|What she so richly deserves...|
The future of the whole planet hangs in the balance. After months of campaigning, Clinton and Trump at last face up to one another in the Presidential election. While Trump has his faults, they pale into insignificance when compared to Clinton’s criminality, deceit and chilling sense of entitlement. Worse still, Clinton is a rabid feminist who, if elected President, fully intends to use America’s power and influence to advance her warped agenda. For the whole thrust of her foreign policy is no less than the brutal imposition of misandrist Anglo-American feminism across the globe. This heinous agenda, known as the Hillary Doctrine, simply represents an international war against male rights and freedoms. Here is Clinton speaking at a TEDWoman conference in Washington DC:
So the United States has made empowering women and girls a cornerstone of our foreign policy, because women's equality is not just a moral issue, it's not just a humanitarian issue, it is not just a fairness issue; it is a security issue. It is a prosperity issue and it is a peace issue. ... Give women equal rights, and entire nations are more stable and secure. Deny women equal rights, and the instability of nations is almost certain. The subjugation of women is, therefore, a threat to the common security of our world and to the national security of our country.
Okay, we get it: and on paper, it all sounds fair enough. However, as we all know, the reality of male life in the Anglosphere is systemized persecution and discrimination across a huge range of factors, from criminal sentencing to schooling and health care. Because of their Puritanical history, the Anglosphere nations exalt women on pedestals while castigating men as sexual beings (interestingly, Clinton and her chorus lines in the ‘mainstream’ media criticized Trump for no more than being a ‘sexual’ man – hardly a federal offence). What Anglo feminists really mean by ‘gender equality’ , of course, is a feminist dictatorship wherein men are third class citizens deprived of the most basic human rights; where all forms of sexual expression – pornography, prostitution, even game – are ruthlessly quashed; where women are parachuted into positions of power and influence by mere virtue of their gender; and where men are drafted to advance women’s ‘rights’ while being systematically robbed of their own. This is not a world I (or any sane man) wants to live in.
However, if Clinton wins the election then this is the world that awaits us. For Clinton, reducing men across the world to serfdom is central to her design. What she wants – what all Anglo feminists want – is a planet where sexual scarcity has reduced all men to denatured, pussy-begging maggots like David Futrelle or deluded femiservatives like Tommy Fleming. A world where men are expendable slaves or beasts of burden, like the United States. A world where every female is a princess walking on air. In Hard Choices (2014), Clinton’s demented political memoir, she explains her agenda in greater detail:
... It was no coincidence that the places where women's lives were most undervalued largely lined up with the parts of the world most plagued by instability, conflict, extremism, and poverty. This was a point lost on many of the men working across Washington's foreign policy establishment, but over the years I came to view it as one of the most compelling arguments for why standing up for women and girls was not just the right thing to do but also smart and strategic ... the correlation was undeniable, and a growing body of research showed that improving conditions for women helped resolve conflicts and stabilize societies. "Women's issues" had long been relegated to the margins of U.S. foreign policy and international diplomacy, considered at best a nice thing to work on but hardly a necessity. I became convinced that, in fact, this was a cause that cut to the heart of our national security.
'Our national security' my Nepalese ass. One only has to look at the chaotic state of the Anglosphere nations to see the real fruits of feminism: a criminal, welfare dependent underclass; an ailing, non-productive economy; institutionalised anti-male discrimination; record male suicide rates; and near-ubiquitous male alienation. How any of this can be equated with prosperity or stability, I leave for the reader to judge.
I hope I have explained the importance of this election for men; not only those resident in the Anglosphere, but around the world.