Why “Green” Is “Gay”
Nice blog post on the Moonbattery blog about the WaPo discovering how masculinity is dangerous to the planet. It is that kind of fake “research” that leads you to very sad reflections about how much money is wasted in modern universities.
Yours truly would like to add his own two cents to the issue. It won’t please everyone. But hey, this blog never does.
Environ-mentalism is emotional tosh. However, it is emotional tosh on a planetary scale. Therefore, it tends to attract more easily women, who on the one hand have a stronger instinct for nurturing and protecting, and on the other end are more prone to emoting.
Men go out, earn bread for their families, cut trees, wage wars, discover continents, invent new things. Women stay home, cook for their men, keep the house clean, are naturally caring and nurturing. No amount of emancipation tosh will ever erase this fundamentally different hard-wiring of the sexes, which remains true as a (beautiful) reality of nature and, in fact, corresponds to the deepest, most intimate aspirations of both of them. This, irrespective of rare exceptions in one sense (Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher) or the other (Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter).
This has always been so. It will always be so. The great P.G. Wodehouse expressed this difference and used it to comic effect in his usual wonderful way:
when a girl suddenly asks you out of a blue sky if you don’t sometimes feel that the stars are God’s daisy-chain, you begin to think a bit.
The problem is not the feminine tendency to emote more than men do. This is a beautiful, God-given trait of the (once) gentle sex. The problem is the absence of men who are men enough to tell them to shut up and go back to the kitchen when they start emoting about the “environment”.
Women have always been the emoting sex. However, they had around them men who were able and willing (being men) to control and keep in check their bouts of emotionalism. Both sexes knew this, and understood the added value of the other. Women knew (being women) that they needed men to keep their emotionalism in check. Men knew (being men) that it was their duty to keep said emotionalism in check. Therefore, women’s emotional overflow remained, on the whole, one of the harmless, somewhat endearing sort.
This equilibrium, this natural collaboration of the sexes went to the dogs when men stopped being masculine and started to want to “think like a woman” (= fag) or “discover their feminine side” (= fag), or in any way try to ingratiate women to themselves ( = weakling) rather than being the Tarzans of their Janes; something which, believe it or not, most Janes would like an awful lot, though they might not admit it.
This is why we have this dying, but still pernicious environ-mentalism. The emotional appeal of the unspeakable tosh is not countered – on the individual level, which is what counts in the end – by thinking men willing to assert their natural authority over their women and tell them to stop emoting, start thinking, and think of dinner instead. On the contrary: a generation of single mothers has created an army of half men who, literally, think like a woman and, raised without an importance male presence around, were never able to grow into their natural role of naturally assertive, naturally leading, men.
The problem of environ-mentalism is, at its roots, a problem of diffused effeminacy among men, and betrayal of femininity among women (yes, the one goes with the other). It is a collective short-circuit in the ability of entire nations to put in place a proper, healthy relationship between the sexes. It is a complete failing of reason in the face of a tidal wave of feminism, effeminacy, and outright faggotry.
The solution is the return to healthy inter-sex relationship: manly men willing to lead the life of their women, and feminine women eager to accept the leadership of their men.
You don’t read such things often. Therefore, it is the more important that you read them here.