Outstanding. Lengthy (8,860 words) but worth reading in full, possibly several times.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Archbishop of Canterbury choice sparks Church of England row as Gafcon reject first woman Really an example as the vast majority (85%) of the Anglican church goes its own way. Can’t help thinking it ironic that the home church is decadent and in decline and now rejected by the Church whose vigorous victorian forbears took their Church “global”.
LikeLike
And an indicator of our trajectory of a decadent society Brits ‘to become poorer than Turks and Latvians’ as UK economy in tatters | UK | News | Express.co.uk DEI supported by massive borrowing to pretend being uncompetitive isn’t sapping our innovation and productivity will bring us down. And then we won’t be able to afford all the “woke” free stuff for favoured groups. Simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Getting our genes into the next generation is life’s biggest battle. Everything else is subsidiary, and merely chess pieces we play with a specific endgame in subconscious mind. Back in the (relatively recent) past of the 1970s, it remained very much up to men to compete and gain the attention of women, who’d (mainly) still wait by the finishing line for the winners. All of us young guys knew, subliminally, the rules of Roy F Baumeister’s Sexual Economics – that having a good job was the main male trading card in the sexual marketplace (even though these rules wouldn’t be published until 2004).
https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
As a result, Reproductive Suppression of one’s peers remained very much a male domain, and was associated with competition rather than manipulation. As a scrawny, working class kid with a (badly) broken nose, I knew that I needed to purchase a Bullworker and play to my strengths. After two degrees and a good job, suddenly developed a gravitational field for women, and the future became bright and beautiful.
But the world was changing fast, and women were on the ascendancy in the workplace (including politics and jurisprudence), giving them direct access to influencing law in a way which would suit female preference for rotating, temporary monogamy, always aiming upwards. Females gain reproductive advantage in their offspring through polyandry, minimising the chances that all of their offspring will carry genetic defects from a single sexual partner.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347200917056
As a result, we have ‘no fault’ divorce, a form of male asset stripping after providing a woman with a child. We have AA, EEO, ESG and DEI in the workplace, making it more difficult for males to succeed, and where all males beneath a woman’s pay-grade are invisible, and ‘sexual harassment’ legislation keep them invisible. By law. Women with political power act like the Handicapper General, Diana Moon-Glampers (in Kurt Vonnegut’s 1961 novel ‘Harrison Bergeron’). In that way, they can be sure that only the brightest and best males will succeed, and will flock to them. Women appear to have few problems with polygyny, as long as there’s enough money to go around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny_threshold_model
Having crocked men in plain sight, the successful women in the know are now attempting to disadvantage their own sex in the reproductive stakes through the spurious ‘equality’ and virtue-signalling dogmas which have served them so well. The sixteen bullet points on page 14 of William Collins’ 17-page tour de force shows the game plan. And the likelihood that it will succeed, through female skill in manipulation, and her deep-seated need for social approval.
I’m not convinced that men will see through the manipulation. It’s not a tactic which we tend to use. Whereas, we have been manipulated by women, biochemically, forever. This article provides some lines which can be read between.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2686380/
That ‘selfish entity’ now has control of politics, jurisprudence & media.
LikeLike
In summary, women tend not to achieve their aims through what men would recognise as healthy competition.
They fall back on a time-honoured arsenal which includes handicapping, manipulation (often under a false flag of ‘moral’ imperative which will always be to female benefit), and subversion of male, deontic values which have been derived from competition.
Presaged by Denise D Cummins, some time back.
https://www.denisecummins.com/uploads/1/1/8/2/11828927/cummins_2019_encyc_ev_psy_sci.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person