-This is dedicated to RooshV (His site link here) and his comments section, whose post gave me an idea on another perspective on their subject matter, especially since I have written on this before. This will likely become a part of a long-term, informal series of philosophically renegade perspectives on that abominable, yet potent, ideology. This post would be counted as the first.
-I work landscaping for now, so I am used to using various tools. Each tool has things it’s good at, and things it’s not. You wouldn’t cut a large field with a push-mower (though you could, that would take way too long and be way too labor-intensive), or a weedeater (again, you could, but that’d take even longer and the grass height probably wouldn’t be even), or an edger (you could in theory, but that would take days and ruin the field). Likewise, it would be foolish to become angry at tools for doing what they are supposed to do. One does not shoot a mower when it is cutting grass just fine; that’s a waste of a good mower. In a trade where looks is everything, or any trade for that matter, one must know what tools are made for what purposes, and then learn how to use them accordingly.
Tools are functionally amoral in the hands of their user; they serve only as means to an end. Generally, the users of the tools care only about how effective the tools are at doing what they want them to do. They don’t tend to ask about morality or ethics while they are using the tools; this is hopefully done beforehand, or, sadly, done afterwards, or, oftentimes, not at all. The proper tools are simply how the craftsman gets from his dream to his finished product in the most efficient manner possible.
To an outsider, sometimes tools may seem evil. For instance, why is it that there are so many millions of people and dollars devoted to restricting, confiscating, and controlling access to and use of firearms? All a gun is, at its most basic, is a bunch of metal/plastic/wooden parts that combine to launch a small projectile in a specific direction, really really fast. Bows and arrows, slings, and baseball pitchers’ arms do similar things. Why all the fuss about guns?
Simple: At their most basic, guns are VERY effective at injuring, killing, and destroying human life, animal life, or objects. They can be mass-produced cheaply, made out of many makeshift designs (leave a guy alone long enough…), and easily transported and (in the case of pistols) concealed. The main reasons why people carry guns all boil down to use of force. The moral questions come up fast here: Who should have the power of this force? Who should be able to use force on whom? In what cases is this use of force justified? These questions come up with many other things (bombs, knives, fists, ect.), but because of how prevalent they are and creatively lethal they can be in the right (or wrong) hands, guns get a lot of very heated debate in the ethical/moral arena.
Therefore, until better, cheaper, more efficient (in terms of taking a life/lives) tools come out, there will always be a lot of wrangling about the use of guns by many people, because people tend to not like it when guns are used on them and those they love. Guns happen to be very good at causing death, and ethics and morality come into the picture real quick when human life is in question. So you see, tools can also be very controversial, and can be seen by many as immoral or moral, depending on who’s judging them.
Why is the practice of lobotomy not in common use anymore in general mental health circles? Why are the guillotine, the noose, or the firing squad not used for execution by the US government anymore? Why is monarchy effectively obsolete now? These are all tools of a sort; means to an end. That end may be government of nations, curing of metal illness, or capital punishment, but all the above methods serve as the means of carrying out these ends.
Some people will view things like hanging as immoral. Some see monarchy as restrictive of human liberty. Some think better tools can get the same ends met. For whatever reason, different tools than the ones listed above currently serve as the preferred means to those ends. Some tools look evil to some people, and good to others; it depends on point of view. In those cases, enough people viewed those tools as unsuitable so as to get them removed from common use, and other tools surpassed them. Some day, more likely than not, the tools (and in case you haven’t got it by now, I am referring to ideologies as tools too; they are tools of the mind) we use now, like lethal injection, hormone treatment therapy, or democratic republicanism, may have the same thing happen to them.
A fault too many of us in the realm of the “manosphere” or “realtalk about the roles and nuances of the sexes in modern society” part of the Net/world fall into is only seeing feminism as an immoral and corrosive ideology. Depending on your worldview, this is true. My personal Christian-influenced worldview means that feminism is an abomination to me, and I do in fact loathe it, as I see its effects every day. For other folks, say more Pagan, Atheist, or hedonistic folks, this may not be true. If your worldview is more pleasure-centric, for example, then the whole anti-feminist angle may make zero sense to you, as none of this may matter. Like guns, lobotomy, or hanging, feminism is, in a very real way, a tool.
The title of this post implies it, but I have one main point I am making in all this: feminism just so happens to be a very effective tool for reducing populations of people groups, much like how a gun just so happens to be a very effective tool for taking out other sentient meatbags. However, the debates over feminism are much less honest, much more one-sided, and much less mainstream (this is now changing rapidly) than the ones about guns.
Though it is unlike a gun, in many ways, feminism is similar to one in function. It has many tool-like, amoral (in the “means-to-an-end” sense) features:
-It is EXTREMELY seductive to women. I have done a series on this already, and I could quote many facts on this, but this is a more philosophical argument. “Feminism is women politicized.” As feminists themselves say: “The personal is political.” It is known also as Women’s Liberation. The implied object of that liberation? Men. Even though most women don’t identify as feminist, the tenets of feminism carry within a large chunk of ordinary women; for example: You should have a career first. Feminism plays into female psychology like a maestro to his orchestra (next few points will show this).
-It is heavily reliant on manipulation of language. Compare the actions of feminist leaders with the dictionary definition of feminism, or the root of the word “feminism”. Look at the words that feminists have twisted, functionally redefined, or invented. Feminism works heavily in the realm of how words are associated with meaning. Note that women are far superior to men at the art of verbal communication.
-It has a heavy reliance on outside forces for action. Feminism and big government go hand-in-hand. Two central tropes of female behavior: “Men master things; women master men,” and “Men fight directly; women fight indirectly.” Feminism makes extensive use of both of these. Notice how feminist legislation is very restrictive and taxing (often literally) on men, ESPECIALLY in relationships? Notice how feminist action tends to be “The government should be doing [insert cause/action here]”? Also, when you look into the guts of who leads the carrying out of the actions of the movement, you will notice a heavy male presence; the operative word in all this is: MANipulation. Women reign supreme in their ability to use force by proxy.
-It heavily favors female primacy. Notice the areas of equality feminists tend to push for: Equal pay, more female representation in high places, more subsidies/taxes/laws in favor of women, more quotas for women in corporate positions. Notice the areas of equality feminists don’t push for: Equality of deaths in the workplace, more women in lower prestige/status places, more even split of child custody in divorce settlement, equal representation of men and women in higher education, the ending of alimony, extension of the draft to females, equal standards of performance for the sexes. If it favors women, equality=good. If it favors men, equality=sexism. Contrast the dictionary definition of feminism with the root word of the name (Femina=Latin for Woman). Again, manipulation of language is heavy here too.
-It is very given towards identity-based and group-based politics; as it is functionally based in fighting for an identity (female) and a group (women). This also makes it easy to spread among groups that have enough of a female influence (not population, mind you, but influence…it doesn’t take many women to influence a lot of men, especially if said women are sexually attractive and said men are as horny as they usually are. Look at Helen of Troy.)
-All the above traits add up to this: It is an ideology easily spread among women, and thus easily able to influence fully half of any peoples’ population…the childbearing half (or not childbearing, as the next set of traits will show), and the sought-after half, by biological default. Women have a massively large influence on nations, cultures, and society. Any trend or ideology that is easily spread among them is one that will become pervasive; all humans alive came from women. This is why, historically, men tended to put legal/societal restraints on women; to balance out the natural female sexual, social, and relational supremacy. Also, note the similarity of feminism to a virus in the human body.
-It is Marxist in structure (My earlier post I linked to in the intro gets into this), and economically based; the “equality” that it seeks is a masculine one. Referring to the point of it being called Women’s Lib, the main point of liberation it seeks if that of economic liberation from men via external enforcement (and this ends up being the State). In other words, it seeks that women need not depend on men for survival; the “Strong Independent Woman” is its desired outcome.
-It is restrictive of men via the government. This is necessary by default; in order for women to be “liberated”, men must be limited in their power/influence over women, and outside forces of other men (government) must do the restricting, since, on a one-to-one basis, women are biologically at least partially dependent on men. They called them the “weaker sex” for a reason.
-It is destructive to the 2-parent traditional family. This is a stated goal of feminist leadership, but even beyond that, in the traditional mother-father family structure we see worldwide, the woman tends to be dependent on the man, and, at some point, must submit to him.
-It is opposed to most religions, as most (if not all) major religions have, at some point, teachings about restriction of female behavior, and especially female sexuality. Also, religion and big government tend to be at odds, especially religions which promote self-government.
-It promotes government dependence of women. As feminism needs the State for enforcement, it shifts womens’ dependence from men (individually) to the enforcers of “Liberation”, the agents of the State (men collectively; men finance most of the costs of government). The Black American ghetto is the textbook example of this: Single mother, government-check father.
Those are the main direct characteristics of feminism, but none of them seem to be useful to a person bent on shrinking world population growth…except that they are. Now we introduce the tenets of the Depopulationist:
-Belief that the Earth is overpopulated, and that there are too many people alive at once. This is the core tenet.
-Wants to lessen world population size by indirect means. We will, in this argument, leave out warmongering and direct eugenics here to highlight just how effective feminism can be. In general, though, depopulationists tend not to favor violent means directly, as they tend to see themselves as humanitarian and benevolent.
-Does not believe the earth can support the current amount of people on it, much less more people. This leads into the agendas of carbon emission and footprint reduction, global warming, ect.
The way that feminism is beneficial to a depopulationist lies in two features of feminism: It is pervasive and influential by human biological nature (so much so that when used correctly, some have blamed feminism’s rise on natural forces, obscuring depopulationist goals entirely), and it makes women beholden to the State instead of men. It “Liberates” women from men economically, and weakens men overall, even as it strengthens the State. Economic liberation of women from men is death to family formation, as this eliminates men from their unique role as providers of sustenance to women, which had, heretofore, balanced out men’s sexual desire for women. When this is done, and men are disempowered via government laws that restrict them in their relationships with women (i.e. VAWA, Domestic Violence laws, modern divorce laws, ect.), this gives women free reign to exercise their hypergamous nature, and results overall in more women mating with fewer men, and some women electing not to reproduce at all. But it gets better.
Due to the viral tendencies, feminism is an effective vehicle for cultural messages once religion and family are disposed of. Suppose I was someone who wanted women to become taxable workers? Well, that deeply ingrained female desire to be free of male control/dependence of any kind, coupled with a want for the perceived positives of masculinity, makes subversive messaging a specialty of feminism. It really isn’t hard to spread the message that women should shun motherhood for a career if you frame it in terms of “Liberation from restrictive gender roles” and “Economic independence of women”. It already plays into the narrative and framework, and biology plus social conditioning ensures that millions of women will buy it, hook, line, and sinker.
What about the number one tool of the depopulationist? What about preemptive prevention of further life? In other words, what about abortion? Technological advancement has played a huge part here, as there is more birth-preventing and preempting tech out there now than ever. But I’ve never seen the question asked: Why did people develop it? Who developed it? I have no specific answers, but here are some ideas:
Margaret Sanger was a big depopulationist and euginicist (and racist, in the true sense of the word). She wanted certain people groups to stay small in size. She, therefore, went about heading up and developing Planned Parenthood, which is, coincidentally, heavily government-backed and funded. She, ironically, was for limiting Black American population growth via abortion. She succeeded. Now Black women abort at the highest rate of all American women. How? How does this work? Well, “Women’s Liberation” is liberation not just from men, but from the traditional roles of a woman. It is, on its face at least, the liberation of having to be limited to just those roles. And what were they? Wife and mother. Childbirth is the single biggest factor that forces women to become dependent on men (and society in general). Think about it…9 months of having to basically be out of action. No possibility of meaningful economic production without some adjustment (for the first few months…then not much at all), and certainly no sexual expression.
Childbirth still is, in large part, what separates the sexes. Because of childbirth, women cannot ever be like men. They can’t work like men (again, technology and the rise of the “knowledge-based economy” has changed this some, but tech only goes so far). They can’t be promiscuous like men can (but only some men actually can do this…remember the 80-20 rule!). They can’t be “Independent”. Take that away, though, and in modern day society, they can come pretty damn close. But “take that away” means what? Abortion. And this is how the depopulation agenda makes its greatest use of feminism.
Bonus: You can even phrase it as a choice! This is why they call it “Pro-choice”. Inherent in feminism (Women’s Lib) is the idea that women should be free to choose whether or not to play their traditional roles (and unspoken: for this to be true, men must continue to play a warped version of theirs, but with no freedom to choose in regards to women). So, abortion is just an option. Remember too, that abortion has been around much longer than “The Pill”. The impetus to make these technologies, though, may have come from ideological roots like these…these technologies do make feminism and “Liberation” that much easier to push and pursue.
But the plot thickens: Since feminism thrives on, and channels, groupthink, it then tends to channel women into certain other roles, namely the ones men used to occupy, since, in the end, sex is a very binary thing biologically (homosexuality and trans- LGBTQXYZ aside). Men do x, women do y. Feminism says women can do X AND Y (Liberation). The end result is that you will find, if feminism is allowed to thrive, that many women will shun their traditional roles, in favor of being Liberated from them. These women will then influence their peers into doing the same. Add in men rendered impotent to stop it due to the State restricting them, and before you know it, you get a biological semi-inversion of the sexes (men must, on some level, still produce, but they are heavily taxed to fund women’s economic independence of them), and dramatically lower rates of birth.
In modern incarnation, you see female careerism on the one hand (upper classes), and State-funded single motherhood on the other (lower class). All in all, this setup will yield effective zeroing out of birthrates in the upper class women (higher educated women, in general, reproduce less and at later ages than less educated women), and a ripe poaching ground for abortion on the lower class (most abortions are of “unplanned” pregnancies, exactly the sort lower-class, welfare-dependent women tend to have). Net results of this binary division amount to a birthrate of below replacement rate. So, in terms of the depopulation agenda, a smashing success.
To see a real-life example of the depopulationist’s wet dream, do some research on Black American women, the most feminized women in the world. Highest rates of: abortion, single motherhood, and overall government dependence (there may as well be a “Property of the U.S. government/corporate America” label tattooed on their collective foreheads), as well as a net income greater than their male counterparts. Lowest rates of marriage and shared parenting. Also possessors of a much higher-than-average rates of infant mortality. For fun, compare their overall birthrate to replacement rate and national average, and then look up how many Black American babies have been aborted since ’73. If you want to substantively wipe out or limit the growth of a people group, that setup is ideal.
And that is how they do it. Feminism is to a depopulationist what a Wilson Combat custom 1911 (with suppressor capability) is to a Pistolero gun nut. Sleek, hyper-versatile, deadly, quiet, insidious, vicious, and all in a sexy, but unassuming package. If you want to shrink national population sizes delicately and with minimal fuss, and look like a hero while doing it, feminism is your immortal Agent 47. Heck, pushing higher education for women alone is a proven method.
On the other hand, if you are a male, or pro-growth, which tends to mean if you are at all religious, traditionally-minded, or just think that we as humans can reproduce to a higher population ceiling and still be alright, then I’d be worried if I was you. At this point, you are up against an army of “empowered, liberated” (read: infected) women, and the depopulationist master craftsmen who have been using this tool with extreme precision and effectiveness…for decades.