Take your pick. Which President Biden would you prefer? The one who fell three times getting up the steps into Air Force One? The one who referred to “President Harris”? Or the one who promised flight-suits for pregnant women in the armed forces? The deal of a lifetime! You get three for the price of one, and better still, at no extra cost, President Biden has promised to update military equipment to allow for servicewomen’s changing hairstyles. Wunderbar!
Had this pathetic, babbling creature been named “Trump”, he would now be the centre of a media-hosted ridicule-bonfire. Instead, his brainless prattle was either not reported or was grammatically burnished to make it presentable. But, three months into this Presidency, he was surely right when he referred to “President Harris”. I initially thought he’d flake out sometime in 2023, giving her another half-term to create the racial/female coalition to win the next election, with another eight years of glorious Harrisonia still to come. But he’s already slipping down the funnel, and it could be President Harris by Thanksgiving. Thereafter, anyone who criticises anything she says, thinks or does will clearly be a racist, a bigot and a misogynist, so there!
But in the meantime, we have this fool commissioning designers to reshape USMC helmets to accommodate the girls’ latest hairstyles and F 35A pilots with full wombs wearing pregnancy-suits as they pull 10G in combat with Shengdu J 20 fighters over the South China Sea. Hold on. I didn’t mention the body-armour, did I? Ooops. Silly me. Biden is ordering chest body-armour that “fits women perfectly”.
Try this. Go into Dunnes or Marks & Spencer and there’ll be a single shelf marked “men’s underwear”, with three kinds of underpants and two kinds of vest, and that’s it. Look for women’s underwear and it’s an entire floor, no, sorry, that’s just the panties and tights (and other sundries) for the ladies’ middle parts: upstairs there’s another floor for ladies’ bras, with a three-dimensional complexity of options that would confound NASA. Men’s chests come in quite predictable numbers, which is what you’d expect for a species that largely evolved for combat and hunting during the three million years of the Palaeolithic. Not so women’s chests, which were largely designed for sex, baby-feeding and possibly needlework.
A department store is the quintessence of the free market. It gives people what they genuinely want rather than what a brutal, tyrannical & patriarchal government tells them they want. Without fail, in every society in the world, whether post-communist, advanced-capitalist, basic post-colonial or Mullingar, you’ll find that women want a far vaster range of clothing than men: much of which, being underwear, will be invisible to other people, so the reason for wearing it must remain a mystery to us men. So too is this: no woman ever buys an item of clothing without stroking it. Men, never.
Next, we’ll pop over to the stationery shop. Well now; just look at that; another complete division. Admittedly, one is not officially called “Men’s Department” and the other “Women’s Department”, because that would be reactionary and sexist and bigoted and so on, but in truth that’s what they are. The women’s section is groaning with vast amounts of glossy magazines with stupendous amounts of pictures, reflecting the biological history of women as browsers, choosers and pickers. That’s the basis of early agriculture, as women with their acute eyesight and their wondrous sense of colour (women’s eyes have far more colour-detecting cones) could find the best grasses, seeds and herbs. This is why even now women use words like taupe and cinnamon and sorrel and bronze while men just say brown. Their magazines are also about fashions, beauty, emotions and child-rearing, so this section constitutes about 90% of the stationery shop, not because head office or the government ordered it like that, but because that’s the way to make money.
And over there is the ten percent given to men, with magazines about cars, trains, guns, planes, sports and killing people. It used to contain many “glossy-magazines” on something called “the top-shelf”, but thanks to feminist political pressure and the internet, this category is now unavailable. However, no women’s magazines are ever blocked by male vetoes. So if David Attenborough were making a series about the human species (what used to be known as “mankind”) for Mars TV, he’d probably start at the twin watering-holes of lingerie and magazines to explain the differences between men and women.
All right, so tell me -if you wanted to guard your home against predators, which kind of shopper would you choose to do it? The one that buys underpants by waist-size without bothering to caress anything and is gone thirty seconds after arriving, or the one that can discuss underwear for an hour or two with the shop assistant but, still undecided, then promises to return the next day for maybe a final decision (but aaarrgh look at those shoes! Just give me another few minutes)?
Likewise, your country: would you protect it with people who are interested in weaponry, metals, hardware, rivalry and violence, or people interested in perfumes, fabrics, emotions and who gaze lustfully at fantastically expensive advertisements for things that they could never possibly afford?
That’s your choice. So too is whether you hold on to your house or your homeland, or you surrender both to people who continued to buy the right kind of underwear or magazine. History books are littered with the remains of civilisations that made the wrong choices about how to protect themselves (admittedly, not always evident through their purchases in Dunnes or Easons, Carthage, Byzantium and the Comanche having neither).
The western world – the civilisation that roughly starts along a line connecting the Black Sea and the Barents Sea and ends at the Vancouver-San Diego littoral – is now effectively led by two people – von der Leyen and Biden – who both believe that pregnant women make good soldiers. Accordingly, they think that their armies, navies and air forces should rearrange themselves to accommodate the needs of these women rather than to focus on the purpose for which they came originally into existence, namely the protection of their respective realms and value-systems contained therein. Yet no value system in the history of the world has ever been successfully defended by armies that placed the comforts and needs of their soldiers before the latter’s ability to kill the enemy.
The west has besotted itself with a counter-factual ideological narrative that maintains that somehow or other women were uniquely “repressed” in earlier economic and political systems. The complexity of even the most rudimentary of those systems, and the prematurely lethal outcome they so often had for their male participants, usually make simple judgments about their moral virtues (by our modern standards) both empirically impossible and intellectually fraudulent. This does not prevent feminists today (male and female) from creating a wholly fictional and “ungendered” history. For example, I have heard BBC voices lamenting the 60,000 men and women of the British army who were killed or wounded on the first day of the Battle of the Somme and speaking sonorously about the men and women who landed on the beaches of Normandy in June 1944.
To find the truth, delete the italics.
A simpler way of assessing women’s enthusiasm for combat is the evidence of willingness: in all the news-footage of riots that you have ever seen, how many women rioters were there? In the hundreds of disturbances I’ve been present for, I don’t recall ever seeing a woman rioter. I’ve seen gunmen operating in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and Lebanon, but only in the last-named did I ever see any gunwomen, just three, but not firing and taking orders from a man.
Yet the fungoid fiction has flourished in the lightless cellars of modern ideology that men and women are basically the same and have been falsely divided by patriarchal culture and conditioning. Thus you have this blithering idiot Biden promising body-armour for female breasts (no doubt with little flaps for feeding the little mite in the event of birth whilst on operations against ISIS) and pregnancy-suits for fighter-pilots, and the most laughably contradictory of all – redesigned helmets to allow for women’s latest hairstyles -without him being silenced by howls of ridicule.
Never mind. He’ll be gone by November. Next comes President Harris, the Lenin to Biden’s Kerensky, and then say hello to hell.