Of some interest to our political situation is the relationship between the sexes. These having been distorted to the point where men and women drug and mutilate themselves in effort to become the other. The outcome of this is frequently suicide, and universally misery and destruction.

In my own ideological journey, my rapid slide from libertarianism to the Right wing was prompted by an entirely appropriate revolt against the precursor to this abomination, namely feminism.

Feminism begins with the assertion that men and women are in all ways equal. Met with the impracticality of this assertion, it attempts to distort reality in myriad other ways.

Among them is a bifurcation between "gender" which is said to be "between the ears" and "sex" which is said to be "between the legs". Met with the impracticality of this, that which is between the legs is likewise altered, as well as matters above the waist but below the neck, such as when women remove their breasts, and men take drugs to cause lactation.

But these most extreme of examples are hardly the most destructive of the phenomena. It may be described as far more damaging that women have opted for education and career over marriage and family, having at once been given the choice and perhaps more to the point been propagandized to make that choice. This negatively impacts birth rates and gives rise to immigration concerns, which negatively impacts their happiness and safety, and being miserable as one might expect, they are propagandized still more to demand these burdens increase with the false hope that it will increase their happiness, and so the vicious cycle of societal decline rapidly cascades toward total destruction of our people.

Observing this, and taking note of its need for correction, Right wing movements have made a variety of attempts to conceptualize the issue and propose solutions. To date, none of have had the desired effect.

Of particular note is a tendency toward believing some of the lies of feminism even by those in steadfast opposition thereto. In particular, the idea that feminism promotes equality of the sexes. Believing this falsehood, anti-feminists have sought to reduce the  station of women in our society as a means by which to correct for their perceived elevation.

This was easily among the top five greatest mistakes of what was once known as the "Alt Right". Among them there emerged a pathology aiming to "take women down a peg" and this resulted in senseless hostility and insults which drove away the political support of roughly half the world's population. In what was arguably its most extreme form, a meme described as "White Sharia" emerged, and whatever its value as a joke, this took on a serious character in some circles and spiraled out into savagery.

But equality is not an accurate description of what feminism aims to do, much less what it accomplishes. Like everything Left wing, it is not only a lie, but an inversion of the truth. Feminism reduces women to sex objects, rather than freeing them from such perceptions, and asserts that anyone who can talk them into consenting to an act has committed no sin thereby, no matter how depraved the act in question, and no matter how harmful its consequences.

A woman is not elevated by seeking a masculine station in life as pertains to the workplace, nor on the battlefield. A disparity in her fitness for purpose quickly becomes evident, and efforts to contort our perceptions quickly fail as myths like the "gender pay gap" emerge and are debunked, and realities like reduced fitness standards in military matters become codified.

Sadly lost in near all of this discussion is the fact, that a wife and a mother are not inferior to a husband or a father. Neither is the inverse conceivable. These are lateral and complimentary stations, neither of which can exist absent the other.

There exists in some schools of thought, notably Christian apologetics and others aiming to make logical proofs of of God's existence, the notion that "the created cannot be greater than the creator" and since men and women cannot exist without the other, this poses a difficult issue for those who aim to assert the primacy of one over the other. Fortunately for them, they tend to reject entirely the concept of God, or, just as often, choose to wage war against a God they hate.

But co dependents with distinct roles are no more inferiors or supremacists above or beneath the other than they are equals. They are different, and they have distinct purposes to fill. Without those purposes filled, neither can exist, and without their existence we are not having this discussion. Whatever one's views on God or the hierarchy of creations and creators, one who cannot exist absent another can hardly claim to the dominant of the two.

Take among our most obvious examples the issue of war, and exclude for the moment modern efforts to include women in the practice. Until fairly recently, it was universally understood that war was the practice, of men, and while historical examples of women participating exist, they are notable for how unusual they are, and thus the exception proves the rule. Men have historically, and with all propriety, considered it their obligation to be the protectors of women. They have taken this obligation so seriously as to die in its performance, and to consider this a worthwhile thing to do.

A man who lays down his life in defense of a woman, or in defense of the women of his society, asserts by his act a statement of values in which the expenditure of his life is a lesser value than the prevention of harm to the women in question. On its face this may be seen as a higher status of women than men. It might be described as akin to the use of dogs in war or in police work, wherein canines are sent to sniff for explosives or attack armed suspects, when such a task would prove to perilous to the lives of the officers.

Are men to be described as holding a station comparative to women, the status of dog to man? Hardly. Absent this generosity, there would be no women. The women are, if acting appropriately, grateful for the protection. They express this gratitude in ways to numerous to count, in a healthy society.

Equality would demand that men and women serve comparable roles in the practice of war, and indeed, much effort has been made to impose this on society. But, in America at least, we have not been so in thrall to this delusion that women are conscripted into war. That is still an exclusively male phenomenon. There are both those who would aim to change this, and men who would sooner wage war against their own government than to submit their daughters to something so unnatural.

And, given this martial prowess unique to the male, it might be said that he is the ruler. He has, at the end of the day, the means by which to impose his will upon the woman. Whatever the woman's status in society, it may be said that the male chooses it, and that one who can be made a slave, is arguably already by this fact of such a status.

But does a man permit of his daughter or his wife to be made the slave of another? One may presume that examples of this exist, but they are rare enough that they again prove as exceptions proving the rule. Near universally, a man does not permit this. He is, in effect, prevented from doing so, if not by the consent of the women in question, by the will of other men.

There exists a humorous advertisement for a brand of firearm, in which God made man and woman, and the firearms manufacturer made them equal. While conveying a message of some interest, this hardly describes reality. To begin, the man made the firearm. There exists a substantial likelihood he gave it to the woman as a gift. It is near certain he taught her to use it.

And while too many woman have used firearms to impose upon men the only equality men and women may know, which is to say, death, it is hardly the case that women have been known to show equal propensity for the use of such tools. Their most common use is of course for men to kill other men, and thus emerges the inequality of prison populations.

If crime is to be seen as a negative thing, and men near universally the perpetrators of crime, are we to discern from this that women hold the superior station? Hardly.

Men also comprise the bulk, and at one time, the entirety, of the law enforcement profession, of police, of lawyers, of judges, of corrections officers, of hero citizens who rush toward the danger while commanding the women to flee or take shelter.

As in the case of war, does the woman infer from this a status of superior value by the protection, or the status of inferior subject by obeying the command? Neither.

The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world, a world governed by men, whose cradles were rocked by women. To pursue this chicken or the egg riddle results in circular reasoning and comes to no definitive conclusion but one. That men and women are lateral and complimentary to one another. No chicken, no egg, no egg no chicken.

Karl Marx was by no means shy about stating his desire to abolish the family, and latter Left wing theorists have only become more radicalized in their drive toward this genocidal end. Met with the reality that their designs would end in the extinction of man, they have asserted that this is desirable, and incorporated into their musings all manner of delusions about our "unnatural" impacts on the "environment".

It is no coincidence that "women's liberation" and "anti-racism" and "environmentalism" are all roughly grouped into the same fanatical Left wing ideological movements. They are an indisputably anti-human phenomenon, and they bring unceasing misery most of all to their adherents, and secondly to those so unfortunate as to be ruled by those adherents.

Men who rule justly, treat women with very special privileges. It is the transgender fanatics who seek to deprive them of these dispensations.

Happy women are typically consumed by the affairs pertaining to their rightful station, which is to say, their positions as wives and mothers. It is preposterous to expect them to manage all that comes along with this vital purpose, and then atop this to master the speciality of a profession, and to concern themselves with all that occurs within the State, and to maintain a fitness regiment to make them suitable for war, all of which would result in failure and misery and neglect of the husband and the children were they to try.

The above describes a relationship which is a requirement of their respective survival. To subvert it is to wish upon them both the most excruciating death conceivable.

These are lateral and complimentary stations, though unequal in the extreme, and should we seek to secure the existence of our people and a future for our children, much more if we seek any measure of fulfillment in life, we might do well to abandon both the extremist fringe conceptions of the gender delusionists, and also the over corrections of those who found themselves in revolt.

SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern time on Rumble, Odysee, and the GetMeRadio app for Smartphone, Roku, and FireTV.