The True Threat; Or, How I Plan To Offend Literally... Well, Dozens... Ok, All Three, Of My Readers All At Once!

Let's begin with a simple question:

Why have there been no further major Islamic terror attacks on U.S. soil or property since 9/11?

Despite the blathering of pundits, there's simply no evidence that the resources and personnel of the terror-mongers have been so stretched by U.S. operations in the Middle East, or that Homeland Security has been so wildly effective, as to explain the lack of terrorist operations in the last 7 years.

However, there is clear, plentiful evidence of a massive, global shift in jihadi tactics.

In most European countries, over the last few years, the Islamic population has literally exploded, through a combination of breeding - at a much higher rate, in all cases, than the native population - and by a tidal wave of immigration. The result has been that there are now enormous areas of Europe that are literally under Sharia law, in total defiance of the laws of the host country. France even goes so far as to provide a dynamic map of areas beyond their government's control, to warn off tourists and their own citizens from entering the Islamic zones.

This tactic is being allowed, despite the fact that the collapse of Europe is far more immediately imminent than people seem to think; Islamic citizens vote; they vote far more consistently for single candidates, and single issues, than any other voting group; their numbers are exploding; and the time is not far off when their unity of purpose will allow them to - within the legal framework of the host countries' democracy - vote country after country under the dominion of Sharia law.

You'd think that, having been galvanized by the events of 9/11, that this country in particular would resist such tactics violently; in fact, such is not the case. The United States is suffering a similar undermining from within; and in our case, there is one group which has done - albeit unwittingly - more than any other to aid and assist the cause and tactics of our enemy.

This is where you all get offended.

That group is "feminists."

Now that the majority of you - ok, two - are off to write comments without regard for the rest of the article, my other lonely reader can make himself comfy, and let me lay out my case.

Our national birth rate is dropping, catastrophically. This is true across the board, white, black, asian, hispanic; it does not matter; any "assimilated" citizens are suffering a massive drop in birth rate. (This does not count unassimilated immigrants, specifically those groups who demand the right to keep their native tongue in a foreign land, and amnesty for their illegal brethren; the Muslims are included in this group. More on this later.)

The primary factor pointed to, overwhelmingly, by scientists, psychologists, and economists, as the cause for our plummeting birth rate is our plummeting marriage rate.

The plummeting marriage rate is variously attributed, depending upon who you ask, to "men's perpetual adolescence," or "the rise in irresponsible behavior among men," or "fear of commitment," or "Peter Pan Syndrome" or a dozen other similar phrases. They all point at men; they are all uttered by feminists.

But asking men why the marriage rate is plummeting is a different story indeed.

In many cases, it is far from irresponsibility that drives men away from marriage; it is, instead, a simple, rational assessment of benefits. Since the sexual "revolution" of the 60's and 70's, driven by feminists, women have become sufficiently "sexually liberated" that the overwhelming majority of men can find willing sex partners without marriage.

As women's options have opened, as they should, those changes have been accompanied by a shift in women's attitudes towards men, which they shouldn't. This shift in attitude is on display in every facet of our society, from the legal system to the sitcoms on television; across the board, men are being blamed for society's woes, even to the point where significant numbers of women are willing to vote for Hillary Clinton, a Communist, and frankly DISASTROUS choice as a potential first female President, simply because she possesses - or so we are expected to believe - a vagina. Any comment against her in a public forum is greeted with vitriol, up to and including accusing anyone who doesn't like Senator Clinton of hating women, and women's issues.

I assure you, my dislike of Senator Clinton stems not from any imagined misogyny on my part, but rather from the facts of her husband's record, her total lack of experience in actually holding a job, her rampant Communism, her total lack of understanding of basic economics, her voting record as a Senator, and the fact that if elected, she will be the first female President, and therefore - rightfully or not - will be held to a higher standard; her failures will set back "women's issues" for decades.

But no matter; the issue is marriage. So, why would a healthy, straight, 24-50 year old male in this country not want to get married?

Well, because feminists have managed to stack the deck in the courts so heavily against men that it poses a staggering legal risk to a man, including the potential for legal consequences against which no defense is allowed, the potential for grievous financial harm lasting for the foreseeable future, and the potential for jail time, loss of children, loss of housing, and loss of means of securing employment, simply on a grudging female cohabitant's SAY-SO.

That's just for starters.

Did you know that a female cohabitant can swear out a complaint, before a judge, against her male partner, claiming only that she "feels threatened," and secure a restraining order requiring the male to immediately vacate his home, even if it's been in his family for five generations, and never be allowed within 1000 feet of it again, even to secure basic belongings like his clothing? Did you also know that the male is not allowed any reply to a restraining order, any opportunity to offer a defense, whatsoever?

Did you know that a female cohabitant, IN a married relationship, can, based solely on her say-so, and without any opportunity for a defense - again - take 50% of a man's possessions, with preferential treatment given to her in the case where - for example, the couple owns two cars; the newer car is likely to reside with the female, regardless of prior ownership or how it was purchased?

Did you know that a male - not a female - can be required to pay child support for children not even genetically his, because "they are accustomed to similar treatment?"

They've pushed it so far that they've basically killed the market for sperm donors, as very few men are stupid enough to provide a donation that can result in, years later, a sight-unseen crushing financial burden that he has no legal recourse but to assume, regardless of his personal financial, or familial, situation.

And in fact, they've made things very simple: for the overwhelming majority of men, marriage is unprofitable. The current state of the law allows women to basically game the legal system to put thumbscrews to men, without any recourse, defense, or chance of reprieve on the part of the male. In fact, the feminist revolution has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams; the male suicide rate, post-divorce, dwarfs that of females. Men are painted into a corner from which they cannot escape, the instant they sign a marriage license; there have been court cases in which community property rules have been applied to men who broke up with their intendeds prior to the wedding, on the strength of the marriage license as a statement of intent.

The result? Marrying, for a male in the United States, in the present day, is an irrational action of significant magnitude, vast risk, and essentially no benefits not available without marriage.

And according to sociologists, it is this more than any other factor which is causing a drop in our birth rate.

The dropping birth rate, which plays directly into the hands of our nation's Islamic fifth columnists; as their birth rates continue to expand, their tactic of developing voting blocs is already beginning to bear fruit.

And as our country's ability to carry on the battle against the fall of Western civilization begins to buckle under the pressure, the feminists will have no-one to thank but themselves, when they are forced into hijab by Sharia law, and repressed far worse than ever has been the case under Western law.

Congratulations, ladies. The culture war is over. You "won." In 25 years, at most, you will be reaping publically the fruits of your misguided endeavors; because you were unable to separate "equality under the law" from "revenge against people long dead, for slights and oppression against people long dead."

I wish you the joy of it.