The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny
the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over
the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.

                                                                                                                                       Oscar Wilde


We have seen that masculinity and femininity are drawn from the two fundamental forces in the universe, the forces of repulsion and attraction. These forces are not all that comprise what we call male and female, but they are the quintessential ingredient. The inherent relationship between these two forces is such that attraction will operate on repulsion to pull it towards itself, or in human terms, attraction tries to ensnare while repulsion tries to escape. On the political scale the preponderance of one or the another of these two forces will tend towards two different extremes; the masculine towards complete freedom, the feminine towards a complete totalitarian society. We can understand then why Aristotle wrote; "women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies .. since under them they have a good time," because the essential characteristic of oppressive government is feminine unity, which involves a "centralization of power."

There can be no such thing as a pure male tyranny then, since maleness, or repulsion, does not associate at all, either as oppressor or the oppressed, but since no man or woman is completely male or female, it can not be said that all women are tyrants and all men want only freedom. But if you will observe, male tyrants, even highly praised ones like Julius Caesar and Napoleon, have been noted for their feminine characteristics - for being "in touch with their feminine sides." Conversely, women with a strong desire for freedom have been known for their masculinity. Now a single individual acting as a tyrant can still retain a good measure of masculinity because it is a single person, a more feminine state would be a "tyranny of the majority" due to the collectivist nature of women; which of the two tyrannies is worst we may appraise by Lord Acton's words; "It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority ... from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason."

Having addressed things at the most fundamental level we now move to incorporate that quality which separates us from the animals, namely, reason, which is notably pronounced in a patriarchal society and reaches its peak under a republican government. As this type of government displays a marked hierarchical arrangement, which involves a series of  pyramidal lines or "chain of command," it is true that along those lines a strong force is exerted. A more feminine society lacks such a strong hierarchy with its lines of command as the association of individuals in such a society is less rigidly organized, yet, such looseness permits a closer  association among individuals, and association is inherently related to influence, and influence to power. To use a graphic example to illustrate which is more oppressive, consider which circumstances you would prefer to find yourself, in a body of water with a Great White shark or a school of piranhas. With the Great White, no matter how big or how hungry, you have a chance to evade or fend it off, because it is a single animal with a single line of attack at any given time which you can respond to with some hope of success, but the piranhas attack you at a hundred different places at once, and even though their bite is smaller, the collective effect will be almost certainly fatal. What if you were under water without air, which would offer you the least hope, the piranhas or the prospect of drowning? While the piranhas are almost certain death, drowning is even more certain, because the water, even though it offers no violent contact, is everywhere and all around you, like "the absolute will of an entire people" there is no escape. Even on a private one-to-one basis without the all powerful collective effect of numerous individuals, we see that, while a man may occasionally hit his wife, a wife may incessantly "hen-peck" and "smother" her husband, as to which is worse, ask any husband - or piranha.

Seeing now the the two opposite tendencies in men and women, and in their politics, we may now recognize familiar complaints; the male complains that his freedom is being denied to him, while the female complains that she is being "abandoned" by the male exercising his freedom. If legitimate government is by "the consent of the governed" then the female complaint is unjustified, for a man should be allowed to "abandon" any situation that he feels does not sufficiently address his interests, just as women have granted themselves the "right" to do. The proper remedy for women should be to see to it that the "social contract," as with their personal relationships, sufficiently addresses the interests of men, so that they will voluntarily wish to participate. Yet, just as women - as women, have little respect for freedom because it is a quality they do not possess in abundance, so too does their lack of a sense of justice - which is derived from reason, allow them to sufficiently address the interests of men.

We can now view a patriarchal society vis-a-vis the "War of the Sexes"; since a greater population density forces people to associate, and because allowing women to rule would mean certain tyranny, men must assume patriarchal roles as a means of self defense. Consequently, women's claims for "liberation" from the patriarchal state are really their desire to oppress men further then men would be oppressed assuming patriarchal roles, so men are then forced to choose the lesser of the two evils and "oppress the oppressors." The perspective of a patriarch is not, of course, this raw play of powers as it is for women, he has lofty moral principles that animate his conduct and cause him to forsake his self interest, but since the strongest desire of men is for freedom, and since reason causes men to forsake their self interest, then obviously a patriarchal society is something that is imposed on men by others, or by conditions in general.

Viewing things from an evolutionary standpoint, and using the non politicized language of economics for purposes of objectivity, we see that a patriarchal society, while erecting a rational hierarchy, uses the outward force of repulsion - of masculinity, and undergoes an "expansion." The reverse effects of attraction - of femininity, causes society to be drawn inward, that is, it causes a "contraction." Now, which of these terms has the positive connotation in the world of economics; is it not the same valuation that we give to whole civilizations when they are said to "rise" and "fall"? According to feminists, the "Golden Ages" of many civilizations were really not golden at all, because they displayed a preference for men. We have seen though that this is not the arbitrary preference feminists would have you think, because it is the self-denying element of reason, most abundant in males, which advances and declines as a civilization rises and falls. Just as society at its peak is controlled by the most rational and moral men, so when it is declining is it controlled by, and showing a preference for, those without a high degree of reason and morality; these would include women, children, and for simplicity, what is called the lower classes. In addition, it would include those who, while intelligent, lack the self control or morality needed in order to properly lead - artists, epicureans, and shysters for example.

Incorporating a tactical element now, all those groups above will find common ground in their lack of rationality with which to form a alliance against the patriarchal society. As the patriarchal society declines though, there will be a shift from irrational v. rational to the the more fundamental play of attraction against repulsion, of women against men. Taking the United States for example, we find that the women - or feminists, of that country incorporated blacks into their coalition, whenever their allies did something morally repugnant or illegal, the feminists were quick to make excuses for them. But now, as that former patriarchal society has been brought very low, the excuses are drying up, black males who were once excused no longer get the same support from the feminists, it may even be the feminists who are leading the attack. And though someone could still cry "racism" - they don't, because it is understood that these men are being attacked, not because they are black, but because they are men. Of course, it is a general political rule, that once the common enemy is defeated, the dominant faction of any coalition will then turn on their allies.

Let us view now the characteristics of different phases of a civilization's evolution. At the beginning of what will be a patriarchal society the use of physical force is highly prevalent, as reason advances less force is used, particularly on a private basis as laws, religion, and morality replace physical force as controlling factors. Since reason renounces all emotion and self-interest it can seen that it will advance to the point where those who possess it the most will become excessively weakened as the raw life force within them becomes dried up. It is then that we enter a period when over intellectualized men become prey to women, and women start to take over traditional male roles. As women lack the innate sense of justice required for such roles, we find that, while the political framework of society is still largely intact, that its spirit of justice has gone, and it then becomes oppressive.

In addition to their lack of reason and justice, there other characteristics of women and their collective effect on society which produces superficial and fraudulent behavior. Because the effect of attraction is to draw other things towards itself, it can be seen that someone predominantly animated by attraction would have an outward orientation, and in a collective situation, would be controlled by outside forces, or in the realm of pop psychology - they would be "other directed." An independent person would necessarily be "self directed," a "rugged individualism" as opposed to a "group think," creative as opposed to conformist and "politically correct." An outward oriented person you would expect to be sensitive, a necessary connective quality with others. Independent people would need to be strong to resist exterior influences, and moral, when it becomes necessary to interact with others.

It is well known that women are both physically and psychologically more sensitive than men, and for the same reason that their outward orientation causes them to focus on surface feelings or superficiality, so too does it cause them to lack any deep feeling; "Surface is the disposition of woman: a mobile, stormy film over shallow water. Man's disposition, however, is deep" (Nietzsche.) Besides for the purpose of deceiving others, the makeup, clothing etc. of women is indicative of these superficial qualities - or lack of quality. The mere fact that their influence on the hierarchical framework of society is indirect - through their influence on men, makes them unaccountable for their actions, and encourages subtle, deceitful methods.

It has been stated that a society's population, or population density, is a major determinant of political structure, as Rousseau writes in the Social Contract; "there may be as many Governments different in nature as there are States different is size." To illustrate by analogy, consider a star like our own sun, at its exterior are light gaseous elements, in its middle, heavier and more complex ones, and at its core, atoms are crushed and their nuclei fused together. Why? Because at the exterior there is insufficient material to create complex organization - like with a thinly spread human "hunting and gathering" society. In the middle, there is just right balance for the most complex structures to exist - as with Republican government. And at the center, exterior forces have become so great that complex structures are crushed, and even atoms are broken up - shorn of their electrons ("fathers") and fused together into a community of nuclei ("women and children.") You can see why societies become rotten at the core even while healthy elements still exist farther away from the center (the way things are better in the suburbs as opposed to the inner cities.) What you end up with is a family structure remindful of primitive matriarchy, only now, combined with an inward focused totalitarian state.

Military organizations decline in such a feminist society, because the military is primarily a means of external defense or aggression, the internal "military," that is the police, increase both in numbers and oppressive tactics as society becomes more inward focused. Thomas Carlyle, commenting on the military patrols ("Patrollotism") sent out during the French Revolution writes; "Patrollotism represses male Patriotism: but female Patriotism? Will Guards named National thrust their bayonets into the bosoms of women? Such thought, or rather such dim unshaped raw-material of a thought, ferments universally under the female night-cap; and, by earliest daybreak, on slight hint, will explode." Today, such "Patrollotism" has become heavily institutionalized as patrol cars constantly cruise the city streets on the lookout for men who violate the laws of our feminist society.

It is well known that the closer people aggregate together, the more feminine qualities they exhibit. As strength and independence fade eventually not even reason has room to operate, for a certain amount of space is required for rational deliberation. The closer proximity of individuals gives rise to a more emotional connection. Obviously more emotional creatures like women and children will be favored by such in such a society, even if they don't benefit more due to the society's decline. As the separation between public and private spheres is destroyed, emotional tactics spread from private relationships throughout the public sphere, even in the supposedly impartial setting of the courtroom it is the tears and emotions of women with their sympathetic and deceitful tactics that determine outcomes. Since emotionalism normally requires a close physical presence, the inability of a significant number of individuals getting together in a large state is made up for by technology which artificially increases the connectivity among individuals - and therefore the effectiveness of state propaganda. In the novel "1984," the T.V. set is the main public means of mind control. The difference in the novel from our own society is that in the novel the method used to make you watch is of a more masculine nature, that is, you are forced to watch under threat of physical punishment. In our own feminist society, you are not physically forced to watch -  but mentally, as T.V. programs are made to be entertaining or attractive in order to pull you in and hook you. One of the main reasons why sex is so prevalent on T.V. today is because the most powerful attractive quality of women is their sex appeal, so males from puberty onward are irresistibly drawn into these shows which are then often mixed with with heavy doses of feminist propaganda.

Where a patriarchal society may posses exterior colonies, the feminist "police state" has "interior colonization" which slowly partitions off the more masculine groups from political and social influence. Men from less advanced civilizations may be completely isolated the way the American "Indians" were forced onto reservations, or they be isolated away from high status positions but reserved for physical labor - as with blacks. But it is different with males who are the products of more advanced societies that have now begun to decline, because these men have the intellectual ability needed to operate an advanced civilization they are not so easily removed. So what happens is that while they continue in high status positions they are are increasing isolated away from enjoying the ends of society and restricted merely to the means. Men may earn more than women, but women control most of the wealth, most of the police are men, but only one prison inmate out of every sixteen is a woman, a man can even be the President of the United States as long as he slavishly supports the interests of women. But let him fall short of their endless demands, and he is labeled as being "insensitive" to the interests of women and drummed out of his position.

Besides the internal police, the entertainment/propanganda industry, and the focus on business activity to create wealth for women, another striking feature of feminist society is legalism and the infernal lawyer. An obvious connection can be seen between a police state and legalism, one carrying out the directives of the other. Taking a more expansive view, there are two broad regulatory mechanisms in human society, one internal and the other external, morality is internal, legalism external; the self directed person is moral, those who use others to do their dirty work prefer legalism. Immanuel Kant defined freedom as acting in a moral way according to the dictates of reason; the alternative to this self regulation is to be forced by others to act a certain way. The connection to this method and an oppressive society should then become more apparent. Unlike all pervasive propaganda, legalism follows more direct lines and can used to target certain demographic groups - those that have been deemed the enemies of the state. It should be understood though, that these derogatory implications about today's legalism should not be confused with the "Rule of Law" as expounded by the Founding Fathers of the United States. With them, the words law and justice were often interchanged, because they viewed law in its ideal form, as the embodiment of the abstract quality of justice, which, as has been said, favors no one, hence, it was "a nation of laws and not of men." Women, lacking any deep understanding of justice, should answer like the Greek sophist Thrasymachus and say that "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger"; in other words, women are able to make laws to suit themselves - and that they call "justice."

When you initiate a civil or criminal action you begin by filing a "complaint." It should be unnecessary for me to point out what segment of society is more given to complaining, for to file a complaint is to attempt to get another to act for you - self directed individuals prefer to handle matters for themselves. It would be absurd to say that men have an equal right to complain along with women, for even while ignoring the discriminatory legal system that targets male behavior, for a man to complain he must emasculate himself, he must destroy that which is most essential to his personality and very being, he must become dependent on others and not on himself. If I may exaggerate to make my point, what if it were required that in order to initiate a complaint you were required to get down on your hands and knees and kiss the local District Attorney on his or her big toe. Is it not obvious that such a practice would serve to put all the lowest elements of society in control, while all the better ones withdraw in disgust?

It should be easier now to see who would be the natural allies - or tools, of women, and that would be weak and corrupt men. The weak ones cannot resist the demands of women, while the corrupt ones willingly sell their brothers into slavery if they can get their 30 pieces of silver. We read in the Book of Isaiah; "As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them." The meaning of which we find in The Abingdon Bible Commentary; "their rulers behave weakly and foolishly like children, and the queen mother and the ladies of the court rule over them." Throughout history, whenever a society is in a decline, we see this same combination of strong women and weak men; Jezebel and Ahab, Agrippina and Claudius, the French kings and their "left hand mistresses," right down to Hillary and that overgrown boy and pretender to the presidency. Weak men, corrupt men, boyish men, effeminate men, pretty boys, and just plain boys, such are the sorts that women can control and who they set up in power to exploit all men.

Since acting upon pure reason is synonymous with self-denial, and acting emotionally is inherently linked with acting selfishly, the effects of an excessive influence from the emotional nature of women will cause society to focus on the hear and now, and forget the past and neglect the future. For example, with the 1960's came the sexual revolution, which really meant that women could now "burn their bras" and prey without restraint on men using their "charms." But this was but the means to the end, the end of course being the self interest of women, hence, the 1960's was also the time of  the "Me Generation." As self sacrifice for the higher good faded, luxury increased, and inflation and national deficits increased. The spending of the federal government mirrors the spending of the average household where most of the money is earned by men while most of the benefits go to women. And even worse than the (other) animals who tend to live hand to mouth, women are not content to spend every cent available today, but put future generations in debt to support their decadence today. So often has this sequence of events happened that it has been expressed as a rule; "The episodes of moral decay always coincide with the progression of effeminacy, lewdness and luxuriance of the nations" (Baron Richard von Krafft-Ebing.)

This selfishness of women is expressed collectively in the term "sexism," the term my be new, but not the idea, as we learn in J.B.Bury's "History of the Later Roman Empire" about the Hillary Clinton of the time, Justinian's wife Theodora's "desire to be the protectress and champion of her own sex," such was the behavior that ushered in the Dark Ages. While men pursue honor and justice in creating advanced civilizations, women tear them down by only showing interest in how those societies promote the "position" or "condition of women." Consequently then, the takeover of societies by women involves degradation, as Rousseau writes from the 1700's; "In this age of degradation who knows the height of virtue to which man's soul may attain?" It of course follows that since women do the degrading that it is men that are primarily degraded, and again, so often has this happened as to have been stated as a rule: ""The story of humanity, ever since Eve, is the story of the efforts made by woman to diminish man and make him suffer, so that he may become her equal" (Henry de Montherlant.)

No sooner does man create something then woman proceeds to take it from him, picking his pocket and subverting his creations to her own use (witness the growth of feminism on the internet if you have any doubts.) This spread of feminism has left an odd dichotomy in our society; wherever women directly predominate, there things are at their worst, wherever men predominate, things are at their best. In general, business, science and technology, the military, and other fields that serve as means to ends, and therefore are dominated by men, are among the best in the world (though the entrance of women into these fields is taking its toll.) In areas where people receive a more direct benefit, and therefore are controlled by members of the selfish sex, we find in family relationships a high divorce rate and frequently unruly children. Using their dominance in personal relationships as a base, the influence of women has spread throughout the whole social fabric and up into political life. The result is some of the worst policies ever enacted by human society. In the professions, the takeover of teaching by women has solidified their mind control over the population along with their control of the media. This has led to declining test scores even while money has been poured into the educational system. And as for the values learned, they can are considered at a high point if a boy remembers to bring a condom while on a date.

The selfishness of women needs now a word of reconciliation with the idea of them being other directed, for this implies that they are acting for others and not for themselves. Since femininity has been identified with the fundamental force of attraction, let us examine the most pervasive attractive force in nature - the gravitational force. The individual particles of a aggregate, like the female of our species, "selfishly" draws everything onto themselves. Yet, the collective effect of all this drawing together is such that all the particles are in turn drawn by other particles themselves into a unified mass. And like gravitation, the effect becomes increasing stronger as the particles get closer, or politically speaking, as the centralization of power gets stronger, individuality is increasingly oppressed. You can now see how the duality and seemingly contradictory tendencies of  petty self interest and the "One World" totalitarian state are reconciled. And also, how the feminist claim of "inclusiveness" is a ruse, for no real individuality, or masculinity, can exist in this environment, for a world geared towards the attractive force will continue its "gender cleansing" until "World Sisterhood" is achieved.

Just as gravitation is stronger with things near at hand, so it fades geometrically with distance. While the women of America lavish themselves, millions around the world lack the bare necessities of life. And unlike in the past when these events might have escaped the notice of women, television now brings them graphic accounts of this endless misery, and yet the sex renowned for its sensitivity and caring lets children starve to death by the thousands. Paul Wellman begins his book "The Female" by noting; "Some cities are by nature male, being made of smoke and bustle, and making a virtue of the prosaic. Others are equally female, given to frivolity, vanity, and the gay pursuit of trifles." With men, we have the "Protestant work ethic" and high productiveness, with women, enjoyment and entertainment are the focal points. We have Oscars, Grammies, Tonies, and scores of other rewards for entertainers, it is they who are given the highest honors in our feminist society, while the most virtuous man on Earth is unknown, a bimbo with little or no clothes on makes the cover of magazines.

As the French once had the dreaded taille, so western civilization, dominated by women, has its tax on men, its Internal Revenue - the infernal income tax. The Founding Fathers of America drew most of the taxes from exterior sources - from imported goods, particularly luxury goods used by the more wealthy. Taxes then, promoted morality - not materialism and decadence, they were drawn from existing wealth - not on income, on the "haves" - not on the "have-nots"; could not slavery be viewed as a 100% income tax? Women, as they came to control most of the wealth, shifted the burden away from consumption onto production, from themselves onto men. Now, someone will be quick to point out that women pay taxes too, and here we have the same "problem" as with the laws in general. Women caused many of our laws to be created with the intent of targeting male behavior. But now that they are taking over the traditional roles of men, women are moving into the sights of the very same legislation that they created. This leaves feminists working overtime to make up excuses for the criminal behavior of women, just as they labor to invent new entitlement programs, tax credits, and child support increases that offset the money that women pay in taxes.

The collectivist tendency even taken at its best, with "Big Sister" standing in for the all-protective Mother Earth, destroys the strong while protecting the weak. As strength and independence disappear, creativity eventually goes with them, and hence the means to create new technologies needed to support higher populations of these weak and dependent individuals. As this "victimization" philosophy reaches extreme proportions, demographic groups are categorized as to the degree which they are "at risk" and in need of differential protection from Big Sister. It does not seem to occur to many feminists that strength is an indispensable requisite of any system, that without it the system is destroyed from without by more virile societies, or falls upon itself like a house with rotten timbers. Not only can society not hold itself up, but additionally, the process is accelerated by being pulled down like a collapsing star, destroying all that try to resist it. As demagogues team up with the lower classes to crush the middle class, society is turned into a "melting pot," which to men is a witches cauldron, for the destruction of independence and individuality is synonymous with emasculation. In like fashion, the Federal government promotes "the people" as one collectivist proletarian mass to slowly grind state governments out of existence. It is these "intermediate structures," as Tocqueville called them, that comprise the backbone of our Republic, the creative "laboratories" of the states against the oppressive Federal government and the "mindless masses," the virtuous middle class against the grasping nature of the rich and the poor. Instead of "masculine notions of limited authority and conditional obedience" (Lord Acton,) there is the all-pervasive totalitarian state that disregards "the blessings of liberty" in preventing any possibility of harm to its chosen wards.

The hierarchical arrangement of society then, is to be reduced from all its intricate gradations into two conspicuous groups - one at the top and one on the bottom. Where exactly men will have a place in such a society will vary according to the extremeness of the views of the feminist who answers this question for you. The most radical simply want to exterminate the male sex altogether to conform to their version of Amazonian society. Others will find it acceptable if men are sufficiently "civilized," that is, emasculated, such that they behave more like women. Others will permit the male sex to exist as long as they "know their place" and keep a back seat to women - as boys. To give an illustrative example again, this time from the media, I refer you to the movie the "Wizard of Oz." Like in America, the land  in the film is divided into the territories of the pro-life and the pro-choice (read pro-death) - the good witches and the bad. The occupants of the good witches' lands are well protected, but as you can see - they are munchkins. Viewing the other side, we find the goose-stepping palace guards of the wicked witch, like our own police departments, carrying out the wicked one's orders out of fear and not because of ideological agreement. The flying monkeys, like our own sycophantic male feminists, have been deformed into hideous and despicable creatures who prey on any male whom their mistress points her finger at. Our goal should not be to accept the current system and choose between being monkeys or munchkins, but to overthrow the whole order so that the munchkins can grow to be men, the goose-steppers can be free to follow their own consciences, and so the monkeys can be sent to the same fiery fate as their mistresses.



Written by Thomas Pollock aka Spartacus, Editor of The Men's Tribune                                                                                  First Posted: Aug 20, 1999       Last Update: