Angry Women: You Do Not Have Sexual Power Over Politics

Updated: Jan 22

On this Mother’s Day, I wrote a short and sentimental letter to some incredible mothers I have known. For those whose email addresses were not on hand, I will repeat it here:


Ladies of consummate devotion in Mother Mary’s example,
I honor you today as I recall what special celebration I enjoyed with my mother each year on this day. Thank you for the joy to observe such inspirational motherhood; with your grace and love for your families, my hope for humanity is encouraged. The good you do for your families extends far beyond the walls of your home.

Affectionately, Thomas

I then thought of a way I would have made my mother laugh if she were still with us. I would bring her bean sprouts and veggie bagels, and tell her “I want you to live a long and healthy life, so for Mother’s Day, I bring you the gift of optimal nutrition!”


She would have said something like, “You little bastard, where’s my real breakfast?”


We would laugh and I would take her to a place like The Blue Duck Tavern, which was her favorite Mother’s Day treat of all time, with wild mushrooms that she claimed were only matched by those her father picked freshly from the forest when she was a child.


Then my reflection upon these honorable women was once again shattered by the priestesses of cultural squalor from their unholy land of fiction-worship, Hollywood. They shrieked bravely from their smart phones, encouraging women to stop having sex until 3% of America (the state of Georgia) democratically passes abortion laws with which they agree. The feminist freaks apparently are not satisfied that their democrat-appointed judges will no doubt file an injunction to permit abortions unimpeded, per status quo. Winning is not good enough for the megalomaniacal socialists - totalitarian, complete, full-spectrum domination is the only thing that quells their weak-minded fear and insecurities.


While there are few things that could improve the gene pool more than women like Bette Middler and Alyssa Milano withholding their contribution to it, their stain on the dignity of women is an unhappy advent.


Social Conservatives Rejoice

People who use sex for ulterior motives, transactions, and power are sexually permissive. Social conservatives believe those behaviors create pervasive problems in communities. Consequently, sex strikes only affect people who should not be having sex anyway. Fewer sexually transmitted diseases, reduced social dysfunction, reduced perversion of romance, reduced objectification of men and women, less procreation by people who would be awful parents? The politically motivated sex strike is a massive score for those who accept nothing less than genuine love and romance.


A social conservative treats sex as subordinate to romance – a sacred devotion. If a lover told a social conservative, “I'm on a sex strike, because these genius actresses told me to. I will not have sex with you because I want to coerce you to share my political views,” the social conservative would say, “if you are willing to use our love and devotion to each other for ulterior motives, you are not worthy of my love and devotion, making a mockery of it and subordinating it to third party events. Goodbye.”


Collective Punishment Meets Armchair Altruism

The socialists made collective punishment infamous. Decimation in Rome was a tactic of intimidation for the survival of an empire in dark days. Socialists slaughtered entire communities with forced marches, racial shaming, class shaming, executions, prison and factory slavery, struggle sessions, ridicule and ostracism for disagreeing with their politics.


While institutionalists in the USA do not currently have the power to enslave their opposition in socialist “labor reeducation,” they use industrial power to crush careers and businesses of ideological opponents. They also indoctrinate children with some of the most wicked attitudes and values imaginable. They follow Karl Marx’s invocation, that truth does not matter – only defeating the opposition and striking them in discourse:

Its [criticism’s] essential feeling is indignation, its essential task denunciation… It is not a matter of knowing whether the opponent is a noble, equal-born, or interesting opponent; what matters is to strike him.

They think in abstractions of groups of people. To understand the psychology of the sex strike, a person must understand the collectivist visions of socialism. The individuality and personal value of the people they engage is meaningless to them. They are the enlightened, and they must strike the “racists, misogynists, wealthy, Christians, conservatives, heterosexuals, cisgenders, teetotalers, and traditional family.” The Frankfurt School Critical Theory, favored by democratic socialists, offers deep insight into this way of thinking.


Following the collective punishment mentality of socialists, placing abstract groups of people over individual people – the sex strikers demand coercive punishment of all men, for laws that affect less than a fraction of a percent of Americans, who live far away from them in the state of Georgia.


Think about that for a moment. These wealthy and privileged women in Hollywood, who cannot even think critically, and lack the basic zeal and diligence to spend time thoroughly researching their interests, use their unmerited national platform to instigate collective punishment.


Imagine if a national masculinist movement stopped paying women’s bills (in aggregate, men still pay 3x as much as women). Is that female privilege? Is it a privilege for other people and the government to pay for most of a person's living expenses, considering feminists call it “male privilege” to choose dangerous and challenging jobs that kill them ten years earlier than women on average, for higher pay? Is it “male privilege” to earn extra pay from working longer hours? Was it “male privilege” for me to devote decades of my life encoding entire libraries of knowledge into my brain, while others socialized and enjoyed leisure?


How extensively shall we atomize the advantages and disadvantages of male and female biology and consequent social roles? The masculinist movement would say that metropolitan women earn more money than men, and demand that they start using it for communal expenses in marriage and romance. That would be just as foolish as the sex strike for the Georgia heartbeat bill.


Women who have nothing to do with these conflicts would then be paying the price of their activist male lovers' pride, in which they punish people they know personally for political affairs in distant lands. Thus are these tyrannical Hollywood wenches. Courageous to a fault, they set up their political warfare command-and-control centers from their beach house armchairs as they suckle fruity cocktails.


If demographers are looking for depopulation and sub-fertility replacement rate contributors for white and Japanese people, a thorough inspection of feminism and eudaimonia is in order. Traditional romance aims for value-exchange, quality delineation, devotion, exclusivity, and deference. Socialist sexual expression is based upon power-exchange, egotism, and pragmatism.


Those who employ collective punishment in sexual expression can be assured that their attitudes and values towards sex were indoctrinated by the socialists. Remaking the human being was the dream of utopian socialists like Charles Fourier (the one who coined the term “feminism”), eugenicist progressives and guild socialists (fascists), transhumanists, and present-day institutionalists.


Sex Strikes Do Not Work

Sex strikes are predictably ineffective. They have the opposite effect of the desired intimidation. The innocent victims of collective punishment eventually revolt and resent those who punished them for things out of their control. This is why in Ancient Rome, decimation was rarely practiced. Obliterating morale of the troops was not worth the deterring impact of the tyranny.


A successful student of Alvarism would be able to evaluate the rational, empirical and perennial perspectives of this issue:


Rational perspective:

Sex strikes are collective punishment. Collective punishment is ineffective throughout history, for very logical reasons, already stated.


Empirical perspective:

Sociology 101 indicates that correlation is not causation. The AFP, a self-proclaimed “hard news” wire syndication service justified a claim that sex strikes are effective by citing an ancient fictitious comedy. Yes, “hard news” now cites fiction as evidence. Microsoft NewsGuard considers AFP “reliable.”


Wikipedia cites instances in Latin America involving warfare in which the sex strike began and the war ended four years later. In all of the cases they mention, they present no context for the conflict, nor additional motivators and factors. No empirical evidence is given as to the contributing impact of the sex strikes compared to all other factors involved. An uncritical reader would come to the conclusion that the sex strikes were effective in achieving their intentions. A thinking reader would toss the Wikipedia article into the trash.


Similarly in the case of the Georgia heartbeat abortion legislation, the sex strike activism is concurrent with business boycotts that threaten $2.7 billion and legions of jobs, political pressure, academic pressure, medical industry pressure, and nonprofit activism. Explain how an honest person would measure the efficacy of collective abstinence by a handful of women, compared with all of those other factors?


I believe the economic, medical, and political pressure will have an impact. Money talks, and sex with someone who places her ideology above her love for you, is a disposable arrangement.


Our perennial perspective

With the history of collective punishment proving counterproductive in the whole, we deem the sex strike to serve outcomes opposite to its intentions. Those Roman troops forced to participate in decimation lost morale and devotion to the empire. Those victims of socialist collective punishment became the most vociferous dissidents. Women who punish their lovers for the actions of remote strangers, will only harm their own relationships.


Abortion Advocates Engage the Futile Yet Again

The heartbeat bill is a futile endeavor to oppose, even with ineffectual activism like the sex strike. The heartbeat bill is, to abortion, what Democrats in blue states (New York) are doing to the right of self-defense. They want to force gun owners to buy million dollar liability insurance to subsidize consequences of criminals, and they want to make ammunition unaffordable.


Ultimately, these stopgap laws which seek to erode the scope of legally permitted activity, will be challenged at the bench. There is indication that the heartbeat bill could be deemed unconstitutional when judged against prevailing interpretations of Roe v. Wade.


That is the where the ultimate ruling will occur – in federal court. It would be honorable for the mob of activists to read this article, educate themselves, and redirect their energies towards admirable civic engagement. As it stands, they are making fools of themselves and misleading hordes of the most impressionable and vulnerable citizens.


Social conservatives are rejoicing and laughing at the prospect of sexual utilitarians collectively punishing themselves in utter futility. Unless we are talking about corrupt sexual utilitarians like Monica Lewinsky seducing king Democrat Bill Clinton, women do not have sexual power over politics. Honey trap operations also impact politics.


Then again, the noble women I referred to in the beginning of the article expressed their sexuality romantically in a beautiful way. As mothers of good morals, wise tradition, and beautiful hearts, they have more power over politics in the upbringing of their children, than any promiscuous woman in heat. Those who claimed that “male patriarchy” has ever ruled the world, should try to remember who it was putting every single idea in their head during their most impressionable years. We have Mother’s Day to remember and give thanks for the women who have always ruled the world through their children.

 
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Facebook

©2007-2020 Mind Timber, Inc.