Are you any

    good?

Although they won't admit it, the real of objective of feminists is to retain the right to choose how many children that they want to have, with no external restrictions.  That's why men, they believe, shouldn't have the right to criticize.  

What feminists really want is for their status to equal that of white men.  But that can never happen because ​men are husbands and fathers; the natural leaders of a family.  Except in the military.

If you are a

defender of the 

Patriarchy then

you hate women.

If you read the above passage, you will note that most feminists believe that learning to understand "the cause" requires difficult and painful work; and that white men have no right to an opinion when discussing lesbians and feminists.

The reason that people are suffering in "undeveloped" nations is that they don't have a right to exist in the first place. In order to be legitimate, a child must be born in a time and place that is ready to accept him or her into the world. For example, when a Nigerian mother has eight children, there is no place in the world for them. They will lead lives of misery because they don't have the right to exist.

Many people would ask the following question: Who are YOU to decide which children have or don't have the right to exist?

That gets us back to the question of legitimacy. Blacks are never legitimate, because of horrible DNA. Browns may be legitimate if born to a married couple. Whites also are legitimate if born to a married couple. The key point being that the social structure (marriage) and the economic structure (employment) both have to be in place before the child is born. This stability leads to a network of personal and professional relationships that confer legitimacy onto the child. Those aunts and uncles are important. And so is that wedding ring.

With that said, Japan (and the U.S.) have no responsibility to alleviate suffering caused by runaway population growth in the third world. On the contrary, both countries have a responsibility to protect legitimate children by reducing the population of third world countries.

​The point is that we have an unsustainable global population.

Earth can support around three billion people comfortably. This leads to a question: which populations should be reduced? I think that Africa should be declared a nature zone; and the population sterilized. The same should be done in Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Haiti, and India. None of the children born in these ecologically-stressed areas have a right to exist.

​Another thing that you need to remember is that all blacks are desperate for status. That's the whole point of "civil rights"; it's an attempt to take status by force. If blacks can't get natural status, then they'll get political or military status. So that black girl in uniform isn't a whore; she's a Lieutenant!

This issue is at the core of the political divide.

On one hand, you've got a republic with natural leaders. On the other hand, you've got (what is essentially) a military dictatorship which abhors natural leaders. That's why members of the upper-class are always under fire. And that's why black statist heroes are always portrayed on television as "true patriots" who are justly committed to civil rights by force of law. In reality, blacks are committed to nothing but power and money. This communist misrepresentation of patriotism is on display everywhere, especially in the military; a traditional black stronghold.

So what to do? Allow people to speak freely. Most Americans don't assign any status to blacks. That's why black babies have no value in the adoption market; and most employers don't want to hire blacks. If people were allowed to say what they really think, then the victimhood of blacks would disappear overnight; along with their status. After that, the country could rebuild itself as an Anglo Saxon, Christian, safe, happy place.

It's all about having the right to one's own true attitudes and opinions.