Why “Green” Is “Gay”


Shut up, dear….


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. 









Posted on September 2, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 21 Comments.

  1. Strange how “masculinity” is dangerous to the environment, while it’s been the progressive, “feminine” care-taking mentality that’s been responsible for the wars we’re fighting today, the push for consumerism to provide labor-saving devices and cheap “necessities” (in fact, it’s responsible for expanding the definition of “necessity”), and the forced migration in Europe and the US. And abortion. All provided by a central government.

    A truly masculine society would have a world in which tribes kept to themselves, strong religious and moral practices, and a virtue of personal self-sufficiency and local control.

  2. We also need to change the voting franchise. Families should vote, not individuals.

  3. This has to begin with women staying home, having children and not working out side the home at least while the kids are growing up. Men have to control the finances and be able to support the family without the wife working. Many men have become lazy and have no problem giving up their leadership for letting the woman share the financial burden. This is highly destructive to everyone concerned especially the kids of a co-worker arrangement.

    • It is most ruinous for the wife.
      Forced to work to demonstrate to herself she is “emancipated”, she would still be the one who cleans the kitchen, dresses the children, takes care of many little and big things.
      Our grandmas had such a better life than these modern victim of forced labour.

  4. “Men knew (being men) that it was their duty to keep said emotionalism in check.”
    Also, men knew that they needed women’s nurturing and caring emotionalism to keep their most destructing impulses in check.

    • I am so moved, Carlo.

      Let me rephrase for you: men knew they needed the loving, tender presence of a woman at their side to give the best of themselves and be inspired to be the best husbands and fathers they can be.

      Do not drink the cool-aid of the violent sex. It’s all rubbish.

    • Don’t misunderstand me, I agree with your points. Just wanted to remind this, as it fully closes the complementarity of sexes.

  5. I think that “emotionalism”, as you call it, is a trait common to human beings – both male an female. Men are hard wired to sublimate their feelings in order to work with other men to “get the job done” – whether it’s providing for the family or constructing an optimal environment in which they can live. Their emotions are still there – for men have a heart as well as a mind – and it is their heart, with everything it contains, that they have traditionally shared with women. This is no secondary aspect of life for the wisdom of the heart can guide the logic of the mind. In the same way, the man’s objective take on reality can inform the wisdom of the heart to live within the perimeters of what is possible and what is not. It is a reciprocity inherent in human nature which, if lived properly, benefits both of the sexes.

    • Apologies, but this sounds like new age tripe to me.

      In women, emotions can completely take over, shut down the rational element.

      Men are not like that. Men who are dominated by their emotions are eighteen years ols boys in love or fags. Of course men also have emotions, but this does not even begin to relativise the huge difference in their emotional structure.

      If you can’t see this fundamental differences between the sexes, you will struggle to understand the reaction of people around you.

  6. “In women, emotions can completely take over, shut down the rational element. Men are not like that.”

    I have seen emotions completely take over men, but only in front of women and/or children, and only when another man isn’t around.

  7. I appreciate you pointing out that a woman’s emoting is not always a bad thing. I have even heard women insist that women are “too emotional.” I might be wrong, as you said most people don’t discuss this, but I have a working theory our emotions are there as a shortcut for us. They allow us to react quickly to what might be a dangerous situation or to put social pressure on other women or children for poor behavior.

    If the woman has a well-formed conscience this is an amazing asset. She will often do and say the right thing without thinking. If asked for her reasons, she can usually come up with them because she has been educated to articulate morality. Her emotions will be what cause her to pause when someone is trying to make a rational argument for something that is against her morality. Even if the argument seems reasonable if it pushes to hard against a firmly held belief the woman will outright reject it.

    This is horrible if the woman doesn’t have a well-formed conscience. Because the same instincts and reactions that protect the decent woman from false arguments make it very difficult to correct the immoral woman.

    But I love my emotions. They keep me out of harms way by encouraging me to exit dicey situations. They have also given me the will to speak up against a wrong or an injustice because I was so moved I spoke before thinking twice about whether it was a good idea.

    • You make a very intelligent argument.

      In generations past, the natural “big heart” of women (a beautiful, God-given thing for sure) was shaped by a rigidly formed system of social and religious values.

      But these values are nothing else than the product of a deeply Christian “patriarchal society”, so despised by Feminists; a system which gave women the way to live a full life by assigning to them a very definite role within society.

      Let me put it in a simple way: women need their emotions to be bridled by men; otherwise, their “big heart” will, in time, overcome religious values and make of emotions a religion. Which is exactly what has been happening in the last 60 years. Mind here that there can be no emancipation in the mind without this becoming a religious emancipation. Christianity makes of the man the head of the woman for a reason.

  8. “And you are refusing to see what all generations have seen before the age of idiocy.”

    I was around before the age of idiocy and what I saw was a whole range of behavior by men. There were men who were very wonderful fathers and husbands. There also were men whose emotions completely took them over when they didn’t get their way. No, I’m not talking about weeping uncontrollably. I’m talking about men with their greater physical strength who lost it emotionally as a way to control their wives and children. A fair amount of this went on and women became adept at controlling their emotional responses to these abuses in order to survive.

  9. I thank you for this post. I shared this to my Fakebook wall and my brother read it and it had a deep impact on him regarding some issues taking place in his marriage. You are right, you don’t hear this often but it is truth.

  1. Pingback: Where Have All The Men Gone? | Mundabor's Blog

%d bloggers like this: