What we are told practically every day is that feminism is an ideology oriented towards equality, first and foremost, but also towards ecology, social justice, inclusion, empathic relations, attentive to minorities and the feelings of all. In short, it is a peaceful and just philosophy of life that stands in clear contradiction to masculinity, which is attributed with the deteriorating characteristics of force, violence, fierce competition, hierarchy and the related marginalisation. In short: the male means war and injustice, the female means peace and justice. It is on the basis of this oversimplified schematism that many, always too many, hope for 'a world governed by women' which, as such, would be quieter, calmer, more sensitive and balanced than the one we have had up to now, governed by the phantom 'patriarchy'. There are those who affirm these things out of pure sectarian spirit, those who affirm them to feed their own personal visibility or specific business, and those who affirm them to carve out a niche of power, but what is most important is that an overwhelming majority of people, if questioned, would say that they agree with feminist demands regardless and in general. One of the keys to the pervasiveness of feminism is precisely this: it has succeeded in establishing itself on a global scale, across genders and social classes, as an instrument of equity, justice and peace. In a word, as something good, which as such cannot be questioned.
These assumptions have created, and continue to create, the ideal breeding ground for the flourishing of exceptions and privileges granted not so much to women in general as to those who display their membership or militancy in the feminist movement. On the other hand, this breeding ground succeeds in persuading people of all kinds, including the apparently more lucid ones, that we would really be better off if only the female component of society governed. This creates the silent flanking that approves of every step taken by political feminism in the direction of a kind of sexist gynoarchy, where being a man, particularly a white and heterosexual one, is equated with belonging to a race that has become inferior after having undeservedly dominated human history for centuries. On a mystical level, feminism is the religion that raises the feminine to divinity, throwing the new Lucifer, represented by the male gender, into hell. This is all theory, all philosophy, or rather ideology, one might say. Blabs that can still be done because feminism still hasn't been called to the proof of facts. And this deficit is partly due to its ability to evade confrontation, on the one hand, but also to the resistance that in many areas is still opposed to its spread. There are countries such as Spain, for example, where political feminism has succeeded in twenty years in establishing a real regime of terror contrary to every fundamental charter of human rights. However, Spain does not lack an institutional opposition, the Vox party, which, thanks to its electoral successes, is called to give its opinion on feminist lies and, albeit in a disorganised manner, does not tell them off. It happened a few days ago, for example, during the celebrations for the women's vote in Spain, where it was impossible not to give the floor to Macarena Olona, MP for Vox, who in her own way tore apart all the mystified rhetoric of the feminists (video below, in Spanish).
No hesitation in attacking the police.
But this is not the case everywhere. There are countries that have totally surrendered, gagged and handcuffed, to the wave of supremacist feminism. One of these is Mexico, where it is possible to get a glimpse of what a future in the hands of the feminist sect might really look like. On 28 September, the 'Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion' was celebrated worldwide. Whatever one thinks about abortion, there is one thing we can all agree on: its free and indiscriminate exercise is one of the absolute cornerstones of feminist ideology. In many countries, especially where feminism is left unchecked, such as Mexico, the celebrations mentioned have been an opportunity to really show the profound nature of feminism. A nature that did not escape the TV cameras first and then social media. So let's take a look together at how this philosophy of inclusion and peace was expressed in Mexico. The affirmation of the right to access to a legal and safe abortion was manifested everywhere in acts of hooliganism and vandalism:
Knowing the risk involved in this kind of demonstration, the Mexican authorities deployed their police forces everywhere. According to the law, only female officers should be deployed in the event of feminist demonstrations. It is perhaps hoped that, in the event of an intervention by force, they will be able to do less damage or that the 'sisterhood' will prevail and that conflicts will not arise between women. The images speak for themselves: the feminist marches had no qualms about provoking and violently attacking the deployed police forces, jeering, spraying paint and quietly getting into physical confrontations. Look carefully at these images, see if you notice anything. We will come back to this in a moment.
It has to be said that if you look at them closely, these girls or young girls who attack street furniture or police officers are almost tender. All the physiological inadequacy of women to physical violence comes into view. They move and strike in an unbalanced, clumsy, awkward way. To destroy a window they need about twenty blows, whereas a man would only need a couple of them, and when they hurl themselves against the shields of the forces of order it seems almost a listless gesture, because of how badly they are carried. In short, one would think that these are purely symbolic blows, nothing that really wants to hurt. On the other hand, it has been said that feminists carry an ideology of peace and empathy, no? Other videos seem to contradict both our impressions and this cliché: among the officers there is a large number of wounded.
Simple black block with breasts.
There is something anarchic and antagonistic about the way feminists demonstrate: the right to abortion has nothing to do with what happens in the square, everything seems to be interpreted as a generic aggression against the system, against the established power. By the way they are dressed, more than feminists, they look like a re-edition of the black blocks of sad memory, but in a shouting sauce and with breasts. From this point of view, their fierce attacks on the police could make sense. The problem is that they have not limited themselves to this. Their targets were everyone they met along the route of the demonstration, as long as they were male. At that point, verbal provocations and physical assaults began, in the face of which most chose to flee.
But not everyone manages to escape. Some are surrounded and violently attacked. In Mexico (as in many other countries), any man is afraid to react to a woman, he knows he risks prison, even if he acts to protect himself. So here is the result:
The man was trying to talk to some protesters. He was first kicked, then sprayed with paint, and finally attacked by the gang and thrown to the ground. What is striking is the rage and fury with which one of the girls crushed his head to the ground and kicked him in the face. The outcome of the attack is evidenced by some subsequent photographs.
The images from Mexico are a warning.
What we have shown you so far are just a few of the photos and videos collected in extensive reports by local TV stations, bloggers who followed the demonstrations and feminists themselves, who did not fail to share their exploits on social media. The full report contains everything, especially on the damage caused to public property, but not only. It will be said that these are exceptional events that took place in a country whose democracy is not yet fully complete. But they would be wrong. Mexico is a modern country, with many problems, it is true, but it is nevertheless an integral part of the advanced western world. It is, however, the birthplace of one of the absolute feminist myths, 'feminicide', and thus hosts one of the most extreme and legitimised forms of the feminist sect. You will have noticed this in the images of the attacks on the police: they are allowed everything. When, in one video, a policewoman hints at a reaction, she is pulled back by her colleagues and forced to take a barrage of insults. The protesters have a free hand to attack the police, to smear their shields and helmets, in a word they are untouchable. The order of service for the police is to let it go, not to do even the slightest wrong to the dominant ideology. At the most, they are allowed to spray harmless coloured steam, which is not tear gas, since the demonstrators sail through it without any problems. The concept is simple: they want to destroy everyone's street furniture? Green light. They want to assault the officers? Green light. They want to slaughter every straight white male who crosses the procession? Green light.
The key word for understanding what a peaceful and just world designed by feminists can be is precisely 'untouchability'. This is the ultimate goal of the feminist sect, not equality or social justice or anything else, but to achieve a status of total privilege that allows them to live in absolute anarchy, even (and especially) to the detriment of what is public or of individuals outside the sect. The welding, which has already taken place for some time in every western country, between conflictual antagonism and feminism leads precisely to the Mexican excesses we have just seen. And there should be no illusion that this is an exception, that is exactly the final goal, to the achievement of which the various rivulets only apparently disconnected from each other contribute: the controversies about statues or "sexist" advertisements, the openly anti-male laws, the misandric hate profiles on social networks, the one-way funding and statistics, the penetration of the sect within the spheres of power, are all tributaries of a great river that has as its outlet the privileged status of untouchables for a specific class of people. Women? No, absolutely not: this is the great misunderstanding (and the great deception), as Macarena Olona from Spain points out in her speech. The privilege is only for women who are in the right, i.e. who uncritically embrace the dogmas of the supremacist and antagonistic feminist sect. A sect that wears a mask of peace, inclusion, tolerance and empathy. When the mask is removed there are privileges, violence, oppression and blood. The images from Mexico are a warning. Will it be understood elsewhere?