What we don't need
0 comment Saturday, October 25, 2014 |
David Yeagley discusses Michele Bachmann's candidacy and what it means for our country.
Though he praises her lavishly for her politics and her 'beautiful, tender, loving voice', he ultimately concludes that electing a woman, even a very 'conservative' woman, would mean the end for the White male in political leadership.
But, again, why are we talking about Michele Bachmann, mother of five and twenty-plus, wife of thirty one years, and seemingly perfectly normal´┐Żwe should say, normative´┐ŻAmerican woman? She is in our sites because she is now running for president of the United States.
How is that possible? Through the emasculation of the white male.
It is the same abuse of "equality" that calls for the wealthy to surrender their wealth to the poor, and the strong to give up their strength to the weak.
Next, a child will become president.
What in the world happened to the white male? Has he been asleep? Is he on dope? Can he rise again? ''
Actually, in 2008, it seemed to me that the White male was already being displaced. A point that I tried to make then was that the election had established a precedent that would be hard to break, and was in fact an 'overturning' as Dr. Yeagley says of the potential election of a woman president.
It's already happened, and it could be that to have a woman president next would further marginalize male leadership, specifically White male leadership.
Where are the male leaders? This question has been asked here and elsewhere. Obviously the political movers and shakers, or the elites, have decided that no strong male will be allowed to be elevated to high position. Only the weak, the politically correct lackeys and appeasers, are to be presented as candidates.
I was thinking of these things earlier as I watched the live video feed of the Vancouver riots. I noted the number of female authority figures interviewed, and their schoolmarmish responses to the reporters. They did not present an authoritative image, these women; rather, they sounded like slightly irritated kindergarten teachers dealing with misbehaving five-year-olds.The male officials as well as the females kept using words like 'disappointed' in regard to the violence.
As I watched the rioters in action, I could only think: this is what a society of fatherless children looks like. It's true of all Western families. We often read articles about the problem of children, especially boys, who grow up without the presence of a father, specifically, a father who is actively involved. Even though many of society's misfits have been raised solely by women, in effect, our whole society is fatherless now. We have no real effective male authority figures or father-protector figures. We have only these irritable feminist schoolmarms in charge of things, and they cannot fill the male role. We are seeing proof of that all around us.
Women certainly have a role, but in the rightful order of things, men are to wield the real power, to enforce standards and rules, to administer justice. Women are too easily swayed by emotion, and tend to seek to 'understand' everybody, and they often fail to use a firm hand or to be harsh when that is called for. Just as our mothers tended to be the ones to forgive or overlook our misdeeds when we were children, and our fathers were the disciplinarians, representing order and justice, each sex has its particular qualities, and women are not best equipped to wield authority and to enforce order.
The fact that there are certain exceptions, such as the very masculine or faux-masculine women in authority here and there, does not prove the generalization false. Has anyone else noted the presence of so many female police chiefs and fire chiefs in many towns? Every time there is a press conference about a crime or fire, it seems a woman chief is front and center. This seems to be de rigueur nowadays. Political correctness, of course, demands this. And more often than not, the woman is also a minority.
It's no new observation, but our society has become so unbalanced towards the feminine side -- leftism/Marxism is a very feminine entity -- that we need to make a sharp correction in the opposite direction, and very soon.
As for Michele Bachmann, she seems like a very 'nice' lady, but her politics are far too politically correct, and this is most assuredly not what we need.
And even if her politics were more 'conservative' or pro-White, I would say she is far too 'nice' to exercise authority. Niceness and goodness are not the same thing, and we don't need more of the treacly niceness in this age of crisis we are entering.

Labels: , , , ,