Marriage is Fraud

[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?

Answer:

Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
.

I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?

Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.

Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.

When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:

Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.

The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.

In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.

So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.

(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).

This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.

This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.

This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
.

.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”

For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”

You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.

And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!

She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival.

When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.

She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.

Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.

So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.

Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.

Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.

Have a look around the room you are in.

Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.

Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).

Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.

Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.

So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?"

My answer is a resounding NO!

Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!

It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.

You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.

The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.

Yup.

But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.

The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!”

MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!

MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!

DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.

Have nothing to do with them.

Do not oppress them with marriage.

Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.

Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?

Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.

Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.

Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.

And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.

Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.

You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.

You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.

Give them as few tax dollars as possible.

Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:

.
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.

DON'T MARRY!!!

It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.

-----------------------------------------------

Read more on this subject in the following online book, The Case for Father Custody -- by Daniel Amneus

-----------------------------------------------

Two year post-script:

Here's an insightful (though now dated) comment from zed:

QUOTE: “As I have said several times, the intent of the elite social programmers is to make children the property of the state.”

QUOTE: “…the children primarily belong to the state.”

SAYETH ZED: “What few women realize is that they also “belong” to the state. Rob Fedders has done a great analysis of the old contractual basis for marriage on his blog – as an arrangement in which men exchanged their surplus labor for women’s surplus reproductive capacity. By supporting women financially, men essentially “owned” the output of the marriage – the children.

The feminidiots have made much of the fact that women were once considered chattel of men. This was based on the support relationship because men had the same obligation to support their wives that they had toward other things living under their husbandry.

By simply pushing the man out of that role, and assigning it to the state, the status of women has not changed – only the entity who purchases “ownership” by providing support. (State Enforced Alimony & Child-support, Welfare, Affirmative Action, Sexually Discriminatory Custody/Abortion/Domestic Violence Laws etc. etc.) Women have pushed out of their lives the individuals with both a vested interest in and desire to protect them individually and struck a bargain with the state in which the state now fulfills the role previously served by the husband.

Imagine the shock the poor dears will go through when the state begins to demand the same prerogatives, now under the color of law, that husbands used to expect under social custom.”

Male and Female: Equal but Different

Males and females are polar opposites. They are as up is to down as night is to day. One thing that is common to all opposites is that by the very nature of being opposite, they must be equal. If they were not equal, it would be impossible for them to be opposite. In any given year, at any spot on earth, there are an exactly equal amount of daytime hours and nighttime hours. The same is true of males and females; they are polar opposites and therefore are equal. However, we are not talking about legal equality here, but rather the essence that makes “male” and “female” has equality unique unto itself.
.

.
In terms of intelligence, men and women are equal in that the average IQ of all males is equal to the average IQ of all females. There is a difference in how these equal intelligences are arrived at however.

Female intelligence is clustered around the mean far more than male intelligence. There is far less variation in female intelligence. To put it more simply, the female population’s intelligence tends to be concentrated in greater numbers around the average IQ of 100, while the male population has a greater range on both the high and low IQ scale. A far greater percentage of female IQ’s reside between 90 to 110 than males, while conversely, males inhabit the extremes of IQ between 70 to 130 in far greater percentage than females. The more you go to the extremes, the more it becomes virtually all male, in both high and low.

When one takes all of the IQ’s of the female population into account to find an average IQ, and then takes all of the IQ’s of the male population to find their average, the collective IQ’s of the two sexes are virtually identical, even though there are vast differences in their variability.
.

.
When one looks at “happiness,” we find the same thing as we find in intelligence.

Researchers have discovered that when they ask men to rate the periods of their lives where they feel satisfied or dissatisfied, they find that men have a major “spike” of dissatisfaction commonly known as Mid Life Crisis.

When asking the females, what they find is that women do not have a major mid life crisis like men; however, they have several “mini” mid life crises that occur at various times in their cycle of life.

When the researchers total up all of the time in a male’s life to find his “average” happiness and compare it to the female’s average happiness throughout her life, what they find is that both males and females have almost the identical average amount of happiness in their respective lives. However, the male’s midlife crisis is far more intense than anything the typical female will ever experience – but, he only goes through it once.
.

.

If we look at sin, or good and evil, what would you expect to find except again the same phenomenon?
.
When a boy is bad it is very noticeable and often in the form of an outburst or some form of physical aggression. It is very hard to miss a male’s evil because its nature is overt and it occurs as a “spike.” Male aggression is stereotypically to hit, kick, shout or destroy something. The boy may go through long periods of “nothing” followed by a spike that is hard to ignore.
.
A girl, on the other hand, uses covert aggression. More commonly this is known as “Social Aggression” or “Relational Aggression” and it is stereotypically a female form of aggression. Its nature is to use gossip or social manipulation to hurt the targeted party, and this necessarily occurs over a longer period of time and is less visible than the male’s aggression.
.
What we end up seeing is that male aggression occurs as a noticeable spike that lasts only a short time while female aggression is less intense but lasts over a longer period of time. When we average out the two forms of aggression, we again will find that both male and female are equal, but different.
.

.
The essence of “maleness” is that things occur with infrequent but large “spikes” while the essence of “femaleness” is that things occur with more frequent but less identifiable “rhythms.” When one averages them out, men and women are equal yet they have gotten to their equal averages by different means.

Now, to the point of “equal but different,” it must also be noted that male and female sex drives are equal but different in the same manner as the above examples.

Jack Kammer, in his online book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? said it best, so I will steal his example:

Male sexuality is like a pushy door to door salesman; it picks one target and gets in your face so much that you simply cannot ignore it.

Female sexuality, however, is like annoying junk mail. It is everywhere and steadily drones on and on at everybody, whether they are the intended target or not.

While males may think about the sex act itself more than women, the equal opposite is that women think about being “sexy” to the same degree.
.

.
Males and females both have equal sex drives, but they work in different ways. Even physically, men and women are equally sexual.

Men have fewer but far more intense erogenous zones, while women have erogenous zones located all over their bodies. In fact, it is fair to say that a woman’s entire body is an erogenous zone that is dispersed with lowered sexual sensitivity but over a greater area, making it equal to the man’s. This is why women are so much more into “intimacy” and the mental aspects of sex. Her entire body is involved in having sex whereas only certain, but more intense, parts of the male’s body are.

In the end of it all, men and women both have equal desires to have sex and to be sexual creatures, although they are expressed in different ways. Women have their biological clocks and get “baby rabies” that demand of them to go out and get impregnated with the same intense irrationalness that men display when they are willing to do anything to copulate with a female, including the willingness to commit treason or sell out one’s own mother.

It is horribly inaccurate for one to say that only men want sex. It is far more accurate to say that both men and women want sex equally. In fact, the only imperatives of all living things is to: 1). Survive, so that one can: 2). Reproduce. All other things are in support of these two imperatives that are universal to all living things. Males and females both have an equal desire to do this. Sex is the core of existence itself.

We may think that we humans are smarter than animals, but when it comes to sexual instinct we are animals that follow the same mating patterns as most other species in the animal kingdom.

This has become even more evident since the sexual revolution arrived and women became free from pregnancy via the pill, and free from the social stigmas associated with being a “loose” woman.

One needs only to look at studies of sexually transmitted disease by gender to see that STD’s affect a far greater percentage of the female population than the male population. There is a reason for this: 80% of the females are sleeping with 20% of the males, and those males are the alpha males in society. Humans have reverted back to the mating instincts found in most of the animal kingdom where the alpha males breed most of the females, while the beta males breed with none.
.

.
Again, you can see that male sexuality and female sexuality are “equal yet opposite.”

This “equal-opposite” aspect of sexuality is essential in understanding patriarchy and why things were set up in certain ways, which I will attempt to describe and explain in my next post.

Sex Sells...

The following quote comes from Legends of the Fall, the movie which cemented Brad Pitt’s status as a sex symbol throughout our culture. Pitt’s character, Tristan Ludlow, had long flowing hair and looked wild. He was the untamed one in the family, so tough that nothing could hurt him; he and the grizzly once shared blood and now they were one spirit.

A woman would likely be wise to stay away from such a man, this character with a raw animal streak running through his soul… but yet, there is a soft side to him, a sliver of emotion that he hides, and reveals only to the women he loves.

Yes, the quintessential love interest…

The setting of the scene from which this quote comes is one in which Tristan (Pitt) is sitting outside talking with his younger brother Samuel, who is home from college with his fiancée Susannah (Julia Ormond). Samuel, a virgin, shyly inquires of his more experienced brother about the ways of sex and how to make sure he is “good at it,” because Susannah has said she does not want to wait for marriage…

Tristan: Samuel, God bless you. You are good at everything you do. I’m sure it’ll be the same with fucking.
Samuel: Tristan, really. We’re talking about my future wife.
Tristan: Oh, you’re not going to fuck her?
Samuel: No! I’m planning to “be” with her.
Tristan: I recommend fucking.
Samuel: You’re impossible!
Tristan: You brought it up!

My goodness, Tristan!

How could you talk about a woman in such a disrespectful way?

That is not how Nice Guys™ talk about women! Nice Guys™ know that women are delicate creatures whose sexuality must be respected. For her to lower herself to a man’s level and have sex with him indicates that a Nice Guy™ must worship her body, mind and spirit as the precious jewels which they so obviously are…

And how come women still find your character so sexy, Tristan? How can you suggest taking that nubile young woman and fucking her rather than “being” with her?

I wonder how many women in the theatre smirked when they heard that line… "I'd recommend fucking."?

What’s up with that?

And to the readers of this fine blog who thought those lines were humor directed at the males in the audience, I encourage you to unplug from the fematrix and realign your mind with notion that the above scene, including the raw language, was in the movie solely for the women, with the intention of creating a character which females desire.

Society would have us believe that it is the men in society that are sex obsessed. Men are the ones who cannot control themselves. But remember, in my last piece we discussed that men and women are polar opposites who are necessarily equal but different, and thus women’s sex drives are also equal to men’s, but different.

.
While men may think about the act of sex on a frequent basis, women equally think about being sexy to a similar degree. They actively put on make-up, do their hair, wear push up bras and revealing clothes, and they are continually concerned if their jeans make their ass look big (no, your big ass makes your ass look big). The obvious motive of “looking sexy” is to attract sexual attention. What did you think it was for?

Women’s natural sexual desire, however, is to have sex with a male who is dominant over them. They don’t want to sleep with a Nice Guy™ who respects them; there is no excitement in that. They want a man who takes control of them and fucks them. “Making love” is for suckers. Wimps “make love” and talk about “being” with the glorious creature known as woman. Women would rather be dominated and get fucked.

We men rarely talk about sex, however. Men behave completely opposite of women, who talk amongst themselves about the most intimate details of the sex act, from their partner’s physical attributes and performance to the daily ins and outs of their relationships. Men, on the other hand, rarely discuss the actual details of sex nor do men relate the turgid tale of the “mating dance” which got them into their sorry predicament with a woman in the first place.

But women never shy away from talking about sex. Men fail themselves miserably by allowing feminists to dominate all talk about sexual relations between humans.

Feminists, in their attempt to destroy civilization, have tried to take this natural sexual phenomenon of women being attracted to domination and twisted it into something which it is not. They have insinuated there is something evil about the natural sexual interactions between man and woman.

One wonders how many of my good readers have ever picked up a romance novel. Not many, I would guess, as this genre of literature is aimed solely at a female audience. Romance novels are to women what Penthouse magazine is to men: Pornography intent on titillating the natural sexuality that exists within.

And who is the stereotypical masculine love object in the romance novels that women read? Well, here’s a clue… he is not a Nice Guy™!
.
.
No indeed! There is usually a Nice Guy™ somewhere in the story line – he is the one who gets replaced by the dominant rogue who at first infuriates the main character with his callousness, while at the same time intriguing her.

The plot builds as does the sexual tension between the main character and the antagonist. He is a brute, an animal… uncontrollable. She is a lady and does not consort with the likes of him – and yet, something about his demeanor makes this man linger in her mind even when she is not in his presence… and that makes her angry at him. She becomes determined not to give in to the advances of this knave. She is a princess, after all.

The Harlequin climax arrives in a scene where the woman finds herself alone with this bull of a man. There is passion, electricity… he makes his move… she resists and pushes him away, but he is not willing to back down so easily. This beast’s sexual desire for our fair maiden roars as if it were an uncontrollable inferno. He grabs her roughly in his arms. She feels his raw strength as he pulls her into his muscular chest and lowers his mouth over hers.

“No,” she mumbles half-heartedly, “I mustn’t!”

Our rogue listens not, and continues ravaging our heroine with his lips when she feels his strong hand cup her breast, causing her nipple to harden beneath her thin blouse…

She can resist no more; her own animal desires begin to overcome her rationality. She gives in and lets this beast take her. Her clothing comes of quickly and roughly amidst the passionate kisses… she is no longer in control, the universe has overwhelmed her… she feels his hardness enter her, penetrating both her body and soul as their passion develops into a surreal experience that transcends life itself…

Yes, this is women's porn!

And in women’s porn, she gets dominated. In fact, by all legal standards of the modern day, women’s porn involves being sexually assaulted and then raped by a man who ends up completely owning her entire existence.

And women buy these books and read them for a sexual thrill – men don’t write this shit, nor do they buy it or read it.

This is the essence of female sexual seduction: He makes his move… she resists… he doesn’t take no for an answer… she resists some more… his animal desire for her prevents him from stopping… she says no again, but this time only half heartedly… he continues, and she finally gives in and submits, so overwhelmed is she with desire that things are completely out of her control.

She gets dominated by a man who is superior to her.

And notice that the dominate man is not “with” her.

Nope.

He fucks her.

Perhaps this is why the sexual fantasizing of being “forced” to have sex is so popular with women. Being “forced” to have sex is essentially rape, and yet numerous women actually masturbate to the fantasy of this crime.

Have you ever masturbated to the thought of your car getting stolen?

The eroticism of being dominated and “forced” is that it allows the submissive to do things they would not normally do – to come out of their shell, as it were. She may deny that she is the type of girl who will willingly do certain kinky things, but if she is being dominated and is told to do them then she can partake in these deep desires without having to blame herself for it – she was “forced” to do it, after all. (This is the essence of most BDSM, btw).

Another favourite fantasy among women is getting a good spanking from her man.
.

.
Yes, the amount of ladies that are turned on by thought of being put over a man’s knee and having her bare bottom smacked is truly amazing. And… how dominant of the man and submissive of her.

All Pick Up Artists (PUA’s) know that women desire to be dominated – this is the PUA’s entire game. The techniques may vary, but essentially all successful PUA’s spend their time around a woman establishing dominance over her.

The PUA does not monkey around with “respecting” her and glorifying her with trite comments of her being a “strong woman.” That’s what Nice Guy’s™ do. The PUA lets a woman know pretty quickly that he wants sex from her. He is a lover, not a friend. He finds something to tease her about, putting her down in a fun way, to establish dominance. When they walk off the dance floor, he puts his hand on the small of her back so he can gently direct where she walks - taking control of her. He basically spends his entire “game” displaying that he is superior to her – be it physically, emotionally, cerebrally or whatever else. The PUA knows that if she views him as superior to her, he can have her panties around her ankles in no time.

In fact, the act of sex itself can be viewed as the ultimate act of dominance and submission between a man and a woman.

Think about it. What could be more submissive than to be a woman who’s body is penetrated and humped madly until she is left full of a man’s semen, essentially leaving her “bred.”

The sex act itself is domination and submission, and while a man may find it erotic to look down and see the submissive woman he is screwing, the equal opposite is that she finds it erotic to look up at the dominant man who is screwing her. Notice that in the act of sex it is usually considered to be the man that is “doing” her, rather than the other way around.

This is the essence of hypergamy. Hypergamy is basically a desire for dominance from one’s mate.

Women are definitely hypergamous.

Don’t believe me?

Have a look at the next 10 couples you meet.

Who is taller, the male or the female? You will notice that females nearly universally date men that are taller than them. A 5’ 10” woman will be dating a 6’1” male. A 5’ 6” woman will date a 5’ 8” male. But it is pretty rare to find the 5’ 10” woman dating the 5’ 8” male.
.
.
Who makes more money, the male or the female? You will find nearly universally that the man makes more money than the female. Male lawyers date female secretaries. Male doctors date female nurses. Male factory workers date waitresses. This is nearly universal. What is hard to find is the female doctor dating the male nurse, or the female CEO dating the struggling male poet.

.
.
Who is more intelligent, the male or the female? It is pretty common even for females to admit that they must date men who are smarter than themselves.

Why do women nearly universally list confidence as a sexually attractive trait in a male? Because confident males are dominant males, that’s why. Confidence is derived from the power one possesses.

Females are naturally attracted to males that are dominant over them.

Feminists are furious at this natural phenomenon in much the same way they are furious that women are the natural bearers of children. From their anger against heterosexuality, they have attacked both men and women by trying to criminalize human sexual behaviour.

Feminists tell women that the kind of sex they naturally desire, the kind women themselves read and fantasize about it in Harlequin romance novels, is in fact rape:

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike… [T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” – Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” – Susan Griffith, Rape: The All-American Crime

Without the typically virulent feminist anger, the following concept could easily be described in an erotic way, suitable for a romance novel:

“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex, therefore, does so against her own will. , ‘even if she does not feel forced.’” – Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

Even the dominating act of a man filling a woman with his semen, the very act that causes life itself, is sought to be criminalized and degraded by feminists:

“Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence and the spray of semen…” – Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing By Radical Women of Color

How odd then that most women seem to downright prefer to have bareback sex. Why, it is as if they actually enjoy getting this terrifying semen inside their bodies!

Yes indeed. And when a woman actually has good, enjoyable sex – the kind that grips her body with a shuddering orgasm - this is apparently a bad thing according to feminists as well:

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” – Sheila Jeffrys

Perhaps she is eroticizing her own “oppression” because it is what naturally gets her rocks off. Why is it chic and cool to keep a vibrator in the nightstand, but “oppressive” and degrading to orgasm from the natural act of sex?

Men did not plant this idea in women’s head that they must be submissive. In fact, since most men are beta-male Nice Guys™ who talk and act respectfully to women while never getting laid by them, it is pretty obvious that it is not men who are responsible for this phenomenon of domination-submission that causes women to get turned on. Most Nice Guys™ believe the exact opposite – that if he glorifies and praises her, she will like him more. Wrong!

No, men did not “force” women into submission – women naturally desire men who are better than them. They want men who are taller than them, who are smarter than them, who are richer than them. Women sexually desire men who are more powerful than them – and this power naturally exudes from a man who possesses it in the form of confidence.

Yes, hypergamy.

This does not mean that all men make more money than women, nor that all men are smarter or more powerful than women… it just means that a woman does not find men who have failed to surpass her own power to be sexually attractive to her. A 5’10” woman is obviously taller than a 5’8” man, but the odds are that she is not sleeping with short stuff. She is most likely sleeping with the 6’1” man that lives next door to him while the short man is likely dating a woman even shorter than himself.

Dominance has an equal opposite: Submission.

In my next post, I will attempt to explain how hypergamy existed in the past, and how it has been manipulated in the present as a weapon against men, women and civilization.

Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers

In my last post, we discussed the phenomenon of women possessing equal sex drives to men, yet different by virtue of being hypergamous.

The essence of hypergamy is that women are attracted to males who are dominant over them. Dominant males are Alpha males.
.

.
But what is it really that “makes” an Alpha male?

Is one “naturally” an Alpha male or does the Alpha male come into existence because of the sum of certain Alpha qualities that he possesses?

I believe the answer is obvious. It is the nature of certain qualities, or features that are Alpha related, which together add up to create an Alpha male. Not all males who are strong and muscular are Alpha males just because of that one feature they possess. In fact, some body builders are the wimpiest mangina Beta males I have ever met. They couldn’t get a woman naked if their life depended on it.

All males possess both Alpha and Beta qualities. The more Alpha qualities, the more overall Alpha-like that male becomes. The less Alpha qualities, the more Beta-like he becomes.

Often when it is discussed why males of the past were placed in positions of headship in the family and society, we declare that it’s because of men’s linear thinking ability. That his natural appeal to reason and rationality makes him better suited for these positions as opposed to women, whose multi-tasking brains are based more on emotion than cold, hard logic.

I don’t disagree with that assumption. However, I would like to propose that there could also be a further motive for such a divide in gender roles.

Perhaps society was also structured in such a way to create more “Alpha qualities” amongst the greater population of males, thus making a greater range of the male population sexually attractive to the females.

With mainly men in the workplace earning money instead of women, a broader spectrum of the male population would appeal to females because of the Alpha quality of money/resources they would possess.

With mainly men in positions of power in society (government etc.), more men would appeal to women’s sexual desires because of the power they possessed.

Who was it that said “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”?

Why, it was Henry Kissinger.

Now I’m not sure, but somehow I don’t think that Kissinger is particularly the type of man that could be considered classically handsome.

And yet, he managed to nail uber-fembot, Gloria Steinem.

.
Poor little Ms. Steinem, despite all that pink slipper stomping, she was still a slave to her biology. Ain’t Mother Nature a bitch?

You see, there is not much genetic diversity in the natural herd-like system which works with women only humping the 20% of males that are Alphas. There is plenty of diversity from the male side of the equation, but little diversity from the female’s side.

.
It seems that women’s sexual nature has compensated for this by use of Rotating Polyandry, whereby women skip from Alpha male to Alpha male, ensuring that their lifetime supply of 400 eggs get fertilized not by just one male but several, in a rotating mating cycle.

Rotating Polyandry is an interesting concept whereby the whole notion of “love” is based on a mating cycle of a few years – enough for a woman to be protected and provided for during the time when she is absolutely the most vulnerable. This period would be when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then nurses and cares for the child until it is no longer solely dependent on her for survival. (I.e. The child can walk, talk, and feed itself). This should all take around 4 years or so from start to finish.

Then she moves on to the next male and repeats the process. (Sound familiar?) By going to the next male, she would ensure some genetic diversity amongst her offspring and thereby, increase her chances of passing on her genes throughout the ages.

In fact, the whole way that love works seems to support this theory. Love to men is based on what he gives. Love to women is based on what she gets. Plus, it has been noted many times that women don’t really love men. Only gay men love men. Rather, women love being loved. And since, to a woman, being loved means that she “gets,” it is fair to say that women actually love money and the trinkets that being in love gets them.

Women’s love is parasitic.

Men’s love is the host.

And this would make sense. If women’s love is based on this parasitic function to ensure her and the child’s survival, she would seek out the male with the most power and the most resources. Males with these qualities are Alpha males. They are the prime targets for a woman to wish to be “in love” with.

But anyway, back to the main point of why there might have been a sexual reason for placing men in a position of headship in society and the family.

These positions that men have traditionally held, those of wealth creation, of positions of power in society, that of the “head” of the family and so on, are all positions that naturally add to the Alpha qualities of males – all males.

Thus, with more males possessing Alpha qualities through their societal role of headship, there are more males for the females to be sexually attracted to.
.
.
Once this is accomplished, we achieve our genetic diversity amongst the population by bringing more of the males directly into the breeding process, rather than relying on women’s tendency for Rotating Polyandry.
.

.

What this model does is it brings more of the males in society into marriage by providing more females who are sexually interested in them, and therefore more men in society also have children that are their own and become motivated to work.

Once men have their own children, men willingly become yoked to them and will do whatever it takes to ensure their survival. This is what Daniel Amneus calls “putting sex to work” in his online book, The Case for Father Custody

With male headship in society and the family, more females are attracted to more males and therefore more males get put to work.

And, of course, due to the male’s linear thinking brain, which invented everything around you with more than two moving parts, when all of the men in society start working and inventing and so on, sooner or later you will wind up with that great thing we call civilization.
.

.
Now, let’s go back to the concept of Rotating Polyandry and the parasitic nature of women’s sexuality.

Women’s sexuality is designed to take resources from the male in order that she and her child might survive.

Men’s “Alpha qualities” are based on his power and resources.

The more that a man gives to a woman, the less he has himself. In a sense, he gives his Alpha qualities to the woman and in doing so he becomes more Beta. Slowly on, his Beta qualities will overcome his Alpha qualities and the woman will find him less desirable compared to other males out there who haven’t had the Alpha sucked out of them yet.

We see this phenomenon over and over again.

Women are complete sex fiends while dating a man, and then soon after marriage she becomes less interested in sex.

Why? Because she is now in direct possession of many of his Alpha qualities. They were transferred to her via marriage. His work (paycheck) becomes her equal possession whereas before marriage, this resource was his alone. His power to leave her is gone and therefore he has less negotiating power over her when she is being shrewish. It goes on and on.

With men in positions of headship in society and the family however, there are certain elements of his Alpha qualities that the woman cannot suck out of him. No matter what, he will still be the breadwinner, he will still be the one with power in society and he will still be the dominant figure within the home. Certain parts of a man’s Alpha qualities were protected from being gobbled up by the woman.

Therefore, he still remains more Alpha in the woman’s eyes and thus her sexual attraction for him remains greater. This would enable the relationship to endure longer than it would naturally and this is something that is needed for the full potential of the “putting sex to work” concept to be realized.

With the runaway feminism we see in the modern day, this destruction of men’s Alpha qualities is even further magnified.

A woman earning $60,000 a year does not find a man earning $50,000 a year to possess an Alpha quality because of it.

With the full force of the corrupted DV Industry behind her, the wife's manipulation of State force far exceeds any physical dominance he previously had. In fact, she is the physically dominant one within this paradigm because State force allows her to push, kick, yell, scream, threaten and intimidate with impunity. He must meekly cower and accept it or the State will come in and beat the crap out of him on her behalf. There is nothing too Alpha in regard to the man in this situation at all.

With the Divorce/Alimony/Child Custody Industry behind her, a man’s paycheck (his resource dominance) becomes hers whether she keeps him around or not. Another Alpha quality removed from men by feminism and the State.

With the television running 24/7 in most homes, even men’s intellectual dominance is under attack. Remember that most women declare they don’t find men attractive unless he is smarter than her? Well, the only males that are portrayed as intelligent on television are single men. Husbands are portrayed as dumb oafs on TV and women are constantly encouraged to scorn their husbands as too stupid to do anything right. Let’s not even get into the subject of D’Oprah Winfrey.

In fact, most of the Psychology and Therapy Industries support this “stupid husband” attack on men as well. Virtually all couples/marriage therapists attack the husband by default, declaring that the problems in the marriage are his fault because he is too stupid to know how to read his wife’s ever changing emotional state with ESP. She changes her emotional state more times than her underwear, yet men are somehow stupid for not knowing that what she wants now is entirely different than what she wanted a half hour ago. Let’s not even get into the subject of Dr. Phil and the extra nonsense he brings into the arena.

Feminism supports all of this nonsense because they are married to Marxism, which wishes to destroy Capitalism and civilization.

They fully well know that destroying marriage will bring us back to this:
.
.
And they know that when society adheres to this sexual model, men won’t be putting “sex to work” and our civilization will return to this:
.
.
But hey, that’s all fine and good as long there is gobs of commitment free sex and women don’t have to feel oppressed in any way.

Marriage is already a natural “Beta Maker,” and presents many challenges to men and women’s sexuality.

Feminism took these problems and intensified them to the point of the absurd.

At least with savages practicing Rotating Polyandry in the past, once the woman had parasitically sucked all the Alpha qualities out of a man, the discarded male was at least free from her and could go about rebuilding his resources and his life again.

Not so anymore with Feminism. Nope, now after a man is discarded, the woman can keep a leech like sucker attached to him via the State, while she finds another Alpha male to turn into a mere Beta.

How Does Marxism and Critical Theory Work?

Uccelline from "A Bird's Nest"blog replied to my charge that feminism IS communism with the following conclusion: "...I think the proper response to the rhetorical spectre of communism in a discussion of feminism is, “that’s just a red herring.”

http://abirdsnest.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/responses-to-the-commenters-on-the-guilty-pleasures-post/

I maintain that the communist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS communism" would be the "red herring."

First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read:

http://www.newswithviews.com/community_policing/community_policing.htm

It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:

1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.

Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."

That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of man that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his uses of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.

Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.

2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.

3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of "mass psychology" with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory_(Frankfurt_School) The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.

4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group. AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical torture out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values: 1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence, 2 - MOVING the subject to the next level, 3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs. (Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)

---

So, could you destroy something absolute, like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.

It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which Mr. Rob Fedders files his taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.


Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges a made up of segments, in fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."
The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange. The "truth is relative," remember? She tells me that it is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional.

As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. Rob doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what a BIGOT!

The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."

I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!

---

Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."

Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."

"We shall destroy you from within!" Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.

Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116 (***Note: Patai & Koertge write from a critical perspective of the aforementioned logic and use it in the context of an example. See Daphne Patai's website here: http://www.daphnepatai.com/ And read about her work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai )

Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary theme:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:

- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?

- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"

- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?

- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?

- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal, because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.

- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry, only 2 or 3 years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family." All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots.

(Also, see my piece: "A New Kind of Bigotry" http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )

These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?

Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that Gay Marriage's are not equal - because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon," you will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.

Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.

Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that gov't be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people. The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!

No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.

TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!

Dissimulation

Definition From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissimulation

Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It differs from simulation, in which one exhibits false information. Dissimulation commonly takes the form of concealing one's ability in order to gain the element of surprise over an opponent.

Examples:

Dissimulation can be used as an effective form of amusement (see Candid Camera); it is also used in corporate environments for training and measurement activities (e.g. "mystery shoppers".)

Pool hustling might be seen as a form of dissimulation, because the hustler conceals their real talent. Yet it may also (or instead) be considered a form of simulation, because every pool hustle conveys false information about the hustler's abilities.

Ethical Concerns:

The practice of dissimulation raises ethical (and possibly moral) concerns, due to its use of deception as a means to an end. Examples of such consequences include entrapment, and the psychological abuse attributed to manipulation.

The perceived inherent dishonesty in the practice of [destructive] dissimulation allows it to be conflated with notion of lies. However, the dishonesty comes from the employment of half truths — which involves omission of facts essential for a full description or account. In such instances, the ethics of such conduct is considered questionable at best.

-------------------------

All men could do well to familiarize themselves with the definition of Dissimulation.

When one reads the writings of those who studied the differences between the sexes before Women's Studies existed, it was as readily accepted that dissimulation was as much of a female characteristic as overt aggression was a male characteristic.

This is where the long forgotten (due to censorship) arguments of women's amorality derive from. Dissimulation is a form of female power, and it is inherently dishonest.

Political Correctoids can whine all they want that "you can't say that," but, if they looked at things honestly, the women in their past who've jacked them over have most likely employed many forms of dissimulation on them - and deep down, the Political Correctoid knows this, but likely has difficulty admitting it. Dissimulation is also a very apt description of the Feminist Movement in general.

Throw out the beliefs about "Gender is a Social Construct" (which is dissimulation in itself for it is based on half-truths), and one would be forced to acknowledge that dissimulation is a female behaviour characteristic which is used to counter the power of the physically superior male.

BTW, yes I do believe that Schopenhauer is smarter than Dworkin, Kant is smarter than Morgan and Hegel is smarter than French.

------------------------------------------

From Schopenhauer's Essay on Women:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter7.html

It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.

So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic for the very stupid as the very clever.

Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.

---------------------------------

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)

----------------------------------

Schopenhauer = 1, Dworkin = 0

Which came first? Dishonesty or Dissimulation?

Dissimulation in women leads to dishonesty in men. Dishonesty in men leads to dissimulation in women. It is a chicken and egg argument to a "T."

I think that we all know what the definition of dishonesty is, so I don't feel the need to try and define it. Dissimulation in women, however, is not often defined so I wish to state exactly what I mean by this. What I mean by dissimulation in women is when they are behaving like pool hustlers. When they are "faking" their position while their intentions truly lie elsewhere. This typically starts when a man and a woman begin the "dance" of getting to know eachother. She tells him she is interested in a non-sexual relationship and only wants some companionship. This is dissimulation if what she is really interested in is establishing whether the man is worthy enough for her to be sexual with. She wants him to prove her worth to him with the hoops he will jump through to "win her." This will establish her emotional and sexual superiority over him and weigh the balance of power in any possible future relationship decidedly in her favour. It is like Br'er Rabbit. "Please don't throw me in the briar patch." Dissimulation to a "T."

It is the way almost every relationship starts off. She is attracted to the man, and dissimulates that she does not want him, that men who chase her sexually are not worthy of her. The only response a man can have, if he actually wants to get closer to what he (and she) wants is to be dishonest.

"I'm not like that," he replies, "I like you for your mind. For your intelligence and wit. I want to get to know you because you are a strong woman."

It is the only response that will keep the game going. Be honest with her here, and he will never get her. If he were completely open and honest and told her he was attracted to her sexually, the game would be over. The next pussy starved schlub she talks to will be dishonest with her and tell her it is only "her mind" that interests him, and he will be the one that gets to see her panties slide down her legs to the floor. Maybe not that very day, but probably in a few weeks, after she has satisfied that he is worthy because of "his efforts." She didn't really want someone who was interested in her mind. She was interested in the sexuality of a man being attracted to her and chasing her. She gets a "high" from it, from making him work as a result of her dissimulation. Her value goes up in this process, while his goes down.

And so, the only men that she ever gets involved with are men who are lying to her. They are the only ones who get over the first hurdles she puts up with dissimulation. Why does she feel it is so necessary to dissimulate? Because dissimulation is the only way she can counter the hoards of dishonest men she meets. All of the men she has ever been with have been forced to lie to her to actually "be with her." The men who didn't lie to her, and were honest, never made it past the time they spoke to her honestly - even though what they were after was virtually the same thing all along. Therefore, she believes that all men are lying pigs, only interested in her for what is between her legs. Dissimulation is her most effective weapon in countering male dishonesty in the mating dance.

But for the man, he knows soon enough that if he does not "play the game," he will be the man who grows into a 40 year old virgin while the girls he dared to be honest with will be sleeping with the men who didn't care at all that they were being dishonest to her. He realizes that women aren't really saying what they mean, and the only way to counter that and actually get to what they both want, is to be dishonest about his intentions until he gets to the end of the initial dance and "gets her." The only way to counter female dissimulation is by being dishonest.

And so it goes, with men and women starting their relationships this way, continuing like this while the relationship exists, and then ending the whole shebang in the same manner. How many marriages decline into celibacy with the husband believing she is not interested in sex, only for him to find out she was having an affair, or that "after the divorce" she turned into an oversexed nymphomaniac? Is there any other proper, effective way for the man to respond to this except to be dishonest about his emotions and act like she didn't matter a hoot to him? That dishonesty about the pain will bother her because she needs to know that she hurt him with her actions... and if she doesn't see that, she will start to dissimulate, often slyly trying to use her new lover to make her ex insane with jealousy. Once the ex blows up in anger, she knows that he did care that she hurt him and she can move on without him. But both sides will realize how much dissimulation or dishonesty they were exposed to in the relationship and be twice as "on guard" to protect themselves the next time around, and of course, that will only lead to more intense dissimulation and dishonesty with future partners.

I do, however, believe that some dissimulation and dishonesty is neccessary. This has been the way it has been since men and women have existed on earth, I believe. We would not try to change the mating habits of ducks, and neither should we with humans.

The problem lies, I believe, in that with the social system we currently live in, there becomes far to much dissimulation/dishonesty to bear in one lifetime.

When one looks at the high stress situations in the average person's life, the top situation is the death of a spouse, the second is divorce/end of a relationship, and I believe that around number 3 is fearing the loss of respect and acceptance amongst one's peers. (I remember health being up there too, but not sure where anymore). These things are directly about people's personal relationships with others. To humans, their interactions with those around them are far more important than virtually anything else in their lives. Humans are social creatures.

I look at my own parents relationship, compared to the typical serial monogamy style of relationships today.

Now my parents did not have a perfect marriage. They argued and got angry about things just like everyone else. In their 48 years together, they had good years and they had bad years. But, what my parents had different in their lives was lowered amounts of dissimulation, dishonesty and the betrayals that such behaviours naturally cause.

They got married when my Dad was 20 and my Mom was 19. They had both dated other people before they met, but considering their ages, I don't think it would have been more than one or two people at most. I don't know if either was "in love" with someone previous to their meeting. Possibly, who knows.

Think of what they missed out on that people don't escape today!

They don't know what it is like to be lied to, betrayed by someone so close, to know the anguish of having their hearts ripped out. They have no idea what it is like to be hurt by someone so close and to lie awake at night in anguish, knowing that someone you know so intimately is most likely, at that very moment, lying naked in bed next to a person they betrayed you for. They don't have any idea of the gut wrenching emotions involved with losing access to their children - not until the children were prepared to leave the nest at the proper time anyway.

Never experiencing extreme amounts of dishonesty or dissimulation from those who hold the key to their hearts allowed them to emotionally mature. They were able to grow to accept that men and women behave differently without it always leaving them in extreme emotional pain. They might have had some feelings that it was necessary to protect "their" position, but it would never rise to the extreme levels of dishonesty and dissimulation which men and women will naturally cling to if they experience the emotionally devastating levels of loss, betrayal and bitterness towards the opposite sex that the average modern 30 year old will already have experienced today, due to serial monogamy and the games that come with the mating dance.

I don't think that humans are supposed to be subjected to so many emotional highs and lows throughout their lives. Certainly, a single/divorced 30-something in today's world must be dealing with 4 or 5 times the emotional pain by that age, than the vast majority of people from previous generations ever would have experienced in their entire lifetimes. The lack of pain would lead to more trusting, less dishonesty and less dissimulation. Time obligates, of course, but also does drastically reducing the amount of times one's fingers get burnt in the fire. With the amount of dishonesty and dissimulation necessary to be successful in a society that promotes serial monogamy, one must naturally become callous and uncaring to the opposite sex and such behaviour can only cause more of the same. It becomes a vicious circle in which no-one will ever utimately win.

Of course, it all makes sense why Cultural Marxists integrated so much Freud/sexology into their plans, of which one plan was to split apart the genders. People who have been burned several times already before they actually do "try" are far more likely to fail, because of a lack of complete trust, than those who are not so fearful of those kinds of bad memories.

Age is a Social Construct

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of "age" struggles.

I believe in championing the cause of child suffrage. In this day of "equality" it is an outrage that children don't have equal rights with adults. I believe in equality and all human beings are equal, and therefore children should have equal rights.

Age is nothing more than a social construct, designed by adults, to enable the adult oppression of children which has been present for thousands of years. What is age, after all? What does 10 years old mean? It means the earth has circled the sun 10 times, it means the earth has spun around on its axis between 3,652 to 3,653 times. That the earth circles the sun, or that there is existence of night and day, is of zero consequence to personal development and has nothing to do with a human's ability to reason.

Therefore, it is obvious that age is a social construct, created and perpetuated by adults, to enable the oppression of the young since the beginning of time. These talks about the young not possessing the same capacaties as adults are corrupt. That adults state the young are amoral is an idea born of ageism, and such ideas must be driven from society.

Equality for the young! Give the young equal rights and privileges under the law, including the vote.

Don't you believe in equality? How can you believe in equality if you regard the young as second class citizens to adults? You ageist pig! Adults have been oppressing the young with violence (spanking) and they believe it is their "right" to punish the young at their whim.

To adults, the young are property to be owned. Just as chattel, adults see in the young nothing more than a means of production (chores). Adults believe the young exist solely for the furthering of adult pleasure. The young are forced to wash dishes so the adults can relax and revel in their percieved superiority over others, they are forced to mow lawns under the heat of the sun while adults sip ice tea spiked with gin.

Adulthood is based on violence, power and domination. The young are dominated by their parents' leering eyes and their authoritarian voices. We live in an adult culture and adulthood must be abolished!

If the young had the vote, there would be no war. The young wouldn't allow it!


[Fast Forward to the year 2020]

Hurray! The young have been granted full equality under the law! Let us embrace this new modernized society which reveres the dignity of the young and regards them to be fully "equal" with adults, who had been oppressing them for thousands of years!


[Fast Forward to the year 2070AD]

Andy Dorquin (8 years old), world renowned professor of Young and Ageism Studies at Harvard University releases another of many recent studies illustrating that although the young have had the vote for 50 years, there is still much left to do before the full equality of the young will be realized.

It is obvious that there is institutionalized oppression of the young for we can see that the young only earn $0.15 on the dollar to that of adults, and the young are vastly under-represented in both CEO positions as well as Political Offices. The only way to counter this is to pass Affirmative Action laws which counter "institutionalized adult privilege."


[Fast Forward to the year 2071AD]

Politicians throughout the Western World pass "No Fault Youth Emancipation Laws" even though, strangely, there is no massive outcry from the general public for such a reformation of family law. Youth emancipations from their parents instantly rise 500%, and because of the coupling of the afore mentioned law with the principle of "best interests of the child," parents are legally obliged to financially support their emancipated progeny who they now never even see. In most cases, parents are ejected from their own home because the court will rule that it is in the best interest of the child to have their own house.

To ensure that adults don't become dead-beat parents, the government creates Youth Maintenance Offices to extract monies from parents. The Youth Maintenance Office is granted the legal power to garnishee wages, imprison the rotten dead-beat parents, and suspend driver's licenses and passports to give it some teeth.


[Fast Forward to the year 2073AD]

The Supreme Court rules in the landmark case: Row vs. Waid, that youth have the unilateral right to choose to euthanize their parents at any time in their parents' natural life. The ruling is based on the notion that it is unjust for an adult parent to spend their progeny's inheritance, which rightfully belongs to the next generation.

My parents, my choice!


[Fast Forward to the decade of 2080-89]

The youthist movement, in an effort to eradicate institutionalized adulthood, begin to Newspeak the English Language. Even the words "year" and "day" are viewed as oppressively ageist, so they are renamed "Solar Revolution" and "Terrestrial Revolution" respectively.

Many radicals within the yoothist movement begin to refer to themselves as "yunge" rather than young; "yooth" rather than youth. Often, the yunge are seen sporting t-shirts with a slogan reading: "This is What a Yooth Looks Like."

Some adults begin to realize that things are going horribly wrong with civilization and begin to try to reason with the yunge. Since yooth now have equal rights even within the parents' own home, yooth have begun demanding that the only food to be served in the house should be chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 365 Terrestrial Revolutions a Solar Revolution. Parents, believing the propaganda hype that the yunge are "equal," think that they can reason with them by explaining that chocolate cake can be great, but too much will make them fat and unhealthy thereby leading to a worse life for all of them. Most yooth respond with yelling and shrieking accusations of "ageism." Some yooth, however, take heed and agree to eat one brussel sprout with their usual helpings of chocolate cake. The parents are pleased that they have made at least some progress and have a renewed hope for the future... until they watch with horror as the yooth pulls out a bottle of chocolate syrup and smothers the brussel sprout with it.

"What?" The yooth snarls at the parents, "I'm eating the damn sprout." The parents are shocked by the yooth's eyes, which betray a contempt for them that extends into the soul itself.


[Fast Forward to Solar Revolution 2094AD]

The Violence Against Youth Act (VAYA) is passed in an attempt to curb the institutionalized Adult Violence against Youth which is rampant throughout society.

Scolding becomes recognized as abuse and yooth are granted the ability to file restraining orders against their parents if they fear that they might get scolded.

Refusal to raise a yooth's allowance becomes deemed "financial abuse," a form of psychological abuse.


[Fast Forward to Solar Revolution 2107AD]

To date, over 40 Million parents have been euthanized at the hands of the yunge.

Approximately 1 in 2 yooth are emancipated from their parents and although the courts force parents to financially support the yunge after emancipation, a large portion of the emancipated yooth are living in abject poverty inside of filthy, unsanitary, government provided box-apartments.

Cities and rural communities alike are teaming with crime.

Adults fear even talking to children because VAYA laws have been twisted and distorted to such a degree that even normal speach can land an adult in prison if the yunge decides to be in a vindictive mood.

Western Civilization has stagnated and is no longer economically viable because of Affirmative Action laws designed to get rid of the $0.15 Wage Gap, and adults often are choosing careers in manual farm labor so they don't have to work beside the yunge who gravitate to the more pleasant intellectual of jobs, which would be better served by adults. In places where the yunge are present in large numbers, there is a direct increase in the number of "yooth harassment" charges resulting from anything which a yunge person finds dissaggreable. Sometimes "yooth harassment" charges are leveled against an adult, whose life gets shattered, just out of a yooth's desire for attention. Adults don't know how to behave around the yunge at all anymore and many adults have chosen reproductive sterilization as the answer, to counter their growing fears of having the little monsters even more in their life than they already are.

Some yooth are beginning to realize that things are getting worse, rather than better. These are usually the ones that are on the brink of adulthood themselves. Occassionally you will hear one of them acknowledge that it is time for an "Adult Rights Movement," but they almost always follow up with: "As long as it doesn't take away from Yooth Rights."

A philosophy has recently arisen called AGTOW (Adults Going Their Own Way), consisting of adults who choose to be ethical sociopaths, turning their backs on the cultural decay which is present at every turn, from the workplace to the media, from the government to the churches, from the yooth run schools that don't teach anything to even the hostility of the yunge to them as they walk down the street. If this is a better society, they can all rot with it...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rewind to the year 2007 and the present situation society is facing]

Now, of course, I do not mean to say that women are children. But when I talk about the amorality and dissimulation found within women, I don't think it is a stretch to say that there are some serious moral challenges which women naturally face. Lol! Even look at the difference in the MRM where the men are constantly running around scolding eachother to 'not say that' about women. That is men adhering to their sense of justice and morality and they are quite concerned about "fighting fair." Note that the feminist movement was never afflicted with this, because women in general didn't really care about how badly the feminists were trashing their own husbands, sons, fathers and brothers.

But what on God's Green Earth makes people think that men and women are the same in all things? In their mentality, in their needs, wants and abilities?

Psychological differences between the Sexes ARE NOT a social construct. (Gender, however, is a Feminist Construct).

I do not believe it was a mere coincidence that the Suffragette Movement was born at virtually the same moment as the birth of Marxism. (Yes, I know there was "talk" before that, just as there was Socialist-Transcendentalism decades before Marxism).

Have a look at what Marx says:

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx

He says he is going to take the philosophies of the day, up to the 19th Century, and use them to manipulate the world according to his designs, and with the goal of changing society into something never seen before - to defeat God and Nature.

What century were people like Schopenhauer from? You know, the ones who openly philosophized about female dissimulation and amorality?

Who heavily influenced Marx with his philosophies about the Dialectical? Why, it was Hegel! And what did Hegel believe about women?

"... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel

It is also interesting to note that Hegel believed that the origin of the Universe was God - the Absolute Spirit. Yet, what did the evil rot-bag bastard, Karl Marx say?

"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." -- Karl Marx

One can spend countless hours sifting through the writings of the philosophers and what they believed about women. In virtually every case you will see a commonly acknowledged theme of women's challenges with "justice" and "morality." And, I mean you can go way back!

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx

It is only in the past few decades that these views have been eradicated from our consciousness. Why is that? Look at what is going on around us! The "old philosophers" beliefs seem to hold much more truth and value in them than what spews out of the mouths of the modern gender-idiots in Cloud Cuckoo-land. Society is not better because of feminist inspired amorality and dissimulation.

Isn't it amazing how the leftist brownshirts will screech and holler anyone down who notices any difference between men and women, yet at the same time they also screech down anyone who questions the Theory of Evolution?

If you are a leftist who regards Evolution as "fact," you would also have to acknowledge that men and women's behavioural instincts would have "evolved" to help them survive. What Schopenhauer says about women having the "tool of dissimulation" to counter the physical supremacy of males makes perfectly good sense from the evolutionary theory of Survival of the Fittest.

How can "gender" be a "social construct" when the same fembots who are shoving that nonsense down our throats are also smugly telling us that testosterone makes men more violent, or that women are superior multi-taskers and communicators?

Lol! "Gender" is a feminist construct - nothing more. One that has been dreamed up to enable the manipulations of women's worst natural traits in order to transform society and bring about the Marxist Utopia of "Equality." In a way, I feel sorry for women that they have been manipulated by these evil people to become what we now know as the "modern woman." They knew that men would never turn on women, therefore, they used women's natural weaknesses to turn women on men. Women will never turn on children, either, but it is possible to turn children on women. What do you think is the purpose of attaching the "Rights of the Child" to the UN's CEDAW Agreement? It is to begin to create a situation such as described above.

The Plot goes as follows:

Men (cares for) --> Woman (cares for) --> Children

Step #1: Use feminism to manipulate what was known about women to create this:

Men <-- (pushed away by) Women --> Children

Step #2: Use children's rights (and divorced parents rights) to manipulate children to create this:

Man <-- (pushed away by) Women <-- (pushed away by) Children Step #3: Rule Utopia with the Iron Fist of Totalitarianism (notable is that totalitarianism was recognized as a female trait - more security, and thus women are quite prone to enable a dictatorship to come about.)

They had to start with women. It would not have worked in any other way.
.
"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

Tell me again that you are an Egalitarian. Please describe equality to me. Are children equal to adults? Should they have equal rights?

Bears and Foxes both get their food from the same forest, but go about it in vastly different ways. Now try and make the fox get his food in the same way as the bear. Good luck!

The sooner that the MRM gets their head around that notion, the better.

The Fine Art of TV Repair

Is something wrong in your house?

.

Is there a constant subtle drone always permeating throughout what should be your retreat from the harsh world?

.

Do you think that Man Hatred is just everywhere?

.

Chances are, your TV is broken!

.

Therefore, No Ma'am will provide you with an easy, illustrated, 4-step method to fixing your "best friend."

.

.

--------------------------------------------------------

.

STEP #1: Get the Proper Tools

.
.

The best tools for TV Repair can likely be found in the backyard shed. Two favourites are the pick-axe and the sledgehammer. Also find some gloves and safety goggles - The Safety Bear recommends this, so I will defer to his judgement in regard to safety.

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Step #2: Swinging the Pick-Axe

.
.

Take a few steps to the side of your friend and grasp the pick-axe firmy with both hands. Your aim should be directly for center of the screen, as this is where the heart of the problem is..The swing is performed much like a golf swing. Keep your eye on the center of the screen from the beginning of the swing right through to the end.

.

Bring the pick-axe behind you and begin your swing. Your upper body should shift the energy through your shoulders while at the same time, the weight of your body should shift from your back foot through to your front foot. Remember to keep your eye on the center of the screen throughout your swing!.The above illustration is an example of the results of a good first swing. The pick-axe should penetrate to the heart of the problem with a depth of at least 6 inches. A professional TV Repair Man consistently hits 10 inchers, but 6 inches is the minimum penetration needed.

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Step #3: Sweeping the Field

.
.

Sometimes it is best to change tools and grab your sledgehammer for this task.

.

You must remove all of the glass to fully repair your TV.

.

Don't be afraid to choke up on the hammer nor to get down on your knees to get every last piece of glass out of there. There is nothing "sissy" about this. The only "sissy" thing would be to not do a thorough and complete job. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

.

Notice the craftsmanship of this professional job in that he has even removed the knobs. This attention to detail is the mark of true guildsmanship, but you need not be this fancy. Removing the glass will most likely fix your problem completely.

.

This is also an excellent time to have a look around inside the TV. You will realize that there is really nothing of substance behind the glass.

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Step #4: Call the Wife

.

With the most manly bellow you can muster, holler out the following words:

.

"Woman! Come Hither!"
.

A real professional might manage to include the following:."And bring me a cold one!"

.

But your main job is to have the wife come and look at your craftsmanship.

.

You can now gently explain to the missus that you believe in the "Eek-Wallet-Tee" of both sexes equally doing the housework. Point out that you have done your 50%, and the other 50% is the clean up - so hop to it!

.
.

Be sure to stay with the missus while she works.

.

This is where the cold one would have come in handy, as it would give you something to do rather than just stand there doing nothing.

.

Don't be afraid to direct your wife to any teeny tiny piece of glass that she may have missed. You might impart some manly wisdom at her here by telling her that "anything worth doing is worth doing well!"

.

.

-----------------------------------------------------------

.
You're all done!

.

Go back into the house and see if that annoying drone of man-hatred has disappeared.

.

And rest assured, it will only get better from here!

.

Good job, Mr Repairman!

The Jiggly Room

.

.

Ah, yes. Boobs!

.

Two things that are constantly on the minds of both genders are a woman's breasts. Of course, fembots have been convincing women that men are pigs because they can't keep their eyes off of a woman's chest when they talk to her. Bad, bad, men! They treat women like nothing more than sex objects!
.

.

Yes, men are pigs!

.
But, why aren't women considered to be pigs when they expose the fleshy globes for the whole world to see? Does anyone really believe that a woman "innocently" didn't realize that she was advertising her jahoobies when she pulled on a blouse like this in the morning?

.

.

Women, unlike men, never buy clothes without trying them on first. When the above (appropriately faceless) woman bought that blouse, she first pulled it on in a dressing room, stood in front of a mirror, and I guarantee you that her eyes were fixed on her boobs in the mirror's reflection. It is no accident when a woman displays cleavage. It is not like accidentally walking around with your fly unzipped.

.
Back in the day, before I unplugged from the fematrix, I used to make damn sure that I never looked at woman's boobs when talking to her, no matter how flagrantly she displayed them. I listened to the ceaseless propaganda about how degrading it was for a man to talk to a woman's chest instead of her face, and I let non-logical PCism cloud my mind and not think about the woman's role in all of it.

.
Women are intensely aware of their boobs. Before puberty, girls ache for their first training bra. Flat chested teenage girls are viciously jealous of the girl who blooms early and receives male attention for it. At the same time, the earlier bloomer hears the propaganda about how degrading it is for men to like her breasts and goes into her first, of many to come, victim modes and allows her clouded female brain to be contradictory by believing she's a victim of her boobs while secretly loving it and playing on her sexual power over the boys at the same time. Of course, the woman who remains flat chested into adulthood believes she is equally victimized because she doesn't receive similar male attention.

.
Women buy bras that make their boobs look firmer than what they are, that lift and separate them to make them more appealing, there are padded ones to make them bigger, and they can even buy ones with built-in hard nipples. Women are intensely aware of their boobs and the power that they wield. Boob jobs are the number one plastic surgery done in our femi-narcististic world.

.

When this woman left the house in the morning, she knew she was putting her boobs on display for the world. Go ahead. Have a good, long look at them! That's what she wants - no matter what her flapping gums might be currently whining about.
.

.

"Talk to my face, not my chest. Pig!" Says the appropriately faceless creature.

.

This reminds of what I once read in Jack Kammer's excellent book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make All The Rules, http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf in which Mr. Kammer makes a keen observation about the difference between Men & Women's sexuality. He says that when a man "comes on to a woman," it is like dealing with an annoyingly pushy door to door salesman who targets one customer and digs his heels in trying to convince the one person in front of him. But women's sexuality is advertised like annoying junk mail (or internet spam). It is ever present. You cannot escape it. She advertises to the whole world and whether the recipient wants to recieve her advertisement or not is of little concern to her. She targets everyone and plays the numbers game of "if I advertise to 100 people, I will get one nibble - and if I advertise to 1,000 people, I will get 10 nibbles."

.

So, let's get it straight. Women who show off the jahoobies, are trolling for sexual attention. It is very rare for a woman to "accidently" let someone see her fleshy globes. A woman who wears a tight, form fitting blouse like the following, fully well knows that her blouse accentuates her breasts:

.

.

And when a woman leans forward and "accidentally" lets you look clear down her blouse to her belly button, like the following, it is no accident either.

.
.

Don't believe me that it is no accident? Then ask yourself why only women with "boobs to be proud of" allow this. How come flat chested women never "accidentally" flash the mammaries? How come older women, whose boobs are well passed their prime years, are never giving you shots like that? How come men aren't wearing shirts that show off the man-boobs every time they lean over? Because the women whose cleavage & boobs you do see are quite aware that they are "accidentally-on purpose" doing it. That's why.

.

"Now, Rob," you say, "what's the big deal?"

.

Well, as some of you may know. The only Television I watch anymore is the Business News Network. A few weeks ago I was watching and listening for business reports of various natures when, in typical TV propaganda fashion, the filthy TV programmers decided it would be prudent to have a short 5-minute interview with some stunned female academic who was "an expert" on workplace etiquette. It didn't take this harpy with a BS in Academia more than one breath after introducing herself before she femi-moaned about sexual harrasment in the workplace, like when male co-workers are looking down a woman's blouse.

.
I just can't tell you how much it annoys me that the only "intellectual" thing that "academic" women seem capable of discussing, when interviewed, is women's victimhood in some way at the hands of those awful males. I taught the TV screen a few things about how foul my mouth can get when confronted with sexist women like that.

.

But it reminded me of a place where I worked once, and where I had a lower-level manager who was a woman.

.

Now, this woman came to work each day like a tarted up little whore. Her blouses would be unbuttoned down to the maximum point - as in, undo one more button and she would be displaying below the bottom of her bra - you know the type. This woman, every day, wore very short skirts - very short. Short enough that everyone knew she was wearing stockings instead of pantyhose, because the lacy top of the stockings would sometimes come into display if she bent over to pick something up etc.

.

But what this woman, a manager, used to do to me was complete sexual harassment. Passive sexual harrassment. On several occasions, when in her office discussing various work related issues, this woman would lean back in her chair, locking her hands behind her head like she was stretching - and lean way back, with a short skirt, legs open, and display clear shots up her skirt of the crotch of her panties.

.

.

I don't believe it was an accident. Exhibitionism is a top female sexual fantasy.
.

And here becomes the situation: You have to talk to a woman, out of work related neccessity, who is either leaning forward to talk to you, and fully displaying her cleavage to you - or she is leaning back and talking to you, fully displaying the crotch of her panties. Yet, you are expected to only be looking her in the eyes while she is displaying herself like a Penthouse Centerfold. She is looking at your face, and if you should allow your eyes to betray that you are fully aware that she is displaying herself sexually, YOU could be charged with sexual harassment in the workplace and not her! You could lose your job, wind up being sued, and have difficulty securing another job - the stakes are positively huge!

.

Now, the thoroughly corrupted feminist legal system has ambiguously defined Sexual Harassment in the Workplace as "that which would make a reasonable woman uncomfortable." But what about men? This woman made me uncomfortable in the workplace! I even contemplated discussing it with higher level management but I decided against it, contemplating that if I allowed them to know that I had been seeing down this woman's blouse and up her skirt, that I would get the boot for sexually harassing her. So I kept my mouth shut and endured the tightrope that this sexually flagrant harlot forced me to walk. And it did affect my professional performance, because I dreaded dealing with her, and that did affect the bottom line profitability of that particular business. I go to work to make money, not to ogle women. And the owner of the company started the business to make money, not to provide some tramp a venue to fulfill her exhibitionism fetish.

.

And here is where we get back into "amorality." As I previously pointed out, women don't put themselves on display by accident. All women know this. Women are very aware of how to hide their bad features and accentuate their desireable features. The boobs you see are boobs you are meant to see. Yet, should some woman level a charge of sexual harassment against a man for looking at the boobs that you were meant to see, all the other women will quickly rally around the "afronted" woman and support her over the male pig. Even though they full well know "the game." At best, the other women will remain silent and not call the exhibitionist woman on her bullshit and let the man go down in flames. That is amoral behaviour, people.

.

Women should be discriminated against in the workplace until they all start dressing for business instead of dressing for attention. It's about time that women start showing up in suits, and with a tie, so that they are forced to "button up." Otherwise, given the sexual harassment bias of our legal system, coupled with female sexual fetishes and natural amorality, women are a profit draining lawsuit waiting to happen and it is justifiable to unemploy their asses.

Back in the U.S.S.R. (Oh the Irony, Sir McCartney, of Your Russian Styled Divorce)

The following excerpt, from Bill Wood's statement to the Committee on Ways and Means at the US House of Representatives, illustrates how chillingly our current social structure mirrors that of the Soviet Union after the anti-family measures V.I. Lenin foisted upon his people with the intentional purpose of completely deconstructing society:

.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954

.

FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE REFORM FROM MARXISM?

.

Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.

Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform. Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate. On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation's primary socio-political goals.

“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America. The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare. When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[vii] America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.

• When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family… with fierce hatred, and set out… to destroy it… [O]ne of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term 'illegitimate children... by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it… The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation… At the same time a law was passed which made divorce [very quick]… at the request of either partner in a marriage…

• [Marriage became a game where it] was not… unusual… for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions. [T]he peasants… bitterly complained: 'Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.'

• Many women… found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children... The law has created still more confusion because… women can claim support for children born many years ago.

• …Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories.

• …Another new point was that wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other… The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support. Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the 'burgeois customs' of Europe and America.

• Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony. [viii]

The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies. What a frightening use of our “tax dollars at work” to undermine and destroy the social order of America. Even going so far as to pay incentives on a slightly reformed version of Article 81 of The Russian Family Code. This was promoted in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel as “The Wisconsin Model” for child support and welfare reform. “The Wisconsin Model then became a center-piece for the national child support and welfare reform movement.” [ix]

ADOPTING THE FAILED SOVIET ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE FAMILY

.

Instead of our constitutionally guaranteed “Republican form of government,” we now have a thoroughly entrenched Marxist Communist judiciary in the civil court system masquerading as “family law.” America’s family law courts are no longer about the law, they represent complete perversions of numerous legal maxims and common law traditions that American law was founded upon. [x] These abandoned maxims represent the “hegemony” of American culture and historical tradition in civil family matters. The reprehensible evil of being rewarded for one’s wrongs, and of punishing the innocent have been firmly entrenched in the state’s family courts.

.

No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system. For example from a 1975 Louisville Law School review:

• “Few members of the American legal community are aware of the fact that the Soviet Union has had, for some period of time, what can be described as a no-fault divorce legal system… [A]t a meeting with a group of Soviet lawyers in 1972, one of them asked, “Is it for a long time that you (California) have that system?” When informed of the January 1, 1970 effective date of the California law she remarked, “I think it is the influence of our law… [T]here are a number of similarities between Soviet and California divorce laws that suggest a “borrowing” or a remarkable coincidence.” (pg 32)

• “For the Bolsheviks, with their Marxist disdain for reli­gion, the influence of the ecclesiastical authorities over the family was an outrage. Since the family represented the major institution through which the traditions of the past were transmitted from generation to generation, the new re­gime had to destroy the old bourgeois notions of the family and the home. There was also a very urgent practical reason for disassociating family relations from the influence of the religious authorities… [T]he first task of the new regime in relation to the family was to break the power of the church and the husband.” (pg 33)

• “Birth alone was declared the basis of family ties, and all legal discrimi­nation against illegitimate children was abolished... Early Soviet policy was intended to at­tack these evils [of “patriarchy”] and to transfer the care, education and main­tenance of children from home to society. This would mean the end of the family’s socialization functions, and would remove the child from the conservative atmosphere of the patriarchal family to a setting that could be entirely con­trolled by the regime.” (pg 34)

• The Soviet press reported in the mid-thirties that promiscu­ity flourished... juvenile delinquency mounted, and statistical studies showed that the major source of delin­quents was the broken or inattentive home… Additional public homes for children were established, and propaganda cam­paigns sought to persuade the public that a strong family was the most communistically inspired one. (pg 38, 39)

• There was also the matter of seven to nine million fatherless and homeless children, according to Russian estimates of the early twenties. In derogation of Marxist ideology, the state had been unable to assist single mothers, and there existed almost no children’s homes, nurseries or kindergartens. Because of more pressing tasks and limited personnel and material resources the state had not been able to fulfill the conditions Engels had specified for extrafamilial facilities. (pg 40)

• More seriously, anti-family policies were leading to a situation where many children in the first Soviet urban generation simply lacked the kind of socializing experience to fit them intellectually or emotionally to the new society the regime was attempting to build, with its emphasis upon self-discipline and control, perseverance, steadiness, punctuality and accuracy. While the family influence had been under­mined, extrafamilial agencies had failed to provide a workable substitute, leaving the child prey to the noxious and deviant influences of “the street.” (pg 41) [xi]

The US Library of Congress Country Studies on Romania also shows direct parallels noting;

• “Family law in socialist Romania was modeled after Soviet family legislation… [I]t sought to undermine the influence of religion on family life. [Previously] the church was the center of community life, and marriage, divorce, and recording of births were matters for religious authorities. Under communism these events became affairs of the state, and legislation designed to wipe out the accumulated traditions and ancient codes was enacted. The communist regime required marriage to be legalized in a civil ceremony at the local registry prior to, or preferably instead of, the customary church wedding.

• Because of the more liberal procedures, the divorce rate grew dramatically, tripling by 1960, and the number of abortions also increased rapidly. Concern for population reproduction and future labor supplies prompted the state to revise the Romanian Family Code to foster more stable personal relationships and strengthen the family. At the end of 1966, abortion was virtually outlawed, and a new divorce decree made the dissolution of marriage exceedingly difficult.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read Mr. Wood's entire piece here:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954

The Multi-Tasking Pink Proletariat

It is interesting to read descriptions of modern day feminism. Many times you will read that feminism has now branched out in other areas of Civil Rights and that they champion the causes of Ethnic Diversity, Gay/Lesbian/Trans-sexual Rights and they combat Racism.
.
It all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? The Pink Proletariat is branching out and finally caring about others instead of their usual screeching of “ME, ME, ME!” We should applaud them… or should we?
.

Maybe we should have a look at the big picture.

.
The first thing that we must acknowledge is that Marxism did not fail when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. The whole idea of Marxism is to collapse all of mankind's superstructures, including the State, to enable Marx's "new kind of man" to walk on Utopia (Heaven on Earth).
.
"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." -- V.I. Lenin
.
Marxism fully intends to collapse the State. All of the States around the world! Karl Marx outlines that to collapse the State, you use the known economic failure of Socialism to collapse the State.
.
"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism." -- Karl Marx
.
The real failure of Marxism was that it engulfed only 1/3 of the world before the state of the Soviet Union collapsed, which was planned all along by Marx!
.
That was a pretty damn good first run, if you ask me!
.
We also make a mistake in calling the Soviet form of government "Communism." This is incorrect. What the Soviet Union had was pure Socialism. True Socialism means that the government will control every aspect of your life, from when you wake up until you go to bed, from when you are born until you die. Socialism is complete control of the individual by the State.
.
What Communism means, from the purely Marxist perspective, is Globalization!
.
"[After Communism succeeds] ...then, there will come a peace across the earth." -- Josef Stalin
.
Yes, the word "Globalization" is nothing more than a prettier sounding synonym for "Communism."
.
And, to go on a bit of a quick sidetrack here, isn't it great how we have become fully addicted to propaganda? Goebbels would be wiping the drool from his chin if he could have had access to the type of propaganda we are subjected to.
.
In World War II, bombers used to drop leaflets. In Vietnam, Saigon Sue was chattering on the radio at American G.I.'s in between playing their favourite songs... but today, the whole population in the West runs home after work and automatically does what?

.
Yes, the idiot box comes on the second we walk in the door. It holds us in a hypnotic trance, requiring that the viewer shut off all private thought and conversation and let the propaganda box fill our minds with its message. We now eat dinner in the living room rather than gathering at the dinner table where we can converse while eating... It is a great babysitter for the kids... It does not get turned off until we go to bed, and even then, many of us have another propaganda box in the bedroom that we watch until drifting off to sleep, often with the box still on throughout the night, filling our subconscious with still more messages.
.

And what messages are we being told?

.

.
...Men are bad... men are rapists... men are violent... men hurt women and children... men are evil... the boogey monster beneath your bed is a typical male... the world is becoming increasingly global (communist)... globalization (communism) is happening... we have to prepare for globalization (communism)... accept globalization (communism)... globalization (COMMUNISM) is here!!!... there is no escaping globalization (COMMUNISM)...
. .
HEY ROB! Will you SHUT UP already? I can't watch TV while you are continually yacking at me!

. .
CLICK!
.
Sorry, I got a bit sidetracked by the real opium of the masses for a minute there. Now let's get back to the big picture, shall we?
. .
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev

.
"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep." -- Mikhail Gorbachev

.

Now, where was I?

.

Oh yes. The goal of Marxism is to have Marxist ideologies engulf the people of the world, and then when you have them "suspended" in absolute equality, you use Socialism, a known economic failure, to collapse the State.

.

Currently, human society is/was structured like this:

.

Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World

.

The ultimate longterm goal of Marxism is to create a human society that looks like this:

.

Individual --> World

.

The only thing left, aside from the individual, will be a select group of elites at the top who will govern every aspect of the individual's lives across the entire globe. This is Utopia, and mankind will be walking upon it in Communist bliss.

.

Now, the elites at the top need to set up shop somewhere, so perhaps they might pick a fancy shmancy building like this one, from which to decide how the insignificant peons of the world should live:

.

.

Hey, I'm just saying... it would be a good place, wouldn't it?

.

Remember now, the failure of Marxism was not the collapse of the Soviet Union - that was a success!

.

"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." -- - Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849

.

The failure was that Marxism failed to spread across the whole world like a wildfire during/after the First World War, as Marx had predicted it would. This is why brilliant Marxist theorists such Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs set about to tackle the problem of what caused the Marxist malfunction which resulted in only 1/3 of the world taking up the Marxist cause. While Marx had stopped at saying the destruction of economics/Capitalism would cause Marxism to engulf the world, Gramsci and Lukacs theorized that certain other factors, which Karl Marx had failed to identify, had stopped Marxism cold.

.

The following factors were present throughout Western Culture and needed to be destroyed for Marxism to succeed in engulfing the world, so said Gramsci and Lukacs, and later the Frankfurt School: Christianity, Capitalism, Authority, the Family, Patriarchy, Hierarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual Restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity, Ethnocentrism, Convention and Conservatism.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/cultural_marxism.htm

.

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." -- Josef Stalin

.
Now, if we could just assume that Rob Fedders, in his infinite wisdom, is correct when he says that Feminism is Communism.

.

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." -- - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." -- - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

.

By such an assumption, it would also be safe to say that "feminism" is nothing more than a false front for a subversive Marxist movement. (***Note to Harpies: I am not saying that women should not have rights, but rather that the evils of Marxism has hidden behind "women's rights" to push through a master plan intent on collapsing our great civilization, all under the rubric of "equality." Sigh, keep reading.)

.

So, if this is true, then does it not make sense for "modern day" feminists to say that they also stand for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Trans-sexual rights as well as stating that they fight racism? They are also determined to end "white privilege."

.

This sounds like a divergence from "women's equality," which in the sense of that aspect it certainly is, but note that they still have their eye on the ultimate goal: Globalization/Communism.

.

Feminism was never about "women's rights," it was always about Communism, and it still is. Just like, despite what Lenin told the people, the Russian Revolution was not about freeing the people from Tsarist Tyranny.

.

"Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligentsia." -- V. I. Lenin, "Robert Conquest," The Harvest of Sorrow, (London: Arrow Books, 1988), p.234

.

The reason for Gay rights support is obvious, I believe. Gay rights is being used to further undermine the family by Critical Theory - to further divide it, and then redefine the smaller "divisions" until there is nothing left of the family which makes any sense whatsoever.

.

Lol! Feminism has pretty much run its path of destruction through the family. It is hard for me to imagine what else feminism could possibly do to destroy the family anymore than it already has. There are few loose ends to tie up, like getting things like State Run Daycare pushed through to ensure that women are no longer given the option of being a Stay At Home Mom. Off to be a slave in the fields with you, peon-ette! But for the most part, feminism has succeeded in mortally wounding the family.

.

So, the next thing to do is to undermine what is left of the family by completely redefining what ever little bits and pieces of it are left. (Read my piece, "What is Marxism and How Does It Work? http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-marxism-and-how-does-it-work.html )

.

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

.

.

"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

.

"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of the family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

.

(Also, read my piece, "A New Kind of Bigotry," here: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )

.

And for the ultimate in supreme irony. I predict that when the family is completely demolished, the powers that be will use "Useful Idiots" from the "Men's Movement" to completely slam the door shut and take full totalitarian control of the family by granting those men who are clamoring for Male DV Shelters/Laws & "Equitable" Divorce & Custody Laws what they are asking for. I predict that some unwitting baby-boomer with a Ph D in something will be allowed to make headway with the MRM, position himself as a "leader," and will bring a "male styled feminism" into society. And that will be it! There will be full government control of every aspect of people's close relationships & family. Remember, the trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that both sides find themselves running to the government to get their piece. This is the "Totalitarian Trap."

.

It should be noted that with the Totalitarian Trap, the eternal drive to "equalize" is met by first pushing down one side, and then pushing down the other side until they are "equal." Equality is never reached by restoring rights. It is achieved by removing rights. Always.

.

The best thing that women could do to preserve their "rights," is to fully abandon feminist lies and throw their full weight at demolishing the Marxist creep. Because women are next on the Marxist destruction list. But this would require allying themselves with those icky men that they've been gleefully bashing for the past 4 decades. (Let's see if you've got the "right stuff," ladies.)

.

Ahem...

.

And now onto Racism & Ethnic Diversity.

.

Now, you're going to say, "Rob, surely you're not a racist white supremacist."

.

No, I am not. I couldn't give a tinker's damn about people's skin color.

.

What I do give a damn about is multi-culturalism.

.

.

Multi-culturalism is another thing that is "designed" to create conflict. It is a natural agent provacateur. And once the "conflict" begins, the government gets to rush in and "solve" the problem... with... guess what... here it comes... MORE LAWS!

.

And yet, somehow, we get Politically Corrected sunshine blown up our wazoos telling us that there is "strength in diversity." What a supreme load of bullshit! And it all evades criticism by hiding behind people's natural fears of being called a racist. Much like how people are mentally censored from speaking out against feminism by brownshirts screeching at disenters that they are misogynists.

.

There is no strength in cultural diversity! Open up any history textbook and look for the causes of World War One... which one jumps out at you? Could it be the one that details "Unrest in the Balkans?"

.

.

Yes, ask the people from the former Yugoslavia how great Cultural Diversity is.

.

.

Or ask the people in the Middle East.

.

..

Or tell me what the Paris Riots were about? Oh yes, the Paris Riots were about the strength of cultural diversity.

.
.

Why don't other countries around the world seek this strength? Why is it only predominently Caucasian Western World Nations that need to "seek" this strength? Why not the Japanese? Why not African countries? Why aren't they offering incentives for people from all over the world to move to their countries and encourage them to maintain a completely separate sub-culture contrary to the majority of the nation's population?

.

Because it's utter nonsense, that's why. It plays on the subtly propagandized message that tells white people to feel guilty for being white. Shame on you, bow down and repent of your White Privilege. Lol! Why don't they tell the Japanese to repent from their Japanese Privilege?

.

Multi-culturalism causes conflict. This is not news, it's been know to cause conflict for centuries. But Marxism needs conflict to work.

.

If you have a look throughout the history of the West, you will notice a distinct shift that occured a few decades ago... it occured around the same time as the rise of Second Wave Feminism... when all of those people, what are they called again? The bloomers... the late bloomers... the cry-baby generation... damn, it's on the tip of my tongue. It'll come to me. Anyway, I remember that they were all severely smacked up the side of their intellect by heavy Marxist indoctrination through the Peace Movement and previous Frankfurt School Marxist thinkers like Herbert Marcuse... all aided by a good spattering of illicit drugs.

.

Out of this age, it seems that the drift from the "melting pot" to the "cultural mosaic" began to occur.

.

If we have a bit of a closer look, what were some of the "pillars" which the Cultural Marxists declared needed to be destroyed, amongst others?

.

Patriotism, Nationalism and Ethnocentrism.

.

When my family immigrated to Canada after the Second World War, they spoke no English and were from a different culture. But they assimilated themselves into being Canadians very quickly! For me, a second generation Canadian, that is exactly what I am: CANADIAN! And damn freakin' proud of it! I am a foreigner to my parents' native country. I have no desire to be anything but Canadian, except perhaps a Western Canadian if Ottawa continues be a bunch of asshats. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/solution-to-save-western-civilization.html

.

.

This is how most immigrants who came to the "New World" were encouraged to behave, up until the last few decades. And we built one helluva powerhouse of a civilization out of nothing here in North America by doing it this way, didn't we? Now that is some culture we should not be ashamed of at all. Brave pioneers, seeking adventure, carving their own futures. Why are we propagandized to believe we have a trash culture in North America? We have a very brave and honourable culture! It was also strong enough to "naturally" resist the Marxist wildfire after WWI.

.

All throughout North American history there has been a direct effort to accept immigrants mainly from Europe, because even if the language is different, there are still many similarities like the same basic religion, the same geographic origination (European), etc. etc. This was done on purpose, not out of white supremacy, but out of the desire to take in immigrants who will easily assimilate to the Canadian Culture (or its copycat little brother, the 11th province, American Culture. Heh, heh.)

.

But over the past few decades, there has been a distinct shift in Canadian immigration policy, specifically since Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a Marxist admirer, took over Canada and slammed it full of Socialism, a known economic failure. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/pierre-elliot-trudeau-cultural-marxist.html

.

Keep in mind that Trudeau spent the late 40's studying MARXISM!

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

.

"Trudeau was interested in Marxist ideas in the late 1940s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, he was a supporter of the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party — which became the New Democratic Party. During the 1950s, he was blacklisted by the US and prevented from entering the country because of a visit to a conference in Moscow... ...and because he subscribed to a number of leftist publications..."

.

And what did Trudeau the Traitor do as soon as he began to rise to power?

.

"He [Trudeau] introduced legislation permitting therapeutic abortions, legalizing adult consensual homosexual acts, allowing the dissemination of birth-control materials and contraceptive information, and authorizing judicial divorce based on a range of fault and no-fault grounds." (The Globe and Mail: Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1919-2000, by Lorraine Weinrib, Oct 2000)
.

Trudeau did all things Marxist, it appears. The Status of Women Canada was created by this Traitor. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created by this Traitor, which got rid of the old documents which already guaranteed us the same freedoms - except the new Charter was carefully worded by Trudeau to allow for Hegelian-Marxist Dialectical Arguments - which allows minority groups to over-rule the will of the majority by technically manipulating the document itself. All things Marxist!

.

And what else did this Traitor bring to us? Why, he introduced multi-culturalism to Canada.

.

"The government will support and encourage the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitatity to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expressions and values with other Canadians and so contribute to a richer life for us all.'' -- Pierre Elliot Trudeau

.

What a complete load of horseshit! At the time when Trudeau took office, Canada was one of the most prosperous and powerful nations on earth!

.

We were doing pretty good with the "melting pot." The melting pot was our "structure and vitality."

.

Why abandon it and replace it with the "cultural mosaic?"

.

Patriotism, Nationalism, Ethnocentrism. Pillars of Western Civilization which Cultural Marxists had identified as needing to be destroyed.

.

After 30 years of the Cultural Mosaic, the word "Canadian" has very little more meaning than a typical gerund. French-Canadian, Italian-Canadian, Indo-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, First Nations, Lebanese-Canadian... All specifically encouraged to maintain a sub-culture which is contradictory to what was the Canadian Culture, effectively destroying any uniqueness we used to have.

.

Will the Canadian-Canadians please stand up to be counted? (Hey, why am I the only one standing up?)

.

Multi-culturalism has given Canada a globalized identity! Whatever uniqueness we once had, that which bound us together as a people, has been replaced with nothingness and everything at the same time.

.

And notice, as a country, we now prefer to hinder those from Western Europe, who are highly educated and skilled, from immigrating to our country while at the same time we are willing to allow thousands upon thousands of immigrants from nations where people are not highly educated or skilled - from the Third World. People who are as radically different from us in their culture as possible!

.

This is goes along nicely with the Marxist Utopia Masterplan, which is to equalize everone and everything and then collapse all of society's superstructures:

.

Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World

.

Individual --> World

.

For Marxism to work, the poorer Third World Nations must also be equalized with the richer Western Nations. (This is what is so scary about the UN's relentless drive to create world taxes - with the stated goal of using the money from the richer countries to equalize the wealth to the Third World. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm And remember, people - the power to tax is the power to govern - and we don't vote for these guys!)

.

In the perfect Marxist world, the West would be made to be poorer, and would be filled up with dirt cheap labour from the Third World.

.

Now, dear reader, I can tell I am boring you... and you are saying, "OK, Rob. But what does all this have to do with feminism?"

.

Well, I'm about to tell you, grasshopper.

.

We have a Demographic Trap looming up in the future that will force Globalization (Communism) upon us.

.

.

I hope you are all beginning to see that this is all one big perpetual motion machine that keeps chugging along down the road to Globalization/Communism - and a worse future for all of us.

.

Thanks to Feminism, the nuclear family has been mortally wounded. Since the advent of Second Wave Feminism a few decades ago, our birthrates have plummeted from 3.9 per couple to 1.5 per couple. And it is not getting better, it is getting worse!

.

.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1599121,00.html

.

"Two-thirds of Canada's rapid population increase over the past five years came from immigration — a force that in coming decades will account for almost all of the country's growth..."
.

From the same article: With births slowing, Canada is reaching a unique situation, said Laurent Martel, a Statistics Canada analyst. "We're heading towards a point where immigration will be the only source of growth in Canada," he said."

.

Again from the same article: The country's shift toward immigration as the only source of growth is still a couple of decades away. That point will not be reached until after 2030, when the peak of the baby boomers born in the 1950s and early 1960s reach the end of their lives.

.

"You're going to see an increase in the number of deaths in Canada, and the number of deaths will exceed the number of births — so natural increase will become negative," said Martel. "The only factor of growth will then be immigration."

.

At the same time, let's consider what else has been happening - here in Canada it was a direct result of Trudeau the Treacherous Traitor:

.

http://www.westcan.org/westcan/WSP/AuSeOc00WSP.htm

.

In 1968, when Trudeau went from rich, socialist professor to prime minister, Canada's national debt was a modest $11.3 billion; the federal deficit was zero. When Trudeau left office in 1984, the debt had mushroomed to $128 billion; the deficit to $25 billion annually.

.

When Trudeau entered office, Ottawa spent 30% of Canada's total economic output (the same as the U.S.). When he left, government spending had skyrocketed to almost 53%. With half of Canadians working directly or indirectly for Ottawa, the nation became infected with state-sponsored laziness.

.

* After Trudeau retired, his unstoppable socialist juggernaut picked up speed. Canada's federal debt - the amount Ottawa borrowed in the past that remains unpaid - has skyrocketed to $576 billion, or $54,000 per taxpayer.

.
A third of your federal taxes go to paying interest on this debt - just like on a credit card with an unpaid balance. In 1999 alone, Canadians paid $41.5 billion on debt interest, four times what Ottawa spent on defence.

.
Add $2.3 trillion of unfunded pension liabilities, and the figure rises to a staggering $244,000 owed per taxpayer. Canada's "just and compassionate" society is built on a mountain of debt, passed on to future generations.

.
* In 1970, Canada had one of the lowest debts - and lowest tax rates - among industrial nations. Today, Canada ranks as one of three leading debtor nations, along with socialist-run Belgium and Italy. While Ottawa's annual deficit was ended by imposing crushing taxes, the monster debt hangover remains... ...At Ottawa's puny repayment rate, it will take Canada 288 more years [to pay off the debt].

.

THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRAP!!! (and these financial figures are old - from Oct 2000)

.

Do you see the machine?

.

Do you see the trap?

.

Whether there are 30 million Canadians or 15 million Canadians, the debt figure does not change!

.
But I guarantee you this: It will be far more difficult for 15 million Canadians to struggle with servicing the debt than it will be for 30 million Canadians to do so.

.

We do not reproduce nearly enough to be able grow our population on our own. Therefore, if we take in zero immigrants we would soon go flat broke as this ridiculous debt would crush us with a smaller population and destroy Capitalism!

.

The solution, of course, is to keep on taking in more immigrants to maintain a population that can cope with this debt - of course they will continually be encouraged to maintain their multi-national identities under Canada's policy of the "Cultural Mosaic," forcing Canadian Identity to become even more obscure than it already is. (Anyone... Anyone... further destruction of Patriotism, Nationalism and Ethnocentrism... pillars of Western Civilization which Cultural Marxists declared must be destroyed for Marxism to win.)

.

Now, please also note, these immigrants only slow down the destruction of Capitalism. They will not solve the problem at all. We will not be taking in immigrants from other Western Nations, remember. We will be taking in immigrants from Third World Nations who are uneducated and unskilled compared to us. Therefore, they will not come as high-earning, high tax paying workers. They will come as very low paid workers. But a low paid individual earning $20,000/yr still uses as much of our inefficient yet extravagent Socialist Welfare Services, such as our Healthcare, as a skilled worker earning $60,000/yr. In fact, in order to maintain our GDP, we would have to take in 3 unskilled immigrants to equal the output of 1 skilled labourer... and we would be taxing our entirely useless Socialist Service system at three times the rate! This means higher taxes for EVERYONE. The higher the taxes, the less efficient is the Capitalist system.

.

Eventually, we will no longer be able to sustain ourselves, and Capitalism will collapse.

.

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." -- V.I. Lenin

.

Western Civilization Pillars identified for destruction by Marxists: Christianity, Capitalism, the Family, Authority, Patriarchy, Hierarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual Restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity, Ethnocentrism, Convention and Conservatism.

.

The Marxist goal is to change us from this:

.

Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World

.

...into this:

.

Individual --> World

.

"We shall destroy you from within." -- Nikita Krushchev, during the Kitchen Debate, 1959

.

Cultural Marxism is a SOCIAL NUCLEAR BOMB! -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2007

.

.

Now, dear reader. I can see that you are eagerly awaiting to see what solutions I propose. Yes, I can tell from the drool that has escaped the side of your mouth and now glistens as a droplet on the edge of your chin..

.

Alas, I do not have all the answers because I have not yet reached the end of the internet, which is where I assume the answer sheet will be located.

.

I do have some ideas, however. I mean, how could I be contemplating running for Leader of the Universe if I did not have some ideas?

.

But first, let me ask you a question.

.

.

Was there a television set playing in the background while you read this?

.

************************************************************************

.

Read Dworkin's idea of Utopia:

.

"...[W]omen and men are distinct species or races ... men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself... in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to 'encourage' women to 'collaborate' with men--no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her 'energy' which must not be dissipated keeping 'weaker' women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears." -- from a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that met in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977; Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, - Take Back The Day - Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea (1977), (Dutton Publishing, 1989) p.146

.

*******************************************************************

.

One of These Statements Literally Represents Totalitarianism...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men..." -- United States Declaration of Independence

"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights PROVIDED BY THE STATE ... the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law." -- Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

---

.

The following link is an excellent read describing the difference between Individualism and Collectivism, and really is a must read. This is really where people can see how totalitarianists such as feminists, amongst other things Communist, have been slowly eroding our rights - while not having been given the original authority to do so!

The Chasm - The Future Is Calling - by G. Edward Griffin

http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

.

*******************************************************************

Feminists Are Cat Lovers

Yes, Marxists & Feminists (same thing) are cat lovers. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact it is somewhat endearing, isn't it? But that they are cat lovers is for certain. I know it's true because they are determined to create as many Crazy Cat Ladies as they possibly can to care for the furry little critters.
.

Well, either that or they are major shareholders in this company and are trying to make the stock soar:

.

http://www.funrockn.com/action_figures/pages/cat_lady.html

.

Lol! I might buy some shares myself - I think this is a growth industry! Call your broker.

.

It makes me wonder though... how come there is no phrase like "Deranged Dog Man?" Hmmm? Oh, that's right, we patriarchally oppressed the crap out of such phrases.

.

At any rate, that Marxofeminists have collaberated with PETA to make sure that no cat will ever go hungry will be easily demonstrated to you via this very large quote list, courtesy of No Ma'am.

.

"What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." -- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848 http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

.

.
Lol! Isn't it just priceless that feminism has a Patriarchal Father in Karl Marx? Oh, the irony, my dear fembots.

.

.........................(Karl Marx - Reincarnated)

.

"The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

.

"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, (New York, International Publishers, 1942), p.58 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

.

---***
And please, before we go on, I must remind you to read the title of that book! The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. That really deserves a moment of reflection! When one gets into researching Marxism a little closer, you begin to realize what the Marxists realize: Patriarchy = Family, Family = Creation of Wealth/Private Property/Capitalism, Patriarchal Families = Western Civilization...and there is no mistake that Marxist theorists know this!

---***

.

"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]

.

"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx, 1886 (Eleanor was Karl Marx's youngest daughter)

.

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." -- V.I. Lenin

.
"So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified. -- In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law." -- Carey Roberts http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040116

.

"We shall destroy you from within!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate, 1959

.

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." -- Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

.

"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Lay," Yale Law Journal, 1991

.

.

"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

.

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

.

"The married woman knows that love is, at its best, an inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre heritage of oppression." -- Beverly Jones and Judith Brown, Toward a Female Liberation Movement (Gainesville, Fl.: June 1968), p. 23.

.

.

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

.

"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179

.

"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

.

.
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar
.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

.

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women." From the article, Is Marriage the Answer? by Barbara Findlen, Ms Magazine, May-June, 1995

.

.

"[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jagger, Feminist Politics and Human Nature

.

On Gay Marriage: "A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

.

On Gay Marriage: "It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

.

(Also see "A New Kind of Bigotry" http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )

.

"*N* *O* *W* Action Alert -- October 20, 1999 -- Fathers' Rights Bill Advances in the House. This Action alert explains that the Father's Rights legislation before Congress is "bad for women and children" because it will "promote marriage" and "disseminat[e] information about the advantages of marriage", "promote successful parenting" and "disseminat[e] information about good parenting practices", and "help fathers and their families ... leave ... welfare". A plain reading of the Action Alert shows that when read in full context NOW will do ANYTHING to destroy marriages, families, and even children. -- nodnc.com

***Read the Action Alert Here*** http://www.now.org/issues/right/alerts/10-20-99.html

.

.

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537

.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan

.

"[F]eminists who ceaselessly inveigh against their own oppression by men (often hardly specifying its exact nature) would ignore how they themselves have oppressed ? feminine women. It oppresses a woman who could delight in domesticity to tell her that her domesticity makes her a parasitic inferior to men. It oppresses a woman who yearns to stay home with her children to tell her she is worthy only insofar as she achieves in the workplace." -- F. Carolyn Graglia, A Brief Against Feminism, p.349

.

.

"The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the most pervasive prejudice in the Western world." -- Judith Stacey

.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" -- Sheila Cronan

.

"The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work" -- Toni Morrison

.

"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294

***also on Chesler*** http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060307

.

.

"Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and fathers who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society. -- Borst, William, Ph. D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The Midnszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1, January 2003, pg 2. (Online version at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf) Cited in the Amicus brief for Massachusetts advisory opinion on Gay Marriage, opposing gay marriage. http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/woodb01/011004_Mass_Brief.htm

.

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981

.

"The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women's rebellion throughout history." -- Marlene Dixon, "Why Women's Liberation? Racism and Male Supremacy"

.

.

"[C]ontemporary patriarchies...[wives'] chattel status continues in their loss of name, their obligation to adopt the husband's domicile, and the general legal assumption that marriage involves an exchange of the female's domestic service and [sexual] consortium in return for financial support." -- Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (New York: Avon Books, 1969). pp. 34-35.

.

"Millett argued that the impetus of the sexual revolution had the potential to collapse antiquated patriarchal systems, including the institution of marriage, thereby creating "a world we can bear out of the desert we inhabit."7 -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm

.

"In Millett's view, a dismantled patriarchy--resulting from the destruction of traditional marriage--would generate the downfall of the nuclear family, a goal she called "revolutionary or utopian."8 -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm

.

"Millett argued that the complete destruction of marriage and the natural family is necessary to produce an ideal society."11 -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm

.

.

"The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254.

.

"It became increasingly clear to us that the institution of marriage `protects' women in the same way that the institution of slavery was said to `protect' blacks--that is, that the word `protection' in this case is simply a euphemism for oppression," -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 214.

.

"marriage is a form of slavery." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 216.

.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 219.

.

.

"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry." -- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 317.

.

"The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be.... Most women...would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken." -- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 320.

.

[Greer called for the establishment of] "rambling organic structure[s]" [that would] "have the advantage of being an unbreakable home in that it did not rest on the frail shoulders of two bewildered individuals trying to apply a contradictory blueprint." -- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 233. (Full quote taken from -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm )
.

.
“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarchy.” -- Gloria Steinem
.

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men" -- Nancy Lehmann and Helen Sullinger, Declaration of Feminism, 1971

.

"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

.

"It takes a village to raise a child." -- Hillary Clinton

.

.....................(Andrea Dworkin Reincarnated)

.

"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. -- Andrea Dworkin

.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

.

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas http://gos.sbc.edu/s/solanas.html and http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/chance.html

.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine Mackinnon

.

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French; The Woman's Room

.

.
"What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." -- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848 http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

.
"The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

.
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, (New York, International Publishers,1942) p.58] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

.
"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx, 1886

.
"DESTROY THE FAMILY AND YOU DESTROY SOCIETY" -- V.I. Lenin

.

"WE SHALL DESTROY YOU FROM WITHIN!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate, 1959

.

.

GET UP OFF YOUR KNEES! -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2006-2009...

.

People, the evidence sits right in front of you. Feminism is 100% Marxist and it is being used against us, the people, in a direct effort to cause chaos and destruction and its subversive goal is to collapse the State and remove your freedoms!

.

Do you know what's an easier way to say the same thing?

.

Just refer to it as HIGH TREASON!

.

Yes, it is!

.

Everytime that a politician takes your tax dollars and funnels it into a program that supports the feminist agenda -- whose subversive agenda is to cause a collapse of the State, a la Marxism -- an act of HIGH TREASON is being committed! That your tax dollars are used to fund things like Women's Studies (Marxist Indoctrination) within Academia, is nothing short of using your tax dollars to support an enemy of the State.

.

Treason is the only crime deemed to be more serious than First Degree Murder.

.

.
MILLIONS have died to give us freedom, and to keep us free. We owe them better than this.
.
It's easier to keep and maintain freedom than it is to give it away and then try to re-install it!

.

********************************************************************

.

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!
.

.
****************************************************************
.
Useful Idiot Quote of the Day:
.
Huggles Ben said...
Hmm, after reading around this beastly blog I can honestly say I am sickened. Your not as crass as some of the other misogynists but you are just as stupid as them. I'm ashamed to have even read your hatred.
.
---
.
http://www.sydneyline.com/Language%20Wars.htm
.
"Political correctness works so well because it satirises terminology long used by the left itself. A recent analysis, Political Correctness and the Theoretical Struggle by Frank Ellis of the University of Leeds, shows that rather than being a stuffy but essentially harmless effort to avoid offending people, the concept has long been deeply embedded within radical culture.
.
It originated in the early writings of Vladimir Lenin and evolved as a concept in his work up to 1917. The phrase politicheskaya pravil'nost' derived from Lenin's insistence on a rigidly enforced party line on all questions. Lenin argued that only a specifically revolutionary theory would prevent the revolutionary movement from abandoning "the correct path". Before the Russian revolution, to be politically incorrect meant being denounced by Lenin as a "revisionist", "factionalist", "wrecker" and "enemy of the people". After the revolution, to be politically incorrect meant a death warrant. Joseph Stalin used the phrase in the 1920s to destroy his rivals Trotsky and Bukharin."

Reviewing an Old Article

Perhaps I have given the wrong impression with my last post. It is not so much that I "want to quit," but more that I am very worried that for some issues, we are behaving exactly as "they" would expect us to. There is virtually no doubt that we are dealing with Marxist techniques of how to manipulate mass populations, and upon studying such techniques from the past, it becomes evident that Marxists never walk in a straight line. They always zig zag to get to their goal. They push to the left to cause the debate & the change, then they allow the backlash to the right to consolodate their gains.

So, for example, take Marriage/No Fault Divorce. They created No Fault Divorce 35 years ago or so. No Fault Divorce/The Decline of Marriage is one of the largest underlying factors of our societal ills. I don't think I need to go into them all, as most of you already understand them. But the point I would like make is that this was a radical push to the left. VERY RADICAL! Never heard of before! No Fault Divorce Laws have caused an enormous amount of other laws, it has created entirely new organizations, and it has created entirely new multi-billion dollar industries.

No Fault Divorce should go. Follow the time line from the advent of No Fault Divorce and let the pieces fall into place. This is Marxism at work - create the conflict and have a predetermined outcome. It does not become visible unless one has the benefit of 35 years of hindsight. No Fault Divorce has, over its time frame, become exactly the same as "Man Fault Divorce" before No Fault Divorce existed. And it was no accident. They wanted to split apart the sexes.

But it becomes so outrageous that "they" know there will be a backlash. They are not dummies. And don't forget, their whole game is to create a conflict with a predetermined outcome - so they can offer the "proper" solution. That it was women who spearheaded all of this claptrap with feminism was done more because it is obvious to everyone from Aristotle to Marx that women control the culture - so they must always be the spearhead into changing society, and the rest will follow. But these people are not stupid either. They know about people's psychology, women may be able to push unreasonably, but men will push back - eventually.

Men pushing back will be "the movement to the right." It will consolodate the gains they made with No Fault Divorce and also open the can of worms for their other stated goals: taking children from women and turning them over to the state. Shared parenting will reinforce the public's notion that there is nothing wrong with divorce and it will make it as firm as if it were in concrete that the State has more rights and power over people's children than the actual parents to whom such children belong! 50 or 60 years ago, people would have chased the state with pitchforks and shotguns if it were so arrogant to assume such a thing! Domestic Violence laws and shelters for men will also reinforce the "state's right" to invade our homes and control our personal lives. (Does anyone even remember Assault and Battery laws anymore?)

At any rate, I have much to say on this subject, including something that would work but is very difficult for me to convey to others properly. So, I will take my time and not try to do it all in one post. In the meantime, however, I am going to put up an old post for review because this is exactly what I wish to discuss... but with a twist.

******************************************************

First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read:

http://www.newswithviews.com/community_policing/community_policing.htm

It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:

1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.

Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."

That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of man that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his uses of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.

Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.

2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.

3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of "mass psychology" with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory_(Frankfurt_School) The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.

4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group.

AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical torture out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values:
1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence,
2 - MOVING the subject to the next level,
3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs.
(Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)
---

So, could you destroy something absolute, like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.

It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which Mr. Rob Fedders files his taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.

Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges a made up of segments, in fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."

"The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange. The "truth is relative," remember? She tells me that it is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional.

As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. Rob doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what a BIGOT!

The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."

I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!
---
Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx

Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."

Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."

"We shall destroy you from within!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.

Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116 (***Note: Patai & Koertge write from a critical perspective of the aforementioned logic and use it in the context of an example. See Daphne Patai's website here: http://www.daphnepatai.com/ And read about her work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai )

Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary theme:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:

- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?

- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"

- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?

- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?

- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal, because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.

- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry, only 2 or 3 years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family." All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots.

(Also, see my piece: "A New Kind of Bigotry" http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )

These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?

Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that Gay Marriage's are not equal - because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon," you will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.

Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.

Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that gov't be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people. The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!

No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.

TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!

The Thing You Have To Remember About The Will Of The People Is That 10 Years Ago We Were All Crazy For The Macarena

Well, the phrase went something like that anyway. I got it from the Reader's Digest, a Quotable Quote from Jon Daly, I believe. I couldn't find the issue any more; so sue me, Mr. Daly.

But its true, isn't it? The will of the people is a fickle beast that does not adhere to logic, but rather, to fashion.

These posts I am making (the last one and the next few) are all going to be related, although it may appear that they are completely separated. Marxism has never been defeated, and one of the things I keep looking for when I read more and more about Marxism/Cultural Marxism is: What is its Achilles Heel? I think I see one - something we could do right now that would be effective, but please bear with me as I need to make a few points first in order for it to make sense.

Now, onto the business of saving the world from itself, sigh.

I have spent some time reading through The Men's Tribute http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/home.htm which is an excellent site, btw.

There are many pieces, in chronological order, on the reading list of The Men's Tribute, including several that were written about the suffragettes & the vote from the actual time that the arguments were happening in society (ie. - the late 1800's & early 1900's). Reading these articles & essays are a way to obtain a unique perspective on the situation, and it is likely more accurate than listening to the mindless anally derived hot air that academics, the media & government keep directing at us about women being oppressed because they didn't have the vote.

Now, as for a disclaimer, I do not know for certain that I am correct. I am theorizing. Although, the more I look at the situation, the more confident I am becoming that with some hard digging & research, I could make a pretty strong case for this theory.

It is essential to understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy in order for this theory of mine to make sense. Why did the US Founding Fathers create a Republic? Why did they purposefully omit any mention of the word "Democracy?" They certainly knew what a Democracy was. The US Founding Fathers omitted the word Democracy because a Democracy was not what they intended for at all. They wanted a Republic and that's what they made. They did not make a system with universal democracy. The people are just plain and simple too busy or too stupid to understand the issues in the great depth needed on some of the issues, and therefore adhere to the fashion of the day, which can be easily manipulated via propaganda. This, of course, leads to the political leaders scrambling to do what they need to in order to get re-elected, rather than truly serving the best interests of the state/people. What politician worries about the effects of their actions 20 or 30 years from now when they might not even be in power in 6 months if they fail to adhere to the fashion of the day and thus, don't get re-elected?

“Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’” -- Samuel Adams

“...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” -- James Madison

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." -- Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1801-1835

It is for these reasons that Benjamin Franklin said that they had formed a Republic, in the hope that it would keep.

The problem of a Democracy is that it turns Statesmen into Politicians.

It is this very problem of a Democracy adhering to fashion rather than logic & altruistic intentions that Karl Marx noted when he stated:

"Democracy is the Road to Socialism." -- Karl Marx

If one looks back in time, it seems that Socialists/Marxists were very intent on injecting Democracy into the nations of the world.

And, ummm... gee folks, what famous old ladies do we know of that were heavily involved with Socialism in the 1800's & early 1900's? Why, I do believe it was the suffragettes!

Now, "Feminism" organized itself from a bunch of whining, moaning women into an official organized movement in the year 1848 - the same year as the Communist Manifesto was released.

And why would they have done so? To get the vote you say? Because men had the vote and women didn't.

Not so, I say!

Landless white men did not get the vote in the USA until 1856, Black men did not get the vote until 1870, and women in 1920 (in the USA - mid 1890's in New Zealand). In fact, here in Canada, women who owned property could vote up until 1867, when Canada separated from Britain and became a Dominion - which means it should be safe to say that this was because of British law, and therefore all throughout the entire British Empire, which was substantial in the 1800's, it is likely that women owning property all around the world had the same voting rights as men.

Why, oh why then, why in 1848 did Feminism officially organize itself, chock full of Socialist women?

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

Some of the "old articles" I read at The Men's Tribute made mention of the Suffragettes first demanding the right to vote for widows and spinsters who owned property, but had no vote. The thought of the day back then was "one property/household, one vote," and they were supported very quickly by a vast majority of men & society as a whole with this idea. But, after they acheived that, they quickly turned the whole of society amock with the notion of Universal Suffrage.

Think about it, in about 2 or 3 generations the idea of a having a "Republic" was completely thrown out of society and replaced with a "Universal Democracy," going exactly against what the Founding Fathers had intended and exactly according to what Marxists wanted. As Marx alluded to, if you want to change society you have to get the women on board first, as they control the culture & the morals, and the men will follow. Even if they were the last to actually get the vote, is it possible that they were the Agent Provacateur which caused the debate/conflict that got the whole of society to radically alter itself and oppose people as wise as Benjamin Franklin?

Isn't this about the same thing as has happened with the institution of marriage in our modern day?

Again, this is pure theory on my part about the hidden purpose of the suffragette movement, and I will have to keep my eyes and ears open for more clues & facts to prove my case.

Out of all of this, the one point I would like make clear, the only one that matters for the ultimate overall point I will be trying to make in the next few posts, is that the reason Marxists wanted us to have Democracies is because a Democracy can be easily manipulated to work against the people.

“You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.” -- G.K. Chesterton

Read more about Republics vs. Democracy here:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/republic-versus-democracy.html

Nihilistic Newspeaking Nitwits

The most important institution which the Cultural Marxist PC Idiots have attacked is our language. The language controls our thoughts as a society. Of course, Orwell spoke of this in 1984, refering to it as "Newspeak."

But it really is true, isn't it? If there is no word for something then we tend to think that thing doesn't exist. Likewise, a word can also be expanded upon to expand the the thoughts in the mind.

The blog "Exposing Feminism" has been making some excellent posts about how this word usage is being used against us, so I will quote a portion of one of his posts which does a good job of illustrating this:

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/word-manipulation-another-example/

Let’s examine the phrase ‘positive discrimination’.

Surely it follows that the phrase ‘negative discrimination’ exists also? In the absence of a clear definition of ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ discrimination, can they truly be said to exist?

The truth is that there is no such thing as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ discrimination. Both of these vague concepts need only one word - discrimination.

You can apply the same logic when breaking down the phrase ‘reverse sexism’.

These awkward, fabricated phrases have only recently come into modern usage. They are idioms constructed and designed to make you think in a certain way about particular groups of people.


How true. And they are positively everywhere. It's not an accident that these words exist. However, it can get more sinister than this. It can actually be used to destroy things when coupled with the use of Critical Theory and the Dialectical.

Let's look at how these word associations have been used to destroy the institution of marriage.

Think about the word No Fault Divorce. Clever, isn't it? The cold hard fact is that there is nothing "No Fault" about divorce in the modern day. Court decisions come down as hard on men as they would have before the days of No Fault Divorce - pretty much to the extent that No Fault Divorce means the same thing as "Man's Fault Divorce" back in the 1950's. It is a sneaky little ploy against men to call this travesty of justice "No-Fault," but the word association is very powerful. Furthermore it sounds very "equal," the very virus that has removed so many of our freedoms. Of course, at the time, the Gender Idiots from Academia, Government & the Media told us that problems within people's relationships were far to complex to be assigning blame. Yeah, right! Too bad these hypocrites don't take the same approach when assigning 100% of the blame to men in Domestic Violence Disputes. No problem assigning blame within people's relationships there, eh? Even when sick little serpents like these are bragging amongst themselves of their Criminal DV Acts against men: http://jezebel.com/gossip/domestic-disturbances/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have-294383.php

Here are some more points to illustrate how language has been used to destroy the institution of marriage by the treasonous asshats in Academia, Government & the Media (the Axis of Evil):

- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?

- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"

- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?

- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?

- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal, because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.

- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry, only 2 or 3 years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family." All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots.

---

But language is not only used to destroy by division, sometimes it's used to protect one's position. The Marxist institution of Feminism is also using language to divide its definition to protect itself from the inevitable onslaught that is coming from my good and angry XY comrades that compromise MGTOW, the MRM, and society in general. Feminists know what they have done, and something is happening which they fear intensely: Scrutiny of the evil lies and social engineering agenda they have been forcing upon us.

So, how do they use language to defend themselves?

Well, they have split up feminism into many different branches. We now have Gender Feminism, Equity Feminism, Marxist feminism, Eco Feminism, Racial/Ethnic Feminism, Don't Shave Armpits Feminism, Obnoxious Loud Mouth Feminism etc etc.

So, now when someone attacks feminism, the XX gender idiots can go: "But, but, I'm not one of those Marxist Feminists! I'm an equity feminist! We're not all the same!"

Yeah right!

And next week I'm travelling to New York City to give a speech to the brothers in Harlem that I'm an "Equity White Supremacist." Do you think that they should accept such retarded nonsense? I think I'd be lucky to get out of there alive.

The fact is that the very word "feminism" implies that men were, as a class, oppressing women as a class - and therefore women needed to be liberated from men. This is the very crux of Marxism itself; it needs to polarize society into separate groups and then work the interests of those groups against eachother until there is no more freedom.

All feminism is based on Marxism. Period.

If an "equity feminist" wants my sympathetic ear, the first thing she has to do is drop the word feminist from anything that describes her and then try to be a normal freakin' human being for a few years so as to prove her worth to me.

Pfft. Equity Nazis. Absurd!

But, rant off about those who maketh Rob's blood boil.

Language is also used to consolodate a whole bunch of things into one word, so that even the smallest portion of a subject gets treated as the most encompassing thing that such a word can imply.

The Societal Traitors that work in the Domestic Violence/Rape Industry are famous for this. They make infractions like shouting or arguing over finances to be construed as domestic violence and define it as such, but then sell the whole works of Domestic Violence as some 240lb asshole who comes home drunk on daily basis only to pin his wee wikkle 110lb wife down to the floor and bust her lips and nose open. The fact is, this is such a small portion of what makes up the "real" numbers these leacherous traitors keep spewing out, that there is no doubt that an immediate fraud investigation should be be launched against these women - they are, after all, cooking the books to steal money from the taxpayers. When one looks deeper at the overall agenda behind it, Treason investigations would not be out of line either. Hell, I've even seen a "study" where one Gender Nitwit from Academia cooked the books by claiming that women who contract STD's are victims of Domestic Violence because of the effects that contracting such diseases had on their psyche. Of course, DV is 100% men's fault. When men get STD's, they go into the basement of the Patriarchy's Club House and stick their penis in the STD machine, and select which affliction they prefer to abuse a woman with. But, of course, the Gender Idiots manipulate the language to imply that Domestic Violence means a women (not men) getting hit physically, and they wouldn't dream of losing the all encompassing term "Domestic Violence."

What actually is "violent" about arguing over the visa bill coming back with an $85 charge for the wife's special herbal shampoo, after she spent last weekend bitching at you that the family couldn't afford your weekend case of beer?

Anyway, there are lots of people who have been writing about this very most important aspect of Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism so I won't bore you with my take on it any longer. Except to say that I keep looking for Marxism's Achilles Heel, and I believe that I have found one - albeit a bit complicated of one - but it definitely involves language.

Foundational Arguments

Has anyone ever noticed that all of feminism is based on only a few foundational arguments?

"Gender is a social construct."

"Men are the sole perpetrators of Domestic Violence."

"Marriage is akin to slavery for women."

You know them all. But have a look at how this whole system works. It works on the basis of Dialectical Arguments. Basically, it is set up to work like the legal system, it is all based on precedents. The fembots have convinced the masses of their foundational argument, and all of their subsequent arguments are based on the "precedent" at the very bottom.

The problem that we keep having, is we are arguing about the thing at the "top." By the time we are done defending our position against the "new" fembot argument, 10 other things have cropped up in the meantime.

I wonder what would happen if we stopped arguing "at the top," and started arguing "at the bottom?"

"Gender is a social construct?"

REALLY?

How about we divide gay activists from feminism by demanding that "Gender" actually is a social construct? Hmmm... You can't be BORN GAY if Gender is a social construct, n'est pas?

Achilles Heel

The biggest problem that I think we are facing as men and as a civilization, is that Marxism has never really been defeated. It is more of an ideological religion of humanism (man can defeat nature & create a Heaven on Earth), not particularly a form of government. It is quite a bloody system because it messes with people's minds and perceptions so much - and that is the real problem. Look at what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union - many of the people wanted the old system back because they just did not know how to live without it anymore. They had an altered sense of reality.

Feminism/Political Correctness is, of course, a form of Marxism and it works in the same way that Economic Marxism works - it screws with the population's perception of reality and causes radical polarizations which are then played against eachother to remove the freedoms of all the people. We should be able to see this even within the MRM. A lot of what is going on is basically the people screeching for "equality." I am so tired of hearing people declare their never dying devotion to "egalitarianism." Equality is the disease, not the answer. If there is an apple and orange, how can you make them equal? Or, if there are two trees, one is 30 feet tall an the other is 40 feet tall, please tell me how you are going to make them "equal."

I cringe at the word "equality." It doesn't matter if feminists are screaching for equality or the MRM is screaching for equality. Equality is the disease, not the answer.

Are we not becoming like those in the former Soviet Union who wanted the old system back because they had been so mind-f*cked that they couldn't figure out how to live any other way? This is what Marxism does, it changes the people's perception of reality into polarizing opposites, which are then worked against eachother to increase the power of evil organisms like Government, NGO's, Academia, the Media etc., while at the same time reducing the power of the individual - all in order to achieve "equality." We keep arguing and arguing, demanding more for ourselves, while the fembots also demand more for themselves - lol! Well, the government will gladly give it to us both, and in doing so will remove more freedoms from a significant portion of the population. And we will be glad to get it, until we see how these assholes in the government will pervert it into something we didn't intend.

Think about Shared Parenting. Great Concept? Well, basically it will be done "for the children," but look a little further down the road. It will increase the legitimacy of the corrupt family court system, the no-fault divorce industry, the slime ball lawyers, the interfering social workers etc. etc. The government will be able tell both men and women what days and during what hours they are allowed to see their children. Think about that! Some asshole judge telling both you and your ex that on Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday your ex-wife gets to see the kid, and you get to see the kid from 9:00am Thursday morning to 10:00pm Saturday night. Sunday is for the Marxist Youth Camp, I suppose.

But of course, it will be in the "best interest of the child" to only attend one school, rather than two. What will happen then if you lose your job and need to move to another city? Well, you will have to go to court to beg a judge to alter your "shared parenting arrangement." But, why should they allow this? You cannot just "give up" your responsibility. That is not "equal." You cannot just slough it off to your ex-wife and go back to the present day custody/support situation because you need to find work in another town. So, either your ex-wife gives up her job and follows you to another town or the judge will deny you your right to freely move about within the country. What if the ex-wife is now married to your ex-bestfriend who was banging her behind your back when you were married? How does he fit into the picture? Can he not get a job in another town as well because that would take away from you and your ex-wife's shared parenting obligations? Nope, he will be roped down and actually attached to you in just the same way you are attached to him.

There are hundreds of scenarios that could come out of this. Giving the government more power over our lives is not the answer.

You know what would be better than spending 10 years lobbying and begging the government for shared parenting? Attacking and destroying the concept of "No-fault Divorce," that's what. Think of all of the things that would fall if that happened. Family courts, lawyers, government, social workers etc. would lose power instead. Hey, if you got to bitch and moan at something for a decade, let's make it something that kills 10 or 20 birds with one stone, rather than being fooled into empowering our enemies by giving them what they want (more power).

Now, the only thing what I can see which will hurt this reality altering beast is... Marxist techniques themselves.

I'm talking about unleashing Marxism & Critical Theory on the foundational arguments of Marxofeminism itself. Think about it.

Over the past few posts I have been making some general points that are all related.

Point #1: Critical Theory has been used to destroy the foundations of society such as marriage and the family unit, among many others. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/08/reviewing-old-article.html

Point #2: Whether it is right or wrong matters very little in a Democracy. All that matters is the opinion of 51% of the people. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/thing-you-have-to-remember-about-will.html

Point #3: Perceptions of reality are controlled by language moreso than the effectiveness of any argument. You can create or deconstruct an idea that will be accepted by the general population simply by word/language manipulation. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/nihilistic-newspeaking-nitwits.html

Point #4: All of Marxofeminism is based on the Dialectical - ie. a foundational argument with a pre-determined outcome makes a precedent upon which many, many other arguments are based upon. We keep fighting the top arguments, but there are too many of them that keep cropping up. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/foundational-arguments.html

So, what becomes obvious is that Marxofeminism is nothing more than a house of cards. It is all based on a few foundational arguments. We keep fighting the arguments at the top while leaving alone the foundational argument at the bottom. If you take out the foundational argument, you will set the stage for all the other arguments to disappear if you knock out the foundational/precedent setting argument at the bottom. And they will disappear naturally. The general population will do this for us if we get rid of the foundational argument.

For example: If you get rid of the notion of "Gender is a social construct," and replace it in the general populace's perception with "Gender is either a biological, or psychological, or social construct," that will be enough to topple all of the subsequent arguments built on that foundational argument. Yes it will take time for that to happen, but it will only be a matter of time before some guys in college challenge the courts on Title IX laws which are based on the "old" notion of "gender is a social construct" and say, "Hey, but isn't that based on a Biological Construct, which causes the Psychological Construct upon which the Social Construct is based?" And those laws won't have a leg to stand on.

Now, we can argue, and argue and argue. And these arguments are all good, but, it will only reach a small portion of the population to whom these arguments are intriguing enough to spend the time reading and understanding. In order to effect a real change, the general population's perception has to be altered without their even really thinking about it. The best way to do that is with language manipulation.

Look at how they did it to us in regard to heterosexuality, marriage & the family:

- Marriage/families have been redefined as "traditional marriages/families." By default, this opens a person mind to realizing there are other kinds of families than the "traditional."

- It is politically correct to refer to one's "life partner," rather than "husband and wife" which opens the mind to other kinds of relationships than the heterosexual.

- "Single Mom & Gay Marriages" are being declared "equal" to traditional families, even though they obviously are not.

- "No Fault Divorce" is a false statement which leads the populace's mindset away from the truth that it is really "Man Fault Divorce 100% of the time."

- The indicator of "Sex," which only allowed for Male or Female, was replaced with the word "Gender," thus allowing for the inclusions of Male, Female, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered which create the foundations to "divide" sexuality & marriage.

So... why can't we do the same thing to the feminidiot arguments that are the foundations of their entire sick agenda? Why can't we also divide their foundational arguments, with the intention of dividing and destroying them in the general public's mental perceptions by use of language manipulations?

For example: If one wants to fight abortion laws and the oft slyly quoted "67% of the population supports abortion," then we should divide the definition of abortion so the public says, "Abortion? WHAT KIND OF ABORTION? Birthcontrol Abortion, Incest Abortion, Rape Abortion or Maternal Health Abortion? THEN it will become naturally evident to the public that only a minority support Birthcontrol Abortion, and the "swing" is created by Incest/Rape/Maternal Health Abortions which make up a very, very small percentage of actual abortions.

We need to inject a word like "Fake Rape" into the public consciousness. Perhaps also something for "Financially Motivated Rape," or "Regret Rape," or "Excuse Rape," or "Attention Rape" etc. etc.

You get the idea.

The idea is, they have created foundational arguments with a predetermined outcome. The predetermined outcome, of course, uses the passage of MORE LAWS which remove freedoms and promote the Marxist agenda.

Our idea should be: Use their destruction methods to destroy their own foundational arguments with a predetermined outcome to destroy those arguments and cause laws to be repealed! Then "Natural Rights" will begin to appear in society again.

Is it easy? Yes and No.

It will take some time. Don't count on it happening in any effectiveness in the next couple of months or years. But it will also take 10 years of lobbying to get "Shared Parenting" to be universally accepted by the government - which will create MORE laws. In that same amount of time, the concept of "No Fault Divorce" could be attacked with Divissive Language that will change the whole concept of current divorce laws, and make things like Shared Parenting a mute point, as well as 10's if not 100's of other laws and intrusions.

Think about it. Only 2 years ago, I remember all of the forums were bristling with discussions about being called "Anti-feminist" and how to get the word "Misandry" in the language instead. Well, in that amount of time, "misandry" is already becoming accepted in the language, and , lol, people like me who didn't give a shit about being called an Anti-feminist don't even get attacked for it anymore. In only 2 years!

The internet is going to do to television what television did to the radio and we are in control of this new medium and the language it uses! How much harder is it to type a word like "Attention Rape" rather than just "Rape" as we do now?

Not much!

It is a little complicated, I know, and it necessarily is a top down manipulation because all of Marxist techniques use top down manipulations. But, as far as an Achilles Heel in Cultural Marxism, the only one I can see is that it is not immune to itself!

The Tao of God, the Way and Its Power - by MRA Revolutionary

I pinched this last post of MRA Revolutionary's blog from Google Cache, and requested of Mamonaku to allow me to incorporate it into my own blog, and he was gracious enough to give his blessing to do so.

***************************************************************
.
The Tao of God, the Way and its Power. - by Mamonaku

.

.

Greetings one and all, and Peace be with you.
.

I had to write this post in response to the Wise Rob Fedders, who commented on my last post.

.

I hope that this will allow my readers to share in my thinking... and hopefully you guys won't go to sleep while reading it!!

.

Rob Fedders said...

.

Mamonaku,

.

Another spectacular piece by you!

.

This simple quote really jumps out at me:

.

"(The Taizkai Mandala: No one can escape the law of Karma, or Sin.)"

.

In my own studying, this is something that is coming up over and over again.

.

(The Taizokai Mandala)

.

Thanks Mr. Fedders!

.

However, I know nothing, and understand nothing. Only God knows all, and all praise is due to Him alone.

.

I have acquired what little knowledge I know only through a whole lot of study, meditation, prayer, and painful training at the hands of my master of the martial arts.

.

He is a true warrior wizard, to whom I owe a great deal!

.

About the Mandala:The Taizokai Mandala is the "Womb Mandala," that represents the Universe. I was hoping that someone would pick up on this; as it is the linchpin of my way of thinking.

.

I first learned of this image while I was undergoing strict training in the Japanese warrior arts. My master taught me many things: physical, mental, and spiritual.

.

What the image is showing us is that the Universe breaks down into three Sacred components:

.

Thought

.

Word

.

Deed.

.

With these three things, the universe is made. It contains all that is. We are not separated from these three, but we ARE these three things.

.

When people say that we are the "sons of God," its not a joke, or an allegory. It is a very real fact.

.

Not because we have Godlike power, but because we are made in His image, and can become "gods by grace:"

.
But let no one believe about the only-begotten Son just what they believe about those who are colled the sons of God by grace and not by nature, as the evangelist says, "He gave them power to become the sons of God," 1108 and according to what the Lord Himself also mendtioned, as declared in the law, "I said, Ye are gods; and all of you children of the Most High:"

.
Every thought, every word, and every action has direct consequences and affects everything in our world.

.

Ten Thousand Rivers flow into the Sea.

.

Many people make the mistake that they are living in a world with many separate components.

.

For example, people think about:

.

My car...

.

This house...

.

That terrorist attack...

.

Melissa's blog...

.

and so forth.

.

This is a mistake.

.

God's kingdom does not consist of ten thousand separate things... but ONE massive whole.

.

God is ONE.

.

And yet, He is three:

.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

.

Thought, Word, and Deed.

.

The Greek Church calls Christ the Logos, or the Eternal Word.

.

"By whom all things were made."

.

It is wrong to say God is One, as it is wrong to say God is three-fold.

.

He is BOTH, at the same time, always and forever.

.

As it is written:

.
"For I am Yahweh, I shall not change" (Malachi 3:6a, The Scriptures)

.

Yahushua Messiah is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8, The Scriptures)

.

The council of Yahweh stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. (Psalms 33:11, The Scriptures)

.

I know that whatever Elohim does is forever. There is no adding to it, and there is no taking from it. (Ecclesiastes 3:14a, The Scriptures)

.
Mr. Fedders continues:

.

And I would like to make this following argument from a purely agnostic point of view.

.

It is apparent that every successful society is based on the patriarchal family - the joining of men to the reproduction cycle/family by marriage.

.

Virtually every patriarchal marriage-society is derived from a religion that lays out the religious law directly and soundly in regard to how marriages & society should be.

.

Every Patriarchally based religion ALSO seems to have very strong wording in regard to that very statement:

.

"The Taizokai Mandala: No one can escape the law of Karma, or Sin."
.

/100% Agreed.

.

When I began writing my Rights of Man series, I pointed out that:

.

Now dear reader, we have heard from two different sources about how the father is a “sperm donor.” And biologically, this is true. However, you also know how desperately needed fathers are in the development and survival (especially in today's crack filled Ghettos) of their children.

.

Therefore I take issue slightly with these great authors by saying that they are arguing from a position from weakness, whereas I will argue from a position of strength. God's law is on our side gentlemen.

.

I will boldly claim that a man’s desire for a family is a natural and a moral idea implanted in his spirit by the Creator. And if the barriers to having said family are not prohibitively high, most men will act on these desires honorably.
And I meant what I wrote.

.

Some men attempt to argue for the Rights of Man meekly; as if they doubt, in their heart of hearts, that Men have natural rights that ought to be respected.

.

However, there are universal truths that cannot be redefined; there are laws in place that no man, or woman can disregard with any measurable degree of success.

.

Patriarchy is one of these.

.

It is written:

.

“But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death (Proverbs 8:36).”
Living in the Matriarchy reminds me of a person jumping off a cliff naked in defiance of the Law of Gravity.

.

We can choose to break the law, but we will suffer the consequences for our actions all the same.

.

Knowing this fact, only a fool would jump from the cliff. But, many people, in their delusion and ignorance, choose to defy the Natural Laws that the Master has set into motion.

.

To their own destruction.

.

Mr Fedders writes:

.
(I will refer to the Bible from here, as it is the religion we are all most familiar with)

.

The Bible tells us the same thing: The Lion will not lie down with the Lamb (on Earth).

.

God tells us that good and evil is all around us. God tells us that mankind cannot defeat evil. Only God can defeat evil. We, mankind, are told to fight evil and to resist it but ONLY GOD can defeat evil, and we are released from the belief that WE, mankind, are so powerful as to be God himself by thinking that we can defeat evil.

.

Now, the notion of Good & Evil, of Black & White, and the Yin & Yang are truly as old as mankind and likely time itself. Every successful religion acknowledges this in one form or another - and then goes on to discuss with mankind his eternal struggles with Good & Evil... the undefeatableness of the Yin & Yang.

.

Agreed.

.

God moves in His own time. Yin is replaced with Yang, Yang is replaced with Yin.

.

Even in our age of Yin (the feminine principle), there are still vibrant pockets of Yang (the male principle) . Even in our Matriarchy, there is still Manliness afoot.

.

Working, ever so quietly, to supplant and upend our Yin dominant culture.

.

There is no stopping it. Resistance is Futile!!

.

Men in general have to remember two things.

.

1) We are not separate beings seeking to turn the wheel of Darma. We ARE the wheel, inseparable from it, grinding down all resistance in our path.

.

2) The natural law is on our side. God Himself has said numerous times that Patriarchy and headship by Men is the preferred order on this Earth, until He returns with power and glory to Judge both the living and the dead.

.

It is written:

.
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3).

.

To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master (Genesis 3:16).

.

Even though, at the present time, we are under the dominion of women, and men who defer to women...

.

Since it is not the "preferred" order of things, the dominion of woman is maintained with great difficulty and high cost.

.

You know as well as I do that our society today is far and away worse off since we entered the age of Yin.

.

It won't last very long.

.

The effort to maintain it, is simply too great.

.
Whether one believes in religion/God or not, if we establish that all successful societies were based on the religious foundation of Patriarchal Marriage... patriarchal marriage leads to a growing and successful society... that indeed does, from an agnostic point of view, support that the Bible (religious marriage) is indeed the "Book of Life" and therefore it also becomes the "Book of Truth." And in the "Book of Truth" we are told that Good & Evil (Polar Opposites) are all around us - and we cannot defeat them!

.

We cannot defeat them, and it only brings suffering when Men rebel against the established order.

.

The goal is to seek harmony with the Universe, as represented by the Taizokai Mandala, while at the same time, cultivating a spirit that does not change no matter how much the Universe does.

.

This idea is represented by the Kongokai Mandala.

.

(The Kongokai Mandala: every man has a destiny)

.

To rail against the Universe without changing yourself is wrong, and to change yourself without being in harmony with the Universe is also wrong.

.

God is God without man; man is nothing without God.

.

But God gives us FREE WILL, and together, man can "move mountains."

.

Working together in harmony, in accordance to the law of Heaven.

.
Mankind CANNOT bring about heaven on earth. To say that mankind can create heaven on earth is indeed for mankind to deny the Yin & Yang.

.

It is all about earth and sky, fire and water, night and day, man and woman... everywhere around us in the very nature of nature/father sky/mother earth herself - there is no denying the polar opposites. They are positively everywhere - this IS nature.

.

Now, from my interpretation of Marx's Utopia (which is Heaven on Earth), what is Karl Marx saying to do?

.

Marx believes that Utopia (Heaven on Earth) is possible if mankind can somehow be suspended between the Yin & Yang - and then to collapse all of the other structures of mankind.
.

Excellent points!

.

Way back when I started on my History of Feminism series, I wrote:

.
The philosophers are flawed in all of their thinking simply because they deny the existence of the Divinity, from where all knowledge springs. The Bible makes clear that “As God says in the Scriptures, "I will destroy the wisdom of all who claim to be wise. I will confuse those who think they know so much." (Corinthians 1:18).

.

Marx, Engles, Friedan, Nietzsche...All flawed because they were not in tune with the source of all knowledge. The thought that by their reason alone, they could rewrite Natural Law to suit themselves best.

.

The Lankavatara Sutra tells us that:

.
Discrimination of self-nature is to make discriminations according to the views of the philosophers in reference to the self-nature of all things which they imagine and stoutly maintain to be true, saying: "This is just what it is and it cannot be otherwise." Discrimination of cause is to distinguish the notion of causation in reference to being and non-being and to imagine that there are such things as "cause-signs."

.

Discrimination of philosophical views means considering different views relating to the notions of being and nonbeing, oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness, existence and non-existence, all of which are erroneous, and becoming attached to particular views.

.

Discrimination of reasoning means the teaching whose reasoning is based on the grasping of the notion of an ego-substance and what belongs to it. Discrimination of birth means getting attached to the notion that things come into existence and pass out of existence according to causation.

.

Discrimination of no-birth is to see that causeless substances which were not, come into existence by reason of causation.Discrimination of dependence means the mutual dependence of gold and the filament made of it. Discrimination of bondage and imagination is like imagining that there is something bound because of something binding, as in the case of a man who ties a knot and loosens one.

.
Mr. Fedders continues:

.

This is where we get the eternal Marxist drive to equalize/homosexualize/androgynize everything about mankind - and then hold it in place and collapse all other things... to bring forth the "New Kind of Man" who will live in Marx's Utopia (Heaven on Earth).

.

Karl Marx is talking about how to force the Lion to lie with the Lamb (with Totalitarianism) by denying that the Yin and Yang exist. He is saying that mankind can be God & defeat nature itself & create Heaven. He is going against the very "Book of Truth" itself.

.

This is why he embraces Hegel's "Truth is Relative" and why Marx posits that he will use this philosophy to change the world.

.

He is going to deny absolute truth and manipulate mankind with the "Truth is Relative" to make the truth whatever he needs it to be at the moment - always working towards the denial of the Polar Opposites that make up nature itself!

.

Marx is going against "Truth." Truth = Life, and therefore Karl Marx is advocating for Death.
.

My thoughts exactly!

.

I wrote previously:

.
However, if we look at the utopias of North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, the U.S.S.R., Eastern Europe, and others, we see the truth of Marxist thought. The way of Marxist-Feminism is the way of Death.

.

We humans blame God for so much of our troubles. We accuse Him of being cruel, and of abandoning His creation.When I hear or read commentary like this, I always remember a passage from the most Manly of works, The Odyssey:

.

"Men are so quick to blame the gods:they say that we devise their misery.But they themselves - in their depravity -design grief greater thanthe griefs the fates assign."
.

As represented by the Taizokai and the Kongokai...

.

and as told to us by God Himself in His word...

.

We have freewill, but unfortunately, WE human beings, male and female alike, choose to hold selfish and deluded views, to assign blame to others when we should be looking at ourselves, to rely on our own powers when we should be looking to Him for wisdom and understanding.

.

Marxism and feminism are failed philosophies of men that were too smart for their own good.

.
If one examines the theory of Urreligion (all religions derive from a Universal Primordeal Religion = the Universal Truths), and in fact religions are parables of mankind's follies since the times of the Stone Age, from whence Religions came... Religions and ancient legends/lore/mythology are a twinkling of a remembrance of the Fall of Man.

.

All religions and mythology seem to play on this one universal theme:

.

The Fall of Man from Paradise --> Man's Eternal Struggles between Good & Evil (cannot be defeated by man himself, he must accept it) --> but he can endure the struggle of Yin and Yang by being given Hope (Pandora's box... return to Paradise).

.

But mankind MUST accept the Yin and Yang - accepting the existence of Polar Opposites = Life itself.

.

Karl Marx denying the Polar Opposites = Death itself.

.

Therefore, when we get men like Abraham (the father of 3 successful religions) being told by the one true God (truth, life), that he must reject the idols of his father (in Tyre, I believe... worship of Goddesses = Matriarchy...), and God tells him to leave such wickedness and go forth into the wilderness...Lol! Well Abraham is the first MGTOW!

.

Haha yes indeed... I never thought about the original Patriarch in those terms... But very true none the less.

.
This theme plays over and over again.

.

Soddom and Gomorrah were immoral and homosexual. (Homosexuality is the denial of Yin and Yang), and God "wipes them from the face of the earth." They ignored THE Universal Truth... whether they were really smitten with fire and brimstone or whether the story is a parable about people who embraced Matriarchal Androgyny and ended up dying out as a result - it really matters very little - the fact is that they were "wiped from the face of the earth" because they ignored the Universal Truth.

.

I agree with most of your analysis, although I would like to dispute the notion that homosexuality is a denial of Yin and Yang.If we look closely at the Yin and Yang symbol:

.

.

One will note that there is a small portion of Yang (white color) in the Yin (black color), and vice versa.

.

Please consider:
.

Sex and Character, by Otto Weininger advances an interesting theory with respect to the nature of the sexes.

.

"In the widest treatment of most living things, a blunt separation of them into males and females no longer suffices for the known facts. The limitations of these conceptions have been felt more or less by many writers. The first purpose of this work is to make this point clear...

.

... Sexual differentiation, in fact, is never complete. All the peculiarities of the male sex may be present in the female in some form, however weakly developed; and so also the sexual characteristics of the woman persist in the man, although perhaps they are not so completely rudimentary. The characters of the other sex occur in the one sex in a vestigial form. Thus, in the case of human beings, in which our interest is greatest, to take an example, it will be found that the most womanly woman has a growth of colourless hair, known as "lanugo" in the position of the male beard; and in the most manly man there are developed under the skin of the breast, masses of glandular tissue connected with the nipples. This condition of things has been minutely investigated in the true genital organs and ducts, the region called the "urino-genital tract," and in each sex there has been found a complete but rudimentary set of parallels to the organs of the other sex.

.

. . . The fact is that males and females are like two substances combined in different proportions, but with either element never wholly missing. We find, so to speak, never either a man or a woman, but only the male condition and the female condition. Any individual is never to be designated merely as a man or a woman, but by a formula showing that it is a composite of male and female characters in different proportions..."

.

In a nutshell, hard and fast definitions of Masculinity and Femininity are false, according to Weininger.

.

We should understand the qualities of being male and female on a sliding scale, and every person falls on this scale.

.

Most Feminine --- Moderately Feminine --- Slightly Feminine

.

Most Masculine --- Moderately Masculine --- Slightly Masculine

.

And while the majority of biological females are "Feminine dominant", there are women with a "Manly spirit".

.

Likewise that the majority of biological males are "Manly Dominant", there are men with a "Feminine nature"... aka Girly men.

.

With this in mind, I believe that there are some Homosexual men (please remember that the Bible does not condemn intercourse involving two women) that contain a whole lotta Yin with a Yang outer shell.

.

What does this mean with respect to the laws of God? That is truly a Mystery.

.

It is clear that God condemns Homosexual male intercourse. However, on a personal level, I don't truly believe that God will condemn those homosexuals that are truly Gay due to their biology, and seek His Face instead of engaging in outright rebellion.

.

This is something to meditate on.

.
We too live in a Matriarchy that worships adrogyny (sameness, denial of Yin and Yang), and our birthrates are plummeting and we will soon be wiped from the face of the earth. We are ignoring the Universal Truth of Polar Opposites.

.

Polar Opposites CREATE life.

.

Karl Marx denies truth... and promotes the way of death... warned to us from the earliest of times.

.

We have to embrace the polar opposites to have life.

.

Marxist ideology is the belief that man is in fact God himself - and so powerful is mankind that he can defeat the Yin and Yang. This is anti-truth. Anti-truth = death.

.

"The Taizokai Mandala: No one can escape the law of Karma, or Sin."

.

A Universal Truth. Embracing opposites = life.

.

Lol! I guess this is kind of a long comment... the rambling of Rob trying to figure things out!

.

Not long at all!!

.

Although I apologize to my readers for my long winded, and utterly boring, reply.

.

All of us need to have these inward journeys, in order to discover what is the truth, no matter where it may lead.

.

Rob, I understand where you are going with your thoughts. You are seeking to integrate the teachings of Christ with the wisdom of the East.

.

I recommend the book, "Christ the Eternal Tao". It will enlighten you my friend.

.

(Front cover: Christ the Eternal Tao)

.

While I still know nothing, and understand nothing, I have the good fortune of being exposed to ancient knowledge that not many people will ever have the chance to learn. But I've had to put in some serious work: Meditation, Prayer, Fasting, and Bible study.

.

One last thing I would like to share with my readers...

.

You've heard that "Form is emptiness, and Emptiness is form."

.

But translated from the Japanese, we can also get:

.

"Form is everything, and everything is form."

.

Please think about this.Who made the form?

.

What force is able to be Everything?

.

And once you are enlightened, seek His Face.

.

Mamonaku.

.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Quotation added by Rob:

.

"As I see it, our revolutionary task is to destroy phallic identity in men and masochistic nonidentity in women--that is, to destroy the polar realities of men and women as we now know them so that this division of human flesh into two camps--one an armed camp and the other a concentration camp--is no longer possible. Phallic identity is real and it must be destroyed. Female masochism is real and it must be destroyed." -- Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics - The Root Cause, (Harper & Row, 1976)

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note - I also transferred the comments in that were on Google Cache, as some of them were pretty good. I hope no-one minds. I you do, let me know and I will remove them.

What is this Apocalypse coming to? -- by Jim Untershine

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/24/what-is-this-apocalypse-coming-to/

If we replace the Joint Stock Trust with Health & Human Services, replace the World Bank with the American Bar Association, replace the IMF with the Family Court, and replace the underdeveloped countries with American families, we suddenly see what Joe Biden sees – A system of control whereby radical feminists pressure women to break up families to allow the Family Courts to impose an outrageous child support debt on the breadwinner of that family by any means possible (including false allegations of domestic violence). The women coaxed into these deals rarely benefit from it, and usually end up on welfare, or their children are taken into Foster Care. Meanwhile, the family breadwinner is forced into insolvency, their wages are garnished, their credit is ruined, their privileges are suspended, and they are put in Debtor’s Prison if they refuse to relinquish all of their financial resources.

The Rockefeller Foundation funded ‘Womens Lib‘ for the same reason the CIA funded ‘MS Magazine’: 1) Tax women, 2) Break up families. The CFR has completely taken control of the major media outlets preventing the American people from understanding where their Country is actually headed or the real reason many countries hate us. Every penny Americans pay to the US Treasury as taxes on their wages is paid to the Federal Reserve as interest on the National debt. Every penny spent on our government is loaned at interest by the Federal Reserve and is essentially put on our children’s tab.

---

Read the entire piece here:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/24/what-is-this-apocalypse-coming-to/

Women's Studies 101A, Winter Semester - Professor Rob Fedders

In this class, we will see how women have been sheep who have bought into the Marxist anti-society philosophy hook, line and sinker. Naively, women have believed that feminism was about women's rights and giving them greater equality. Shamefully, feminism hid this vile filth from society by manipulating academia, media & government.

"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." -- V.I. Lenin

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"Women, like men, should not have to bear children... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

"The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation... [This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

"It takes a village to raise a child." -- Hillary Clinton

"Mmmm...Roasted Useful Idiot for Dinner!" -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2007

Question: What are permanently unmarried women, whose illegitimate children have been taken from them to be raised by the state, good for anyway?

Answer: Work, Pay Taxes, Go Home, Feed Cats, Repeat until death.

Hate Bounces

How man hating and man bashing harms women: the making of a misogynist

Misogynists are not born they are made.

Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens. The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that person's faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that.

Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called "Women's Liberation" which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it.

And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert I'd like to talk to you about.

I learned very quickly that feminism wasn't about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little.

The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising "power" seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didn't need any g-- damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee.

"Shock" is a totally inadequate word to describe my response.

I was at a loss to understand any of her reaction. She couldn't have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of "mentally defective", "hate filled", and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company.

A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist "consciousness raising" group as consisting of "perfectly satisfying man hating sessions." Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so "perfectly satisfying". I don't remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me.

It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were. Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president, spoke of "my hatred of men" in the same mattter-of-fact tone that she might say "my nose". It was just an integral part of her.

Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a love relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love?

So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of "commitment" became one and the same as "trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me." I was indeed one of those men who "wouldn't make a commitment."

The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree - greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how "satisfying" man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women.

That is the personal side. And, I won't bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not "whether" a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but "when" and "how soon" it would happen.

On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively - just for being a man.

I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.

Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong, there is another point of view" I'd get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women "in their place", was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.

There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did become true.

I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man - then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday's garbage. In short - as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn't realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity.

I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called "misogynist." I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.

And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't know why you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate women.

Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.

When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______ say instead of 'fuck you'?" answer "Trust Me."

I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.

Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.

Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can't stand them, or anything about them.

I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim games, I'm sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't ask for directions.

How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men headstrong and stupid?"

Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like "get over it", or "why don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell don't you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?"

I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don't get our guns and shoot a few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends

---

Read more from this author here:

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/noback/sex.html#genderwar

OK, Winston, Start Your Two Minutes of Hate… N.O.W.!

I have to laugh at all the people that came here from http://www.rense.com/ to leave insulting comments on my blog.

The world may be struggling with shortages in resources, but useful idiots abound at every corner. If I could turn them into fuel, I would become a billionaire overnight!

Here are a bunch of people who very likely pride themselves on their “knowledge” of what is going on in the world, but still have not put two and two together and realized that feminism is of Marxist origins, and its purpose is to destroy the family and put in a system of tyranny where the weak rule the strong – kinda like making a society where children rule adults. Lol! You shrieking women are next. Haven’t you read Hillary’s thesis? How about the UN’s “Rights of the Child”? Think men are going to rescue you? The very men you so love to hate today? The ones you’ve kicked out of their own homes, and have stolen their very children from? The ones you offered up to state supported slavery? Think again. The plan is to separate men from families so they won’t help you when you really need it.

Totalitarian regimes know that the family is their biggest obstacle in maintaining tyrannical rule. Any moron can conquer a country… keeping it under control is a different matter altogether. Fathers who are attached to their own families are usually the ones that run the oppressors out of the country with pointy sticks. Remove men from their families, and you remove the desire of good to men to search for pointy sticks. DUH!

I notice this disease all over the place on the web. There are many excellent sites out there that document all kinds of government abuses… Prison Planet… Freedom Force etc. They are filled to the brim with excellent articles documenting the abuses being inflicted upon the people by corrupt governments, BUT, nary do they mention feminism and the state encouraged destruction of the family, inspired by evil feminists who often outright state that they want to destroy the family and destroy society and the nature of the sovereign state.

Of course, will any of these useful idiots who come here to screech “FAGGOT!” ever bother to read articles like this one, which documents how our No Fault Divorce laws are an exact replica of Russian marriage laws in the early 20th Century?

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954

(Did you read it, you Gorgons?)

Yes indeed, Russia did so much damage to their population that during WWII, they had to abandon such insanity because they were screwing themselves even worse than the Nazis breathing fire outside the city gates. Gorbachev commented in his book that the reason why the Soviet state collapsed was because of the damage they inflicted on people’s families and close relationships in the early part of the century. 50 years after reversing such policies, they were not able to save themselves, such was the extent of the damage which they did, and which we are replicating under the name of “feminism” and “equality.”

As I mentioned in the comments, in between the 2 minutes of hate, one wonders if all of these politically correct shriekers (Did you know Political Correctness was invented by Lenin and perfected by Stalin?) also scream so loudly and hurl such hatred towards the people that produce shirts saying “Boys are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them!”

Are they half as concerned that over 80% of teen suicides are committed by boys?

I doubt it.

I am sure that many of them giggled and tittered when they heard about Lorena & John Bobbit too. Certainly they didn’t screech and shout such vitriol at their cohorts as they do when a man asks if women invented anything.

A little perspective is in order, perhaps?

Many probably used to run around their university campuses, fueled by an estrogen high as they emphatically told men that “A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle.” (By the way, Irina Dunn was the woman who coined the phrase, and she stole it from a male philosopher who stated “Man Needs Religion Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle.” Oh, the irony, you mighty inventors.)

I wonder how many of these fucktards took an equal amount time which they spent hurling insults of “you must be gay, FAGGOT!” to send Barack Obamanation a nasty note when he blamed father’s for abandoning their families this past Father’s Day. How many of these useful idiots even realize that women file 2/3 of all divorces, and the number one reason is not “abuse” but rather, they simply feel bored and unfulfilled?

How many of them are equally upset about Joe Biden’s VAWA, a completely sexist, one sided law, that strips men of their constitutional rights?

How many of these Useful Idiots even understand that Obama & Biden are going to try and pass over sovereignty of the USA to the United Nations, under the entirely corrupt CEDAW and i-VAWA? Do you even understand the implications, you hate mongers? Holy Totalitarianism! And it's all being done in the name of women's equality - fueled by people like the useful idiots who feel justified in shrieking mindless insults at any man who dares say even the most trivial of negative things about the "fair" sex.

Our freedoms are disappearing daily because no-one dares speak out against feminism and its totalitarian excesses.

Why do you think they targeted women as the best group of useful idiots to crumble the institution of the family and bring in cradle to grave socialism? It’s because they knew the tendency of people to never dare to speak out against women. People like the idiots from Rense that came here to shriek mindless insults over the most trivial of things.

Useful Fucking Idiots.

Have Women Invented ANYTHING!?!

I mean, have they?

With all of that time they had living in Betty Friedan's "Comfortable Concentration Camp", one would think they would have had lots of time to dream up all kinds of crap.

But...

Have they?

Seriously!

You know, I used to pinch severely off of Buster B's phrase "name something that a woman has invented that involves more than two moving parts."

(You haven't read Buster B? Well, where have you been living? On that ever cooling sun? You can find his archives here: http://busterb.mgtow.net/ T'is good stuff!)

But, I think Buster and I were both aiming too high.

I got into a conversation about female inventions today, and, I insisted that only a woman could have invented those stupid little doilies that the fair sex likes to stick under ever solid object in a house.

I despise those ridiculous things!

I was sure that only a woman would have invented them. I mean, they are so enamoured by them that I know not of a woman who has not purchased several.

Surely, such a frivilous, stupid, little lacey circle couldn't have been invented by a man!

WRONG!

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00110/salon.html

“Who invented the doily? Count D'Oyley was supposedly a decorator back in 17th Century London. He created the first doilies. They were made of a woolen material. In the 1800s in France, they started making the paper doily. They were brought here to the United States in the mid-1800s.” (13)

I mean, trust me! When the rest of us men invent the time machine, I will be the first to support the notion that this asshat should be removed from the past gene pool! And justified in my support I should be, as this jerkoff has tormented men with stupid lacey crap adorning the base of every truly masculine thing within the home which he has built! Death is too merciful! Only banishment from the gene pool will suffice!

But, dammit!

I was certain that women must have invented those darn things... if only to irritate their menfolk, which they seem to so love doing.

But I was wrong!

So, dear readers, please help me along!

Can I change the phrase from "Can you name anything with more than two moving parts that was invented by a woman" to "can you name ANYTHING that was invented by a woman?"

I want to remain accurate... but, after the doily incident, my faith has been shaken.

Follow Along with the Events Between Russia and Georgia

This guy at the blog "Once Upon a Time in the West" has been monitoring this kind of stuff for quite a while already:

http://once-upon-a-time-in-the-west.blogspot.com/

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep." -- Mikhail Gorbachev

Online Book: "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin

I know how much my readers absolutely salivate over the opportunity to read an online book. Please guys, slow down with the e-mails begging me to post another book so you are not forced to watch more mind-numbing episodes of Big Brother. (Some day soon, that show will be a real reality anyway, so do something else with your time while you can, eh?)

A few months back I posted a review of this book here on this most superb of all blogs on the world wide web:

---

Reveiw by MPC at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/SEX-CULTURE-J-D-Unwin/dp/B000K7AQFC

That is the basic thesis of this unjustly forgotten book. According to Professor Unwin, who was influenced by Freud, it is the "limitation of sexual opportunity" which creates the "mental energy" necessary to build a civilization.

He backs this up with exhaustive examples of the historical cycle he proposes. The cycle goes as follows: in a primitive society, people take their pleasure at whim, without commitment or limits. Then the practice of monogamous marriage, including premarital chastity, is instituted. (How he believes this first arises would take far too long to summarize here; read the book!) The sexual repression required for this chastity and fidelity increases the "mental energy" and the inner strength of those who practice it, enabling them to embark on long-term projects such as monumental architecture, agriculture, and conquest. In this early stage, men have enormous power over their wives and children, even when the children have grown up.

The "sexual opportunity" of women is always, of necessity, more limited than that of men in a civilized society, and this has a powerful effect, according to Unwin; they convey this repression and its benefits to their children. Indeed, he blames the decline of feudalism on its habit of putting its "best" women into convents to live as nuns - it is true that for a woman with intellectual aspirations, a convent was her only real option - instead of having them bear children to whom they could convey their "mental energy".Unwin also criticizes polygamous societies; the easy "sexual opportunity" it affords men limits the "mental energy".

He says, "That is why, I submit, the Moors in Spain achieved such a high culture. Their fathers were born into a polygamous tradition; but their mothers were the daughters of Christians and Jews, and had spent their early years in an absolutely monogamous environment. The sons of these women laid the foundations of rationalistic culture; but soon the supply of Christian and Jewish women was insufficient, so the incipient rationalism failed to mature greatly."

It always begins with the ruling class, the aristocracy, being the most chaste and monogamous. As they grow decadent after a few generations, the "middle class" (not necessarily in our modern understanding of it) is just getting the hang of it, having aped it from their betters, and they acquire more power in the society.

In time, however, the strict monogamy loosens. Unwin speculates that the extreme power the builders of civilizations have over their wives and children is unbearable to most, and the decrease of this power is inevitable. Unwin's attention is more on the monogamy than on the legal position of women, but the two seem to march hand in hand. "A female emancipating movement is a cultural phenomenon of unfailing regularity; it appears to be the necessary outcome of absolute monogamy. The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women, which is sometimes emphasized, has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity."

Indeed, as sexual opportunity becomes easier - which always takes place in concert with female emancipation - the society's mental energy weakens, it cannot continue to invent things or maintain what it has, and in a few generations it is easily conquered by a robust monogamous patriarchy, which is fairly bursting with the mental energy of repressed sexuality.

Professor Unwin, by the way, was not in any way a male chauvinist. He concluded his book with a hopeful wish that we may find some way to have sexual repression and the equality of the sexes at the same time, and clearly believed that women are not inherently unfit for power and independence.

That is one of the two criticisms I would make of this excellent work. But one can hardly blame Professor Unwin, who was writing in 1934, long before scientific study had verified that all of the traditional stereotypes about women were based in biological fact. Indeed, thanks to feminist domination of mass media, few people today are aware of this.

The other criticism is that Unwin focuses all of his attention on the "mental energy" caused by sexual repression. I suspect he is right about it, but there is another vital factor in the building of a civilization, and that is paternity. Men build things - houses, palaces, empires, codes of ethics - so that they can pass them on to their own children, and thus achieve one kind of immortality. Men who know they cannot train and endow their children are disinclined to produce. This, even more than the lack of opportunity for personal enrichment, is why communism and socialism are such abysmal failures, and why inheritance tax is such a dangerous threat to civilization itself. It would be good to read an intertwining of this theory and Unwin's. This book has long been out of print and copies are rare and expensive, but until this situation is remedied, it can be obtained through inter-library loan. I highly recommend it for its exhaustive documentation.

-----

A further review by "married":

Unwin's research is extremely valuable, but his explanation is nonsense. One has to understand that as a liberal anthropologist, he never expected the results that he found, and was undoubtedly not very happy with them, but he was honest enough to report that facts as he found them. His explanation is an attempt to reconcile the facts with his liberal beliefs, when they are, in fact, irreconcilable. The only limit of sexual opportunity in the historical societies that he describes is limits for women. Prostitution was very widespread in these societies, so men never lacked sex.

-----

Here is where to find the book online:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4341114

Easiest way to get this file with torrent, is to download Opera Web Browser 9.5. It has built in torrent support. Just click on the link and leave the browser open.

1) Go to http://www.opera.com/download/

2) Download a copy.

3) Open and install.

4) Go to http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4341114

5) Click on "Download this torrent'

6) Leave Opera Browser up and running, leave computer on.

Or,

Or download it as a zip file, containing the several formats listed: http://www.tenjune.com/SexCulture.zip

(Thanks Anon 66)

--------------------------------

PS. Be sure to follow along and watch Angry Harry return fire with a figurative kick in the nuts to Gavin Esler and the manginas and man-haters at the BBC’s News Night Team. Ha Ha!

Father's 4 Justice Protest in Canada, NDP Leader, Jack Layton's Office

Woohoo! Give 'em hell, boys!

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/ontario/story.html?id=0caf70dd-6dfb-4d94-9b18-2bb1ca7768b4

Global News
Published: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:34:02 PM

The suspect dressed as 'Spiderman' has surrendered peacefully to police. The other suspect being addressed as, 'Plywood Man' remains on the roof of the building.

1:26:08 PMPolice are on the scene of a roof-top protest at Jack Layton's riding office at 221 Broadview Ave. A man dressed as Spider-Man is on the roof of the building trying to bring attention to father's rights. It's believed the group Fathers 4 Justice is behind the protest. Reports indicate there are two men on the roof of the building and that they have enough supplies to camp out for an extended period of time. The group claims they will "tirelessly promote, every child's right to be raised by both parents on an equal basis in the event of separation and or divorce, and further believes that such equality in parenting has been clearly shown to be in the best interests of children."

------------

Lol! Jack Layton, leader of the radically far-left New Democrat Party of Canada (NDP) is on TV moaning like a little lefty. "They should be writing letters instead of doing this, sob, sniffle."

They have been for years, Jack, you dope. Now get off your tax-funded, useless ass and do something for the citizens of this country that pay your exhorbitant wages, which are mainly men & fathers.

------------

Update:

"Plywood Man" is a Northerner!!!

As some of you might know, I have a special soft spot in my heart for Northerners!

Well then, kick some ass like only a Northerner can, Plywood Man!

.

Thanks for the info/comment from Kevin G, posted at the mightiest blog on the web (yeah, you know it simply as No Ma'am):

Too Bad CTV didn't televise these two outgoing supporters banner "NDP = No Dads Party"! Surprise, surprise.

Layton says "He doesn't know much about the group or why". I call B.S. but if he really doesn't, he better find out soon:

Plywood Man began his mission for equal parenting 6 years ago in Yellowknife , NWT. With no tall buildings to climb he began his simple but persistent protest for equal parenting with large pieces of painted plywood. His campaign drew overwhelming community support and led to the unanimous resolution passed on June 17, 2008 by the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories in support of Equal Parenting and a call to NDP MP, Denis Bevington to support Private Members Motion M483 for Equal Parenting.

To date Mr. Bevington has been unable to publicly support the bill because he has been oppressed by his party and in particular NDP leader Jack Layton.

A big thumbs up to these two courageous men. They're fighting for one of, if not thee, most important issues of today: OUR CHILDREN! Everything else is immaterial with out them.

.

Home of the Best Show on Earth!

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/08/09/6394026-sun.html

Perhaps upset The Dark Knight broke all his box office records, Spiderman returned to Toronto yesterday.

A man dressed as the action hero and another in lumberjack attire calling himself "Plywood Man" had a stand-off with police for nearly six hours after climbing to the roof of Jack Layton's east-end riding office.

The makeshift superheroes climbed the NDP -- the No Dads Party, as they called it -- leader's building as part of the protest group Fathers 4 Justice.

"Fathers 4 Justice ... will tirelessly promote every child's right to be raised by both parents on an equal basis in the event of separation and or divorce," their website says.

'WANT TO SEE MY KID'

Yesterday, Plywood Man barked back and forth with police negotiators as he demanded his son, who lives with his mother in Pickering, be brought to him or he might jump off the Broadview and Dundas Aves. E. building.

"I want to see my kid," he yelled.

Emergency task force officers were on the roof near the men, keeping a safe distance because Plywood Man was close to the edge with a rope tied around his neck.

The man dressed in the Spiderman costume surrendered without incident at 2 p.m., but no one knew how long Plywood Man, who travelled to Toronto from the Northwest Territories and had food and a portable toilet with him, planned to stay on the roof.

Some three hours later, police let go two loud, flash-bang "distractionary devices," dazing the man before he was swarmed by ETF officers.

---

Since Jack Layton so wants people to e-mail him their concerns rather than sit on his roof, why not send him an e-mail describing what a sack of shit he is for dissing men, fathers, and the democratic system: laytoj@parl.gc.ca

Movie: A Father's Rights

Check out the website for the film here: http://g2rdistribution.com/

.

Watch the trailer here: http://g2rdistribution.com/afr.trailer.html

.

Now, before someone reminds me to put in the required politically correct disclaimer, I would like to state that not all women are like that.

.

Nope. Some are even worse!

A Sexist Commenter Sets Me Straight

Straight out of Gender Stooges 101A, this fembot gives me an education! How many errors can you spot in the following drivel?

---

Anonymous Said:

Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars. Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims. War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets. Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision. This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits. Women and their children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilian victims. I'm glad that feminism gives women some leverage against violent male insanity. This is why we NEED feminism.

---


Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars.

Yes indeed. Certainly all of those bridges and buildings that were brought to rubble were rebuilt by the female workforce. Btw, those "violent men who participated in wars" were told that if they didn't get violent and participate, they would face the certain death of a firing squad. Rushing headlong into a volley of enemy bullets gave them a better chance of survival.

Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims.

Of course, men didn't have to deal with war's aftermath, because they all retired to their drawing rooms for a cigar and a port while the female workforce went about rebuilding those bridges. I'm searching for the "twofold" explanation, but I can't see it. Ah, don't worry, Princess, mathematics is an institution set up by men, for the benefit of men. We didn't ever expect you to understand one plus one, and especially not to benefit from it.

War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets.

Oh, war is the institution by and for men. That explains the white feather campaign during World War One, where women shamed men into joining the war by giving them a white feather to indicate they thought the man was a coward for not killing and maiming other men. Of course, once these men joined up with the army, their commanding officer's first order was to seek out women and children and shoot them dead. This makes sense, because the women and children were unarmed and couldn't shoot back. It was much safer to specialize in woman and children killing while in the army. Yup, the 101st Women and Children Killers Brigade was the unit where my grandpa served.

Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision.

Yes indeed. Men working to provide food and shelter for their wives and children was in the primary interest of the man... of course, without all of those mouths to feed, the man would have suffered and died. Lol! Patriarchy is set up for the benefit of women and children, you dope, not the other way around. Patriarchy was set up to force men to be slave workers for their families, who could not survive on their own. Or maybe it was no problem at all for an 8 month pregnant woman with 3 toddlers in tow to plow the field with oxen and plant the corn?

War is in the best interest of men? How so? Because it is cheaper to buy shoes after one of your legs has been blown off? Because the rent is cheaper 6 feet under? Because men love having bullets zinging all around them rather than sitting on the front porch with a cold beer, back at their homes, while watching the womenfolk plough the fields?

And, actually, war is more of a female decision than a male one. Back in the days of the suffragettes, their common cry was, "If women had the vote, there would be no more wars." Well, women now have the vote, and demographically there are more women than men, so women also have the majority of votes (they also vote more)... and who continually votes in the leaders who send men to their deaths in needless wars? Why, the majority of voters, that's who! In fact, after 9/11, women were in as much support of going to war as men... the difference is, though, that the men who supported it also knew, deep down, that they might be called upon to get shot at on the front-lines while the women who supported it knew, deep down, that at the very worst, they would only be called upon to do the safer "auxilliary work" to make up for the shortfall of labour caused by the men who were dying for the extreme benefits of, well, dying.

This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits.

Holy sexism, batshit insane girl! But I accept your insanity because women generally blame men for everything and take no responsiblities for themselves. One thing where men and women are not equal is the realm of sin, apparently. Women good, men bad. Lol! Women are quite violent, and are responsible for the majority of child abuse. They also instigate and perpetrate an equal amount of DV against their partners. But, what is really amazing, is how DV between lesbian couples skyrockets through the roof, higher than in any other demographic on earth. But, don't worry, I am sure you lesbo fembots will soon figure out a way to blame men for female on female violence too.

Men are generally competitive, while women are not? You go, grrrrl! Women are in complete competition with men on every level of society, thanks to psychotic feminism, and they revel in it like children in a playground. Women are even trying to be better men than men are. Who is calling who competitive, you sexist piglet.

Power hungry? Feminism is all about grabbing power and making it female only. Lol! Hey, have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton? Now there is one power hungry gringa, eh? She also threatened to obliterate Iran during her campaign... but, of course, only after the Pentagon would develop a bomb that could only kill the worthless men, while leaving the women and children completely unharmed. Surely Hillary didn't mean she would blow all the little Iranian women and children to bits along with the men. A woman would never be capable of such horrific things. Hillary must be a man in drag.

Obsessive need to control? Lol! You have obviously never been married to a woman, nor dated one, nor even spoken to one.

Btw, the most sexist notion that exists in our society is that only one gender is capable of sexism.

Women and children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilians.

First off, are women children? If they are not, then why do women keep saying "women and children?" Does this not imply that women are on the same level as children? How about women start standing up and as women alone, rather than insinuating they are deserving of the unearned sympathy that is usually afforded only to children who don't know any better.

This is a silly ploy used all the time to get extra sympathy for women, where none is deserved.

For example: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were women and children," could also just as easily (and accurately) be said as: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were men and children."

But, I guess only men want to be thought of as adults. Fine, we shall treat women like children if they keep insisting they are children.

Now, as to your ludicrous claim that women and children have died in greater numbers as victims of war than men ever have... I am just speechless that women come in models as incredibly stupid as you! Do you even think before your lips start flapping?

Yes indeed, all of those white crosses at Normandy are for the men who were victims of war... but, there is a field three times larger than that just down the lane where all the women and children are buried... but, because women and children are completely worthless to men, they were buried in mass, unmarked graves.

How fucking stupid can you get?

This is what happens when "feminist math" rules the day.

You, madam, are the very reason that society was likely so misogynist in the past. With logic like yours, mixed in with the rampant and angry sexism typical of most women, allowing people like you to have any involvement in running a society most likely was so poisonous to said society, that the concept was just abolished.

I hope that if the need ever arises again for men to take up arms to defend their nation, they all remember the ungrateful little bitches like this douchebag commenter, and go fishing instead. Let these strong powerful women defend themselves, because quite frankly, I wouldn't risk one hair on my head to defend such ignorant, malicious and spiteful bitches, nor the society that condones this sickening hatred of men.

Society needs feminism about as much as it needs the opinions of dopes like this woman.

-------------------------------------

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." -- Hillary Clinton

The Feminist Road to Totalitarianism - by Aidan Rankin

http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/636.htm

I. Compulsory Niceness And The Failure of Nerve

The unquestioned acceptance of feminist goals has become almost universal in European political and intellectual life. That is not to say that the populations of European nations have been converted to feminism en masse. On the contrary, feminism and feminists themselves are probably more objects of revulsion and ridicule than ever before. That revulsion and ridicule is now accentuated by fear. Fear stems from an awareness of the power that feminist ideology exerts over academics, educators, policy-makers and the media, over those who make intimate decisions about other people’s lives, such as doctors and social workers, or those who interpret and enforce the law. It explains the tendency of institutions, including highly traditional institutions, to give in to feminism and become vehicles for dogmatic social engineering. ‘I am a feminist,’ protests the conservative commentator. ‘I am not a sexist,’ the Anglican traditionalist assures his critics. ‘Of course “equal opportunity” is a good thing,’ declares the Infantry officer, defensively. Such protestations effectively neutralise moral arguments for the traditional family, theological arguments against the ordination of women, or the case for the all-male regiment, with the pride, stability and esprit de corps that it engenders. Thus important and valuable arguments are being lost before they even begin. This has nothing to do with whether they are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. For each of the arguments I have listed raises distinctive questions, moral, social and in one case theological. They can be resolved, therefore, only as individual problems on a case-by-case basis, not in the context of an abstract, all-embracing doctrine of ‘equality’. But as soon as the word ‘equality’ is mentioned, feminism’s opponents suffer a failure of nerve.

---

Read the rest of the article here: http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/636.htm

The Real Reason Hillary Has Not Yet Dropped Out Of The Race...

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=89d59491-3910-45c2-9643-3a2fd9347606

She's locked in her car outside party headquarters!!!

"Automatic car features are supposed to make life easier for motorists, but they may be leaving some people without the know-how to do things the old-fashioned way. That’s what happened to a driver in Utah County who became trapped inside her own car.

A woman called Orem police Friday afternoon needing help because her battery died and she was locked inside her car.

When police arrived, they found the woman sitting in the car, unable to get herself out. She couldn’t hear the officers instructions through the rolled-up windows so she motioned to them to call her on her cell phone, according to police.

Once officers were able to talk to the woman on the phone, they were able to tell her how to manually operate the slide lock mechanism on the inside door panel to open the door and free herself.

“I'm just glad she had a cell phone to call for help,” an officer said."

-------------

Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3UGhRjPry4

-------------

Quite frankly, I think I might change my stance on Hitlery for Prez. I can think of no-one better to have their finger hovering over the button than someone who doesn't understand how it works.

Then again...

http://www.bofunk.com/video/4494/if_a_woman_were_president.html

PS - I don't support Obama or McCain either.

Fedders for President! Or, better yet: Fedders for Grand Puba of the New World Order!

A Warning for America from South Africa

http://www.manews.org/0105sawarning.html

(Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.

But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.

That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.

Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."

Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.

The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.

Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.

It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.

White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.

We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.

The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."

Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.

In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?

Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.

In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.

What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?

Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.

Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.

In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.

When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.

Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.

What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.

Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.

Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.

To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.

Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.

And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will. They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well. They know what to do.

Do you?

(This article first appeared in the August 2000 edition of Middle American News. It is reprinted here in response to numerous requests.)

Online Book: New Lies for Old -- by Anatoliy Golitsyn

I could write a summary of this book, to make it easier for everyone, but... my experience has shown there are only two types of people out there on the web:

1). Those who wish me to write a summary, will oppose whatever summary I write, and never bother to actually read the book themselves anyway.

and,

2). Those who will read my summary and go, "hmph, that's nice, Rob," then read the book themselves so they can come to their own conclusions.

I wish there were less #1's and more #2's, but alas, from what I understand, only 1 in 6 people are willing to let go of group think and come to their own conclusions after examining the facts put before them.

Very troubling.

New Lies for Old -- by Anatoliy Golitsyn

http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/index.php?s=68e413f8a8ba4c7f541e3b1c9c98601b&act=attach&type=post&id=452

OK, OK, here is short paragraph about who Mr. Golitsyn is. (I have been aware of him for a while, and read several articles about his work, but have never actually read his book before).

In the early 1960’s, a Russian named Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the USA. He was a Major in the KGB and thus the highest ranking KGB Officer to ever defect to the USA. The CIA’s Soviet Bloc Division debriefed Golitsyn, trying to get him to identify KGB moles working at various embassies around the world. They showed him thousands of pictures trying to get him to identify “who.” Eventually, Golitsyn got angry with the CIA for forcing him through such a tedious exercise, and shouted at his interrogators, “What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/looking.htm

---

The West needs to go through a paradigm shift in regard to how they view Communism-Marxism. Kind of like when you look at the following picture, and discover that there are actually two ladies in it. So must we learn to look at Marxism to begin to truly understand its dangers.

The Earth is Wicked Again...

"The Earth is wicked again. I'm going to flood it and start over," God told Noah. "Build another ark and save two of every living thing."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no boat. "Where's the ark?" he roared. "I'm about to start the rain."

"Well, things have changed," Noah said. "First, I needed a building permit. Then some group said it was inhumane to put the animals in such a close space. Then the government halted construction to conduct an environmental-impact study on the flood."

Suddenly, the clouds cleared and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

"You mean, you're not going to destroy the world?" Noah asked.

"What's the point?" God said. "Looks like someone beat me to it."


Gavin Esler