Kamala: The Empty Pantsuit.

If the future is female, it's going to be hellish.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we now know that Kamala Harris has, more than any other woman, the gift of compressing the largest number of words into the smallest amount of thought.

It's normal for politicians during election season to repeat important policy points. However, Kamala Harris has subverted this by endlessly repeating adenoidal inanities about the abstract "hopes and dreams" of the American people, their "aspirations," and the creation of an "opportunity economy." She frequently talks about her "middle-class" upbringing as if it were working-class — a phrase she appears to have eradicated from her limited language model.

The only opportunity however is to vote for a Stepford candidate who glitches slightly less than a demented Biden who at least had his faculties at some point. She, on the other hand, is an airbag. Worse still, in geopolitics, she's the diplomatic equivalent of a Takata airbag, posing a stochastic shrapnel risk that might have even pushed Putin into invading Ukraine. Thanks to her, the Doomsday Clock is set today at 90 seconds to midnight, contrasting with the relatively languorous seven minutes to midnight during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If she's elected, there's no product recall, no control/alt/delete for at least four years!

But this isn't just a Harris problem. The issue is much larger than one individual. It's about what she represents. We've witnessed the slow march of feminism into every institution for over 50 years. We've seen meritocracy replaced by social 'justice', diversity, and inclusion. We watched the pink parade of vagina hats in the 2017 Women's March the day after Donald Trump's inauguration, followed by "#MeToo" and "#TimesUp," alongside a rise in bureaucracy and corruption, paced with a decline in accountability and ethics in politics and mainstream media. Women have been at the forefront of this catastrophe.

We also observe intellectual cuckolds like Obama scold black men for caring more about the economy than Harris' platitudinal "hopes and dreams." Unlike most men, Obama has a skin in the game. Despite any mutual disdain between him and the Bidens, their fortunes depend on the ongoing money-laundering machine that is war. Speaking engagements for a quarter of a million dollars are mere pocket change.

Harris is the poster girl for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) — a person who achieved her position largely due to immutable characteristics, including her immutable mediocrity. As a result of these DEI, politics have devolved into what we used to deride as "high school politics" in the U.S. or "sixth form politics" in the UK: the immature political engagement of adolescents. DEI serves as a mechanism for hiring ideological allies and individuals of questionable character, who likely do not even realize they're part of a managed decline but will enthusiastically accept roles they're unfit for, bolstering their fragile egos with false confidence. Once in place, they only need to do their best for failure to manifest.

In the movie "Mean Girls," the queen bees were called "the plastics." In the Democratic Party, they might be termed "the nasals." Regardless of whether Harris remains in politics post-humiliation, we'll still have to endure AOC's pinched-nose lectures. 

We are living in an age of female chauvinism. Though most women aren't feminists, many, like men, are susceptible to moral corruption in a culture that endorses female superiority. The slogan "The Future is Female" has made steady progress since its inception by lesbian separatists in DYKE Quarterly in 1972. The UN propagates the message, Hillary Clinton endorses it, and millions of headlines, bloggers, and social media influencers declare it. Anthropologists from Margaret Mead to Melvin Konner have twisted empirical facts to fit narratives of female superiority. However, women are just as prone to power and corruption as men, though they pursue unethical goals differently.

This rush towards a female utopia is imprudent. We have millennia of literature, from The Iliad to Machiavelli to Jack Reacher, on the anatomy of male strategies of competition and cooperation. We know which male propensities to encourage and which to guard against. We lack such insight into female tactics. It would be foolish, and sexist, to believe women are inherently virtuous and give them an unvetted free pass into fragile international relations.

Shakespeare was right when he wrote, via Katherine in "The Taming of the Shrew," that women's "lances were straws." Today's feminist lances are paper straws. Consider abortion, the Democrats' primary issue. If, as I hypothesize, feminism is not about empowering women but is rather an arena for intra-sexual competition, pitting elite women against the lower orders, especially non-feminists, this changes the motivation behind feminist abortion rhetoric. 

Feminists often treat abortion as a trivial issue, but it is inherently complex and morally significant, not easily dismissed without repercussions. The ultimate goal of running interference on women’s reproductive choices, whether feminists realize it or not, is to stymie their reproductive fitness, and it has been a huge success, as the drop in birth rate demonstrates.  Young women possess the natural assets of youth and fertility, which are key to securing resources essential for evolutionary fitness. Feminists like to claim that society has transcended evolutionary imperatives. This narrative is contradicted by the behavior of aging, successful, and often single women who invest heavily in maintaining youthful appearances that are signals of fertility. Such actions inadvertently acknowledge the enduring value of youth and fertility. The feminist stranglehold on this issue leverages these social influencers who persuade actual young and fecund women to rebuke their innate but finite power and waste their prime years chasing male goals. Goals males pursue to attract young and fecund women. Women gain nothing from following a male life history trajectory. Feminists devalue the very attributes that actually empower women and actively disenfranchise them of real choice. “Choice” you will note, is a dirty word for feminists.

Yet, research shows that competition within a sex is far more intense than between sexes. Feminists and women generally often fail to recognize this, focusing instead on blaming patriarchy. Yet, some like Germaine Greer have acknowledged, "Men's misogyny doesn't concern me. I'm more concerned about ours. Men are trained to work in groups."

Women, generally, work in small groups, outwardly disdaining authority and hierarchy, but this is a mechanism to control lower-ranking women. "Equality" here is not about benevolence or fairness but about monitoring and ensuring no cheating, though cheating does occur covertly. This dynamic isn't conducive to large projects or geopolitics. As I’ve written elsewhere, there will never be a feminist SpaceX, Google, or Facebook. Women are too busy monitoring one another for unfair advantage and snipping the heads off tall poppies to create large meritocratic networks. This is a serious issue as more women enter the corridors of power, especially DEI-appointed women. There are great women who can thrive in these arenas, but they must get there by merit.

Shakespeare again. We're wary of such tactics in men, and know of them from books such as Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and Machiavelli's "The Prince." Outside of evolutionary psychology, there are no such analyses of female tactics. As such,  we should be very skeptical of women's claims to empathy, equality, and fairness, as these are often signals of power play. 

As we have seen recently in the WNBA, unconscious female intrasexual competition can destroy the advantages of a group that healthy competition gives to male groups. The ostracism and increasingly violent and dangerous attacks on Caitlin Clark by rival teams are bad enough. The self-sabotage of her own team not picking her for their Olympic team is highly illustrative of the fact that often women would rather lose than support a brilliant rival. Is that what we are witnessing in the fall of the Democrat party today?

We need to develop Queensbury rules of female competition. The first step in doing that is to get women to admit they compete at all. That’s going to be tough. Especially as disguising competition to look like cooperation - and even believing it yourself - is a major documented FIC trait