Un­der­stand­ing the War on Mas­culin­ity

Trillions - - Contents -

In case you haven't no­ticed, men are un­der at­tack for be­ing mas­cu­line and the on­slaught shows no sign of let­ting up.

The at­tack has sev­eral lay­ers and most peo­ple are only aware of the most vis­i­ble lay­ers, such as at­tacks by fem­i­nists or the at­tacks against healthy het­ero­sex­ual mas­culin­ity by the LGBT lobby.

In a fea­ture in Time mag­a­zine en­ti­tled, “Men Are Ob­so­lete.” Fem­i­nist Hanna Rosin in­co­her­ently rants against men with half-truths and made up facts to be­lit­tle the male gen­der.

Robin Mor­gan, for­mer Edi­tor of Ms. Mag­a­zine proudly stated, “I feel that ‘man-hat­ing’ is an hon­ourable and vi­able po­lit­i­cal act, that the op­pressed have a right to class-ha­tred against the class that is op­press­ing them.”

While some of the cam­paign against men is de­served and is cre­at­ing some pos­i­tive change, a few bad Hol­ly­wood ac­tors are be­ing used as an ex­cuse to blindly at­tack all men and mas­culin­ity in gen­eral and that is cre­at­ing se­ri­ous nega­tive changes in so­ci­ety.

Men have in­deed brought some of this upon them­selves. For far too long, too many men have mis­treated women and cre­ated en­vi­ron­ments hos­tile to women. Change re­ally is needed.

Women have had enough and are push­ing back, but most have not con­sid­ered the long term con­se­quences of a war on men and have cho­sen to ig­nore the very real and im­por­tant bi­o­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences be­tween men and women. Few fem­i­nists are will­ing to con­sider women's in­flu­ence on male be­hav­ior. Nor are they con­sid­er­ing the con­se­quences of align­ing them­selves with other spe­cial in­ter­est groups who want to use the gen­der equal­ity move­ment to pro­mote their own sin­is­ter and hid­den agen­das.

The fu­ture of hu­man­ity is be­ing dra­mat­i­cally al­tered by the war on mas­culin­ity and it is im­por­tant that we have a deeper un­der­stand­ing of the is­sues and the po­ten­tial con­se­quences of the sup­pres­sion of mas­culin­ity and re­def­i­ni­tion of gen­der. A bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of the move­ment could help di­rect it in a more pos­i­tive way.

Gen­der Dyspho­ria

In re­cent decades an in­creas­ing num­ber of peo­ple are ex­pe­ri­enc­ing what men­tal health pro­fes­sion­als call gen­der dyspho­ria—a con­flict or con­fu­sion be­tween a per­son's phys­i­cal gen­der and the gen­der with which they iden­tify. Gen­der dyspho­ria is of­ten ac­com­pa­nied by de­pres­sion and other men­tal ail­ments.

Some of the great­est causes of gen­der dyspho­ria are the en­docrine dis­rupt­ing chem­i­cals in our food which

mimic estro­gen in the hu­man body. Con­sum­ing the food com­monly avail­able means con­sum­ing hun­dreds of dif­fer­ent chem­i­cals that neg­a­tively im­pact the hu­man body and brain. Most of the chem­i­cals in our food have never been adquately tested for safety.

Since chil­dren are ex­posed to these chem­i­cals in utero, their de­vel­op­ment in the womb can be al­tered and in­creas­ing num­bers of chil­dren are born with ab­nor­mal gen­i­tals and ab­nor­mal hor­monal lev­els.

As our food be­comes in­creas­ingly con­tam­i­nated, sperm counts and testos­terone lev­els con­tinue to drop rapidly.

An­other fac­tor in gen­der dyspho­ria is the ab­sence of clear, strong and healthy gen­der role mod­els and the ag­gres­sive pro­mo­tion of al­ter­na­tives to chil­dren.

In 1960, only 9% of chil­dren were de­pen­dent on a sin­gle par­ent and mothers were gen­er­ally moth­erly and fathers usu­ally acted as fathers. This gave kids clear gen­der role mod­els. Boys learned how to be­come men and girls knew what was ex­pected of them as women.

By 2010 the num­ber of sin­gle par­ent homes climbed to 27% and much greater num­bers of chil­dren did not have the ben­e­fit of role mod­els from both gen­ders. Dur­ing this same pe­riod more women had to en­ter the work force and be­came been less avail­able to raise chil­dren.

With real wages de­clin­ing rapidly, both par­ents in many fam­i­lies have had to spend far more time work­ing and less time car­ing for their chil­dren.

As these in­suf­fi­ciently par­ented and chem­i­cally al­tered chil­dren grew up they ex­pe­ri­enced less cer­tain or al­ter­na­tive gen­der iden­ti­ties and when they ex­pressed a gen­der iden­tity that did not cor­re­spond with their phys­i­cal gen­der they of­ten en­coun­tered hos­til­ity from oth­ers.

Most species are pro­grammed to at­tack or iso­late those who are dif­fer­ent so that they don't con­tam­i­nate the gene pool. Na­ture con­sid­ers phys­i­cal or be­hav­ioral ab­nor­mal­i­ties as an un­de­sir­able de­fect, un­less it con­trib­utes to the sur­vival of the species.

In hu­mans, the at­tacks against those with gen­der dyspho­ria has re­sulted in a grow­ing gen­der equal­ity move­ment and the com­pas­sion and sense of fair­ness that many peo­ple have has helped to fuel a cam­paign to elim­i­nate gen­der dis­crim­i­na­tion. It is now more com­monly ac­cepted that ev­ery per­son is en­ti­tled to be treated fairly, with re­spect and given equal op­por­tu­nity re­gard­less of their sex­ual pref­er­ence, gen­der or gen­der iden­tity or lack of one, as it should be.

How­ever, many in the gen­der equal­ity move­ment have taken things too far and some other spe­cial in­ter­est groups are us­ing the gen­der equal­ity move­ment to pro­mote their own agenda.

The LGBT Ac­tivist Agenda

Psy­chol­o­gists gen­er­ally con­sider gen­der dyspho­ria to be an ab­nor­mal­ity and a con­di­tion that can and should be treated, yet in many U.S. states, coun­ties and cities, sim­ply of­fer­ing to pro­vide any ther­apy, coun­sel­ing or a pro­gram to help a per­son cope with gen­der dyspho­ria is now a crime. The LGBT lobby has branded gen­der dyspho­ria treat­ment as "con­ver­sion ther­apy" and a vi­o­la­tion of hu­man rights.

The LGBT lobby has taken con­trol of sex-ed in many public schools around the world, is heav­ily in­flu­enc­ing government and academia and car­ry­ing out their own con­ver­sion pro­gram on chil­dren.

One of the mis­sions of the gay ac­tivist group GSLEN is to en­cour­age kinder­garten­ers to iden­tify with gay cul­ture by study­ing the book "The Boy With the Rain­bow Heart". The rain­bow is the pri­mary icon for the gay and gen­der dyspho­ria com­mu­nity and so get­ting boys in kinder­garten to iden­tify with a rain­bow heart will en­sure that they are more ac­cept­ing of gen­der dyspho­ria and more likely to ex­pe­ri­ence it as they grow older and are less likely to de­velop as nor­mal, healthy het­ero­sex­ual and mas­cu­line males.

The sex-ed cur­ricu­lum in many schools ac­tively pro­motes ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity, pornog­ra­phy, sex toys, phone sex, bondage, abor­tion and gen­der flu­id­ity as nor­mal and healthy. These pro­grams sex­u­al­ize chil­dren who are far too young to be en­gaged in sex and who would oth­er­wise not be sex­u­ally ac­tive, and they also dis­cour­age healthy nor­mal re­la­tion­ships be­tween men and women.

If par­ents were to present some of the same ma­te­rial to their own chil­dren they could lose cus­tody of their chil­dren and be im­pris­oned.

If a sin­gle man were to present the same ma­te­rial to chil­dren out­side of school he would cer­tainly be charged with felony "groom­ing" and would face a very long prison sen­tence.

Yet, when a teacher sex­u­al­izes young chil­dren and shows graphic sex­ual media in a classroom on be­half of a LGBT group it is some­how OK.

Planned Par­ent­hood has in­fil­trated some schools and is ac­tu­ally en­cour­ag­ing early teens and pre-teens to en­gage not just in sex but in un­con­ven­tional sex that would have been con­sid­ered per­ver­sion not that long ago.

A book dis­trib­uted to young chil­dren en­ti­tled "I am Jazz" teaches boys "I have a girl brain but a boy body. This is called trans­gen­der. I was born this way!"

In some LGBT in­flu­enced schools chil­dren as young as four have been shown videos with gay cou­ples mak­ing out.

Con­ser­va­tive Al­berta, Canada, is a prime ex­am­ple of how an ag­gres­sive LGBT lobby has been able to force its agenda into schools and government.

It all started with the in­no­cent sound­ing Gay Straight Al­liance (GSA), which is not re­ally an al­liance be­tween ho­mo­sex­u­als and het­ero­sex­u­als but a gay ac­tivist pro­gram.

Pro­po­nents claim GSAS are merely peer sup­port net­works or­ga­nized by stu­dents to help gay stu­dents and those with gen­der dyspho­ria feel wel­come and to pre­vent bul­ly­ing or abuse, and in some cases they are just that. How­ever, in other cases they are some­thing else.

The Al­berta GSA pro­gram is government funded pro­gram orig­i­nat­ing from the Univer­sity of Al­berta's Kristo­pher Wells and An­dré P. Grace and their so-called In­sti­tute for Sex­ual Mi­nor­ity Stud­ies and Ser­vices.

Both Wells and Grace pro­mote a dis­turb­ing mil­i­tant gay agenda.

In Tweets, Kristo­pher Wells has equated Chris­tians with Nazis and sug­gested that par­ents who seek to have in­put on their chil­dren's sex-ed or who en­cour­age chastity are stupid.

When Wells's Al­berta GSA web­site (pro­moted to chil­dren) gen­er­ated out­rage by link­ing to a gay Face­book site called Fruit Loops that con­tained gay sex­ual ma­te­rial and pro­moted BDSM, in­stead of apol­o­giz­ing he praised Fruit Loops. Wells's Tweets could lead some to con­clude that Wells be­lieves that chil­dren should not just be gay but should also be tied up in painful po­si­tions, whipped and hu­mil­i­ated and should be­come sadists and masochists.

In 2017, Al­berta passed Bill 24 - An Act to Sup­port GayS­traight Al­liances, a law that forces all public schools to sup­port GSAS and to keep stu­dents' par­tic­i­pa­tion in the club's se­cret from par­ents. There are no such clubs for gen­der nor­mal het­ero­sex­ual kids or sup­port groups for chil­dren who want to ab­stain from sex while they are chil­dren.

The government claims that the law will make all stu­dents feel safe, wel­come and cared for, and per­haps it will re­duce hos­til­ity to­wards ho­mo­sex­ual stu­dents and those with gen­der dyspho­ria but it also may open those stu­dents up to groom­ing and in­flu­ence by the pe­dophiles who are ea­ger to sex­u­al­ize chil­dren and in­crease their avail­abil­ity.

There are con­certed ef­forts to put a GSA into ev­ery high school in the United States as well as Canada.

The darker as­pect of the LGBT agenda is not just lim­ited to cor­rupt­ing chil­dren but is also about crim­i­nal­iz­ing free speech and so­cial norms.

In Canada last year, bill C-16 was passed which added gen­der ex­pres­sion and gen­der iden­tity as pro­tected grounds to the Cana­dian Hu­man Rights Act, and also to the Crim­i­nal Code pro­vi­sions deal­ing with hate pro­pa­ganda, in­cite­ment to geno­cide, and ag­gra­vat­ing fac­tors in sentencing.

The new law made it a vi­o­la­tion of hu­man rights to use a gen­der pro­noun that does not cor­re­spond to a per­son's sub­jec­tively de­ter­mined "gen­der iden­tity." So, one can be pros­e­cuted for sim­ply re­fer­ring to a wo­man as Ms. or Mrs. or us­ing Mr. when ad­dress­ing a male or not us­ing a per­son's pre­ferred pro­noun, even when the pre­ferred pro­noun is un­clear or un­known. A per­son with gen­der dyspho­ria can in­sist that oth­ers re­fer to them as any­thing they might come up with, and not just the more com­mon bizarre pro­nouns such as: ey, em, eir, eirs, ne, nem, nir, nirs, thon, xe, xem, xyr, xyrs, ze, hir, hir, hirs, zir, zir, zirs.

Us­ing Mr., Ms. and Mrs. has long been ac­cepted as a sign of re­spect and for­mal­ity but now us­ing such pro­nouns in Canada puts one at risk of be­ing re­ported to the Cana­dian Hu­man Rights Com­mis­sion and fac­ing pro­tracted le­gal en­tan­gle­ments, high le­gal costs, fines and pos­si­ble time in prison. A small spe­cial in­ter­est group has ef­fec­tively crim­i­nal­ized nor­mal and widespread hu­man speech and so­cial stan­dards.

Iron­i­cally, Canada's Hu­man Rights Tri­bunal op­er­ates out­side the Hu­man Rights Act and Cana­dian Con­sti­tu­tion and func­tions more as a Kan­ga­roo Court than any type of le­gal ju­di­cial body. Even though the Tri­bunal is a not a court it "legally de­cides whether a per­son or or­ga­ni­za­tion has en­gaged in a dis­crim­i­na­tory prac­tice" un­der the Hu­man Rights Act and can im­pose fines, im­pris­on­ment or de­por­ta­tion for non-cit­i­zens.

The Tri­bunal is the "master of its own pro­ce­dures", which means that it can do as it pleases and is not bound by any norms, stan­dards or com­mon le­gal pro­ce­dures. It even reg­u­larly vi­o­lates its own writ­ten rules of pro­ce­dure and can make up new pro­ce­dures on a case by case ba­sis to en­sure that it pre­vails.

Any­one ac­cused by it is pre­sumed guilty and must pay for their de­fense to prove their in­no­cence. De­fen­dants can be de­nied the right to ad­dress their ac­cuser, are un­able to re­coup le­gal costs if they pre­vail and can't present the same ev­i­dence they might in an ac­tual court.

The chance of a suc­cess­ful de­fense against the Tri­bunal is slim due to its one-sided power and even if one does pre­vail the le­gal costs can run into the hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars and can­not be re­couped. So, one au­to­mat­i­cally loses no mat­ter what, if they are charged by the Tri­bunal.

The Hid­den Is­lamic Agenda

Ev­i­dence has clearly shown that there is a global con­spir­acy by the Is­lamic Brother­hood and other Is­lamist or­ga­ni­za­tions to un­der­mine west­ern democ­ra­cies in order to spread the in­flu­ence of Is­lam and even­tu­ally con­vert democ­ra­cies into Is­lamic states.

The con­spir­acy is well-funded, highly ef­fec­tive and is car­ried out on mul­ti­ple lev­els. One of the ways that a demo­cratic so­ci­ety can be weak­ened is by at­tack­ing the fun­da­men­tal so­cial unit—the fam­ily, and sub­vert­ing the so­cial fabric by cor­rupt­ing chil­dren.

Pub­licly, the Muslim Brother­hood claims to be a peace­ful, demo­cratic or­ga­ni­za­tion, and that its leader "con­demns vi­o­lence and vi­o­lent acts". But Is­lam and mem­bers of the Muslim Brother­hood de­nounce democ­racy, en­cour­age vi­o­lence and lie to non-mus­lims to fur­ther their agenda.

The Muslim brother­hood has been deemed a ter­ror­ist or­ga­ni­za­tion by nu­mer­ous coun­tries be­cause of its long his­tory of vi­o­lence, pro­mo­tion of ter­ror­ism and fi­nan­cial sup­port of ter­ror­ist or­ga­ni­za­tions.

In 2017 Don­ald Trump pro­posed list­ing the Muslim Brother­hood as a ter­ror­ist or­ga­ni­za­tion but did not due to heavy lob­by­ing against it and is in­stead mov­ing to des­ig­nate only vi­o­lent chap­ters of the Muslim Brother­hood as ter­ror­ists.

Doc­u­ments seized by the FBI in a search of a house in Vir­ginia and pre­sented as ev­i­dence in the 2008 Holy Land Ter­ror Fund­ing Trial show that the Muslim Brother­hood is se­cretly en­gaged in a grand mission of ‘civ­i­liza­tion ji­had’ and that the infiltration of the United States, Canada and other coun­tries was of­fi­cially ap­proved by its Shura Coun­cil in 1987 with the goal of mak­ing the coun­tries Muslim states. How­ever, the pro­gram of forcibly spread­ing Is­lam into non-muslim na­tions has been go­ing on for more than 1,400 years.

One of the doc­u­ments states:

"The process of set­tle­ment is a ‘Civ­i­liza­tion-ji­hadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brother­hood] must un­der­stand that their work in Amer­ica is a kind of grand ji­had in elim­i­nat­ing and de­stroy­ing the West­ern civ­i­liza­tion from within and ‘sab­o­tag­ing’ its mis­er­able house by their hands and the hands of the be­liev­ers… “[W]e must pos­sess a mas­tery of the art of ‘coali­tions’, the art of ‘ab­sorp­tion’ and the prin­ci­ples of ‘co­op­er­a­tion."

The Muslim Brother­hood knows that the op­po­nents to its civ­i­liza­tion ji­had are most likely to be white men of Chris­tian back­ground, so they seek to dis­em­power white men in gen­eral as a way to de­stroy West­ern civ­i­liza­tion from within.

A num­ber of lib­eral and fem­i­nist or­ga­ni­za­tions have been in­fil­trated or in­flu­enced by civ­i­liza­tion ji­hadists to pro­mote Is­lam through a hu­man rights cloak. One of those or­ga­ni­za­tions is Code Pink, which the Coun­cil on Amer­i­can-is­lamic Re­la­tions (CAIR) (a front for the Muslim Brother­hood) awarded its “Com­mu­nity Or­ga­ni­za­tion of the Year” award for its pro­mo­tion of Is­lam and Ha­mas.

One one level, Code Pink is a coura­geous peace group that stands up to the war industry but on an­other level it is a fem­i­nist or­ga­ni­za­tion that some­how sup­ports the anti-wo­man Is­lamic agenda.

The Muslim Brother­hood sup­ports the war on mas­culin­ity not only be­cause it deeply dis­rupts demo­cratic so­ci­eties and dis­em­pow­ers the men who might stand up to the en­croach­ment of Is­lam but be­cause it also makes the anti-wo­man cul­ture of Is­lam more at­trac­tive to dis­en­fran­chised men.

By am­pli­fy­ing anti-male sen­ti­ment some men will grav­i­tate to­wards or­ga­ni­za­tions that sup­port men, in­clud­ing Is­lam. Those same men will be more eas­ily in­flu­enced by any type of strong or­ga­ni­za­tion.

Muslim or­ga­ni­za­tions also align them­selves with the so­cial jus­tice, peace and gen­der equal­ity move­ments in order to cre­ate the false per­cep­tion that Is­lam is be­nign and even some­how pro­gres­sive. By at­tach­ing Is­lama­pho­bia to ho­mo­pho­bia and pre­sent­ing fe­male Muslim politi­cians as gen­der di­ver­sity, it has been able to in­sert it­self into the psy­che of peo­ple in democ­ra­cies as some­thing non-threat­en­ing and sym­pa­thetic.

All of these ef­forts at sell­ing west­ern democ­ra­cies on Is­lam and the rapid in­crease in Muslim pop­u­la­tion has sub­stan­tially in­creased the po­lit­i­cal power of Mus­lims and they have used that power to fur­ther their civ­i­liza­tion ji­had.

A prime ex­am­ple of this is Pak­istani-cana­dian politi­cian, Iqra Khalid, whose fa­ther, Hafiz Khalid, is a key mem­ber of the The Is­lamic So­ci­ety of North Amer­ica, a front for the Muslim Brother­hood.

Iqra Khalid is also an alumni of Muslim Stu­dent As­so­ci­a­tion (MSA), an­other front for the Muslim Brother­hood that is closely as­so­ci­ated with ter­ror­ism. A num­ber of MSA pres­i­dents have en­gaged in or sup­ported ter­ror­ism in­clud­ing Ab­du­rah­man M. Alam­oudi, An­war Al-awlaki and Omar Shafik Ham­mami, a leader of Al Shabab.

Iqra Khalid in­tro­duced Mea­sure 103 (M-103), which was passed as a non-bind­ing mo­tion that calls on the government to "con­demn Is­lam­o­pho­bia and all forms of sys­temic racism and re­li­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion."

The im­pact of the mo­tion has been that it has be­come much harder to openly dis­cuss po­ten­tial threats from Is­lam without be­ing la­beled an Is­lama­phobe and it paved the way for spe­cial treat­ment of Mus­lims and the place­ment of Mus­lims in in­flu­en­tial po­si­tions within the government.

Iqra Khalid just re­cently an­nounced that Canada will "in­vest $23 mil­lion in the multi-cul­tural pro­gram." What she likely meant by that is the Cana­dian government will use tax­payer money to sup­port fronts of the Muslim Brother­hood to fur­ther their civ­i­liza­tion ji­had in Canada.

While Is­lamic or­ga­ni­za­tions in North Amer­ica are care­ful to present them­selves as pro­gres­sive and non-threat­en­ing in public, what they tell ad­her­ents in Mosques is a dif­fer­ent story.

Lead­ing Imam Yaseen Shaikh up­held tra­di­tional Is­lamic be­liefs when he stated "Be­ing a ho­mo­sex­ual is an im­moral act, it is a shame­ful act, it is de­spised act, it is haram, it is for­bid­den in Is­lam, com­pletely, ab­so­lutely, from the Ko­ran, the Ha­dith and by con­sen­sus of the schol­ars from the be­gin­ning of Is­lam."

“Death is the sen­tence" for ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity ac­cord­ing to Sheikh Far­rokh Sekalesh­far, an in­flu­en­tial Is­lamic scholar and Imam.

In most Is­lamic coun­tries there is no tol­er­ance for gen­der dyspho­ria or ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity and women are es­sen­tially the prop­erty of their hus­bands.

Is­lam is a grave threat to those who as­pire to free­dom and democ­racy be­cause it is a to­tal­i­tar­ian cul­ture that im­poses re­li­gious rule and con­trol over ev­ery as­pect of life. It is not just a re­li­gion but a com­plete eco­nomic, po­lit­i­cal, ju­di­cial, ed­u­ca­tional and re­li­gious sys­tem that seeks to spread its con­trol through a highly or­ga­nized, ef­fec­tive and very well-funded pro­gram of infiltration, sub­ver­sion and vi­o­lence.

As Mus­lims gain power they seek to im­pose Sharia (Is­lamic) law. For those un­fa­mil­iar with Sharia, fol­low­ing are some of its laws:

• Theft is pun­ish­able by am­pu­ta­tion of the hands.

• Crit­i­ciz­ing or deny­ing any part of the Qu­ran is pun­ish­able by death.

• Crit­i­ciz­ing Muham­mad or deny­ing that he is a prophet is pun­ish­able by death.

• Crit­i­ciz­ing or deny­ing Al­lah is pun­ish­able by death.

• A Muslim who be­comes a non-muslim is pun­ish­able by death.

• A non-muslim who leads a Muslim away from Is­lam is pun­ish­able by death.

• A non-muslim man who mar­ries a Muslim wo­man is pun­ish­able by death.

• A wo­man or girl who has been raped can­not tes­tify in court against her rapist(s).

• Testimonies of 4 male wit­nesses are re­quired to prove rape of a fe­male.

• A wo­man or girl who al­leges rape without pro­duc­ing 4 male wit­nesses is guilty of adul­tery.

• A wo­man or girl found guilty of adul­tery is pun­ish­able by death.

• A male con­victed of rape can have his con­vic­tion dis­missed by mar­ry­ing his vic­tim.

• Muslim men have sex­ual rights to any wo­man/girl not wear­ing the Hi­jab.

• A wo­man can have 1 hus­band, who can have up to 4 wives.

• A man can marry an in­fant girl and con­sum­mate the mar­riage when she is 9 years old.

• Girls' cli­toris should be cut (Muham­mad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-adab, Ha­dith 5251).

• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.

• A man can uni­lat­er­ally di­vorce his wife; a wife needs her hus­band's con­sent to di­vorce.

• A di­vorced wife loses cus­tody of all chil­dren over 6 years of age or when they ex­ceed it.

• A wo­man's tes­ti­mony in court, al­lowed in prop­erty cases, car­ries ½ the weight of a man's.

• A fe­male heir in­her­its half of what a male heir in­her­its.

• A wo­man can­not speak alone to a man who is not her hus­band or rel­a­tive.

• Meat to eat must come from an­i­mals that have been sac­ri­ficed to Al­lah - i.e., be "halal."

• Mus­lims should en­gage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Mus­lims to ad­vance Is­lam.

The ev­i­dence of the suc­cess of civ­i­liza­tion ji­had is es­pe­cially ev­i­dent in Europe and Canada.

Some schools in Europe now serve only halal meat and a grow­ing num­ber of fast food res­tau­rants in Europe also serve only halal meat. Halal meat has been sac­ri­ficed to Al­lah and comes from an­i­mals who are hung up­side down and have their throats slit without be­ing stunned while a re­li­gious verse is re­cited. The cruel prac­tice vi­o­lates the law in most de­vel­oped coun­tries yet it is tol­er­ated un­der re­li­gious grounds.

An in­creas­ing num­ber of Euro­pean cities have no-go zones where non-mus­lims and po­lice aren't al­lowed.

Muslim rape gangs are a pro­tected class in many Euro­pean cities. In many UK cities, po­lice refuse to in­ves­ti­gate rape, kid­nap­ping, pros­ti­tu­tion and mur­der of white girls when Mus­lims are in­volved.

The Is­lamiza­tion of Canada

Canada's cur­rent Lib­eral government and its Prime Min­is­ter, Justin Trudeau is ac­tively fa­cil­i­tat­ing the Is­lamiza­tion of Canada.

Trudeau is a life­long friend with Prince Shah Karim Al Hus­saini, Aga Khan IV, the cur­rent Imam of Nizari Is­mail­ism, a Shia Is­lamic sect.

Trudeau came un­der crit­i­cism for spend­ing his 2016 Christ­mas va­ca­tion on the Aga Khan's lux­ury is­land in the Ba­hamas, along with his fam­ily, an­other MP and the pres­i­dent of the Lib­eral party.

The Aga Khan Foun­da­tion is li­censed as a lob­by­ing or­ga­ni­za­tion in Canada and re­ceived $46 mil­lion in tax­payer money in 2016.

In an in­ter­view Trudeau claimed that "Is­lam is not in­com­pat­i­ble with West­ern sec­u­lar democ­racy," and some peo­ple won­der if Trudeau has se­cretly con­verted to Is­lam.

There are now Mosques in a grow­ing num­ber of public schools in Canada and Muslim stu­dents are given time off from classes to pray, while stu­dents of other faiths are not af­forded the same spe­cial treat­ment.

Some Cana­dian cities have ef­fec­tively be­come Muslim and use tax­payer money to build mosques and halal slaugh­ter houses.

Muslim polygamy is widely ac­cepted while polygamy within other re­li­gions is pros­e­cuted.

Many Mus­lims in Canada re­main on wel­fare and can earn far more by hav­ing mul­ti­ple wives and large num­bers of chil­dren than they could earn work­ing.

Canada has rolled out the wel­come mat to vast num­bers of Muslim refugees and known or sus­pected ter­ror­ists, many who are sup­ported by tax­pay­ers.

In the UK, ter­ror­ists have their Bri­tish cit­i­zen­ship re­voked and in the U.S. even plan­ning to join ISIS or Al Qaeda is grounds for im­pris­on­ment. But Cana­di­ans who go abroad to com­mit ter­ror­ism have a “right to re­turn,” and "even if a Cana­dian en­gaged in ter­ror­ist ac­tiv­ity abroad, the government must fa­cil­i­tate their re­turn to Canada,” ac­cord­ing to a Brief­ing Note pre­pared for Public Safety Min­is­ter Ralph Goodale.

The re­turn of ter­ror­ists is man­aged by a group within the government called the High Risk Re­turnee In­ter­de­part­men­tal Task­force but they are not given the re­sources to ad­e­quately iden­tify ter­ror­ists and even when they do, few are ever de­tained or pros­e­cuted.

Hun­dreds, pos­si­bly thou­sands, of Is­lamic ter­ror­ists have found safe haven in Canada and many are en­gaged in or pre­pared to en­gage in civ­i­liza­tion ji­had.

Women's In­flu­ence on Male Be­hav­ior

While women are not re­spon­si­ble for the be­hav­ior of men, they can cer­tainly in­flu­ence it and play a ma­jor role in the re­la­tions be­tween men and women.

Mothers help shape their sons and bad moth­er­ing can re­sult in se­ri­ous be­hav­ioral prob­lems in boys and men.

Men who love their mothers are more able to love other women. Boys who are smoth­ered, dom­i­nated or abused by their mothers can spend their adult lives try­ing to find a wo­man just like their mother, may avoid women al­to­gether or be­come vi­o­lent to­wards women.

Men are very vis­ually driven sex­u­ally and re­spond on a con­scious, sub­con­scious and phys­i­cal level to sex­ual cues from women.

In many cul­tures, a girl or wo­man is not val­ued un­less she is sex­u­ally at­trac­tive and so many girls and women in such cul­tures make ef­forts to be sex­u­ally at­trac­tive without un­der­stand­ing the im­pact on men.

Be­cause girls usu­ally reach sex­ual ma­tu­rity ear­lier than boys, many of them sub­con­sciously try to at­tract a sex­ual part­ner at an early age by dress­ing and act­ing sex­u­ally provoca­tively. This early sex­ual game play­ing con­fuses many pre­pubescent boys and makes it harder for them to have a healthy re­la­tion­ship with girls and women later.

Most women's makeup sim­u­lates a state of sex­ual arousal and is in­tended to cause arousal in men and at­tract them. When a wo­man ex­poses too much skin or wears clothes that are too tight it also at­tracts men and il­lic­its a sex­ual in­ter­est.

Some men are able to tune out the sex­ual sig­nals from women on a con­scious level but it can still have an im­pact and it can be very frus­trat­ing for a healthy het­ero­sex­ual male to be around at­trac­tive women who are fre­quently send­ing sex­ual sig­nals but then re­ject all or most male ad­vances.

The fact that so many women will­ingly perform in pornog­ra­phy and en­gage in pros­ti­tu­tion and oth­er­wise make them­selves avail­able to strange men, fur­ther con­fuses men who aren't ex­pert in play­ing women's mat­ing games.

In re­cent years men have come un­der in­creas­ing at­tacks for re­spond­ing to women's sex­ual cues.

Saskatchewan, Canada MP Erin Weir was kicked out of the New Demo­cratic Party (NDP) cau­cus not be­cause of sex­ual ha­rass­ment but be­cause he "failed to ac­cept full re­spon­si­bil­ity in public" for be­ing some­what so­cially in­ept.

The NDP in­ves­ti­gated Weir due to a com­plaint by a wo­man and found that “Mr. Weir failed to read non­ver­bal cues in so­cial set­tings and that his be­hav­ior re­sulted in sig­nif­i­cant nega­tive im­pacts to the com­plainants.” How­ever, the in­ves­ti­ga­tion also found that Weir did re­spond to ver­bal cues so maybe the real prob­lem was that the wo­man who filed the com­plaint against Weir just needed to learn to tell him to buzz off in­stead of re­ly­ing on vague non-ver­bal cues.

Weir ad­mit­ted that he may have stood too close to some peo­ple and en­gaged them in con­ver­sa­tion more than he should have and was not able to ac­cu­rately read the non-ver­bal cues.

The mys­te­ri­ous non-ver­bal cues were not re­vealed so that other so­cially non-ex­pert men might learn from Weir's ex­pe­ri­ence.

If it was a wo­man who had done ex­actly the same thing she cer­tainly would not have been booted out of the cau­cus and if she had then she would have likely sued for dis­crim­i­na­tion and won the case.

The #Me­too move­ment has also served to dis­em­power men. While it has cer­tainly outed some sex­u­ally ag­gres­sive and abu­sive men, it has also ru­ined the lives of many men who may have done noth­ing wrong and driven many men com­pletely away from women.

The #Me­too move­ment is be­ing used by some as a weapon to de­stroy the ca­reers of in­flu­en­tial and com­pe­tent men whom the world re­ally needs.

Many women are driven by their mat­ing in­stinct and, bi­o­log­i­cally, they are at­tracted to al­pha males who are more likely to be the best im­preg­na­tors, providers and pro­tec­tors. For eons this has en­cour­aged and re­warded ag­gres­sion in men.

Al­pha males are strong, coura­geous, suc­cess­ful and as­sertive. They know how to fight for their wo­man and pro­tect her. But, these days, women at­tack men for be­ing al­pha males and for giv­ing them ex­actly what they want on a bi­o­log­i­cal level.

Abu­sive be­hav­ior is at­trib­uted pri­mar­ily to men but women can be just as abu­sive but usu­ally in dif­fer­ent ways. Ac­cord­ing to psy­chol­o­gist Dr. Bonnie Eaker Weil, more than 50% of all mar­ried women cheat on their hus­bands at some point. And ac­cord­ing to the Na­tional Cen­ter for Health Sta­tis­tics, about 50% of mar­riages in the United States end in di­vorce, and about 80% of those divorces are ini­ti­ated by women.

Dur­ing a di­vorce men are of­ten not treated fairly and are dev­as­tated emo­tion­ally and fi­nan­cially. In child sup­port and cus­tody cases men are usu­ally heav­ily dis­crim­i­nated against, some­times hor­rif­i­cally.

Men who can't af­ford to pay high child sup­port are branded dead-beat dads and of­ten im­pris­oned but women who can and should sup­port chil­dren in the care of their fathers but don't are not branded dead­beat moms and are rarely pe­nal­ized.

Ac­cord­ing to the Amer­i­can Foun­da­tion for Sui­cide Pre­ven­tion, men are more than 3.5 times more likely to com­mit sui­cide than women and 70% of men who do kill them­selves are white, mostly mid­dle-aged men.

Why Gen­der and Mas­culin­ity Mat­ters

We are hu­man first, and male, fe­male or some of both sec­ond and hu­man rights should cer­tainly not be de­pen­dent upon gen­der.

Some may ar­gue that gen­der role mod­els are ob­so­lete and that we should lib­er­ate our­selves from the con­straints of gen­der stereo­types.

While the idea of a gen­der­less so­ci­ety ap­peals to many and some peo­ple could cer­tainly ben­e­fit from some of the at­tributes of the other gen­der, it ig­nores the re­al­ity of biology. Most hu­mans are born with a sin­gle gen­der and the traits in­her­ent to that gen­der.

Count­less sci­en­tific stud­ies that are well de­signed and pub­lished in peer-re­viewed jour­nals have con­sis­tently shown that there are very real and sub­stan­tial bi­o­log­i­cal, psy­cho­log­i­cal and emo­tional dif­fer­ences be­tween nor­mal, healthy males and fe­males.

Evo­lu­tion has cre­ated these dif­fer­ences for a rea­son and in a healthy het­ero­sex­ual re­la­tion­ship the dif­fer­ences com­pli­ment each other and pro­vide an ideal foun­da­tion for the rear­ing of chil­dren. Chil­dren re­ally do need a nur­tur­ing mother and strong fa­ther to grow up to be­come healthy and func­tional adults.

When chil­dren do not have healthy gen­der role mod­els they are less likely to de­velop their own nor­mal, healthy gen­der iden­tity and con­tinue to suf­fer psy­cho­log­i­cally.

While it is not clearly proven and many might dis­agree, chil­dren who ex­pe­ri­ence gen­der dyspho­ria may be less likely to de­velop some of the char­ac­ter­is­tics that so­ci­ety needs from them.

A wo­man who feels that she is a man may not make the best mother while a man who acts like a wo­man may not be able to teach his son how to act like a man.

Men with too much estro­gen and who don't feel like men may be less likely to pur­sue ca­reers where mas­cu­line traits are needed, such as in con­struc­tion. Nor are they likely to have the con­fi­dence for lead­er­ship roles and may lack the courage needed to de­fend their rights, pro­tect their fam­ily or cre­ate pos­i­tive change in so­ci­ety.

Nat­u­ral gen­der traits and hor­mone lev­els can pro­vide skills and strengths that one might not oth­er­wise have.

Hu­man­ity may not have pro­gressed in pos­i­tive ways without coura­geous and mas­cu­line men and its fu­ture is threat­ened by a lack of mas­cu­line traits.

Men are not bet­ter than women but most men are bet­ter at some things than most women, just as women are bet­ter at some things than men.

It was men who wrote the Dec­la­ra­tion of In­de­pen­dence and the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion and men and women are needed to de­fend the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion and en­force the Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion of Hu­man Rights. But that is gen­er­ally not hap­pen­ing and hu­man­ity now faces a very bleak fu­ture. We need more manly men with the courage to de­fend what is right, pro­tect our chil­dren from those who would cor­rupt them and ex­pose and com­bat the threats to our civ­i­liza­tion.

Hu­man­ity needs mas­cu­line men. It is time to stop the war on mas­culin­ity and start cel­e­brat­ing and cul­ti­vat­ing healthy mas­culin­ity while also cel­e­brat­ing and cul­ti­vat­ing healthy fem­i­nin­ity.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.