Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Men embracing their masculinity and biological heritage has not been the easiest path the past few years, at least, for those who care about being labeled a "toxic" curse hanging over the history of the world.

For me, frankly, I am indifferent to the gnashing and wailing of feminists and the social justice cult. They are a paper tiger and always have been. Beyond that, it's almost impossible to live in rural Montana without being a capable man (or living in a family with capable men), so even if I wanted to become some kind of liberal my-little-pony metrosexual, the environment simply would not allow for it. I would get eaten alive, or I would have to leave.

It is this lesson above all else that I would like to impart here — masculinity can only be abandoned when the environment is sterilized and controlled and entirely "safe." Put any feminist out in an uncontrolled and dangerous environment (like the wilderness) for a few weeks, and it won't be long before they will beg for someone with all those "toxic" masculine traits to come and help them.

In fact, though scientists rarely undertake any social experiments to explore this reality (due to science in our era being heavily tainted by identity politics and liberal bias), there are many examples of the vast differences between genders on display in survival shows such as the Bear Grylls show 'The Island'. The British reality series originally featured a group of thirteen men left on an island with nothing but a few tools and the clothes on their backs. Their goal? Work together to survive for one full month.

After accusations of "sexism", the show started its next season with a group of men and a group of women given the same task. The show had various versions and copycats in other nations, some featuring competitions between the men and the women, but the end result was invariably the same regardless of the country.

While having their own setbacks, the men's groups do decidedly better in every case, not just because of superior strength, but also superior organizational ability (an evil masculine trait). In the American 'Survivor' version of this experiment, which had the groups in proximity to each other, the women inevitably depended on the men for aid.

The reality is, when push comes to shove society cannot function without psychological traits that are decidedly masculine. This is why matriarchal (or feminized) societies generally collapse or are highly dysfunctional and regressive. For an example outside of the jungle, read this article by a female entrepreneur who had a utopian idea to build a company made up only of women - a company which suffered complete gridlock and bankruptcy only two years later from employee discord and laziness.

Because of the inadequacies of a culture without strong male presence, feminism and "social justice" as ideologies instantly lend themselves to socialism and collectivism. In fact, it's hard to separate one from the other.

Socialism provides the governmental and legal bubble that helps to protect people who cannot or will not protect themselves, and collectivism forces capable people (mostly men) to do all the hard labor necessary to keep a system functioning and safe "for the sake of the group," whether they want to participate in that group or not. In the beginning this is done through taxation, entitlement programs and the centralizing of wages into metropolitan areas. In the end, it is done through unabashed slavery. If you want to see an example of this simply look up the end result of the Stalinist and Maoist models - a productive minority is always tasked (or forced) to feed, house and clothe the non-producing majority.

And this is how these people hope to live out their entire lives — blissfully sheltered from unpredictable environments that require technical know-how, independent ingenuity or decisive and sometimes violent action.

Feminism in particular seeks the destruction of all masculinity as a prerequisite to a supposedly safer world. To illustrate, take a look at this article published by the ever-establishment, ever-collectivist Bloomberg titled "How To Make Better Men."

The article is typical propaganda, falsely associating masculinity first with institutions that do not define masculinity as well as attitudes that are not necessarily only attributed to men. The goal here, of course, is the demonization of men in general through association with already-established negative events and symbols. Bloomberg ties men and male behavior to the scandal surrounding the recent string of accusations of sexual aggression in politics and Hollywood.

To be sure, these institutions and industries in particular seem to attract a certain type of deviance, not that all the accusations made so far should be treated as fact. Prosecuting someone in the media and in the court of public opinion is not the same as prosecuting them in a court of law. The #MeToo movement is mostly a farce on par with the witch hunting displayed in The Crucible; relying solely on stirring the frothing fervor of the mob rather than generating facts and evidence.

That said, the cases that do seem to be provable illustrate a pattern of narcissism and sociopathy common in the entertainment industry and in politics, and this is a problem among men AND women within these cultural structures. Just look at Hillary Clinton and her treatment of the women that threatened her husband's career.

And despite what feminists claim, narcissism and sociopathy are not inherently masculine traits. Many women display these character flaws constantly, but in slightly different ways from men.

Is it wrong for a man to pressure a woman into sexual activity through leverage or force? Of course. But is this a "masculine" behavior, or a sociopathic behavior? Bloomberg and the feminists want to condition you to assume the two are interchangeable.

Now, many other behaviors that have been wrongly attached to rape in order to demonize men are in fact masculine and are not negative. Is it an assault for a man to tell a woman on the street she looks good? No. Is it an assault to be direct with a woman or to pursue her for a relationship? No, as long as she doesn't tell you to back the hell off then all is fair game. Is it an assault to look at a woman and think thoughts you would not share with your own mother (unless you are a freak)? No, not at all. In fact, you will find that many women PREFER a man that is direct over a man that walks on eggshells and is constantly apologizing for acting on what is biological and natural. It is feminists who are complaining about these behaviors, and feminists do not represent women in the slightest.

How do feminists plan to weed out masculine behavior that has sustained civilization since the beginning of recorded time? They hope to accomplish this through public schools. First by propagandizing children (like Bloomberg propagandizes their readers) into believing that traditionally masculine behaviors are "bad." Boys should be more calm in class, sit still, be quiet, less high strung, they should cry more and share their feelings, they should be admonished for playing violent games such as war with sticks and their imaginations, they should be taught to be vulnerable and less ambitious, they should be, for all intents and purposes, feminized.

Make no mistake, there is a highly concerted effort in the public school system to enforce the feminist ideology by sinking their fangs into the next generation of men and "training" the manliness out of them. Of course, it seems to me that if these behaviors weren't entirely natural, then the feminists would not have to put so much effort into an agenda to condition children to their side. Why not keep ideologies out of schools completely and let the children decide what comes naturally when they are older?

Beyond the circus of sexual issues dominating the media for the past few weeks or the feminist final solution, I will say that the violence of action is indeed a predominantly masculine characteristic, and honestly, we need far more of it.

It seems to me that feminism and social justice, whether knowingly or unknowingly, feed into the establishment power structure and allow it to thrive. Encouraging men to be weak, indecisive, indirect, fearful of group condemnation and fearful of their own aggression makes a society less secure and more malleable. Masculinity is often raw and unpredictable. It makes sense that potential tyrants would seek to diminish it so that they do not have to worry about sudden rebellion. In ancient times, invading armies would target the military age males of a culture and kill them off. They would then assimilate the women and children, and young boys would be raised to defend the banner of the conqueror.

Today, this is being done in a different manner. Men are being castrated symbolically in media and film, or castigated through our educational system as a nuisance. We are being encouraged to abandon all the qualities that make us a threat to the establishment, in the name of social tranquility. But of course, in the end only the establishment benefits, and "tranquility" is certainly not guaranteed once we fall on our own swords.

Believe it or not, though, I am hopeful.

The tides have been turning against the feminists and the social justice cult lately. And contrary to popular belief, this is NOT because of Donald Trump. If anything, Trump's popularity is merely a reflection of the vast and growing backlash against the extreme left and the cultural Marxism they promote.

When there is a social backlash, it usually results in people immediately educating themselves on everything the offending movement originally condemned. Meaning, if the feminists hate it then it is probably good. Will this encourage men, and the millennial generation in particular, into finally pursuing technical prowess, physical and mental toughness, independence and self sufficiency, personal security and self defense and the ambition to build something better? Will our dwindling Western populations see a resurgence of child births? Will the newest Generation Z, growing up in the midst of an increasingly difficult economic environment, adhere to more masculine traits by necessity?

If there is any indication of such a return to masculine roots, it will probably become visible in 2018 as the influence of the feminist agenda continues to wane. We shall see. If not, then the Western world is in dire trouble. For if we do not make manliness "fashionable" again and soon, it might be bred out of our culture entirely. And with this loss, a cultural death is guaranteed.