and directs it into the wind, but women form the sail that gets the boat moving.

How then, is a good woman supposed to counter the constant (and intentional, and evil) push away from the nuclear family and hence a durable civilisation? What should she look for at a minimum?

And here we come to the reason why I have always stated that if civilisation is failing, it is men that are to blame. Yes, it’s possibly quite true that women have been manipulated into becoming gold-digging, selfish, shrews, and as such they need to take responsibility for their own agency and stupidity in falling for it, but that said, let’s not pretend that this has not come about for the simple reason that men stopped acting like men and started to “act” (that is not act at all) like effeminate losers.

It is an absolute fact that your “civilisation” has clearly lost any semblance of having functional testicles anywhere in it when tens of thousands of children get raped and sexually abused by invading foreign gangs of organised pedophiles, and the native police protects these criminals and both the police stations, the politicians and the criminal foreign ethnic rapist aren’t all burned to the ground.

As for whatever clown-world faggotry might label my comment above as “inciting hatred”, I would put it to you that anyone who even remotely thinks that way, is fully deserving of not just hatred, but physical removal from society altogether, and is better to be put to forced hard labour until they either die or genuinely see the error of their ways.

Any adult that thinks that “people” who behave like the organised Pakistani gangs that operated (and probably still do) in the UK to rape and abuse tens of thousands of children deserve anything less than death, as do their enablers and protectors, is not just “not a man”, they are unworthy to belong to —nor are they capable of being members of— any functional, viable society at all. Such people, that have such absurd and dangerous ideology, should NEVER be permitted to be part of a healthy society, and certainly should never be placed in any positions where they may have ANY level of authority over anyone for any reason whatsoever.

In fact, people who advocate against the death penalty on general principle should be shunned and ostracised, as they are obviously mentally, emotionally and spiritually unfit and cannot be considered as healthy members of a functioning society.

Most women, sadly, fall into this category. They do this because being solipsistic, a woman cannot imagine passing the death sentence on someone without also imagining themselves as the executioner on some level. While this mode of thinking is acceptable for a man, and should be, it is not true for a woman (because remember, diminished responsibility for those that are less emotionally stable).

Which brings us again to the “right” to vote.

It is NOT a requirement, and should never be, that a woman actually, physically, is the executor of a death sentence. It is an unnatural state for a woman to be one. As it would be for a child. Even if a woman (or precocious child) understands and agrees with a death sentence, the execution of it should never be for them to perform. It is the duty of a man to do so. In fact, one could argue that if a man lacks the mental and emotional stability to execute a death sentence himself, he probably should never be allowed to have a say in it being the punishment that is justified for a specific crime.

The reason I write all of the above and discuss seemingly disparate topics like the death sentence, the introduction of women in the workplace and so on, is because in truth they all are interconnected strands of the social web of civilisation. And as such are indeed the very “material” of which the social sail of civilisation is made and which women very much construct and are a part of.

A good woman recognises that certain crimes absolutely warrant the death penalty, while also being perfectly aware that she is not the one that should push the button that executes the criminal, and as such should have no “vote” on the guilt of the criminal in question. Nevertheless, she absolutely should have the ear of her husband, who may be on the jury and does get to cast said vote.

Similarly, a good woman should have the strength of character, intelligence and imagination to notice how a theoretical nuclear family, difficult as it is in reality to have even under the best of conditions, and so much more so today, is nevertheless preferable and a better way to spend your life than “building a career” and being a cubicle dweller in an office for the next 40 years, even if it means you have to give up on having the latest iphone every year.

Understanding of these concepts comes to women in a different format than it does men. Mostly it is not achieved with pure logic in the case of a woman, but more by a process of a gathering of feelings and emotions and realisations that over time form a cloud of probabilities the overall sum of which comes to the same conclusions that a man’s direct and cold logic may arrive at faster and with simpler explanation.

A woman that is able to see past the lies and illusions of feminism and the entire class of cultural marxism that has thoroughly infiltrated Western Civilisation and all but destroyed it, is a woman that is not only seeing past the lies, but is also in the process of regaining her true power: her femininity.

Never forget that it was the female beauty and femininity of a single woman that launched ten thousand ships and the decade long Trojan war.

A woman’s power is not in trying to be a man, but rather in fully embracing her femaleness.

A woman that does that and also who has the capacity to devote herself loyally to the family she creates with her husband is not only a good woman, she is literally the co-creator of a functional civilisation. And while it absolutely is our duty as men to rebuild, reinstate, and maintain those structures that support, glorify, and sustain such a woman, as well as tear down, destroy and delete all such structures that are actively trying to suppress her, it remains for the woman to first of all make the choice to BE such a woman.

As to how such a woman finds a suitable and worthy man to pair up with and create that nuclear family and thus eventually rebuild a functional, effective, just society, we will cover that next in part seven, although if you are able to piece together the various concepts from this series so far, you should have a pretty decent idea already..

There is only one true way to improve things.

Above all: to deal in truth.

To act in the name of good (which means the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church as far as I am concerned. You, dear reader are unlikely to agree unless you too are a 1958 Sedevacantist, but I understand, I too was a heathen for most of my life).

And acting in the name of good, whether you realise it or not, means permanently removing pedophiles, child killers and rapists from society. And of course also removing permanently all those people who aided and abetted them and hid their crimes. It also means getting rid of fraudsters, con-men and usurers, if not permanently at the very least to place them in such a situation where they are not able to practice their deceptive ways, and where their labour is used to provide compensation to the offended parties.

In short, it means dealing justice to all who deserve it, charity to those who deserve it AFTER justice has been served, and ONLY then, not before. Mercy to those who deserve it but also punishment to those who deserve it too.

The death penalty absolutely needs to come back for certain crimes, that too is non-negotiable. And secret societies of Satanists, that is Freemasons, illuminati, carbonari, skull and crossbones and so in should not only be outlawed, but membership of it should be grounds for receiving the death penalty in fact.

Freemasonry is a Satanic, anti-human, evil thing as is all Satanism.

There are many other social rules that it would be good to impose too, but this post is not primarily about that. Each group or society of people will have certain things most agree need to happen. What I wrote above is generally acceptable to most people, and the only real exception might be those too innocent, or too ignorant and lazy to look into freemasonry properly who assume it’s just a friendly social club.

If they bothered to research things a bit, they too would mostly agree that what might seem as a harsh punishment (death penalty for membership) is in fact quite sensible.

So let me now add the part no one wants to talk about:

If you agree with the above in general terms, then you also need to recognise that NONE of the political alternatives being presented to you currently are based in truth. None.

They are only different shades of lies.

Trump is not going to save anyone nor drain the swamp. And the swamp creatures that are almost certainly pedophiles of the worst sort have just had their homes NOT burn down when every house around them has in fact been lasered from the sky into ash. The trees have not however. Isn’t it amazing how Tom Hanks, Oprah, and such people have not had their home burn down?

Weird trees that don’t catch fire eh?

Do you remember Tom Hank’s face/reaction when Ricky Gervais presented the golden globe awards and accused the entire room of being pedos? It was a very worried face. And there is plenty of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. As for Oprah, she’s been feeding young meat into the machine for decades.

My point is this:

No one is going to get justice by voting for any politician. They ALL need to go. And a lot of them need to be punished for horrific crimes, along with their puppet-masters who are mass-murderers of the worst kind.

No one will get justice other than by creating a literal alternative society that is based in truth above all and has a moral foundation that equates child rape to a death sentence. And preferably not a quick death either.

Even if you are a young atheist and still do not understand this yet —think it through and you might realise it— any moral foundation of that sort has to be rooted in belief in a higher power (i.e. God). Absent a higher authority than man, there is no reason at all, for any morality whatsoever. Nor can you defend there being one. If it’s all just one nihilistic black hole of meaninglessness then, whether one rapes and kills children to satisfy their urges or serves in a soup kitchen is neither here nor there. You may prefer one over the other but there is absolutely no logical reason you can claim one is objectively “better” than the other aside your personal preference; and you have zero objective argument why your preference should be superior to anyone else’s.

So… once you realise every actual functioning society humanity has ever had was based on a religion and its morality, and if you agree with my idea that pedophiles deserve death, as do those who help them, hide them and cover for them, guess what, at removes a couple of world religions from the equation right away, because they have child rape as acceptable in their unholy books: Islam and Judaism.

There may be other views that are at least not pro-child rape, like shintoism, at least some buddhism, or generally zen-agnostic type of views like Taoism or Daioism. But in any case, false versions of any of those religions, that is, people who may pay lip service to them but don’t actually follow them, are really not relevant, which of course means most “christians” too are just another species of lukewarm NPCs.

Which means that the only people who might actually have a chance of changing the world for the better are those of us who:

1. Have a religion that is essentially good which means does NOT include child rape as part of it, or in any way acceptable to it.

2. Actually live their religion.

3. Reject the falsity and evil of the world in favour of their religion.

That is the baseline premise of the people who MIGHT actually change things.

The follow-on from that is that they therefore also need to:

1. Create an alternate society that comes into being, sustains itself, and grows that does not rely in any way on the current ones populating our Satanically dominated planet.

2. Is able to defend itself from the inevitable attacks that the Satanic Clown Worlders will eventually launch.

3. Must become able and willing to remove the evil doers and replace them with both people and systems that better guard the good, freedom, and above all justice based on truth for all, the most defenceless first: i.e. children; and rewards based on merit not fictional ideologies.

Ultimately this means to re-conquer all those positions of power that are currently inhabited by corrupt and evil people who are as allergic to truth and goodness as bacteria is to ammonia and sunlight.

The astute reader may also have realised that of all the world religions, only one clearly states that it is not just a decent thing to do, but the dogmatic duty of a man to defend the innocents.

So. Gentle reader. Guess what?

This means if you plan to serve the good, your very first step, needs to be to stop serving the evil of the machinery we are all currently being trapped by to various degrees.

Hence… we stop serving it.

Non Serviam.