Feminization of Man

__A taste of a larger thesis_____
Americanism ‘liberates individuals from biology,’ and paternalism/traditional values – especially females from their own nature – and then deals with the collateral effects – such as incels – by marketing this same ‘liberation’ as a way of coping. [ MANifesto: Modernity – Americanism]
Feminization, and by extension transsexuality, is a way of coping with feminism's liberation from male regulative controls over feminine and masculine sexuality.
Resentment towards the maternal figure may expose an identification with her, and her plight. Anger toward her revealing a rejection of her past judgements and choices; redirected anger towards oneself.
Excessive adulation of the father figure may conceal resentment towards his absence, or his inadequacy, idealizing him so as to not openly express hatred towards his essence. Rejection of authority (paternalism) would indicate a rejection of the father, necessitating his idealization, i.e., purification, absolution, so as to then give oneself to that idealized version – converting the hated one to a cleansed version one can then begin to love, overcompensating by worshipping this purified version. A child identifying with the mother then would be swept away by this imaginary idealized paternal figure. This, too, is part of feminization.
Feminization is the social and cultural by-product of a nihilistic psychosis expressed through memetic spiritual dogmas and secular political ideologies; it is the external manifestation of an internal corruption of human psyche, reacting to a developing self-consciousness exposing individuals to new sources of need/suffering.

Lasch, Christopher wrote:

The demystification of womanhood goes hand in hand with the de-sublimation of sexuality.

Idealization of femininity contributed to mystification, and a gradual detachment of man from reality; romanticizing femininity is an extension of the idealization of nature, i.e., sanctification of natural order eliminated all realism because it tainted the purity and innocence of the ideal – placed on a pedestal that could not be reached.

Bible wrote:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
[Isaiah 3]

Feminization is a sign of cultural decline, i.e., symptom, of systemic infirmity.
Feminization indicates a shift from natural selection to social selection, promoting socially adaptable traits of the specialized reproductive roles in alignment with systemic ideals that negate natural identifiers as a way of integrating genetically and culturally heterogonous populations into cohesive ideological homogeneity.
Feminization is part of nihilistic reversions: degradation, degeneracy; it implies a turning inward, becoming esoteric, occult, secretive, and intersubjective.
Feminization of Philosophy
Love of wisdom has become love of self; philosophizing becomes psychologizing, i.e., a continuous social and emotional defensive positioning and reactivity against reality and natural order.
Freak Show
Genetic sampling is part of feminine sexual impulses. Females – as genetic and memetic filtering agencies – are sexual straining mechanisms selecting which genetic mutations are permitted into populations.
Nature depends on selection – trial and error – to differentiate within fluctuating environmental conditions which mutations are effective, i.e., fit, and which are ineffective, i.e., unfit. Female promiscuity – superficial and demanding, as it may be – follows this natural rule of economicus – dealing with fluctuating environmental conditions – by diversifying genetic/memetic investments.
A female’s criteria for judging ‘fitness’ is adapted to cultural and socioeconomic contexts, adjusting her sexual choices. [ MANifesto: Sex – Gene/Meme Filtering]
In modern systems – corrupted by nihilism and its post-modern cultural epiphany – feminine filtering criteria have begun selecting-in genetically maladaptive monstrosities that have converted cities into freak shows. Walking down any modern urban street is like walking into a deranged circus.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Why use the controversial, i.e., sexist term ‘feminization,’ rather than the less controversial domestication, and/or institutionalization? Because the first term brings it back to its biological source.
‘Institutionalization’ simply means the technological domestication of the human animal, where ‘domestication’ means a willful intervention upon nature, biology, to control and exploit a species by selecting traits that would not be otherwise selected into the gene-pool of a species.
‘Feminization’ clearly indicates the ideological selection and cultivation of a reproductive type that naturally evolved with particular psychosomatic potentials considered preferable to their alternative.
Levelling of Man continues
Centuries of social engineering and civilizing have led to a type of human being unlike his/her ancestors; still, to this day, socialization persists to filter-out all culturally and socially unwanted human traits, altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.
There is no conspiracy at work – not in the conventional sense of the word; no invisible entity directing things from the shadows. We might even say that the process is natural and the consequence of a normal social progression that started in the tribal unit and has resulted in the emergence of a huge, independently running, socioeconomic machinery; a socioeconomic machine with its own logic and interests, assimilating, conforming, levelling and eradicating everything that resists its momentum. We may, also, go as far as to admit that this natural process has its roots in human physical disadvantage producing psychological insecurities that make the cooperation of individual beings an existential necessity.
The current absence of accessible frontiers, and the demographic pressures involved, should not be considered unimportant; they act as accelerants that exacerbate the process of decline.
From accumulated excess, growth proceeds; from accumulated consciousness, self-consciousness follows. When what is present is not sufficient to produce excess it remains trapped in shallow immediacy. Pain/suffering collapses the perception of space/time because the organism lacks the capacity to fulfill its basic needs, which have become so pressing that all its energies – consciousness included – are absorbed by their immediacy.
An animal's awareness is enclosed in the moment – a shallow perceptual-even-horizon – compared with that of the average human; it cannot exceed this perceptual limit; it has nothing in excess to expand, to grow, to perceive beyond the space/time dimensions of its immediate possibilities.
Excess is a measure of success. Sometimes excess is a result of sheltering, and at other times it is the product of an individual's inherent constitution. In uniforming systems the two are often wrongly assumed as being one and the same – similar to how ignorance is often mistaken for courage.
A weak spirit will be contained within a more shallow immediacy because the energies it requires to cope do not exceed its requirements. The degree to which they do exceed the individual's requirements represents the individual's constitution in relation to the demands of its immediate circumstances.
Women, and effete men, cannot exceed their immediacy to any degree that would bring them into contact with patterns sampled from outside their immediate needs. Their focus is considered pragmatic because it is entirely dedicated to the application of thinking/acting to the most current; they are always within the most present – in the moment; they either lack the energies and/or the constitution to exceed these dimensional limits, explaining why females, in particular, are the most fashion oriented, and most often on the cutting edge of social trends; always obsessive about remaining updated and modern, viz., always up-to-date concerning what the official, popular, narrative is, at any given time, only changing their minds to bring them in accord with shifting official positions and popular lifestyles. Women, and effete males, are always the most current and modern in every age, and in every culture. Their energies, their constitution, their consciousness is barely enough to remain in-line with what is trending – they remain totally dedicated to the goal of keeping pace with popular opinion; always in-tune with what the official, the most popular thinking is, or what the official idealized lifestyle is, or what the most updated conviction or attitude is. If they ever dare to consider going outside of these premises it is always to pre-empt a coming change in thinking, or in fashion – a desire to remain ahead of the fashion curb; create fashion rather than follow them, i.e., becoming an influencer is their highest ambition.
When overt violence and aggression only perpetuates the cycle and makes reprisals a certainty, feminization enters as an addition to the “turn the other cheek” moral training, mentally castrating those who pose the greatest threat and/or who offer the greatest resistant to world domination. Once the male population of particular bloodlines have been gelded and females have been liberated from their connection to their paternal families, ancient bloodlines are as good as dead.
Feminine traits are more conducive for harmonious social living because of the particularities of the female sexual role. It is the female’s reproductive role which makes her more vulnerable, during the period of copulation and then gestation, to external threats. This is more pronounced in species that require longer gestation and then longer weaning periods to reach maturation. [ MANifesto: Masculine/Feminine – Female]
That the female sex evolved the physical traits necessary to carry out her role is clearly evident in her form and demeanour; what is denied, by modern man, is that these traits should include both mental and psychological limits.
Moderns resist the fact that evolution works on both body and mind, because ‘mind’ is the most defining human trait; what distinguishes Homo sapiens from every other earthly species.
The reproductive burden upon females makes them more inclined towards peaceful coexistence and tolerance, demanding a suppression of self so as to facilitate it. Even among biological males, forced to cooperate and merge into larger groups, it is the feminine traits which must be brought to the forefront if this union is to be successful, whether it be ephemeral or not.
The emasculation of males becomes more pronounced when the group intending to incorporate males into its unity is comprised of racially, ideologically and culturally heterogeneous sub-groups.
In homogeneous populations the submission of the male to a common ideal – represented by the leader – does not necessitate that it be contrary to the male’s own heritage; the male’s heritage, including his genetic and sexual nature, is shared by every member in the group so it is not a source of contention but rather a foundational agreement reinforcing its power. Contrariwise, within heterogeneous populations – particularly when they reach and exceed a certain size – any element which inhibits peaceful coexistence and uniformity is considered contrary to its welfare, and labelled accordingly. Disruptive elements are made into social vices which all individuals should combat in themselves, and in any form they find it in others; a self-regulating method where the individuals independently pass judgement and exact punishment upon those who have not ‘taken’ to group conventions – appropriate education and moralizing cultural mythologies, associated with shared convictions, have to be internalized, and the effectiveness of this internalization persistently judged by the individual’s peers.

Marx, Karl wrote:

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

The only socially acceptable choices are those that go through institutional servitude where property is protected by a centralized authority.
The feminine is indoctrinated so as to convert her genetic filtering agency into memetic filtering, judging and excluding those that do not attain the common ideological ideal. Without feminine disapproval of social conditions no revolution can ever begin.
It should be noted that the ideological obsession with nurturing and detaching mind from body – though most would not admit that they agree with this phrasing – is governed by the fact that the mind is quicker to react and, for this reason, more easily forced to adapt to new situations, dragging the body along with it – body showing evidence of its forces adaptation only after it has developed over multiple generations when natural and/or social selection has had enough time to produce its desired fruits. This implies that feminization could only have become apparent to a simple mind after decades of social selection.
For the common liberal mind, bent on eliminating all natural identifiers and categories applicable to mankind, it would be less efficient and more absurd to deny the reality of male/female biology, from a physical, i.e., apparent point of view, but it is less ludicrous to deny that this has any mental or psychological manifestations. More significantly, what mental and psychological difference might become apparent can be blamed on ‘traumatic pasts’ and on ‘improper upbringing,’ opening the door to the introduction of ‘proper upbringing,’ which would be a justified suppression and elimination of naturally evolved drives and psychosomatic characteristics. The insidiousness of the method is clear.
The very ones trying to retrain, i.e., re-educate, rehabilitate, man to adhere to their idealistic preferences begin by accusing these natural traits of being socially induced so as to justify their own interventions. This is how clever this form of nihilism has become, viz., the sexually natural is accused of being artificial, implying that asexuality, or the hermaphroditical state is the original, the authentic, sexual condition, awaiting social programming, justifying socially re-educating children to believe they can choose what reproductive role they are to play, as if it were an act they could perform for a while and then choose to perform another. A brief and honest survey of primate sexual practices would expose this lie to all but the most deluded and fanatical. Sexual specialization does not only result in a divergence of physical types but also in behaviour, and the psychology this necessitates to facilitate a particular specialized reproductive function.

Evola, Julius wrote:

Following the mixing of the castes or of analogous social bodies and the coming to power of the inferior social strata and races, it was unavoidable that their spirit triumphed even in this regard; that any relationship with the supernatural would be conceived exclusively in terms of ‘religion’; that nay other higher form came under suspicion and was even stigmatized as sacrilegious and demonic.
The feminization of spirituality was already foreshadowed in ancient times. Wherever it prevailed, it determined the first alteration of the primordial tradition in the races.

The feminine benefits from peaceful coexistence and is sexually inclined towards genetic sampling that knows of no memetic restrictions, such as cultural, spiritual and sociological distinctions.
When females were given back their primal sexual powers, with an added technological testosterone boost, all men were forced to increase their expenditure in time and energy in trying to meet the new standards for being noticed and appreciated as potential sexual mates. Nothing matters, from then on, except getting laid and being a lady’s man (playa). All creativity, all art, all mental energies, are now dedicated primarily to being noticed by the fairer sex; all else taking a second spot to this prevailing animalistic urge to copulate. The partner does not matter much. The only thing that matters is that one loses one’s self in the immediate sensations, abandoning one’s self to unthinking, uncaring, ecstatic freedom from stressful self-composure. It is the same pleasure experienced by a drug addict: a temporary state of chemically induced conscious unconsciousness.
The so called ‘Bonobo Masturbatory Society’ can be renamed using an older less compelling term, e.g., ‘hedonism’ and/or ‘materialism,’ in the worse sense of the words. Environments with little to no adversity settle upon pleasuring escapes, where all energies are expunged in orgiastic abandonment.
Feminization inaugurates the devolution of the human species. Similar sexual deformities have been observed in frogs exposed to human chemicals. Next rung down that biological ladder is cellular asexuality, requiring the additional technological step of cloning. Cloning oneself would be the human equivalent to mitosis.
Unregulated feminine impulses by masculine reasoning is what determines feminization. It gradually becomes apparent by a diversification of appearances, as a female is prone to sample genetic material (promiscuity). If left unchecked this could only result in social fragmentation – differences in appearance becoming too pronounced to be ignored, or compensated for with memetic, i.e., ideological, uniformity.
Feminization is always an inter-group process. Group participants emasculated, i.e., feminized, beyond recognition so as to make the dominance of the abstracted, institutionalized masculine entity all the more certain and prominent.
In the wild the uniformity of a herd is maintained through natural selection: disease, predation, male competitiveness, etc. Wild dogs, for instance, acquire a similar form, colouration, and behavioural pattern, due to culling and the dominance of particular traits which are essential within particular environmental conditions. These traits evolve in response to changing environments, maintaining uniformity as an expression of the specific organism’s optimal form within prevailing environmental conditions. In human contexts, characterized by an anti-nature agenda, uniformity must be maintained through memetic means, e.g., morals, cultural ideals, social norms, economics, etc. If this anti-nature agenda is exaggerated then diversification increases in proportion to its anti-nature attitude, as the memetic effect is insufficient to create internal uniformity when the very essence of a creature – its perceptions, its appearance, its instincts, and so on – are in dispute. [ MANifesto: Word Wars – Meme & Gene Dynamics]
We currently experience gene/meme dissonance because most females still choose mates in accordance with their primal instincts, while a few choose them in accordance with social conventions. The former, being unrestricted by male force, protected as they are by a masculine institutionalized abstraction, will tend to be more sexually explorative than they would under any other conditions; ‘liberated’ from the dire consequences of child-bearing, and child-rearing, and protected from male aggression and possessiveness. A modern female, taking advantage of the circumstances, can and will easily move from one desirable male to the next, as this option is offered to her as a ‘right,’ suffering none of the risks and/or costs. Male promiscuity is still controlled because his sexual exploits have a high socioeconomic cost, especially to females; a cost that must be kept as low as possible so as to not inhibit femininity from exploring her full socioeconomic potentials.
Releasing female sexual energies from male dominance results in an explosion of genetic diversification, before institutional abstracted masculinity takes over and imposes a socio-economic and cultural limit – a memetic wall – directing the process towards memetic uniformity, viz., an inversion of natural environments where genetic uniformity is followed by memetic diversification; instead of mind pulling the body to change, it is the body that pulls the mind to change – with no external limit the body is released from natural culling processes developing a multitude of mutational baggage, for its sojourn into unexplored territories, forcing the mind to adopt a uniform ideological resistance.
Ironically, genetic diversifications cause memetic specializations and memetic diversifications cause genetic specializations, viz., the appearance of diversity reveals hidden psychological uniformity, and uniform appearances reveal hidden psychological diversity.
When females are permitted, by the powers that be, to revert to their primal sexual behaviours – pronounced due to the multiplying effects of technological interventions, adjusting the risks and costs associated with reproduction – males are going to be inclined to adapt accordingly, or accept their exclusion from the human gene-pool – totally un-invested in the fate of mankind. This adaptation takes a directed turn towards femininity when masculine options are reduced or funnelled towards activities, i.e., behaviours, thoughts, goals, that contribute to the welfare of the very institutions enforcing their exclusion.
Having no other available option a man adopts the only one permitted: feminine seduction, craftiness, and subornment. [ MANifesto: Institutionalization]
Woman: defender of traditions, nurturer of home and hearth.
Man: axe bearer, cutting down new frontiers to be conquered and colonized.
Feminization: when no frontiers remain, or are accessible, the hearth must be manned, and only internal frontiers cut down and colonized.
The shift from individuals, belonging to and identifying with a group – engaging the world openly and directly – to individuals, refusing their group identity, engaging the world through proxies of the representative “institution” is what makes masculinity redundant, and femininity abundant.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:

The egalitarian principle effectually emphasizes the similarities among people and deemphasizes differences among people. Biological differences among racial groups have been deemphasized through a liberalization of the concept of race: the race that matters is the human race. The underlying individualism of the humanistic proposition meant that all white men eventually became all men. All men became men and women. As a gross generalization, one could say that the left is egalitarian, and the right is inegalitarian. The left represents a female gender strategy, and the right represents a male gender strategy. The leftism of modern egalitarian revolutions reflects the long-term effects of emasculation among conquered peoples. A fundamental moral meaning of equality, pioneered by Jews, is the equality of masculine and feminine gender qualities. Although progress has not increased men’s ability to menstruate, it has increased men’s sensitivity to the nurturing norms of compassion over the virtues of the warrior.
Leftwards progress leads to progressive gender feminization. Most men are created equal to the proposition that all men are created equal. Universalization of the principle of equality among all human males without discrimination on the basis of responsibility, morality, intelligence, etc., opens the comparison of some men to some women. Since all men are not equally masculine, power hungry, moral, or intelligent, it is precisely the inequality of men among themselves that makes the equality of some (beta) men and some (alpha) women plausible. While gay men are formally equal as men, homosexual (gay/lesbian/bisexual) rights logically succeed women’s rights and they could only be advanced coherently after the success of feminism. A basic reason for this is that feminism posits the equality of the sexes, and thus raises the question of why anyone should discriminate a potential sexual partner or mate on the basis of sex. If the sexes are truly equal, why limit the choice of one’s mate to only one half of the population? Going one step further, egalitarianism implicates not only feminism and homosexuality, but also social and legal acceptance of incest; sexual and marital relations between parents and children. Sexual and marital relations between siblings and other close relations are also implicated.

Feminization is egalitarian.

When masculinity is abstracted and converted into a god-like ideal that no real man can ever match, it replaces the one-god that can never be surpassed, but only submitted to. Abraham’s plight is collectivized.
Abraham’s one-god was the first abstraction of masculinity, and all males since then have been its shadow – Last Men. [ MANifesto: Religion – Abrahamic]
A child’s natural rites of passage from adolescence into adulthood cannot be finalized when the male father-figure is transformed into an unsurpassable idea, lacking all corporeality, all fallibility, all reality; a male so perfect no child can surpass nor attain.
When masculine energy is abstracted it need not adhere to anything real, but only represent an ideal no biological male can ever fully embody. Detached from the world the ideal gradually loses substantiality and what few references to the real world that still linger; converted to a mental contraption, a feeling, fodder for childhood fantasies, e.g., surreal, hyper-real, and totally unreal.
Biological males adopt it as a performance character that competes by pushing the boundaries of absurdity.
Masculinity, having been abstracted into a vague ideal, and institutionalized, creates pragmatic dilemmas. An institution cannot function as a biological male in all things. It has no physical form, no corporeal presence, making it easy to be represented by any entity, whether it be man, woman, or even child – sexless, race-less, it has no biological identity; as pure idea/ideal anything and anyone can represent it as its tangible embodiment.
Yet, biological males still have value as sperm producers – technologies that can sample DNA from any human cell lack the psychosomatic effect needed to trigger female fertility. Masculine utility is reduced to sperm donor and provider of pleasure; a service provider for feminine needs/desires – organs with no bodies.
Her mind is clouded by imagery of the perfect male; her body is intoxicated by the presence of an imperfect male – her confusion is released in orgasmic accusations.
The idea of man is unlimited, because there is nothing physical to limit how he can imagined. He is currently being imagined as another kind of woman.

Oral fixation is what characterizes our feminized, emasculated culture. The bonobo’s indulge in continuous copulation to relieve stress, and reaffirm inter-group hierarchies, avoiding the more disruptive chimpanzee-like violence. They fuck continuously. But we, we moderns, still trapped in our Judeo-Christian ethics, and a paternalism we claim we’ve surpasses, cannot indulge in orgies of that kind – at least not publicly – not yet. We are still contained within the morality of paternalistic monogamy, and that emotional crutch Christianity has blessed us with. Instead we indulge in oral grooming, i.e., continuous yapping, mouthing-off, talking just to talk, oral intercourse; orally injected linguistic narcotics, sucking on humanity’s proverbial teat.
Our fixations culminate in endless talk: talk shows, texting, cellphone obsessions, vacuous verbosity, endless chattering connectivity, ocular audio-synchronies feeding on empty data until we burst expecting to be sexually fulfilled.
Primate grooming has advanced through linguistics – from distances that do not require physical touch, nor presence, the logocentric primate can perform the same interpersonal functions of establishing and maintaining relationships.
Technologies facilitate this need for endless networking – inaugurating interconnected relationships and electronic alliances that are as easily destroyed as they are created. The preamble to physical intercourse is continuous because there is no physical presence; modern man indulges with constant oral foreplay that can never reach fulfillment.
Modern man incessantly speaks because he has nothing to say.

Socrates wrote:

Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.

When masculine traits have been abstracted and converted to techniques/technologies, the biological sex of the individual is a minor factor compared to his/her social performances and commitments, bolstered by trained conventions.
Women can easily step into institutionalized representations of masculinity; easier for biological females who will not challenge institutional practices and principles, but only reinforce and dedicate themselves to making them more efficient and effective.

Evola, Julius wrote:

Obviously, the levelling process applies to the sexes as well. The Soviet emancipation of the woman parallels the emancipation that in America the feminist idiocy, deriving from ‘democracy’ all its logical conclusions, had achieved a long time ago in conjunction with the materialistic and practical degradation of man. Through countless and repeated divorces the disintegration of the family in America is characterized by the same pace that we could expect in a society that knows only ‘comrades’.
The women, having given up their true nature, believe they can elevate themselves by taking on and practicing all kinds of traditionally masculine activities. These women are chaste in their immorality and banal even in their lowest perversions; quite often they find in alcohol the way to rid themselves of the repressed or deviated energies of their nature. Moreover, young women seem to know very little of the polarity and the elemental magnetism of sex as they indulge in a comradely and sportive promiscuity. These phenomena are typically American, even though their contagious diffusion all over the world makes it difficult for people to trace their origin to America. Actually, if there is a difference between this promiscuity and that envisioned by communism, it is resolved in a pejorative sense by a gynaecocratic factor, since every woman and young girl in America and other Anglo-Saxon countries considers it only natural that some kind of pre-eminence and existential respectability be bestowed upon her as if it were her inalienable right.

A sign of feminization: when biological females think and act more masculine than biological males; when they become more pragmatic and less superstitious; more promiscuous and less socially conservative; more challenging and less tolerant.
There’s evidence of feminine intuition at work, e.g., on average, more males are born after great wars reduce male populations – there's an intuitive essence to females that spontaneously adjusts them to real-world conditions, without requiring their acquiescence nor their conscious awareness.
Consider the additional example of menstrual synchronization as a natural outcome of proximity, subconsciously triggering biological congruence.
In the case of male emasculation, females innately sense declining masculinity – diminishing testosterone levels – and spontaneously react by adjusting their own hormonal balances, viz., masculinization of females is inversely proportional to the feminization, i.e., emasculation, of males – nature abhors vacuums.
A male establishes and maintains order; a female brings balance to it, through her sexual power – her natural agency.
Declining masculinity is gradually leaving a psychological void females try to fill by adopting masculine behaviours and attitudes. Relationships converge towards the idealized hermaphrodite citizen, in psychological and symbolic contexts, i.e., homosexuality, bisexual and/or asexual lifestyles gradually becoming dominant.
No matter what moderns want to believe masculinity/femininity is more than just about bodies and social utility. It is about attitude, thinking, a way of engaging and relating with the world. Appearance can be faked and attitude imitated and performed, but thinking is a far different thing – though imitation, over time, increases habituation, it does not suffice to change the essence of a mind; simply putting on a garment, parroting words, and imitating appearance and behaviour affects the body, via the mind’s convictions, but it does not radically alter what it represents: the product of thousands of generations of natural selected psychosomatic traits.
Not even severe human interventions, like surgery, can erase biological potentials – the most that can be accomplished is a habitual arbitrary repression and accentuation of traits to produce a desirable performance that can never exceed the median.
When the possible costs for acting as someone or something which you are not is decreased to acceptable levels, and when pretence is preferred and promoted when substance is restricted and strictly monitored, it is understandable that anyone can pretend to be anything as long as they never cross the line institutions lay out and stringently enforce.
The system may even provide access to means that can help make the performance believable if it does not inhibit the performances of others – this is the stated and unstated line that cannot be crossed. Means such as techniques, e.g., education, manuals, training, prescriptions etc., and technologies, e.g., plastic surgery, abortion, hormonal treatments, make-up, etc., all contributing to the believability of a performance.
[ MANifesto: Techniques][ MANifesto: Medicine – Surgery][ MANifesto: Identity – Structure of Self – Character]
The convergence of male/female behaviour is no more than the levelling of man, manifesting increasing uniformity. What is left is the manipulation of outer appearances, while, at the same time, denying the relevance of the apparent, pre-empting any performative flaws.
The fashion industry is making a mint from selling ‘uniqueness’ to the multitudes. And who are its best customers? Yes, women. [ MANifesto: Creativity – Fashion]
Hyperbole tries to compensate for any residual self-doubts. Women tend to exaggerate their masculinity to conceal a femininity they begin to resent.

Baudrillard, Jean wrote:

If desire exists – as modernity hypothesizes – then nothing must interfere with its natural harmony, and cosmetics are hypocritical. But if desire is a myth – as seduction hypothesizes – then nothing can prevent it from being put to use by signs, unrestrained by natural limits. The power of signs lies in their appearance and disappearance; that is how they efface the world. Cosmetics too are a means of effacing the face, effacing the eyes behind more beautiful eyes, cancelling the lips behind more luxuriant lips. This ‘abstract unity that brings the human being nearer to a being that is divine,’ this ‘life surpassing and exceeding nature’ about which Baudelaire speaks, results from a simple artificial stroke that suppresses all expression. Artifice does not alienate the subject, but mysteriously alters her/him. Women are aware of this transformation when, in front of their mirrors, they must erase themselves in order to apply their makeup, and when, by applying their makeup, they make themselves into a pure appearance denuded of meaning. How can one mistake this ‘exceeding of nature’ for a vulgar camouflaging of truth?
Only falsehoods can alienate the truth, but makeup is not false, or else (like the game of transvestites) it is falser than falsehood and so recovers a kind of superior innocence or transparency. It absorbs all expression within its own surface, without a trace of blood or meaning.
Certainly this is challenging, and cruel – but who is alienated? Only those who cannot abide this cruel perfection, and cannot defend themselves except by moral repulsion – and they are wrong. How can one respond to pure appearances, whether hieratic or mobile, without first recognizing their. Sovereignty? By taking off the makeup, tearing off the veil, or enjoining the appearances to disappear? How ridiculous! An iconoclast's utopia.
There is no God behind the images, and the very nothingness they conceal must remain a secret. The seduction, fascination and ‘aesthetic’ attraction of all the great imaginary processes lies here: in the effacing of every instance, be it the face and every substance, be it desire – in the artificial perfection of the sign.
[Seduction]

Well, it would appear that despite the fact that appearances do not matter, to moderns, and that you cannot, in good conscience, “judge a book by its cover,” you can, most certainly, create a ‘look’ and live by its superficial representations. We’re in the trendy world of Barbie & Ken fashionistas, when little girls grow-up learning to play with ‘big-girl materials’. Money can buy you everything, presumably, and how spectacularly obsessed with shopping these new age girls have become – every spree an exploration of futuristic caricatures, fully accessorized with avant garde trinkets. New outfits to be the person you want to be, you feel you ought to be, destined to be; the one you know you truly are on the inside. Capitalism can give you all the fittings, the data, the gadgetry, the fabrics, and designer modeling, to construct whatever character your sexually ambiguous passions desire. And if it is a male you wish to be – a male as he ought to be – then there’s a cute, and very convincing, little outfit for that too. It’s how you “sell the image,” that counts. If you can’t sell it, don’t buy it.
Wear the clothes, because the clothes do, indeed, make the man; strap on a tool or two, as a spare penis, and then strut your stuff on social catwalks, with attitude.
“Be yourself” they tell you, and that means “be what you dream of being” – not who you are, but who you could have been, if you were given a choice. Who’s going to dare “call you out” when all are guilty of the same pretentiousness? Who’s going to test your true essence when you’ve got a world there to defend your ‘right’ to be whatever you wish to be, if you just pay your taxes and do not cross any lines?
Life’s a stage and you’re the thespian making it up as you go along. No worries, if you can’t improvise there are plenty of scripts to memorize and regurgitate.
The only major faux pas, in modern times, is to be out of fashion, and out of style, i.e., on the “wrong side of history” as they put it. An indication that your oldfangled tastes and beliefs have not been sufficiently surveyed by newfangled conventions.
It’s so easy with daddy & mommy standing-by, allowing their children to play dress-up, exploring and exercising their undeveloped imaginations. A game with no end.
The physical, the body, is a shameful manifestation of past, i.e., nature, and must be covered-up or adjusted to modern ideals.
Men and women “dress to impress,” and what impresses most is what represents the prevailing socioeconomic ideals, or what displays an unobtrusive uniqueness expressing a tolerable personal style. What impresses most is anything that contradicts appearances with constructed imagery, signaling your willingness to remain loyal to social conventions by your fastidious sampling and creative combinations. It’s about how you fabricate a novel mishmash from common materials, displaying an extraordinary talent with what is ordinary.
Man dresses-up, to the ideal, and dresses-down, to the real; man conceals, and with his fabrications of an ideal he wants to forget what’s real.
Your ‘birthday suit’ is your one and only, torn and wrinkled, death suit, covered in the finery of a dress-suit they put on for you; in the meantime you forgot – or wanted to – that it was there. [ MANifesto: Nature]

More on Hyperborea...

What....feminization?!
Can't be true.
Another "conspiracy theory"!!!!


Mind/Body feminization.
I wrote about it before the year 2000.....and was attacked and ridiculed.
Welcome to reality.
I've been waiting for ya...for twenty years....waiting for you to catch-up...
Things have to become so loud before some ears can hear.
Others require but a whisper.

So, listen carefully before you drown out the sounds with your nonsensical clamour.

Hypermasculinity is a sign/symptom of male inferiority - poor genetic inheritance.
It follows from feminization and institutionalized emasculation of biological males, forcing most to adopt female sexual practices or to distinguish themselves through displays of exaggerated masculine traits: muscle cultivation, money accumulation, rebelliousness, self-handicapping etc.
The choice is determined by the particular male's genetic inheritance....e.g., if he has the physical structure he leans towards hyper-cultivating masculine genetic markers of superiority; if he lacks the bone/muscle, structure, he leans towards accumulating wealth, signalling access to resources; if he lacks the discipline he leans towards displaying his distinction from the common, hyper-rebelliousness signaling higher intellectual traits of discrimination and independence; if he lacks the brains he uses self-hadicapping signalling his hype-rconstitution and his ability to endure a high risk, high cost lifestyles etc.

Feminization forces males to seek other means for passing-on their genes.

By current standards - dominated by Abrahamics ethics - the ancient Greeks were nazis...worse than Nazis - only lacking the means. Genocide was common in ancient times - see the bible. Entire cities, entire peoples, were erased if they refused to capitulate, or even after they had.

Especially ancient-Spartans would make the German seem to be gentle souls.
The Spartans practiced colelcitvism - ehtnic, tribal, colelctivism.
Each man was the same as another - homioi - and the leader was of their shared blood, and culture.
As was the case among the Vikings and all peoples in those times.
We see this in wolf packs where the alpha pair are supported by members that share the same genes.

But this is not the case in modern times.
Now collectives share nothing but ideals....a common idea, an abstraction....like 'freedom' in the US.
No shared genes, no shared memes...only a common idea....and a common messiah, i.e., money.
Most do not even comprehend the relationship between power and freedom.
So disillusioned they've become with this nihilistic system that they've lost all trust in the words they use, or in their own senses.
They see difference, but, in their mind, it is all the same.
They see free-will in action - as choice - but it is illusory...the words say otherwise.
They see no beginnings and no ends, yet in ends and beginning they believe....because of words.
They see the different races and sexes and genders in practice, but words tell them that it is all a fabrication - not the words but appearances, actions...
They need to believe this because money would then be exposed as referring to nothing - American money has no gold backing, no tangible foundation, it is entirely smoke and mirrors; they need to believe codes, words/symbols, are more real than reality, because if they don't they will be forced to face the world, as it is, and themselves as they are within it.
The word/symbol is who they are. They are nothing more than word/symbols.
Easily recycled, accumulated, changed....and long living.....symbols/words do not die, as long as there are minds to think them and speak them.

Modern males support the status quo – whatever it may be – when it goes against their own genetic inheritance – such as the current Americanism and its crown jewel, feminism – not only to signal to indoctrinated females – who are now meme-filtering agencies – their moral and ideological (mental, psychological) worthiness – often compensating for their genetic unworthiness – but, most, are investing in the romantic idealism that conquered them in their youth, telling them that there is ‘someone for everyone’ (a soul mate), and that if they wait long enough and remain faithful to their convictions that their patience and acquiescence will be, eventually, rewarded with an opportunity. To those naïve two types we can add a third, more clever and vain by-product of modernity and Americanism; the ones that know, and have concluded that under paternalistic traditionalism they may have to accept an inferior female as their lifelong mate, considering this sacrifice to familial necessities and social status as not deserving of their qualities. For such males, overestimating their genetic worth, as males often do, such a sacrifice is unwarranted. They believe that if they accumulate enough wealth – adopting the systemic value system with a passion; working within it or on the edges of its tolerance – that they will certainly gain access to females more in agreement with their self-worth; superior females suitable to their superiority complex; females they deserve.
These three types encompass the gamut of genetically substandard males that wilfully submit to any prevailing system that has managed to indoctrinate females into its principles, even if nihilistic and contrary to their genetic inheritance, i.e., marrying outside their creed, culture, race, traditions, religious beliefs etc.
They either show naïve trust in systemic rules, or they show overcompensating self-evaluations, convinced that they can play within or without systemic rules to gain the moral or monetary systemic rewards required to acquire their ideal mate.
One relies in a religious fate in the lies they have come to consider truth, and the other two rely on systemically signalling their value – grateful to substitute memetic markers for their lack of genetic markers. These males become staunch defenders of systemic mythologies, and may exhibit a fanatical defence of them greater than the pathos displayed by females who have become totally dependent on the system to provide and protect them from nature – especially their own.
Males are indoctrinated to the degree that females are indoctrinated; forced to adapt or be excluded.

Emasculated males affirm whatever the majority of females believe and hold to be sacred; females affirm whatever power dominates and promises to create and preserve stability and order, so as to facilitate their reproductive roles – showing a natural preference to a status quo that does not place rules and regulations upon their sexual power. Finally those males, who wish to be noticed, must signal their support of feminine demands, or must signal their exceptionality – relative to the status quo – without ever threatening it – manipulating this modern feminine gene/meme dissonance where the body's impulses contradict the mind's ideological/dogmatic indoctrination; in this they feel more clever, more deserving, though most know not how or why they've adopted this riskier tactic that preserves their sense of manhood through fashionable displays of parasitical rebelliousness and faked rejection of authority – usually attempted via an innocuous adoption of fashions, art forms, and lifestyles that signal hypermasculinity without requiring any act that would challenge the status quo. In fact without the status quo their rebelliousness would be meaningless, and not an advantage at all. Consequently, such males often come to the defence of those of their own kind, and the underlying systemic principles and values they all unequivocally share; defending the core beliefs of the system, even while pretending to stand apart from its rule.
Even those few who have chosen to skirt on the edge of systemic tolerance – law & order – adopting more costly criminal behaviours, as their preferred method of distinguishing themselves from the throng, such men never actually challenge systemic values and principles, nor do they ideologically reject systemic ideals – its necessary myths/lies – but only its rules and regulations.

Generally, the men on the left side of the bell curve tend to breed more and you begin to see a decline in average IQ to the point where men are dumb enough to allow women to get the franchise.

Getting the franchise only to be able to get the midwit men they have always wanted. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Daemon Knight (@Daemon_Knight01) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When there is a prolonged period of stability, where no threats are perceived, females act as filtering agencies emasculating males - making them more malleable and complacent - more cooperative towards feminine needs/desires outside protector/provider roles.
Dumbing-down is selecting what is less resistant.

These are two men who have been taught by their society to think so little of themselves that they find it acceptable for them to share one woman.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Gonzalo Lira (@GonzaloLira1968) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why is this happening to Western men? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Felix Rex (@navyhato) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This should be qualified as the Americanized white male.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Clown World (@ClownWorld_) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Imagine generations of children born and raised entirely by women.
With no male participation.

Imagine it.
The end.

What happened? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Trad West (@trad_west_) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Attention Platonists and Neoplatonists: the spiritual faculty of the νοῦς is accessed by raising testosterone levels [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Rogue Scholar Press (@RogueScholarPr) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I just love what men have become, women. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

After 23 years my essay is validated.

Femininity as it was idealized in postmodern Americanism, through Hollywood and US media.
Genes to memes.
Meme selectively accentuates, represses, sumblimates....according to tis cultural ideals.
Americanism is a Judeo-Protestant based 'civilization', rejecting traditional Indo-Euroepan cultural ideals.
This has shaped the idealization of females. Females are idealized because they are, by nature, more malleable.
The psychosomatic traits of the female sex/gender are preferable in a multiethnic, multiracial, culture-of-no-culture, SuperState, attempting to become global.
A one-god was a hindrance - so he was metaphorically murdered....a metaphorical murder of an unnecessary metaphor - as were traditional families....and masculinity.
The hermaphroditic god of the Jews will come in the form of a raceless, sexless humanity.
God=Humanity; Humanity = God
All biological and ideological barriers will be nullified to manufacture 'divine uniformity'.
We can include morality in this list of 'barriers' to uniformity.

Female is the ideal citizen of an Americanised Globalized system.

Feminization includes biological females.
Masculinization of females, and hypermasculinity, is also a reactionary effect of feminization.

What does it mean that America is a culture-of-no-culture?
It is an anti-traditinoal cultural ideal, converting culture into the supply/demand market system - manufacturing consent, manufacturing wants.

Culture as no more than another product and service.

Like gender.
Like all biological identities.
Recyclable, purchasable, products. Fashion trends.
A Capitalist market system can manufacture demand, and then supply it.
Marketing.
It does so by manipulating human nature, suing psychology, and then it rejects and slanders and undermines both.
A tactic used in historical revisionism by historical revisionist to prevent corrections.
Control the past and you control the future.
Revise the past, then criminalize all reactions that challenge them...accusing them of historical revisionism.
See how it works?

Trans-
Transcendental metaphysics - meta, in this case, meaning contrary to physics.
Trans-species is next - bestiality will be normalized after paedophilia.
Anything associated with the human body will be nullified....replaced by ideology.

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:

Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak – she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the ‘powerful,’ the ‘strong,’ the men-

Feminization means liberalism, idealizing the weak, the freaks, worshipping the victims of the world.

Her reproductive role places her in a position of weakness and dependence, evolved to nurture weakness and dependence.