NO MA'AM

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)

2012-01-29T17:22:00.000-08:00

A measure of sadness washes over me when I reflect upon the changed meaning of MGTOW, which now seems to stand for the marriage strike and curtailing any influence a woman may have over a man's life. It's not that I disagree with men on the marriage strike (I myself am not married and have zero intention of ending my bachelor status) nor do I disagree that men ought to have their spidey-senses tingling at all times to limit the harm women can inflict in our gynocentric society. No, the sadness is over the lost meaning behind MGTOW, which was and still is the most beautiful "solution" to men's problems within our culture. The key to MGTOW's philosophy is in its simplicity, which can be evidenced in The Men Going Their Own Way Manifesto.

The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!

By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.

By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.

By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.

Women having "other qualities" is not interesting to men because we don't need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!

This is the aim of "Men Going Their Own Way".

By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.

This goal is to take away everyone's "right" to vote on other people's affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their personal will on everyone else. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect - but not directly and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.

It really is pretty simple, isn't it?

It is not concerned with "ending gender roles" if it is about instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women. Just the opposite. This plays beautifully into the whole bio-mechanics and social-dynamics sphere that many refer to as "game," a term I hate, but a subject that is key to understanding the issues with any real clarity. As Pook tells us, women are attracted to masculine qualities, not feminine ones, just as the reverse is true of men being attracted to feminine qualities. In our culture, propaganda has been force-fed down boys throats almost since birth that for boys to emulate feminine qualities is "good" while their masculine qualities are "bad." This carries on further into relationships and marriage, where men have been brainwashed into believing that if they "embraced their feminine side" that it would make them more endearing to women, and thus be able to get along with them better. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what actually works. If men embrace their masculinity and wear it proudly, their relationships with women will improve as well. The same goes the other way, that if women embrace their feminine strengths, rather than competing to see if she can be a better man than her husband, many other problems will begin to solve themselves. As many in the game community will attest to, it is not the masculine alpha male that gets charged with domestic violence, but rather it is usually the SNAGS (Sensitive New Age Guys) who've embraced their feminine side and in doing so repulsed their woman to such a degree that she begins to hate him, and then starts leveling domestic violence charges against them as she enters into a destructive spiral, intent on destroying her family. Instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women may not be the solution to everything, but it is the lubrication which makes the solutions work better.

Working for limited government is, I believe, the ultimate solution. The less the government is involved in our personal lives, the more we will be forced to make our personal lives work for ourselves.

Think of two people, a man and a woman, alone out in the woods. They will soon come to depend upon each other willingly and along with willing dependence, so will come the effort to make the relationship itself work. A cabin will be built and they will both enter into the roles they are best suited for just out of necessity, as was always the case in the history of the world. If one betrays the other and leaves, they will both suffer. I firmly believe that if relationships are to work over the long run, a certain level of co-dependency will do more good than a gajillion psychologists giving more of their sage advice. The closer we can get to that idea of a man and a woman alone in the woods depending on each other for their given talents, the better off everyone's relationships will be.

MGTOW is not about raising money to fund lobby groups. Lobby groups exist to pressure the government to create more laws, and to force others to do that which they would not choose to do of their own accord. That is growing government, not limiting it.

I love watching Ron Paul in debates because of his simplicity. Whenever someone tries to challenge the guy, he stops and says, "Well, what would the Constitution say?" and then he goes with that, and his answer is pretty much bang-on every time. The same idea can be applied to the issues of relationships simply by asking, "Is there a way to do this with less government rather than more? And if so, is it simpler?" If the answer to those questions are yes then it is almost assuredly the better solution.

For example, much of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is focused on the plight of divorced fathers and the shrieks for shared-parenting are deafening. Shared-parenting though, is pretty much asking for the government courts to take 100% custody of the child and then dole out baby-sitting duties to the parents on this day and that day. If one parent loses a job and needs to move across the country to find employment, he will have to beg the court for permission to relinquish his duties to shared-parenting. Such a person has thus surrendered their right to move freely about the country. What if the two parents decide to follow vastly different religions? Well, the court will decide whether the child is to be Jewish or Muslim, not the parents. Furthermore, when shared-parenting becomes the norm, a woman's only way to get on the current alimony/child-support gravy train will be to claim abuse as the reason for her getting sole custody, and the amount of men falsely accused of abuse will rise. While I don't have statistical evidence of this (yet), I have had a phone conversation about shared-parenting with someone involved in the movement a year or so ago, and he did admit to me that in places where shared-parenting was becoming the norm, false accusations of abuse are also rising. It only makes sense that if you offer financial incentives - windfalls, actually - for making false accusations, that false accusations will increase and men will pay the price. Whatever the government touches, it turns to shit, just like Midas - minus the gold.

So, is there an easier solution than shared-parenting?

Yup! There sure is! It is called marriage 1.0, or patriarchy. Although, it doesn't need to be called that in order for it to work. It could be called the "Tooth Fairy Surrogacy Contract" for all I care, so long as it resembles the characteristics of marriage 1.0. In other words, the children of a marriage (or a Tooth Fairy Surrogacy Contract) are the property, or are under the custody, of the husband. No ifs, ands or buts. If the woman wants to leave, nobody will stop her, but the children stay with the husband. If women don't like that idea, then they are more than welcome to revel in their single-motherhood, and get knocked up by a thug at the local biker bar. In marriage 1.0, children of a marriage were the property of the husband, and children born out of wedlock were the property of the woman. No government mandated child-support, no nothing. Just basic, simple property/custody rights. Were they married? The kids are his. They weren't married, the kids are hers. The "owner" assumes all liability and expenses. End of story. No need for much of government at all except for a court to determine whether they were married or not, and thus deciding upon "property" or custody rights. (Hey, that's just how the Founding Fathers wanted things!). And do we know that this minimal government system of child custody will work? Yup again! In fact, there are thousands of years of evidence for it right in our very own culture, up until around the 1860's when the divorce rate was less than 2%. (Custody laws changed in favour of women in the 1870's and by the 1920's, the divorce rate had sky-rocketed 700% to around 15% of marriages ending in divorce. It has only risen about 300% since then - think about that.) In this situation, both men and women have the ability to meaningfully have children, and also, it would do wonders to lower the divorce rates, as the discussion about who has presumed custody (what kind of "marriage" you want to have with princess) will reveal a lot to both parties before, not after. And if a man goes ahead and signs up for being a Kitchen Bitch in Marriage 2.0, I have little sympathy for him. He knew the risks, took them, and if he loses I will cry about as hard for him as for those who lost at the casino. They weren't robbed, just willfully stupid.

The best solution is always the one with the least amount of "government touch."

I'd like to discuss MGTOW more in the future, as well as touching upon how the "philosophy" of MGTOW is also the perfect solution to stopping the Marxist Dialectic. There is so much "good" about MGTOW that it is a shame that its meaning has changed and these other aspects have been forgotten.

In the meantime, here is the rest of the MGTOW Manifesto for you to read. I challenge you to find even the word marriage in there, let alone "marriage strike." I can find no fault with the philosophy in it. It truly embodies what I believe.

It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies.

PRIME STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS

We have 3 main strategies:

1. Instilling masculinity in men by:

- Demanding respect for men
- Serving as good male role models
- Living independent lives
- Fighting chivalry

2. Instilling femininity in women

- We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse to take any responsibility for their own circumstances. Thus we induce women to take a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position, as is now the case.

Feminine qualities we want from women:
- Nurturing
- Supportive
- Responsibility
- Respectfulness
- Honesty

3. Limited government

In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:
- Go Their Own Way
- Support other men
- Legally reduce any taxpaying
- Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
- Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves

It is those 3 strategies that come together in one.

MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY
This is the logo:

Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.

What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics.

- Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
- Run one or many web-sites and fora that promotes this.
- Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
- Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as "Chivalry is dead!".
- Writing articles supporting our product.
- Producing music promoting our product.
- Hold international events and local meetings.
- Establishing men's clubs.
- Boycotting certain products.

You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.

The men's movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives of everyone, including women and children.

IF IT’S NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY!

Take care brother!

The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domain, explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW. May 1, 2006

Marriage is Fraud

2010-11-21T16:40:00.000-08:00

[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

Male and Female: Equal but Different

2010-11-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

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...

2010-11-21T16:33:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-21T16:32:00.000-08:00

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.* (See study at the bottom of this article).

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.

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.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"When I started researching this book, I was prepared to rediscover the old saw that conventional femininity is nurturing and passive and that masculinity is self-serving, egotistical, and uncaring. But I did not find this. One of my findings here is that manhood ideologies always include a criterion of selfless generosity, even to the point of sacrifice. Again and again we find that 'real' men are those who give more than they take." -- David Gilmore in his 1990 book Manhood in the Making
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
Science Can’t Stop Proving Me Right -- Roissy
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
* Comparative primate studies sometimes indicate that humans are designed for monogamy. Among the monogamous white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), the average body weight of an adult male is about 1,000 times the weight of the average male’s testes (Dixson, 1998). Among humans, the average man’s body weight is about 1,300 times the size of the average man’s testes (Schultz, 1938), a ratio similar to the white-handed gibbon. In contrast, the more short-term-orientated common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) possesses extremely large testes with a body-testes ratio of only 350 (Dixson & Mundy, 1994), and the polygynous gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) has small testes with a body-testes ratio of over 5,000 (Hall-Craggs, 1962). Contradictory evidence regarding mating strategies exists in comparisons of primate seminal volume, sperm structure, and sperm quality (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Dixson, 1993; Moller, 1988). Overall, Dixson (1998) concluded that human male reproductive physiology is consistent with both monogamous and polygynous mating, providing only mixed support for the view that humans are monogamous. Humans display extreme levels of altriciality compared to other primates, requiring large parental investments and possessing a relatively delayed adolescence (T.M. Mueller, 1999).
.
Mate desertion is generally associated with lower infant survival in foraging cultures (Hill & Hurtado, 1996), another indication that humans are designed for monogamy. Finally, humans possess several neurophysiological systems of attachment linked with pairbonding and monogamy across species (Fisher, 1998; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999; Young, 2003). Fisher (1992) suggests that human patterns of weaning, birth spacing, divorce, and remarriage all point to a system of serial monogamy. It takes about 4 years to wean a child in hunter-gatherer cultures, and birth spacing in a foraging environment averages about 4 years (Blurton Jones 1986). Many divorces occur between the fourth and sixth year of marriage (Fisher, 1989, 1992), and men who practice serial monogamy are more reproductively successful than men who stay married to the same woman for a lifetime. Women who mate serially do not have reproductive advantage over other women (Buckle, Gallup, & Rodd, 1996).

Excerpt from The Handbook Of Evolutionary Psychology (2005)(pages 259-261) edited by David Buss.

NO MA'AM's Guide To Bird Watching in the Manosphere

2010-11-21T16:31:00.000-08:00

Many men love to stroll through the lush forests of the Manosphere, as there is much to see and behold. One can find all sorts of things, from young saplings yearning to reach the open sky, to mighty Sequoias offering a sense of security in their strength, along with respite from the outer heat within the ambience of their shade.
.
As one walks through this unique atmosphere, it is quite common to hear the chirping of several different types of birds. The birds are part of the forest and therefore I would like to provide the following Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere.

One might spot an Elusive Wife perched on a branch overhanging your path. You veterans know her well. She is the one who has the perfect life; her marriage is free from strife, her children are raised the perfect way, and you’ll see her in Church twice on Sunday. She will pleasure her husband anytime he desires, sex in their marriage is still burning fires. “Her home cuisine is delicious,” she insists he will say, and to top it all off, from this path she’ll never foray.
.
The Elusive Wife is most often a traditional stay-at-home mom who believes in the message of the MRM. She’s the one who never lets any man forget that "he should keep on looking because there are still good women out there!" Her song goes something like this: "Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!"

The Elusive Wife appears to support men's issues, but really, those more jaded and experienced within "The Movement" will recognize that the Elusive Wife is concerned about men mainly because she is scared shitless of men waking up to the scam. She wants men to return to their masculine role of pandering to women's every whim, slaving away like a mindless drone for her and her children. It is noteworthy that the Elusive Wife's husband never comes online, gushing about his wonderful life with his wonderful wife. Nope, only she speaks of how blissfully contented her husband is with her. He smartly (or cowardly) remains silent.

The Elusive Wife says she is interested in men's issues, but what she really wants is to ensure that men keep serving women. She does this because, deep down, she knows she would be screwed if it were any other way. She knows she is a preferred human and wants desperately to maintain that concept. She has a manipulated man-slave at her finger tips and she damn well knows what a good con-game women have been running for thousands of years.

Another species which may appear is from the genus Mountainous Mammarious. You can tell a Mountainous Mammarious is in your neck of the woods because of her distinctive call, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!"

She too fully believes in men's issues, and that's why she plunks her self-described Victoria Secret satin pantied ass (page 9, item C), right in the midst of as many men as she can find. She brightens up the whole board with her cheerful song, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!" which is interspersed amongst every comment she makes.

She agrees with everything and befriends all. She often provides some useful services to humanity, like informing men of what it is like to grow breasts, menstruate, or have an ovary removed. The only thing she complains about is how uncomfortable it is to always have her lacy, Victoria Secret brassiere straps (page 11, item B) cutting into her back, due to the imbalanced weight proportioned towards her front. You see, she helps men better understand things from a woman's perspective. She flits in and out of blogs and forums, always spreading her good will towards her new found friends, and of course, announcing her arrivals and departures with her cheerful song, "DEE, DEE! DEE, DEE... Dee, Dee... Deeeee, deeeee....”

A third species of woman is rather an interesting one which is called Meritorious Mediocrous in Latin. Meritorious Mediocrus is perceived as a great Amazon bird of prey to many of those within men’s circles. Tales of her exploits become legendary and her name is revered wherever she goes. Even in far away lands, children are regaled with stories about the brave and mighty Meritorious Mediocrus.

There is a natural problem built within the species Meritorious Mediocrus though, and this is why some experts wish to rename this bird as Annika Sorenstamus. You see, Meritorious Mediocrus gets an enormous amount of attention for placing 96th out of 111, simply for being a woman. No-one knows who was 97th, 95th or even 5th - but everyone knows when Meritorious Mediocrus places in the bottom 15% of the field, and she receives gratuitous adulation for her accomplishments.

We see this same phenomenon all throughout society. A woman accomplishes something "great" simply by becoming, say, a firefighter. In fact, a newspaper story might appear on the front page because of this particular example of a Meritorious Mediocrus, and sumptuously entertain the readers with her heroism in becoming a firefighter. A man, however, who is stronger, faster and has fifteen years experience on her, will not receive any praise for his "accomplishments" unless he charges fearlessly into a blazing orphanage and single handedly rescues a dozen toddlers. Then of course, when he is done, he sees a little girl crying that her kitten is still trapped inside. So the male firefighter again gallantly dashes into the inferno, intending to rescue the kitten, only for the entire building to collapse upon him, killing him instantly. That story will make the eighth page in the same newspaper.

The problem with Meritorious Mediocrus stems from her fame and influence far outstripping her insights and accomplishments. The effect of this is that the lower end of the spectrum tends to have a louder, more influential voice than the higher end of the spectrum. And somehow, there is just something not right about that. It’s like the natural hierarchy of the universe gets turned upside down.

The fourth type of bird one may encounter hails from the species of Achievus Consensus. This bird's entire purpose in life seems to revolve around convincing men that they will accomplish absolutely nothing unless they manage to get women onboard. (She might cite examples of how men completely failed to create a civilization because women didn't participate). As absurd as it sounds to an outsider, Achievus Consensus has some kind of magical hypnotism in her song that makes men agree that, indeed, no flock of sheep can properly succeed without a sufficient number of wolves in its midst.

Despite her hypnotic melody, however, when one digs deeper down it becomes apparent that while Achievus Consensus knows a few peripheral issues, when push comes to shove she knows nothing of substance. Biologists often argue whether Achievus Consensus is from the greater Cuckoo genus or if she is just a crossbreed of the Elusive Wife and the Meritorious Mediocrus.

There is a good case to be made for the crossbreed theory of Achievus Consensus in that she is sometimes very active like the Meritorious Mediocrus while at the same time displaying some traits of the Elusive Wife. She never lets you forget how much she is doing for your benefit while at the same time reminding you that she, and other women, are not all like that.

I, however, tend to agree more with the theory that Achievus Consensus is a sub-species of the Cuckoo because of her continual shaming references to what other women, not her, think about our views. The Cuckoo theory is further backed up in that the Achievus Consensus seems stuck on the belief that men somehow have to convince women to let them do want they want. Achievus Consensus talks like men are small children who need to ask Mom's permission to play outside after supper.

Now, although I am describing several completely different species here, one should not forget that they are still from the same overall family within the animal kingdom. This reality is starkly revealed when a man dares to challenge one of them. The flocking instinct of these creatures automatically kicks in and they all gather together, descending upon the transgressing man as if in a scene from Hitchcock's The Birds.

Of course, men rarely stick up for other men at the best of times, so the offending man is often left outnumbered. Even worse, some of the other men in the near vicinity were lured in by the message of the Elusive Wife, because she always sings of a dream which he once had, but never attained. Other men are still thinking about the Mountainous Mammarious' Victoria Secret satin panties, which he looked up online after she let it "slip" that they were the ones one Page 9, Item C. Several men will have enormous respect for the achievements of Meritorious Mediocrus, thinking those achievements make her above reproach, while others are still in a hypnotic trance from listening to the song of Achievus Consensus, who has been admonishing them to get women onboard so "they can accomplish something."

The result?

Well, no other man will dare speak up once he sees how all the birds attack, as if eagles plucking at Prometheus' heart, and more, how few of the other men will even try to shoo the eagles away.

Soon, all the men are "kept in line" and with everything they write there will be a subconscious concern that the women will be offended. In a month or two, the men are posting less and less while the women are posting more and more, until the few women begin dominating the conversations of the many men.

Now, a men’s forum may try to counter this by creating a "sub-forum" that only allows entrance to men, so they can speak freely without concern of offending the women... but, come on now... a few women show up on a men's forum, and that forces all of the men into a private room in the back? How often have we seen that happen in society? I am starting to find forums with too many women on them to be an excellent way to gauge what happens in the greater society when women show up. Once a forum has gotten that far, it is quite literally, for the birds. Society is no different. Have a look at our governments.
.
There are two other types of birds that may appear as well.
.
The first is the much touted Odd Duck. (She is easiest to notice by the characteristics of reading much and talking little). Similarities to her extend well out of the bird family and into other parts of the Animal Kingdom. Take piglets, for example. Every litter of piglets has a runt that is odd. However, it is the other piglets that make the runt to be odd. And so it is with the Odd Duck in the Bird Family. What makes her odd are the other ducks, and how her behaviour is different from the normal behaviour of ducks. Therefore, in no way ought she be classified as an entire species of her own. And thus, I feel justified in talking little more about Odd Ducks.
.
The final bird one will encounter is the Cawing Crow. These birds are hardly a rarity though, and you need not be within the rich splendor of the Manosphere to find them. In fact, these birds are so common that many men report sighting them in their own backyards!

There is no beauty in the song of the Cawing Crow. In fact, you downright hate the sound; it's just so damn irritating!

Everybody else hates the sound too, and that's why nobody in the Manosphere complains much when you take out that weak, old BB gun which your dad gave you for your 11th birthday and start taking potshots at it.

"Ping!"

You bounce a BB off the Cawing Crow's tail feathers and she flies away.

You would think that would be it, and the Cawing Crow would have learned a lesson... but, alas, what do you hear out your window again tomorrow?

"Caw, Caw!"

"Damn irritating Cawing Crow," you exclaim, grabbing your BB gun as you rush out the door in your socks.

"Pow!" You let off a shot and see a few black feathers erupt into the air as the Cawing Crow takes flight with a stinging in her side.

The next day? Sure enough, there’s the Cawing Crow again, irritating you with a song akin to nails on a chalkboard.

"Pow! Pow! Pow!"

You hit your target with all three, but this time the Cawing Crow does not fly away. She has learned that the BB's won't kill her but will just bounce off her thick feathers, even if they do sting a bit.

Soon it becomes almost like a game between you and the Cawing Crow, and she shows up daily knowing full well that she will be greeted by multiple potshots at her. Yet, she keeps showing up, day after day.

You have a BBQ one day in the backyard with several of your friends, and they have heard your amazing tale of the Cawing Crow that never goes away - so they each bring their own BB guns along to the BBQ.

.
"Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, PING!" Volleys of shots fly at the Cawing Crow, most hitting their mark, and yet, she still doesn't fly away!

Wtf?

"What's the point?" one might ask. "You are not accomplishing anything."

Well, there is a point. You are becoming one hell of a good shot, and the Cawing Crow has helped you to become skilled at picking off a target with that weak, old BB gun from a considerable distance.

Compared to the other birds, the Cawing Crow is at least serving a purpose that is valuable to the MRM. I would rather have ten Cawing Crows than one Elusive Wife, one Mountainous Mammarious, one Meritorious Mediocrus and one Achievus Consensus.

At least with the Cawing Crow, you both know where you stand, and after a while you have to grant the Cawing Crow a certain amount of respect, if only strictly for the amount of abuse she is willing to take while still coming back for more.

Hey, I never said that the Cawing Crow was the smartest bird, only that you have to respect its temerity to some degree.

.
And this, gentlemen, brings us to the end of our Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere. Be sure to keep your ears open for their songs and your eyes sharp to spot their various distinguishing traits, so that you may pass on any sightings to your fellow travelers in the Manosphere.

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

Hootie the MRA Owl and the Cawing Crows

I chased the cawing crows away with snowballs after a while. Originally there were four cawing crows. One was on the next branch only moments before I took the picture and was cawing in his face from only about a foot away. Hootie was not intimidated and refused to budge! Yo! He did ruffle up his feathers at the crow though... I was hoping to watch him kick some crow ass, but no such luck. Crows are just as bold - and stupid - as your typical feminist.

Hootie must have eaten well last night, because the squirrel didn't phase him a bit. I swear, that rodent had an uncanny resemblance to that other squirrelly mangina, Joe Biden.

I believe Hootie is a Barred Owl.

The Barred Owl (Strix varia) is a large typical owl. It goes by many other names, including eight hooter, rain owl, wood owl, and striped owl, but is probably known best as the hoot owl.

The usual call is a series of eight accented hoots ending in oo-aw, with a downward pitch at the end. The most common mnemonic device for remembering the call is "Who cooks for you, who cooks for you all."

It's the second time I've seen Hootie sleeping in that tree. Hopefully he becomes a permanent "pet."

.
Can't an honest owl get a day's sleep 'round here?
.
Who? Who? Who can leave me alone?

(Hootie stayed there from sun-up to sun-down, and didn't sing for me once. The neighbours must have all thought I had gone crackers though, hearing me run around all day saying, "Who cooks for you? Who cooks for you all?" I hope he returns and sings me a song one day.)

Can't You Just Love Me For Who I Am?

2010-11-20T00:01:00.001-08:00

I never quite figured out why the sexual urge of men & women differ so much. And I never have figured out the whole Venus and Mars thing. I have never figured out why men think with their head and women with their heart. I have never figured out why the sexual desire gene gets thrown into a state of turmoil, when it hears the words ‘I do.’

Here’s an example of what I mean. One evening last week, my wife and I were getting into bed.Well, the passion starts to heat up, and she eventually says ‘I don’t feel like it, I just want you to hold me.’ I said ‘WHAT????!!! What was that?!

So she says the words that every husband on the planet dreads hearing…’You’re just not in touch with my emotional needs as a woman enough for me to satisfy your physical needs as a man.’

She then responded to my puzzled look by saying, “Can’t you just love me for who I am and not what I do for you in the bedroom?” Realizing that nothing was going to happen that night I went to sleep.

The very next day I opted to take the day off from work to spend time with her. We went out to a nice lunch and then went shopping at a big, unnamed department store. I walked around with her while she tried on several different very expensive outfits. She couldn’t decide which one to take so I told her we’ll just buy them all. She wanted new shoes to compliment her new clothes, so I said lets get a pair for each outfit. We went on to the jewelry department where she picked out a pair of diamond earrings.

Let me tell you…she was so excited. She must have thought I was one wave short of a shipwreck. I started to think she was testing me because she asked for a tennis bracelet when she doesn’t even know how to play tennis. I think I threw her for a loop when I said, “That’s fine, honey.”

Smiling with excited anticipation she finally said, ‘I think this is all dear, let’s go to the cashier’. I could hardly contain myself when I blurted out, ‘No honey, I don’t feel like it.’

Her face just went completely blank as her jaw dropped with a baffled ‘WHAT???!!!’ I then said, ‘Really honey! I just want you to HOLD this stuff for a while. You’re just not in touch with my financial needs as a man enough for me to satisfy your shopping needs as a woman.’ And just when she had this look like she was going to kill me, I added, ‘Why can’t you just love me for who I am and not for the things I buy you?’

Apparently I’m not having sex tonight either, but at least that bitch knows I’m smarter than her.

Age is a Social Construct

2010-11-17T00:01:00.001-08:00

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.

Great Zingers

2010-11-14T00:01:00.001-08:00

"Marriage is like a boring dinner that lasts your whole life and had dessert at the beginning."

"[Marriage is] like serving time in prison with a big fat cellmate who DOESN’T want to have sex with you."

"Zeus made this supreme evil—woman: even though she seem to be a blessing, when a man has wedded one she becomes a plague."-- Semonides of Amorgos, The Types of Women, c. 550 B.C.

"My life sucks but my wife certainly doesn’t."

"Marriage is like putting your hand into a bag of snakes in the hope of pulling out an eel." -- Leonardo da Vinci

"Ever see the old Twilight Zone where the little boy has psychic powers and he can torture and kill anyone with a thought? That’s the power no fault divorce gives to any woman you are foolish enough to marry. How many people can be trusted with that kind of power?"

Q: If your dog is barking at the back door and your wife is yelling at the front door, who do you let in first?
A: The dog of course…at least he’ll shut up after you let him in.

"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Some say monogamy is the same."

"Women are like elephants to me. I like to look at them, but I wouldn't want to own one." -- W.C. Fields

"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

"A man who compromises when he’s wrong is wise; a man who compromises when he’s right is married."

"When my wife suggests that I am not doing my share of the “housework” (actually, she means cleaning), I point out that it is my job to keep us both from being eaten by bears. So far, I have a perfect record."

"Meanwhile, as long as there's one honest woman living at the temple atop Mount NAWALT in Tibet..."

"Every day for the past thirty years, you high-heeled pit-bulls have blamed us for everything; from not being able to get into Harvard, to not being able to get into stretch-pants." -- Al Bundy

"My god, Machiavelli was right. Control or be controlled, it's that simple."

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." -- Victor Hugo

"Depopulate the earth? I agree. You first."

"Tolerance is how far a mechanical part can deviate from the norm before it screws up the entire machine." -- Any Mechanic

[Regarding the look of a metro-sexual]: "That dude is responsible for his own choices. Women can't be blamed for everything."

"We've been able to train Frenchmen to play hockey, which is more than any European has been able to do."

"I don't know what the scholars will think of it. Nor do I care. I'm not writing for them. I'm writing for Canadians."

"This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio - "You don't speak for me!"

"I don’t need women, as the government fucks me on a daily basis."

Q: "... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal sutdy on this?"
A: "Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies."

"This is not intended as an ad hominem, it’s intended an insult."

"But there we are, what do I know, eh? I am just a poor lonesome country boy with nothing but chicken wire to sit on and a rusty old marble to play with."

Twenty-One Points for Women Who Want Their Men to "Open Up."

2010-11-11T00:01:00.000-08:00

The following was taken from If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules? pp201-204

Twenty-one Points for Women Who Want Their Men to "Open Up"

A perfectly valid word for an exchange of thoughts and feelings is "intercourse." There's a good reason for this. For every complaint that women have about how we try to get sex from them, we can make a similar point about how women try to get emotion from us.

1. Don't just snap your fingers and say, "Open up."

2. Though you may feel a strong urge to "do it," men are different. Intercourse does not always have to be in and out, back and forth. Men value and enjoy non-verbal intercourse, like being understood and accepted for what they are, not what they say.

3. You can't force intercourse and expect your man to enjoy it. You might force him to fake an understanding just to get it over with.

4. Men will not hop into emotional intimacy with just anyone. Men know that women are always ready to get into someone's head. You must convince him that he is not just another piece of mind.

5. You should let him be on top sometimes. Men are tired of being in the inferior position, especially in hot and passionate intercourse.

6. Don't perform tricks that make him feel inadequate. Remember that you have been raised with more skill in intercourse than he has.

7. Men were taught that only women enjoy intercourse. Help him not to feel wierd or guilty for doing it.

8. Let him take control sometimes. Don't insist on controlling whose needs must be met when.

9. Don't talk and tell. Don't get him to "put out" and then rush to your women friends with the intimate details.

10. If your thrusting and probing hurts him, stop immediately. Don't assume he'll start to like it just because you do.

11. Allow him to initiate. Don't hit on him with so many requests for intercourse that he never feels the urge to start intercourse at his own pace, according to his own needs.

12. Men are often shy and insecure about their flaws and blemishes, about whether you will find them attractive. Don't expect your man to show you everything right away.

13. Remember that good intercourse is not a wrestling match. There should be no winner and no loser.

14. Respect your lover as an equal partner. You don't own him; he does not exist for the sole purpose of providing your pleasure.

15. If you have ever abused him during intercourse, understand that it might take a long, long time for your man to open up to you again.

16. Keep in mind that men's and women's rhythms are different. Don't get angry if his needs don't coincide with yours.

17. If you simply want to release tension, let him know. Don't pretend that you are doing it for him. Men often resist intercourse if they feel pressured about "getting into it."

18. There is no such thing as the ideal lover. Don't try to make your partner into something he isn't. Accept your man as he is.

19. Foreplay is essential; gently stroking of the ego can help. If you encounter a ravenous ego, remember it is ravenous not because it gets too much healthy attention, but because it gets too little.

20. Don't get hung up on achieving simultaneous understanding. Men's understandings take longer, but they are usually more intense.

21. Respect him in the morning.

What's Next? Cries of Sparta?

2010-11-08T00:01:00.000-08:00

Um, actually… Yes!

Lol! I had a case of rant-itis the other day over at Dr. Helen’s, not that you care to read my ramblings… oh, wait… why are you here again?

Anyway, the gist of my argument was that academics are stooooopid, and it must be the biggest stimulus package of all time to have thrown away scores of knowledge about humans & the relations of the sexes that was known in the past, under the horrific charge of “misogynist,” only to now pay our modern-day slackademics big bucks to “rediscover it.”

Captain Chivalry showed up with his cape wrapped tightly around his eyes… as well as a professional victim-screecher, er, dissimulator… well, anyway, the link is up there. It was good fun.

Anyhow,

It seems the equality-seekers have found another university study revealing some shining light on knowledge “never before known.” I guess we can now talk about it, since the seekers of truth have sanctioned it with a real study! Yippee! It must be real now!

Study Shows Disparities in Criminal Sentencing

“The assessment of fees and fines also appears to be influenced by defendant characteristics: Hispanic defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than white defendants, and male defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than female defendants.” – The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State

(dumb dee dumb dumb… moving along…)

“The report urges the state to overhaul the way Superior Court judges assess those penalties.”

Attorney Marc Angelucci writes that this study corroborates others that show, for example, ‘gender differences favoring women are more often found than race differences favoring whites.’ (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v.35, pp.136-68)”

Ssh! Quiet! Can you hear it?

“Click…clunk…creeeeeeek.”

Yup. That’s the sound of yet another door to the Mysteries of the Universe being unlocked by our modern high priests, the Slackademics.

Yessirree! And the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends the following actions:

Step One: Run to the government.
Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee.
Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase: “DOOOooooOOOoooOOOooo something! We’re not EEEEeeeEEEeeekwal!”

—

Of course, for a lot cheaper, they could have just read this kind of stuff:

Excerpts from The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state… / …in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury… / …But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.

Huh?

Whatchoo talkin’ about, Aristotle?

You mean to tell us that it’s near impossible to bring both sexes equally under the law?

I call BS! Has there been a peer-reviewed study done on this?

No?

Then shut up, you misogynist! Telling us clearly with your words that women belong in the kitchen! The nerve!

Obviously women never get into trouble with the law because they never sin! Don’t you believe in equality?

How else can you explain it?

—

(Dissimulation = A form of deception similar to pool hustling).

Excerpts from Schopenhauer’s Essay on Women

“… 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 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 those weapons when attacked; and they feel that 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…"

Holy crap, Arthur! You Neanderthal! How dare you say that women should be chained to the bed but the chain should be long enough to reach the kitchen?

What’s that? You say it should reach the bathroom too? Cause you ain’t cleanin’ no toilets?

What do you mean Darwinists ought to believe this too? You’re so full of it. One of the basic premises of Darwinism is that animals devolve into creatures that are less suited for tasks and defences… isn’t it?

—

Well, since I do believe that men and women are equal – but vastly different, and especially since I believe that we are equal in sin… let’s make sure that men don’t get let off the hook completely.

Here’s an excerpt of Otto Weininger’s preface (p. v) from Sex and Character

[Men’s] sexual egotism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be.

Okay then, as long as it’s men that are being blamed and not women!

Mutter, mutter… you’re still a cretin… mutter.

The fact is that women have always been able to get away with being treated with kid gloves.

“Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one.”

But, Lizzie Borden was not punished. Scores of people rushed to her defence and she was acquitted. There was no investigation afterwards.

When was the last time a woman was executed in the USA anyway? How many men have been executed since then? And they’re just figuring out that men and women aren’t treated equally before the law?

Why wasn’t Genene Jones fried? She was a mass baby killer. She’s getting out of jail in another 8 years. She should have swung from a rope, and then gotten fried. Better yet, she should have been hung from an electrified rope!

Belfort Bax, writing in1908’s The Legal Subjection of Men and in 1913’s The Fraud of Feminism wrote extensively of the phenomenon of women being treated more leniently than men by the courts… so much that, well, I just don’t even know where to begin. You can find examples of all sorts. From society demanding that innocent fathers also be charged when a woman alone commits infanticide… to 14 year old boys being charged for sex crimes when engaging in the deed with 16 year old girls who were the sexual aggressors… to demands that men who hire prostitutes ought to be charged equally as the prostitute herself…

Kinda makes you think that academics who claim to be “studying” this stuff while putting out their palms and asking to be paid for it… well… their integrity certainly ought to be scrutinized, or at the very least, the integrity of their “superior” degrees.

Of course, one could always just do a head count of how many men are imprisoned in the country and then do the same for women… of course, there are not equal numbers – mainly because women sin less. Isn’t that right Mr. & Ms. Equality, Ph D.? You could probably just google it.

Women have been performing the same types of crimes for a long, long, looooong time already as well.

Genesis 39 is the story about how Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife for malicious purposes.

Judges 4:21 describes the “Mary Winkler’s” of old – killing men in their sleep:

“But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died.”

There is nothing new under the sun – we have only wilfully thrown away all of the old knowledge about the sexes – and we did it all to make the ladies happy.

It’s time to stop listening to these charlatans and toss slackademia into the sea where it belongs. The Social Sciences in particular ought to get an extra ass-kicking.

It’s time to start telling people who demand a “peer-reviewed study” to “prove” something, to shove it up their ass. Is that where the Absolute Truth originates? From a panel of idiots giving another idiot the thumbs up?

Sure, there are some uses for slackademia. Toilet paper has some uses too.

But, it’s time to tell the Ph D’s and other slackademics to shut up and sit at the back of the bus – they’ve done more than enough damage already.

It’s not something that has spun out of control in women, but moreover, it’s that society has thrown away the previous knowledge of how the sexes worked and somehow, idiotically, now believes that men and women can be treated equally under the law.

It is impossible to treat men and women equally under the law.

That’s why society used to treat men and women differently. Men respond more to being controlled by the law, but women respond to socialization and shaming – to fashion, as it were.

The Marxists who were behind the Women’s Movement from the beginning knew this too. See what one of the most esteemed forerunners of Marxism thought of the subject?

“…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

In other words, women form their ideas and opinions from fashion and socialization, rather than by universal principles and logic.

While men are controlled by the law, women are controlled by socialization and shaming. And since women don’t much care what we men think, such socialized and shaming control must come from other women. And that’s usually how it was done – the older ladies clucked and shamed the younger ones, and shunned the women who behaved outrageously. (They do just the opposite today, and their socialization encourages bad behaviour).

This does not mean that women are only good for cooking and birthing babies… although, given our below replacement level birthrates, a few babies might not be a bad idea. And yes, a good meal once in a while would be nice too.

But no matter how much that is given to lobby groups to “change the law,” it still won’t matter.

There are fundamental differences in how we operate. Trying to control women by the same factors that are used to control men is completely fruitless. One might as well try to keep a flock of geese in a field by use of a cattle fence. It ain’t gonna work. Men and women must be treated differently.

Far more effective than funding lobby groups to bully the government to pass more laws would be for men to start brainstorming on how to motivate women to start “shaming the sense into eachother.”

As Karl Marx himself noted, women are society – they lead, since men are the sexual servants of the female. Too bad they lead by a sense of fashion and sisterhood, rather than by the logic of universality and the rule of law.

“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

(Keep in mind that Marx’s idea of “social progress” is the destruction of Western Civilization)

Aristotle explains this in the The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women as well.

“But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.” – Aristotle

Don’t expect any help from the ladies though. For as Aristotle further points out:

“…the influence of the Lacedaemonion women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.” – Aristotle

Is this not what we see all around us as well? There are obvious things wrong, and every time a man tries to point out the obvious, the women all gather around him and throw every damn monkey wrench at him as possible. Making sense does not matter to the ladies… but throwing monkey wrenches at the men does matter.

That our children inherit a safe, stable and prosperous society is truly the utmost “best interests of the child” that there is… but, point out the factors that are destroying us… nope, here come the ladies and their senseless monkey wrenches.

They obviously feel that bitching at men and confusing everything what men say is the main purpose of their lives. Otherwise they would smarten the hell up and recognize that they are also part of society and thus, are also part of the problem – and the solution. They refuse to do that. The ladies love to dissimulate.

“SPARTA!” Fedrz cries.

The professional victim/dissimulator, that showed up to argue about senseless crap over at Dr. Helen’s is a good example of the type of “help” we can expect from the ladies as our civilization begins to crumble about us.

There was a reason why things were the way they were in the past.

No, women don’t necessarily need to be in the kitchen. Who ever said that, except for the monkey-wrench-throwing women themselves?

Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.

If society refuses to acknowledge these things about the way the sexes interact with eachother, then no amount of laws being changed, or studies being done, will ever help – not one single bit!

These academics “discovering” such things while accepting payment for it are discovering jack-shit. It has all already been discovered and socially censored into oblivion under the politically incorrect charge of “misogyny.”

“Why were things in the past so misogynist?” That is the question that our ill-esteemed academics ought to be studying. The blanket reason for “why” has been “the evil patriarchy,” when it is obvious all around us that the old guys were right, while the “new intellectuals” of slackademia are spineless idiots.

Remember the first reason God gave when he cursed Adam and kicked him out of Paradise:

Genesis 3:17

(17) To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘you must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

Women and Children

2010-11-05T00:01:00.000-07:00

Briffault's Law: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. -- Robert Briffault
.
It has always been this way, and it always will be. Women's ability to empathize with men is similar to a child's ability to empathize with adults. This not to say that women have the intelligence of a child, because that is not what I am saying - just simply that the ability to empathize can be compared to a child's ability to empathize with adults. A child loves its parents, but the child will always be more selfish than the parent. In the same way, a woman can love a man, but her concern will always be more selfish than the man's.
The great social engineers that are committing treason against their own people have recognized this well, and this is why they attacked the relationship between men and women first. The next step is to attack the relationship between women and children, which has a similar working system to that between men and women. This is how the human race works:
.
Men --> Women --> Children (--> Puppies)
.
This is what has happened:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women --> Children
.
This is what is starting to happen, and will continue to happen in the future:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women <-- (pushed away by) Children.
.
And then our social engineers will have done what they aimed to do all the way from the 2nd wave feminists right back to Frederick Engels - destroy the family. Once the family is destroyed, individual humans become quite malleable, and then the social engineers can go about creating Marx's Utopia.
.
Ain't you excited?
.
Women will never feel the compassion for men that men will feel for women. The problem is that men are too stupid to realize that women aren't like men, don't think like men, don't have the same desires as men, and have no desire to try to emulate any of the above. Man perceives woman as he would like her to be, not as she truly is. It's the same way that a woman always perceives her children to be superior and inherently good, even when they aren't. She perceives her chldren as she wishes they were, not as they actually are. Nature gave us some blinders. We have been hoodwinked into thinking men and women are the same. "Gender is a social construct," remember? It's complete hogwash. Women manipulate men in the same that children manipulate women. There is nothing evil or sinister about it, it is just the natural order of things. We are, after all, still of the animal kingdom, and we see all kinds of such manipulations throughout nature and we certainly don't call that "unfair."
.
Also, I don't think that the men in the Middle East have little regard for women. Perhaps the stupid worker drone men do, because they have been indoctrinated to believe so (in much the same silly way that we have been indoctrinated to believe that the ridiculous notion that the sexes are equal in all things). In fact, once one begins to study a little bit of human nature, it becomes obvious that cultures in the Middle East have an enormous fear of women's sexuality and their ability to use it to malign men and society. Kinda similar to how adults have to put their foot down and over-ride a child's desires and not allow themselves to be manipulated by a child's whining and crying as they do everything to get their way. If one lets a child get everything they want, tomorrow they will expect more. The same goes for women. Women are never going to stop demanding men do more and more for them, while offering men less and less in return. Perhaps the Middle East goes too far, and perhaps we don't go far enough.
.
One has to only look at the evolution of the bikini to see that women tend to push, and push, and push until it appears there are no limits at all. Throughout history, civilizations have descended into decadence shortly before their collapse, and then things reset again from a much more misogynist point of view. (That's the facts, as ugly as they sound). It would be a huge leap forward if the human race could sit down and discuss these things fearlessly and rationally, and seek a suitable solution that serves us all (without the help of Slackademia, thank you very much - they have done 90% of the damage, and it's time for these hosers to sit at the back of the bus for a few centuries). Sadly, such notions of rationally discussing things are about as fruitless as discussing with a 5 year old the value of good nutrition, then setting him free in the grocery store and seriously expecting him to bring back Bran Flakes cereal instead of Coco Puffs. Nature rules us, we don't rule it. At best, we can temper it and harness it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Related:
.
Bonecrcker #4 – Immature or Evil?
.
Bonecrcker #98 – Are Women Children or Adults?
.
Letter to His Son – by Lord Chesterfield, 1748

In the Beginning...

2010-11-02T00:01:00.000-07:00

No-one really knows how it was in the beginning. We have only speculation and theories. The Truth will likely never be known. Whether we find the Truth or not, has very little bearing on the nature of that Truth itself, for it exists unto itself. It exists completely separate from whether we discover it, or whether we even have the capabilities to find it, and so on.

Absolute Truth exists. It does not need us. We serve it, not the other way around. The Absolute Truth is the beginning and the end. It is never changing. It is what it is. It was here before us, and it will be here after us.

Was there evolution? Was there creation? Was the Genesis story of the Bible a mix of evolution and creation? There are obvious relationships between the stories of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) and the religions, stories, myths and legends found in cultures outside of Judeo-Christianity. Gilgamesh is one such example. There is little doubt that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah in Genesis 6 are talking of the exact same event – “the Flood”, and some guy floating around with a boat full of animals. The found transcripts of the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the supposed Pentateuch author, Moses (circa 1300BC), by several centuries and it’s believed that stories of Gilgamesh himself predated the writings of him quite significantly, through the oral tradition and so on. There was a real world wide flood too. 12,000 years ago, the Pleistocene Ice age ended, the glaciers melted and ran into the oceans, causing them to rise significantly (some 400ft, I believe). All of those continental shelves… well; they were not underwater during the Pleistocene. In fact, whatever humans there were probably lived on those shelves, as they were nearest to the ocean, where humans choose to live in the largest numbers even today.

I’ve heard of many interesting theories about those days. One that’s intriguing is that since both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon existed on earth for a period together, that perhaps Homo-Sapiens are the hybrid result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbreeding. Some speculate that this may have been the original sin. Or maybe not. We will never know, but there is an answer – an absolute one that is the Truth – and it doesn’t need nor even care whether we figure it out – it exists on a completely separate plane than us.

But, whether Evolution or Creationism; whether Neanderthals bumped uglies with Cro-Magnons; whether merely evolutionary psychology, or alien technology enhancing us with some strands of superior DNA, there is something about the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the fall of mankind which deals directly with the Absolute Truth and its counterpart, the Relative Truth.

Genesis 3 (New International Version)

The Fall of Man

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel.”

16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Footnotes:

a Genesis 3:15 Or seed
b Genesis 3:15 Or strike
c Genesis 3:20 Or The man
d Genesis 3:20 Eve probably means living .
e Genesis 3:24 Or placed in front

The Absolute Truth is God, of course. He is the beginning and the end. He always was and he always will be. He is who He is and does not exist in relation to our plane of existence, but rather, separately from it.

Who then, is the Relative Truth?

Could it be… could it be… Satan?
.
Is “the original sin” the act of allowing our brains to place the Relative Truth before the Absolute Truth?
.
Is this not how Eve was tempted by Satan? Did Satan really lie to Eve, or did he take the Absolute Truth and merely manipulate it? Did he not create Relative Truths to convince Eve to do that which went against the Absolute Truth? His first question, was a sneaky trick question (Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?) And after that, he did not lie, he manipulated the Truth. Did they surely die (no, not right then, and they were offered a chance at eternal life). Did they become like God and know good & evil? Yes… and what did Eve do? She used her mind to justify that certain truths about the fruit were more important in order to enable her to over-ride the Absolute Truth. (It was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desireable for gaining knowledge).

Is this when man “evolved” out of being a mere animal? Is this when man became man? Our brain is our biggest tool – but, it can also be self-destructive. Our brain is “our tool.” It is to man what the ability to fly is to birds, what fins and gills are to fish. It is “our tool of survival.” Is our superior brain the result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons shacking up for the winter in the same cave? Man became “man” when his brain either evolved, or was granted, the ability of reason and the free will to choose. That’s what makes us different than animals. We have a brain which can choose. Animals do not. Animals only do what is in their nature and therefore when animals kill or steal, they are not sinning. They have no free will and are merely following their natures.

A distinct characteristic of Judeo-Christianity is that it is monotheistic.

If Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic, and God is the Absolute Truth, then monotheism is also the belief in one truth.

Well, that is perhaps a little simplistic, isn’t it? Of course sometimes there is more than merely “one truth.” There are both Absolute Truths and there are Relative Truths which exist all around us.

“Thou shall not kill”

That is Absolutely True – we should not kill.

But, should you kill if failing to do so will result in your own death? Should you kill to protect your family from danger? Is it justifiable to kill when fighting evil forces in a war? Ahhh… the Relative Truth! Bugger, there it comes!

And this is the power of our brains, isn’t it? It’s the power to ask these questions. That really is the essence of our “tool” called the human brain.

But the brain also has some defects.

One defect is the ability to take the truth, and manipulate it into what we wish to be true for our own purposes.

Take Al Capone. A mass murderer, who felt he was unjustly imprisoned because he was such a humanitarian during the Great Depression by creating soup kitchens and using his accumulated wealth in various ways to give aid to the impoverished people around him. He really did help the poor. Al Capone used the Relative Truth to justify why he repeatedly broke one of the basic laws of humanity – murder. His evil actions were justified because of the good which resulted. Well, justified to himself anyway. Jail is full of innocent people.

Our brains need to be tempered by something bigger than ourselves, in order to maximize the brain’s ability while minimizing its own destructiveness.

The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth. It must be that the Absolute Truth is of more importance than the Relative Truth.

Exodus 20 (New International Version – UK)

The Ten Commandments

1 And God spoke all these words:

2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 You shall have no other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

That serves as the “temper” for our brains. Of course the Relative Truth exists, but when our brains become destructive to ourselves and to society, is when we convince ourselves of that a Relative Truth has become higher in importance than the Absolute Truth.

Our “relative truths” must work within the laws of “absolute truth.”

Our brains might allow the manipulation of the truth to eventually figure out how to fly… but, in order to fly, we must stay within the bounds of certain absolute laws, like gravity.

Another factor which comes from the monotheism of the Bible is that in order for a society to be cohesive, the people must all subscribe to one version of the truth.

Have you ever been on an internet discussion forum? Particularly, one advocating for a social cause? If you have, you’ll know what I mean about how they operate. It’s a jumbled mess. People argue and argue, because everyone subscribes to different truths. There is no “one truth” to subscribe to which unifies all of the commenters to one underlying belief. It results in confusion. Most often the conversation either devolves into nothingness for the sake of getting along, or it blows into bits as the various “truths” compete against eachother. The direction of “the cause” rarely moves forward, but rather neuters itself through disagreement or outright kills itself.

The same goes with societies and cultures. Before Judeo-Christianity, you will find that many of the cultures worshipped many gods. There were fertility gods, war gods, or whatever. And often, the people of those cultures became followers of one god more than another, resulting in the various factions competing against eachother – often to the point of violence.

It matters not to me all those who attempt to discredit the Bible by illustrating relations to paganism or similarities to other religions. I know of much it, and I am truly, deeply fascinated by it. However, possibly the most defining feature of Judeo-Christianity is that it subscribes to the belief in monotheism. One God. One Truth. The Absolute Truth. Is this what has propelled Judeo-Christianity into becoming the most successful of them all? I believe that it is.

The Bible is a blue-print for society. It shows us how a society ought to be formed. It takes away certain Relative Truth arguments which would be destructive, and instead promotes productiveness. The Bible is the Book of Life because it promotes those ideals which cause a civilization to grow, prosper and flourish. Religions/cultures which cannot/do not promote this are ways of death.

The US Founding Fathers subscribed to these ideas as well, based upon the ideals of John Locke. They placed their laws on three levels:

1 – God’s Law
2 – Natural Law
3 – Civil Law

They believed that the lower levels of law must correspond within the rules of the higher ones. The lower laws must work within the bounds of the higher ones. At the top is the Absolute Truth.

The US Founding Fathers used both Deductive Reason (search for Absolutes) and Inductive Reason (Relatives). But they placed them properly upon the ladder of importance.

This notion was challenged when Hegel, in the 19th Century, came up with the Hegelian Dialectic.

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

The inductive reasoning of the Hegelian Dialectic “dethroned” the authority of God as Absolute Truth.

The Hegelian Dialectic allows for the argument of 1 + 1 = 3, or 5, or 105… the truth is relative.

Since “the truth is relative,” who is to say that your idea of truth is any more true than my idea of truth?

It takes away the monotheism of our Judeo-Christian civilization because it places the Relative Truth at the highest level. (In fact, at all levels).

There was a time when our oldest institutions, such as Harvard University, were mandated to be “keepers of the Truth.” They have now evolved, through the Hegelian Dialect, into becoming “changers of the Truth.”

This thought-disease that caused Adam and Eve to be ejected from Paradise is now the ruling thought process in all our educational institutions, our governments & laws, our families, and even our churches. Destruction is beginning to happen. We are separating as a people. The US Founding Fathers based their new system upon the authority of the Bible, and said that “liberty” is based upon the individual willingness to place personal morality on oneself – morality based upon the Bible. In that way, we all follow the same general path and still work together as a unit, and the more we place it upon ourselves to follow the morality illustrated in the Bible, the less need will there be for the government to pass laws against the people to maintain/control unity.

We have rejected Absolute Truth in favour of the Relative Truth.

We are becoming divided as both a civilization and as a people. The foundational building block of our society, the nuclear family, is destructing. Crime is increasing as are psychological problems and suicide. We are not reproducing enough to maintain ourselves as a population – through both unwillingness to do so, and by contracting swaths of sexually transmitted diseases which are directly and alarmingly affecting our infertility rates. Soddom and Gomorrah are truly making a comeback as our civilization is self-destructing, and in but a few more generations, we will become so insignificant that we too will be “wiped from the face of the earth.”

But, no matter what they say, the Absolute Truth still does exist. Whether we can prove it or not, there actually is an answer to questions like “how did the universe get created?” or “where do we come from?”

And, I suspect, we’ll soon be recieving a smack up the back of the head for disobeying a fundamental law, which is: The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth.

To fail to heed such a timeless principle means to walk the Road of Death.

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

Women's Studies 101A, Winter Semester - Professor Rob Fedders

2010-10-27T00:01:00.000-07:00

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.

A Sexist Commenter Sets Me Straight

2010-10-24T00:01:00.000-07:00

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

.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is true that women are lazy, but they are always ready to do harm. An evil woman just gets worse, becoming even more evil and wicked. It would take far too long for me to tell you everything about them, so for brevity's sake I shan't. Woman is not wise in this respect, for in her eagerness to do harm she only brings about her own ruin. According to the law, as I understand it, woman is not rational, nor does her love reside deep in her heart, but is there on her gaze for everyone to see. She entrusts her honour openly to her eyes, yet they can't help but fail to protect it, since folly animates her gaze. With all her words, her chatter, and her talk, she could break a heart of glass; all her actions are stupid and foolish. Woman can do no good, indeed, goodness is destroyed and obliterated by her. Many a war is begun by women and many a murder committed throughout the world; castles are burned and ransacked and the poor made destitute. As every man and woman knows, there isn't one war in a thousand that isn't started by a woman and by her sowing of discord. She is the mother of all calamities; all evil and all madness stem from her. Her sting is more venomous than a snake's; there isn't anyone who has anything to do with her who doesn't live to regret it.

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

Further Reading:

Bonecrker #12 – The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century

Man Superior to Woman - Chapter Four

A Warning for America from South Africa

2010-10-21T00:01:00.000-07:00

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.)

A Woman's Right to Choose

2010-10-18T00:01:00.000-07:00

"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?"

Answer:

I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.

Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.

That is fourteen choices a woman has regarding her "right to choose."

A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.

And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”

This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.

But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.

I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.

What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.

Feminists are quite aware that most uninformed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.

When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.

What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay. Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.

But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”

In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman sold her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as payment for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman's property.

In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.

But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?

So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.

Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”

So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joyriding.

Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.

But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.

Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.

Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.

Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:

Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.

Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.

Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it!

You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.

But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?"

Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.

Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.

But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?

It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!

And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.

What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.

If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.

But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.

So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.

And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).

But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.

So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?

If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility. (Although, the corrupt courts have been changing this too, and the move is on to make anonymous sperm donors financially liable for her offspring as well.)

A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.

Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?

“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.

“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.

“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.

Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?

Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they are toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?

Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”

It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.

What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?

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

Read more about this subject on Angry Harry’s site:

Rant Against the CSA

Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman Who Decides to Have a Baby?

The Libellous David Futrelle

2010-10-15T17:45:00.000-07:00

David Futrelle: Man of astounding intellect.

How To End Domestic Abuse

2010-10-15T00:01:00.000-07:00

"[Do you believe women have the right] to be free from domestic abuse?"

Answer:

Yes!

In fact, I think that we should strive to put an end to all forms of domestic abuse, and I don’t think we should rest until domestic abuse is completely eradicated from our society.

I also think that domestic abuse should be removed from society not only in the terms of male on female violence, but also in regard to female on male violence.

I’ll bet you think that I’m going to start quoting statistics illustrating that females are just as violent as males, don’t you?

Come on, admit it!

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think that’s the best way to end domestic abuse.

I believe the best way to “end” domestic abuse is to simply abolish the term “domestic abuse” from our language, from our mindset, and definitely from our courts.

I’m serious. Out of all the feminists who cry out to “end domestic violence,” to all the holier than thou academics who study domestic abuse in an effort to “solve it,” to the plethora of politicians who pledge to pass more laws to “prevent it,” and yes, even to the multitudes of MRA’s who demand to be “included as victims of it,” have you ever heard of such a sound plan as mine?

I am the only one with a sure fired, guaranteed formula to actually end all forms of domestic violence!

Why, oh why am I paid so little?

Why do we have the term “domestic abuse” in the first place?

Weren’t there already laws in place that protected us from violence before the feminists thought up the term “domestic violence?”

Living together in the same house does not somehow free one from impartial judgment by the law of the land. At least, I can’t find the law which says that it does, or ever did.

Were there laws on the books that granted “spousal immunity” in regard to general assault and battery laws?

Could you legally murder your spouse before the term “domestic abuse” was concocted, or did homicide laws protect people regardless of their marital status?

If someone were to, say, threaten to "pound something into my thick skull," can I not go to the proper authorities, report it, and ask for ask for a restraining order regardless of whether the person is in my immediate family or not?

Wasn’t all of this covered already before the term “domestic abuse” became a household word at the behest of the feminists’ socially redefining academic and legal juggernauts?

We can end “domestic abuse” completely by simply getting rid of the term itself and going back to allowing the law to protect us in the way it used to.

Abracadabra!

Poof!

Gone!

I’ll send the government my bill.

And by golly, YES, I will accept that tenured position at the University of British Columbia!

Does anything better illustrate how sick we have become as a society than the phenomenon that we can no longer comprehend how to function without begging the government to impose more laws upon us?

Not only do we ask for less freedom, but we demand that problems be completely solved by passing more and more laws until every last aspect of the problem is gone.

Imagine a lobby group was formed to “end speeding” and they pledge to keep fighting until every last speeder is removed from the roads.

It starts off small, perhaps with a policy of “zero tolerance” for being even one mph over the limit and increasing the fines by 50% to hurt people in their jeans.

But, some people are still speeding.

What to do, what to do?

Well, let’s give speeders points on their driver’s license which will increase their insurance premiums!

“Zooooooommmmm!!!” The sound reverberates in a rubber-necker’s ears.

“There out to be a law!” he exclaims, “Doooooo something!”

So, we pass a law that anyone caught speeding will have their car impounded for 6 months.

But still, someone will speed, somewhere.

I think you can see where this is going. In the end, there is absolutely no possible way to remove every last speeder from the road… except, that is, to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car, period. That is the only possible end to the equation.

And so it is. Transportation by automobile benefits mankind to an enormous degree, but there are certain negatives we must accept that go along with the positives. If we want easy, fast mobility and cheap transportation of goods, we must also accept there will be a certain amount negatives that are unavoidable.

There will be speeders, there will be accidents, and there will be injuries and deaths.

And we must accept that there will be these negatives or we will not receive the positives.

This concept is all around us in nature. Mankind must not be as smart as he thought if he can’t see what is all around him.

People who say they will not rest until the problem is completely solved are preaching totalitarianism and should be made to spend an afternoon in the stocks; letting some tomatoes smarten them up a few IQ points.

The world will never be perfect.

Only Marxists preach that they can create Heaven on Earth. And they preach it will be achieved by slavery to a totalitarian state.

Marxists are evil idiots.

Many feminists and academics are unabashed Marxists.

Have a look at how the Abuse Industry works with our children.

Instead of asking a hard working farmer and his wife of 40 years how they successfully raised eight law-abiding, successful children, we ask someone completely different for “expert” advice.

Who do we ask?

We ask an angry 45 year old lesbian with a Ph D in Whatchamacallit, who herself comes from a broken home. She has one 3 year old child which was spawned by Thomas the Turkey Baster.

These kinds of people are our “experts.”

And, what do our “experts” recommend?

Parents should not be allowed to decide how to discipline their own children! Some parents have “over-disciplined” their children, and therefore no parent should be allowed to discipline their child with spanking.

That parents have successfully raised their children with the aid of physical discipline for thousands of years now becomes irrelevant to our academic gods. Times are different now. Yes, fine individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were spanked as children, but children were born with leather asses back in those days. Children born today are different from them. Can’t you tell? They now have three arms and green skin!

“Parents have been wrong for thousands of years," cries our Sapphic guru, “and some parents have abused spanking to the point where it is physically abusive, therefore NO parents should be allowed to do it!”

It is much better to let a child learn that playing in traffic is dangerous by sitting the five year old down and explaining it to him. If discipline is needed, a “time out” is recommended, and ultimately, children need to figure out and learn these things on their own anyway. That Mack truck has a natural lesson it will teach your child, so what the hell do you parents think you are doing, giving your child a smack on his bottom? You Cretins!

You see, our “intellectuals” have manipulated our legal systems with a belief that it is better to have all children raised at 50% capacity, rather than to have 95% of children raised at 100% capacity, with the remaining 5% raised at 25%.

They believe they can prevent this:

By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:

Our lesbian lecturer will tell us that this is for “the greater good,” but it becomes obvious that she is not an expert in mathematics.

You see, 100% of the population at 50% capacity equals 50%.

But (95% of the population at 100%) plus (5% of the population at 25%) equals 96.25%.

A population operating at 96.25% capacity is greater than one operating at 50%.

Who’s telling who about “the greater good?”

Everywhere you look in nature you will find this formula.

It’s time for us to recognize that laws can also be repealed!

We already had legal mechanisms protecting us from violence. We didn’t need to have a whole further myriad of never ending laws bringing the whole herd down to 50% capacity.

And we certainly don’t need to lobby to be included within them, feeding the Utopian beast even more.

End the Abuse Industry NOW!

It’s the only sure fired way to rid the world of Domestic Abuse.

"Heaven on Earth" is a nice fairytale theory. But in practice it becomes a Living Hell.

The Women's Vote Question

2010-10-12T00:01:00.000-07:00

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

Answer:

I’m not sure that a person who believes Somalia is in the Balkans should have a say in who represents us in foreign affairs.

I’m serious.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that 51% of the people should have the ability to vote to take away the rights of the other 49%, but that is exactly the situation we find ourselves with in a system of Universal Democracy.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." – Benjamin Franklin

I think that questions like “should X have the right to vote?” could be compared to a typical family:

Imagine four children and two parents.

Should everyone have an equal vote in this six person family?

Why or why not?

Aren’t they all equal human beings?

Why or why not?

I think most rational people would say the four children should not be allowed to “outvote” the two parents; yet, they still have the right to live in the family’s house and to sit at the family’s dinner table.

Don’t you agree?

Is there a situation where this should change? What if, say, the oldest two children go out and get jobs and start paying room and board?

Should that increase the “power” of their wishes?

Many people would say that it should, and I don’t disagree. But what if the two oldest children decide to “vote” to knock out all the walls in the basement so they have greater space to play floor hockey?

Should they have the “right” to do such a thing just because they have a vote?

I think most people would agree that just because the two older children now have a greater say, this in no way gives them the authority to break certain general rules.

And what if the two children who now pay room and board decide to “vote” that Mom and Dad should pool their monthly incomes with them and thus greatly increase the resources available to them? Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

Perhaps, the two children paying room and board might “vote” that Mom and Dad should purchase a second car for the kids to drive, or for an expensive swimming pool in the backyard. Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

I think most people would agree that low income people having the “right” to vote to take away the resources of high income people, and use those resources to benefit themselves (the low income people), is nothing more than legalized theft. Why should a low income person be entitled to steal the resources of the higher income person?

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he stopped along the way and gave of his own resources to help someone in need.

Would he have been a “Good” Samaritan if he had stopped you by gunpoint, stole your resources, and gave them to the needy? I think he would have been a Crap-Ass Samaritan. Don’t you?

And what if this Crap-Ass Samaritan ended up stealing so much of your resources that you no longer had enough left over to actually give anything of your own accord? I don’t think that is a good situation at all. Do you?

To answer the original question, "[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?", I don’t think that anyone should have the “right” to vote unless they can demonstrate they possess enough understanding of our country’s constitution and history, plus illustrate they have an adequate understanding of political science in addition to a basic general knowledge of both domestic and foreign affairs.

We make people take a test to ensure they are knowledgeable and responsible enough to drive a car. Don’t you think it would be equally wise to make people take a test before granting them the power to drive the country?

I do.

I also think we should be living in a country that adheres to the principles of a Constitutional Republic, which means that the people are equally responsible to a system of “impartial rule of law” and where no man or woman is above the law. And I think that the leaders of this Constitutional Republic should be decided by a Limited Democracy.

A Universal Democracy, however, is a really, really bad idea and never leads to a good end.

"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

What most of the political correctoids fail to comprehend when they screech about “democracy” and women’s “right” to vote, is that our countries were not intended to have universal democracy – not for men or women. There are far too many people who believe Somalia is in the Balkans for that to have been a wise idea.

Even men did not have the vote for much longer than women. Oh sure, some men had the vote and held positions of power, but the vast majority did not. Most countries in the Western World began granting the “right” for landless men to vote during the mid-Nineteenth Century, anywhere from 50 to 60 years before it was granted to women. Men certainly did not have the vote for “thousands of years” before women.

The rise of the philosophies of Socialism began in earnest during the time frame of the mid-Nineteenth Century to the early Twentieth Century. It was also during this time frame that our Western countries changed from adhering to the principles of a Constitutional Republic to those of a Universal Democracy.

"Democracy is the road to Socialism." – Karl Marx

Yes indeed, Mr. Marx.

And it is interesting to note that a fairly good spattering of the Suffragettes were deeply involved with the Socialist Movement. One naturally wonders then if their demonstrations for democracy had more to do with the advancement of Socialism than it did with the issues of “women’s rights.”

In fact, one might say that a wise person who wishes to condemn that women did not have the vote for the approximate half century when only men did, would do well to at least examine the arguments of those who opposed women’s suffrage before attempting to speak with authority on the subject. Don’t you agree?

Should one undertake such a task, one would soon find that many of those who were opposed to women’s suffrage took such a stance out of concern for preserving the nature of the state. They were concerned about the changing of the principles of a republic into the principles associated with a democracy, and what affect women’s nature would have on this.

You see, it has long been known that women tend to choose collective security over individualism and freedom. This was well known in the past and it is still well known today. Sure, sure. Some men will choose security over freedom as well, but in general women choose collective security while men choose individual freedom.

Have a look at who the majority of women vote for today as opposed to men. In the USA, women overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party and its socialist principles of bigger government while men tend to be the majority of supporters of the Republican Party, which theoretically stands for smaller government and more individual freedom.

In fact, here is a study titled Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? -- by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny. It illustrates that since the advent of women’s suffrage in the early Twentieth Century, women have consistently voted for larger government and more Socialist policies.

Now, all political correctness aside, if it is shown that the women’s vote is slowly but surely changing our countries from places which enshrine the values of freedom into nations which do not allow for freedom, but rather enshrine the values of totalitarian Socialist government… do you think that people should have the right to discuss this phenomenon freely with out the shrill chirping of feminists and their mangina enablers in their ears?

I mean, you do believe in free speech, don’t you?

And oddly, free speech is actually a universal “right” which is laid forth in our constitutions while, curiously, the universal “right” to vote is not. Even a five year old has the “right” to free speech, but not the right to vote.

One might even go so far to suggest that a responsible citizen has a duty to point out that if we keep following down this road without creating some checks and balances, we soon will wind up with a form of government in which none of us has the ability to vote at all.

Political correctness coupled with intimidation from feminists and manginas does not change “facts,” and such people who believe that they have the “right” to vote for the destruction of the constitutions upon which our countries are founded, are in fact exercising a vote of treason.

People who would vote for treason, regardless of their sex, should not have the “right” to vote at all. Don’t you agree?

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

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" ~Benjamin Franklin

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

Further Reading:

Philalethes #11 – The End Results of Female Suffrage

Philalethes #18 – Opposed to Woman Suffrage?

Republic versus Democracy

The Balance of Power -- The Men's Tribune

The Tit Man - David Futrelle

2010-10-10T18:09:00.000-07:00

Tit-man Update

The "Tit Man," David Futrelle, has taken up to refuting MRA arguments.

Good for him. Trying to suckhole up to the ladies like a wet rash stained with skunk smell.

"Hey David! You wouldn't have to lick their smelly rectums as a set aside for sex if you grew a pair and took charge!" -- RF

David is another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole. A true SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) in every dimension.

Reality is not so, Mr. Futrelle, it is not so.

You are anethema to female vaginal lubrication.

Hope you feel proud! You are the reason panties are starting to be modelled without the protective cotten-lined-gussets! Who needs such a thing when the West produces poofs like you?

Hopefully, this blog and your willingness to be a dancing jackass for the matriarchy will help me illustrate this - over time, of course. A suave man of your persuasion will take many moons to out-manoeuvre.

God, I miss Jackasses like Dave! A few years ago, the internet was rife with them, but alas, only a few years later, their numbers are dwindling... wtf?

Pleeeease debate me on... something!?! I've been waiting. Please Dave, you are picking on random commenters in the MRM only... wtf? Are you Chicken? Why don't you set your sights higher up and pick on me for a while?

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

Lol!

http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/quoteotd-david-futrelle-is-dancing.html

He's so cute!

God! Nobody from the fembot camp can form a good debate nowadays! Best to stick to totalitarianism then!

A Great Historical Outline of Cultural Marxism

2010-10-09T00:01:00.000-07:00

Who Stole Our Culture? -- by William S. Lind

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?

It didn't just "happen." In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation's history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

What happened, in short, is that America's traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as "political correctness" or "multi-culturalism." It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America's elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.

To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of "political correctness."

Early Marxist Theory

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn't happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country's enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism's goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

A New Strategy

Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a "long march through the institutions" – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That "long march through the institutions" is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the "Prison Notebooks," were rediscovered.

Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" he instituted what he called "cultural terrorism." One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country's traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.

Far from rallying to Lukacs' "cultural terrorism," the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a "Marxist Study Week" in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs' cultural perspective on Marxism.

The Frankfurt School

Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the "Institute for Marxism." But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the "Institute for Social Research." Soon known simply as the "Frankfurt School," the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question "Who stole our culture?" is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.

At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs' pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer's most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.

Advances in Cultural Marxism

With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure," which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.

Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.

Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. "Liberating" everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism's main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.

Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

New Developments

Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.

Critical Theory

To serve its purpose of "negating" Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called ”Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the "studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.

Studies in Prejudice

The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as "prejudice" in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno's immensely influential book, "The Authoritarian Personality," published in 1950. They invented a bogus "F-scale" that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is "fascist."

Domination

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors," while other groups were defined as "victims." Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Through Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of all values." What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist." That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions.)

Media and Entertainment

Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought "commodified" culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin's view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism's most powerful weapon.

The Growth of Marxism in the United States

After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.

But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book "Eros and Civilization" used the Frankfurt School's crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only "liberate non-procreative eros" through "polymorphous perversity," we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. "Eros and Civilization" became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School's intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance," they mean Marcuse's "liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity," they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous "guru," he injected the Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, Marcuse and the few other people "in the know" did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.

A Counter-Strategy

Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?

We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.

There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.

Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms' products. If Brave New World's motto is "Think globally, act locally," ours should be "Think locally, act locally."

Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a "long march through the institutions." Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the "inevitable forces of history" were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?

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

Further Reading:

Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray

Civil Unions and Shared Parenting

2010-10-06T00:01:00.000-07:00

The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!

But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.

Have you ever asked yourself “why”?

A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

"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

"[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.

There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being that feminists entire raison d'être is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct” and therefore women are discriminated against because the testicularly challenged are treated differently (while born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way, and thus should not be discriminated against. The two arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter both the family unit and society into something completely new. Roosevelt, meet Stalin, yo new fwiend and ally!

Something very important in order to transform marriage then, is to make sure that the new models that come out are still called marriage. It would be much harder to transform the meaning of marriage with “civil unions,” if civil unions were not also called marriage.

How will they transform marriage and society this way? Well, in Canada we legalized Gay Marriage back in 2005, and by 2006 (and using the justification of gay marriage now being normalized), Gay's shoved their agenda into our schools and by 2007 a court in Ontario had already declared two married lesbians and one sperm donating father to all three be equal legal parents of the same child. Obviously, the dialectical path towards polygamy is set wide open by this ruling... does anyone else see how they are able to purposefully "transform" society in this way?

That’s why Gay Rights Activists are so adamant about it being called marriage. If it were called “civil unions” the Marxist plan to alter society dialectically falls flat on its face. Everything will stall at the civil union level, and once society accepts the term “civil union” and identifies it with Gay People, it will become monumentally difficult for them to further alter society with this plan, or to be able to “rename” civil unions as marriage later on. Much of Marxist dialectical movement is based upon the general public’s perception of an issue, rather than the reality of it. Either they get it right in the beginning, or there is not much point in carrying on.

Now, let’s examine for a moment the feminist goals for transforming marriage and the nuclear family. You’ll fast see it’s not just “Patriarchy” that they are against, but also they’re furious as hell at Mother Nature for giving them ovaries! Even nature victimizes women, and this also must change!

"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 Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

"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

"[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

"...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

"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

"[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 Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

"[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

"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

”It takes a village.” -- Shitlery the Douche

Not only do feminists want to destroy patriarchy, they also want to destroy motherhood, something very dear and precious to most females, and likely something they will not give up voluntarily.

There is a hierarchy to the way that “humanity” works. Many men are discovering certain elements of it through what is commonly known as “game,” but essentially, the “hierarchy of humanity” works like this:

Man --> Woman --> Children

And this is a strong inclination within humans as well. Students of game will understand that women do not want to be sexual with men who they do not deem superior to them, and will reject all men they deem inferior. The woman desires the hierarchy, and men fulfill women’s desire within it. Never ever forget, however, that to rule is to serve. And this is what most men did with their hierarchal powers – see The Titanic. Men did not use their powers to harm their “wards,” but rather used it to protect them, and often sacrificed directly towards this hierarchy to their own detriment. Parents (ie. mothers) do the same with their children – while parents have the enormous capability to bring harm or to exploit their children, 99% of parents do not do this… and it is not because of the law that parents are altruistic towards children (The US Supreme Court even ruled that parents naturally act in their children's best interests, both in 1979 and in 2000.) – in the same way, it is not because of law, or even social mores, that men treat women the way they do. They do it because it comes from somewhere deep within humanity.

It is very, very difficult to get men to turn on women. In the same way, it would be very difficult to get women to turn on children. The hierarchy just does not work that way. It is, however, monumentally easier to get women to turn on men. When you “transvalue” the hierarchy (place lower values higher up, and higher values lower down), working it against itself backwards works like a charm!

You can convince women to turn on men much easier than convincing men to turn on women. In the same manner, you can get children to turn on parents much easier than you can get parents to turn on their children. It’s just the way the world works.

Man <-- (pushed away by) Woman --> Children

That works, as we all well know. Feminists have successfully destroyed marriage and the sexes are repelling from each-other because the hierarchy is messed up. If you give women economic and legal power over their men, women will abuse it until it just becomes downright dangerous for a man to engage in this tortuous practice known as Marriage 2.0.

And, if you wanted to completely destroy parenthood, another stated goal of feminism? Why, just repeat the process that was done to destroy the bond between man and woman – namely, start giving the rights of the child more importance than the rights of the adults responsible for them.

Man <-- (pushed away by) Woman <-- (pushed away by) Children. . This will work in the same way that men and women have been separated. Mainly, men are avoiding women because women’s rights have made women into monstrous tyrants, while leaving men with little recourse to deal with the situation except to avoid women entirely. There simply is no way that a man can marry a woman and trust that she won’t screw him over, or that he can trust that the court has any inclination to preserve justice in the situation, and so, men are wisely opting out from a rigged game.

And the same thing that happened to men and women regarding marriage will happen to parents and children if the powers that be are allowed to elevate the rights of the child to over-ride the rights of the parent.

How will you raise a child properly if sending them to their room becomes “psychological abuse,” or if with-holding their allowance is deemed “financial abuse” or if forcing them to eat their vegetables is considered some other sort of totalitarian abuse. (If I had a hammer, I’d smash vitamins!) Take note, Shitlery Clinton fully believes that parents are not qualified to represent the best interests of their own children, and therefore the state ought to create a rambling bureaucracy of civil servants and lawyers to represents children independently of their parents.

This is the exact same system that divided men and women – pitting their interests against each other by dialectically manipulating the legal system. Men and women are in a parasitic type of relationship wherein the man gives of his surplus resources to the woman. Parents and children are in exactly the same type of scenario, and as has happened with men and women, when you allow the parasite to lead the host, all you end up doing is destroying is the host. Parents and children will work the same.

And I promise you, there does not have to be some grand conspiracy manipulating every law and specific aspect of what will happen next. Simply screwing up the hierarchy will suffice. When children have more authority than the parents responsible for them you will have already stuck a stick in the spokes by default. Destruction is now not only likely, but in general society it will be virtually guaranteed – just like placing the authority of women over and above the authority of the man responsible for protecting and providing for her has only led to abuse, not solutions.

”The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.” – Oscar Wilde

Children are even weaker than women! Placing the rights of the child over the rights of parents will lead to the same results – only worse! And, btw, since the destruction of marriage, who makes up the majority of parents nowadays? (Hint – They are among the testicularly challenged).

Now, often times ‘round here you will hear me refer to “The Dialectic,” and all of you know that this blog frequently refers to Marxism and how feminism is married to it. One thing however, that does not get mentioned too often here or elsewhere is that Marxism and the Dialectic does not work in a straight line. The general failure of us to realize this is why we keep getting our asses handed to us. We are playing checkers with people who are playing chess.

The way “it” works is like a zig-zag. The Marxist dialectic pushes radically to the left until a backlash builds up, and then the backlash is released in order to consolidate the gains to the left.

"It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin

So, the way it works is that radical leftism is introduced into society – much like how No-Fault-Divorce was introduced into our society. This was a radical move that completely re-organized society’s most fundamental building block – and take note that there was no massive public outcry demanding such a thing. Society didn’t even conceive of such a thing – marriage was simply “marriage”, the way it had always been.

However, No Fault Divorce was implemented anyway and we all know the results. In the past decades we have witnessed a plethora of problems arising because of this radical change. However, this change has now taken place long ago, and the vast majority of the population does not remember, nor can even conceive, of a society where divorce was not the norm. Take note that this was not the case when No-Fault-Divorce arrived on the scene, but after a couple of generations being exposed to it, it is now considered so normal that it is hardly even conceivable to us to try and rid society of it – rather, now we simply want to alter it. (This is a classical brainwashing technique, btw - 1- "un-freeze" from current acceptance levels, 2 - Move the subject to a new level, 3 - "Re-Freeze" at the new level until the change has become normalized/accepted, 4 - Repeat the process until the proper amount of "movement" has taken place).

This is how it is done when you implement Marxism via gradualism – while Lenin did it fast and encouraged people to go along with him via threats of violence, gradualism does it by slowing things down so that people forget. If you study a little closer, you will discover that we have, indeed, spent the past forty years implementing the exact same types of social changes that Lenin did in his first four years of rule. The amount of time is the only difference. Lenin used violence within four years, and our system of Marxism is using forgetfulness/the generation gap over a longer period of time. The ultimate result is still the same, however.

So, back to the idea that “the backlash to the right consolidates the gains to the left.” What happens after a radical leftward change has occurred is of course a plethora of problems arising in society from said change. The people that are mostly affected by it are those that will push back against the radical leftism with, of course, a rightward/conservative political movement. What happens though is that the backlash movement is not one that attempts to dial back the cause but rather attempts are made to alter the results.

So, in the case of marriage in the modern day, the “backlash” is decidedly not pushing for an end to No Fault Divorce, nor are they pushing for a restoration of Full Father Custody (the way marriage was originally intended, and existed up until the 1860’s). What they are pushing for is “shared parenting.” A further aberration of the original concept of the family, and something that has never existed in history. But, the “backlash to the right” will solidify in the minds of the population that implementing No-Fault-Divorce was proper, although it needed to be tweaked a little to make it more “equal” and fair. The concept that children need two fulltime parents will also be demolished. The need for State Funded Daycare will be increased as now there will be two parents disadvantaged rather than one… and, as always, both parties will now be running to the government to beg and plead for the court to decide exactly the time, place, and even how a parent may interact with his own child (or, more accurately, her child).

Some freedom!

Wheras once parents would have run a pitchfork through any government personnel interfering with a citizen’s home-life, then covered him with oil and lit him on fire with torches in the town square, we now have both mothers and fathers running to the government to beg and plead for crumbs and scraps from the same table that the people once owned and both sides will think they are “winning” some precious equality, while being grateful to the government for providing them with something which was never the government’s in the first damn place.

This is the “totalitarian trap.” You cause as much problems and confusion in a certain area as you possibly can, and out of the confusion you will cause despair amongst the people who will then run to you and demand you “fix it,” which of course you will – but in a way that suits your purposes, not of the masses of plebes who are only there for your satisfaction anyways.

Ah yes, consolidate the gains… until the people have internalized the change, which they will if you allow a measure of backlash to appease them, and allow some time for the changes to internalize, and then begin radical movements to the left again.

One thing though, once the backlash accepts the watered-down consolation prize, they cannot easily push further because they have already been appeased! Once something like divorce has been “reorganized” to make it “more equal,” added on top of the fact that most of the population doesn’t even remember a time when divorce was not rampant in society, to take it further than the appeasement makes in nearly impossible.

Back to the beginning of this essay and the difference between “Civil Unions” and “Same Sex Marriage,” you can see why the Gay Rights community was so adamant about retaining the word “marriage” rather than using “Civil Union.” Using the word civil union would greatly hamper Gay Activists in their attempts to alter the meaning and structure of marriage – it had to retain the same name. If they would have gained under the name “civil union,” the effects upon “marriage” would have been negligible - and also, their ability to re-push the issue into society’s limelight would have been greatly diminished, because the general population would have already come to believe that Gays had been appeased, and wouldn’t want to tolerate their bullshit all over again.

It's kind of a one shot deal.

What will Shared Parenting do to the radical changes in the structure of the family over the past decades? Will it roll back the changes or will it continue to alter the structure of the family? Will it make divorce more or less acceptable in society? Will men be able to use it as a stepping stone to further their goals, or is it an assured permanent dead-end with minimal benefits?

How can feminists and the powers that be pursue their stated goals of removing motherhood from the experience of womanhood? They certainly won’t be able to use women to do it directly out of their own self interests… but could the coupling of children’s rights to the already diminished father’s rights be used to dialectically destroy whatever remains of parenthood, and pass all authority over to the state?

The only thing that supercedes the best interests of women in our society is the best interests of the child. I hope the shared parenting movement does not get made into useful idiots, promoting further destruction of the family while believing they are preserving it. I could easily see that women will be given "equal rights" in parenting as men, given that men have virtually no rights at all.

I understand why Gays insist on calling Same Sex Unions as marriage - because they aren't nearly done with transforming it and they know what they are doing. On the otherhand, with Shared Parenting, "defenders" of the family and fatherhood are cutting themselves off at the knees - not understanding what they are doing - as they are not willing to dialectically reframe the debate in a way that does not dead-end themselves into the Marxist web.

The Marxofeminist Paradise Known as Communist Cuba!

2010-10-03T00:01:00.000-07:00

The following is an article written by a left wing Marxofembot back in 1998. It is just sitting out there plain as day that what fembots are agitating for (and writing into our legal systems) is Communism.
.
One wonders why these sick, radical fembots in North America aren't heading to Florida en masse to get their hands on a cheap "previously owned" raft with which to navigate a trip to Cuba and escape the awful institutionalized patriarchal oppression that they are always whining to us about.

Look! Here's a good one! Climb aboard, fembots! Just keep heading south. Bon Voyage!

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/174.html

Feminism, Communism and Catholicism

.
By Lisa Macdonald, Green Left Weekly, #304, 4 February 1998

.
The women of Cuba have reason to celebrate after the visit of Pope John Paul II two weeks ago.

.
The pope's call, on behalf of the majority of the world's capitalists, for the US to lift its economic blockade of Cuba, focused the world's media on the Cuban people's plight after 37 years of economic isolation, and their achievements despite that. John Paul's call adds significantly to the growing pressure on the US to lift the blockade.

.
The Cuban government knew that allowing the of the Catholic Church almost unlimited scope to spread his reactionary message on the family was a double-edged sword.

.
John Paul's ultraconservative position on women's "God-given" role as obedient and faithful wives, self-sacrificing mothers and domestic slave labourers is the antithesis of what Cuban revolutionaries have fought for.

.
Last year there were 41,227 divorces in Cuba (compared to 65,009 marriages). The pope's assertion in Santa Clara that divorce is evil and unnatural is not likely to change this pattern. The Family Code, which enshrines in law women's (and men's) unqualified right to divorce, to receive financial support from the father of their children and the state and to insist that their male partners do an equal share of domestic labour and child-care, was the product of years of profoundly democratic discussion involving the entire population.

.
The pope also railed against women's right to control their fertility. Abortion, he said, is an abominable crime which distorts the "true nature and dignity" of motherhood. All birth control methods, he said, "are not in accordance with human dignity".

.
Again, the pope's rantings must have had limited credibility among this particular audience since they directly contradict the experiences and aspirations of Cuban women. As one woman told a US journalist in Havana at the time: "He's entitled to his opinion".

.
Cuba has no official birth control policy, but abortion is legal and considered a right for all women, regardless of age, marital status or personal circumstances. It is a right which Cuban women fought hard for, against the legacy of centuries of imperialist colonisation and the domination of the Catholic Church before the revolution.

.
The reproductive rights of women in Cuba contrast sharply with those in Cuba's "moral" condemner, the US. Whilst opinion polls throughout the 1990s revealed that at least 65% of people in the US agree that women should have the right to choose, 15 abortion clinics were bombed last year, and unrestricted access to abortion is not available in a single US state.

.
During 1996 there were 83,000 abortions in Cuba and 140,276 births - an abortion rate of almost 60%. This compares to 31% in the US.

.
For Cuban women living under the blockade, abortion is more often than not the only way to control their fertility. It is a "choice" they exercise within constraints which are beyond their and their government's control. As another woman in Cuba interviewed by US television pointed out, there would be many fewer abortions in Cuba if the blockade was lifted and Cubans had access to a range of contraceptive technologies.

.
What the pope did not mention in his efforts to undermine the huge advances in reproductive and personal freedom that Cuban women have won is that, alongside the high rates of abortion and divorce, Cuba has a high level of health care, welfare provision and education for children. As a famous sign in Havana says: "200 million children in the world sleep in the streets today. Not one of them is Cuban."

.
Despite the immense difficulties it confronts as a result of the blockade, socialist Cuba has the lowest infant mortality rate among underdeveloped countries, and a rate that is lower than in the United States itself.

.
It is because of such achievements, and because the revolution gave all Cuban women much more freedom, encouragement, resources and confidence to make their own decisions about how to live their lives that the pope's reactionary sermons will fall on largely unreceptive ears.

.
The Cuban revolutionaries know this. They also know that the greatest threat to and limitation on Cuban women's freedom, is not, as "his holiness" tried to insist, "the substitution of God's infinite wisdom and power with an [communist] ideology", but the power of the US to starve Cuba of the resources it needs to progress towards the full liberation of women.

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

Ooohh! It sounds like fembot paradise, doesn't it? Everything our Western World Fembots are trying to slam through already exists! Note the "propaganda of omission" so typical of fembot agitators where she states that "65% of people in the US agree that women should have the right to choose." Yet she fails to mention that 65% agree that in certain circumstances women should be allowed to abort, such as in cases of rape, incest, or imminent health dangers to the mother. If she would report how many people agree that abortion should be used as a simple birth control method, this "fact of 65%" would drop significantly into the minority of the population.

But, we know that propaganda by omission is commonly used by feminists and Marxists all the time (because they are one in the same), and that's why this highly biased author blames all of Cuba's problems on the USA, but omits mentioning that things explained in the following website might have more to do with Cuba's problems than anything else.

http://www.therealcuba.com/index.htm

Anyway, I know this was an old article, but it is interesting to compare feminist goals to Communist countries because, when one does so, it becomes glaringly obvious what statements like these mean:

"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

There you have it, fembots.

And let it be known that No Ma'am heartily encourages fembots to seek their Matriarchal Utopia in Cuba.

Stick out your thumb and hitch a ride to Florida.

Find a used raft and start paddling Southward.

Good Riddance!

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

The Almighty, All Encompassing Power of the Pussy

2010-09-30T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quote: “Lastly, we should never forget that it is men in high places, corridors of power, that have signed off on this sorry state of affairs. Judges, attorneys and legislators are mostly men, and it is they who we are up against, in collusion with NOW and that gang. ...”

While this is true it is not entirely accurate, and is in fact a tired old feminist saw that has been used against men for decades, if not for over a century. What this line of thinking fails to recognize is that those men are serving women – in exactly the same manner as every other biological, living, breathing entity on this third rock from the sun does. The way “life” works is that the male is the sexual servant of the female.
.

“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)

So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.

Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.

Think of it like the typical herd of animals. Of course there are males and females, but is the composition of the herd a fifty-fifty split between males and females? Absolutely not! The herd is mostly females, with a dominant bull screwing them all, and young sexually immature males making up the rest. When the young males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant bull for breeding rights within the herd. Either the young up and comer dethrones the bull and takes his place as the breeder, or the bull defends his postion successfully – but no matter the result, the loser leaves and lives on the fringe of the herd… and is constantly trying, or challenging, to try and get back in – in other words, the loser males (betas) are constantly trying to find acceptance back into the herd – they desire to be back in, to be part of the “society” that is virtually 100% female.

Women ARE society – while men are on the outskirts of it. Thus, men are independent because nature forces them to be, while women are collective herd creatures. (Society).

So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power and would be replaced by another that females felt was more suitable.

Philalethes has written a few posts about this that explain it rather well:

Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of

Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?

----------

Quote: "WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women? Men make civilization AND society. The only society that [women] make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge."

Indeed, and Philalethes makes quite a point of this too. One thing which he discusses is how women innately attempt to keep men as powerless as children – because women have 100% totalitarian control over children. When a man “becomes a man” he grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female.

It is when this happens that men begin to have usefulness to both society and thus, to women themselves. Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.

This is why so many societies try to “cut the apron strings” in one form or another. In our culture, children were to be educated by their fathers after the “tender years” had passed. Many cultures, even more or less matriarchal ones, have recognized the need to separate boys from the influence of women so that they may outgrow mother’s power and into men – a sphere that is higher than that of women in the hierarchy, thus making men that have “something women themselves cannot accomplish,” and therefore becoming both useful and attractive to women.

Thus all of the “rites of passage” that are found in cultures all around the world – mostly with the intention of severing boy’s ties to female power, and teaching him to cultivate his own power that surpasses it. It is this power – the power that surpasses the female, which you are trying to illustrate with your Atilla example – you are merely providing an example of exactly what I am talking about – he grew his power outside of the influence of women (women cannot teach men to be men, only to be children), and thus his sexual attractiveness also greatly increased. See above to Briffault’s Law in the post you are criticizing – Attila offered a benefit to women (power, prestige, social proofing etc. etc). The thugs you speak of are doing the same.

Btw, it is not neccessarily “bad-boys” that women are attracted to but rather men who are strong enough to grow out of the female reach of control. What women are attracted to are “hard guys” who won’t put up with female bullshit – indicating they are not under female power. The problem with us today is the only men left who are “hard guys” are the badboys and thugs who are decidedly anti-social. The rest of the men in our society never really grow out female totalitarianism, and thus women resent them as failures and don’t want to fuck them, or even give them nominal respect, for that matter.

I don’t really see how you are ranting against either myself or Philalethes, since both of us repeatedly state pretty much the identical things you are saying. I suppose pointing out the underlying factors and conditions of why women need males to grow into men is something men should not discuss because…???

It is not only Philalethes and me who argue this, btw.

“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

“… 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

"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs" — Immanuel Kant

"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle

As Philalethes points out in other posts of his – think of men as a “big stick” to females – a tool. That is what men are to females – a big tool that she uses to do things she cannot do herself, or finds too distasteful to do herself. Women compete amongst eachother to have access to the biggest stick. However, if a male never grows out of female influence, he will never develop the traits neccessary to truly offer woman what she cannot do herself.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between “society” and “civilization.” Primitive hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago lived in a “society” even though there was no civilization yet founded on earth.

To say that female “society” creates things like Desperate Housewives is not accurate – a female “civilization” would create that (if all the other neccessary things to film a TV show magically fell from the sky). Society is merely a group of people living together. There is a society of primitive people in Papau New Guinea, but there is no real form of civilization to go along with it.

P.S. Here's a series of relevant articles from The Men’s Tribune.

The Atom

The Methods of Women

The Balance of Power

The Feminist Totalitarian State

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

Quote: Thank you very much for your explanation, and I agree with what you said in it completely!

So I went back and read your comment [and it] seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.

I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused.

Are you saying that ... stuff stops being true when: “a man ‘becomes a man’ [and] grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female. . . . [because] Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.”

If so, then I think that the fact that this social power of women to control and limit males can be (and should be) overcome by boys as they become men (for the well-being of both men and women, and to satisfy women), should be emphasized (when you and Philalethes write about such things).

Yes, I agree.

This is a confusing concept but I believe it is very real none the less. It must be doubly so for women who are ruled by emotion/passion more so than men. Thus for a woman, even when she wins she loses. (While she tries to overpower the male through her wiles, she is ultimately dissatisfied with the types of males she successfully overpowers. Ah, hypergamy!) A life ruled by passion leads to short-term gratification but long-term suffering. Men are also ruled by passion but theirs is slightly more tempered by reason than women’s, which leads to one of the causes for Patriarchal societies placing the man in charge. (ie. It is “anti-animal”, just like so much of the rest of the universal moral code: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother etc. etc – all things that are “anti-nature” and thus represent man “rising up from being a beast of the field” through his own ability to consciously reason why he should resist behaving like an animal and rather choosing a better, more rational way).

The Proprietor of Pussy, the Vanquisher of Vicarious Vaginal Vagueness, aka Roissy himself, alludes to a similar train of thought in his Sixteen Commandments of Poon:

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
"Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore."

IV. Don’t play by her rules
"If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.".

XV. Maintain your state control
"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."

While men must grow out of the power of females in order to become useful, it is still the females who decide what is and what is not acceptable. Men and women are both halves of the same species, not as two entirely separate groups who have no effect upon the actions of another, although be it noted – the female affects the actions of the male to a far greater extent than the other way around.

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.

“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002

One of the problems we have is that ”what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever-changing according to the social needs of the day. In days gone by, women decided they needed strong men who would stick around and protect and provide while at the same time leading the family – and that’s the kind of men that society produced, because that’s what females wanted. Today, women want weak, spineless poofs for provider husbands, and aggressive overt sexual displays from their sperm providing “alphas” and thus, that’s what we have.

If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females. (Women become more submissive relative to the safety of society – think of a man & woman living in a cave, hearing a bump outside – the man will be the one sent out to investigate and if she follows him it all, it will be behind him, peering over his shoulder & using him as a shield. The safer society is, the more confident she is to march out without her shield – the less she “needs a man”).

Another interesting concept Philalethes puts forth which is somewhat related is in regard to species of animals that only have females, of which there are a few species found on earth (ie. lizards):

In the same way, he asserts that the male’s biological purpose is to serve the female, in that these female-only species are incapable of evolving and therefore can only exist in a completely safe ecological niche where there is no competition with competing species that are male & female, because a female-only species does not have the ability to evolve without the male. As we often assert in the MRM, males have greater ability to adapt than females. A female-only species can only survive in a static and safe environment. As soon as elements of adversity are introduced, species with two sexes fast out-evolve single sex species and render them extinct. As is often said in the MRM, males will survive better because of our innate ability to adapt.

This plays into a few other concepts that are related in regard to “the essense” of male and female, something which I refer to as “spike” (male) vs. “rhythm” (female). I explained this general concept in this piece titled Male and Female: Equal But Different

Males “spike” and vary much more wildly than females do, who tend to cluster around the average, while men exist far more in the outliers – ie. IQ where males inhabit the outliers of both 70 and 130 IQ in far greater numbers/variability than females who are clustered more around the mean of 100IQ. This concept comes through as “male” or “female” in a plethora of instances between males and females.

Some believe that this is the genetic purpose of the XY vs XX – because it enables evolution. The missing leg that creates the “Y” is what makes men far more variable, whereas the extra leg that creates the female “X” is what holds these genetic mutations (the positive ones) in the human genetic code.

So, a fella like Einstein, for example, is a deviation from the norm because of his high IQ, and because his high IQ makes him stand out from the normal population in a positive light, more females will find him sexually attractive because of this mutating trait, and thus more women will choose to bump uglies with him and those positive mutations will get locked into the human code via the female's genes, not the male's. Many such “mutations” are passed through the female, not the male, even though some of them may only affect males themselves (such as colour blindness).

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

Here is a superb comment by Rollo Tomassi (comment #33) that encompasses the theme of this concept so perfectly, that I simply had to reproduce it as an add-on to this already lengthy piece:

Simon, the Matrix has you.
.
Men, such as yourself, accept as normal expectations of themselves as men is uniquely defined by a feminine imperative. What I think eludes most men (even self-aware Alphas) is that our most deeply internalized expectations and desires, and how we go about actualizing them, are primarily rooted in what best serves the feminine imperative. What we perceive as “doing the right thing” is almost universally reinforcing of feminine primacy.

For example, I took issue with Kay Hymowitz here, who’s shit you’re essentially parroting.

Her frustration with these so called “boy-men” wasn’t over a concern for men needing to improve themselves, but rather a disappointment that they were deliberately shirking their responsibilities to the female imperative – essentially “manning-up” and providing for a wife and family. I even confronted her on this on a live Q&A chat she held. Her answers were a testament to female solipsism. While any and every woman should be empowered to “have it all” – career, family, husband, etc. and be equally respected to choose any or none of the above, men in the Matrix of the feminine imperative, to even be called men, must be facilitators of her choices. Men, in her terms, must want to better themselves in order to satisfy a global female centric reality. So solipsistic is the female imperative that it’s a totally alien experience for women to propose that perhaps we should respect men’s choice not to participate in it. We’re expected to respect, even champion, a woman who breaks out of the mold of traditional gender expectations, but not men. That man must be shamed and ridiculed as ‘shallow’, selfish and immature BECAUSE he wont acquiesce to that feminine reality. The feminine imperative has built such a complex social structure for men to participate in that it cannot risk them becoming self-aware. Men in this Matrix must be conditioned from birth to normalize what is best for the feminine. Even at the expense of his own life.

So while you may be correct in your assessment that men should in fact be more apt to better themselves, your ultimate purpose of appeasing the feminine for your own benefit is gravely flawed.

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

Comment #90 -- by Rollo Tomassi

The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.

Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.

ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.

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

“If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.” -- Esther Villar, The Manipulated Man
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

If I Only Had a V -- by Angry Harry

Five Stars ***** Woman (An Exposition for the Advanced Mind) -- by David Quinn

When Shit Gets Sold as Soap...

2010-09-27T00:01:00.001-07:00

Yes, it'll get you squeaky clean and make you smell good too!

Have you ever noticed how much of feminism could be classified as a form of projection? Collective projection, to be more accurate. Virtually every accusation that the fembot movement levels against men could easily be seen as women projecting their own behaviours onto others (men), and this is why, I believe, that women are so prone to believe that men are doing all of these evil things to them - because they can identify with such behaviour inside of themselves.

First, let's look at the whole false notion of the super-sized "boy's club-cabal" floating around out there, occasionally refered to as The Patriarchy.

As pretty much every man with an ounce of common sense and observational abilities will declare, there just is no freakin' Patriarchy anywhere to be found out there.

Men do not give other men special treatment because they are men. In fact, most men will readily attest that it's a dog eat dog world out there and we're all wearing Milk Bone underwear. Lol! Have a look at some of the completely ludicrous accusations that have been leveled against men - like the wild notion that men get better deals when they buy cars because they have testicles between their legs. What freakin' nonsense! As any man reading this will readily attest to, nowhere in our economic system will another man give me money, or choose to make less profit on me because I belong to the male sex.

I have never experienced the far reaching benefits of the Patriarchy, nor have I ever experienced any boy's club that tries to discriminate against, or exclude women from anything - well, not since I was 8 years old and tried to keep girls out of my tree fort.

I have never worked at a place where the men secretly conspired to give eachother advantages over female co-workers... but I have experienced working at places where myself and my male co-workers have caught several women conspiring in secrecy to make sure that women outperformed their male co-workers. It happened when I was working in a high-pressure commission sales environment. It was a fair sized staff, 12 in sales (11 men, 1 woman), 3 in management (2 men, 1 woman), and 3 receptionists (all women). Now, don't go thinking it was discriminatory that there were 11 men and only 1 woman on the sales staff. The General Manager tried and tried to increase the ratio of women on his staff, and hired several women while I was there, but the women he hired just kept quitting, some in tears, because they couldn't cope with the high pressure of commission sales.

What was discovered by myself and my male co-workers, however, was that the three receptionists were sending double the amount of first-time customers & phone calls to the lone saleswoman, and the female manager was turning over double the amount of clients to the saleswoman as she was to the men.

When it was brought to the attention of the General Manager, by 11 pissed off employees, he called the only 5 females that worked at the place into a meeting and after some intense grilling, the women finally admitted that they were purposefully sending more business to the woman than the men, because they wanted to make sure that a woman was the top saleperson. And not only that, but they had discussed, in secret, how they were going to go about doing it! And let's make this clear, every single woman that worked at that outfit was in on this secret conspiracy. Gee... sounds an awful lot like that far-fetched notion of patriarchy that women keep accusing men of... except the patriarchy-boy's club is the wrong gender, because what was really going on there was a matriarchal girl's club, which designed itself to discriminate based on gender.

So, I maintain that women believe in so many of these far flung notions about men because women know that women themselves do these things and therefore they rationalize that if they were men, they would discriminate against women in the same way.

There is no secret patriarchy - but there is a secret matriarchy.

Now, of course, I just gave out one example, which by no means proves the existence of the secret girl's club. But here's a simple test you can do yourself which will strongly indicate that women, perhaps because of their herd mentality (as in, protect the herd first), do belong to a matriarchal conspiracy and are wilfully complicit in denying that such a thing exists. It just takes a little awareness, and a few separate conversations with the same woman.

First, what you have to do, is play on a woman's mostest favouritist subject: Her own victimhood. This is the only way to get women to turn on other women. Ask her a question about how nasty her female classmates in highschool were capable of being and she will go into a tirade about how manipulative and bitchy girls can be - or ask her if she prefers to work with men or women. Lol! Women always tell you that they like working with men, because their female co-workers are constantly stabbing eachother in the back and bring so much politics into the work place. This is about the only time that a woman will turn on the herd, when you start questioning her about how mean the the herd treats her. But make note of how easily you can get her to admit that she knows women can be mean, nasty, manipulative creatures - and file that away for future conversations.

Sometime, in the near future, you strike up another conversation with the same woman, and try to bring up a discussion of how a woman might possibly be aggressively manipulative against men by leveling false accusations of sexual harassment against a man, or how a wife might be being psychological abusive via manipulations against her husband... and watch the very same woman who recently told you how mean and nasty she knows women can be, suddenly clam up about how women might be doing some very mean things to men - if she doesn't blow up in your face with righteous indignation for saying what she herself had recently admitted to, except applying it to men rather than her own victimization by bitchy women. She will automatically go into "protect the herd/Matriarchy mode" and deny everything about women's sometime awful behaviour.

But now you know she knows, and you will no longer believe that she "doesn't get it," but rather, the only conclusion left is that she gets it - and she gets it well - but that protecting the Matriarchy is far more important to her than justice or honesty. One might even refer to such behaviour as amoral.

There is no Patriarchy, but women readily believe that it should exist somewhere, because it is a projection of what they know about being part of the "Girl's Club - the Sisterhood!" Lol! And after decades of women (and men) searching for the Loch Ness Patriarchy, the only conclusion that the fembots can up with to explain why they can't expose it is because it is "institutionalized." Yes indeed, the Patriarchy is civilization itself. Hmmm.

One can really see the lunacy of the whole "Patriarchy" argument when one looks at Social/Relational Aggression, which is stereotypically described as female aggression - but of course, one is hard pressed to find studies about this form of aggression in terms of female on male aggression, but it is ever present when one looks for women being victims, of other females - then suddenly it is a serious issue, also known as girl bullying, which specifically uses forms of mental manipulations via secret gossiping, character assasinations and ostracizing, and mostly by convincing others to conspire against the victim along with the main aggressor.

http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/bet01229.htm

Bullying Styles

Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.

There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).

There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).

Please note: Styles of aggression more salient to girls typically involve conspiring with others to hurt someone, kind of like, um, a cabal, a girl's club, the Sisterhood... and notice how female styled aggression always revolves around plausible deniability. "Who me? I didn't do anything."

Is it a stretch to take this beyond childhood female on female bullying and say that women also aggress against men in the same manner?

"Patriarchy" is pure projection of what women know about "the Sisterhood." They believe the Patriarchy exists because they know the Sisterhood exists.

So...

How far does this collective projection go?

What about the fembot claims that because men make up the majority of politicians & judges, our legal system has been tainted to prefer men's concerns over women's. Yet of course, we all know this isn't true. Male politicians have passed an obscene amount of laws pandering specifically to women's concerns and there is no politician alive that has ever been elected to office by campaigning for issues specifically benefiting men. Yet, when one looks at the female politicians, it is easy to see that this false accusation against men is nothing more than projection of what females do when they get into office or powerful positions - the vast majority use their power to specifically benefit their own gender. The accusations that men are doing the same to women is so obviously false that it can be nothing but projection of what women know they would do if they had "men's power." And they have proved it by doing so.

How about the false accusation that men regard women as objects, as chattel, as a means of production? Hmmm... I don't know, but women obviously regard men as a work animal which women use to provide for food, clothing, shelter and luxuries for herself and her children. And women believe that her husband's labour is her property. This is why she sues her ex-husband for it after divorce. Who is treating who like a yoked farm animal, like chattel?

Hmmm... if women were running the world, there would be no more war? Well, since women got the vote around 90 years ago, the world has embarked on the most violent, most war filled century in the history of mankind - all during a time when women did/do run the world, because they hold 53% of the vote, and therefore they controlled those who started said wars and destruction.

Yup, even on the internet, we now hear things about how bad, bad men are "cyber-stalking" women and threatening violence and rape against feminists who blog man hatred on the web. Lol! Holy Projection, Batwoman! Is there one single anti-feminist on the internet who has not, over the past few years, been subjected to relentless threats of violence from cyberstalking fembots and mangina's who believe that anyone speaking out in opposition of them is fully deserving of any and all vile threats that can possibly be conjured up? Please!

In almost every single accusation that feminists throw at men, one can find projection of their own horrible, amoral behaviour onto the behaviour of men. And they get away with it because women in general can readily identify with these kinds of behaviour. Projection!

This is not new. These ideas about women's behaviour and moral character have been around for a long time. From the Bible to Aristotle, from Kant to Schopenhauer... and as "misogynistic" as fembots keep claiming that these people are, thus the reasoning for censoring the thousands of years of "Gender Studies" that existed before Marxofeminism, no-one has been better at proving correct these previous notions about male and female characteristics than the fembots who hate them the most, and the mainstream women who are complicit in letting them get away with it.

Man, this is great soap! You should try some.

It's the best soap on earth. It get's you squeaky clean and makes you smell wonderful!

Women Shrug Off The Tattoo Taboo

2010-09-24T00:01:00.000-07:00

Ain't she purdy? Whoa, hold me back! I need to get me some 'o that... about as much as I need to stick my fingers in a blender.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/03/women_shrug_tattoo_taboo/?city_local

“It is acceptable,” says Marta Vicente, a Kansas University assistant professor of women’s studies who researches women’s body image. “But I think it’s still risqué. If tattoos were piercing your ears as a woman, it would not be the same. But it’s like piercing your ears as a man — it’s accepted, but it’s still shocking or being different.”

Lol! Who woulda thunk it? Imagine, a professor of women's studies giving the green light to young, impressionable women on how to make themselves completely undesireable to men. It's not quite the same as getting your ear pierced either. Ask a guy who had his ear pierced back in the 80's & 90's why he no longer has an earing... and after you stop howling at the sight of red shame rise from beneath his collar and clear up his face to the roots of his hair, you will hear him mumble something about it being just a stupid fad - and he was a stupid kid. Then he will quickly change the subject. Just like a guy will do when some young, giggling, tattooed skank asks an older guy if he ever had a mullet - somehow thinking her "fad" is different. Lol! It is different! He went and got a hair cut! What are you gonna do, marked one?

“I think sometimes the attraction is freedom of choice,” Bishop says. “There are a lot of women who, if you ask why they wanted a tattoo, they say their boyfriend or husband told them they couldn’t have a tattoo or piercing. They’ll say, ‘I just got my divorce, and I can do what I want.’ It’s an act of freedom or independence.”

Ah yes, chick logic. Since it is pretty well known that many people choose mates in the serial "monogamy" game who have similar personalities... yes, it certainly does make sense to recognize that those who found you attractive previously in life - some enough to commit their life to you - would have found you repugnant with a tattoo, so now let's go and make ourselves repugnant to spite him! Of course, the future men who I'm attracted to (who also don't like tattoos), will just have to accept that I'm a strong woman and applaud it. I am a woman, I am strong, I am morally superior, therefore I mutilate my body to spite my ex.

Vicente, the women’s studies professor, says tattoos are the latest trend in women having control over their bodies.

“Women have always had a much closer relationship with their own bodies, as well as a problematic relationship,” she says. “Men do not have that same relationship with their own bodies.”

In modern culture, with pressures about body image everywhere, Vicente says women need to feel like they’re in control of their own bodies.

“In this world of media bombardment, the need to have control over one’s body, for women, is very important,” she says. “Tattoos are something that are maybe seen as something that women choose to have, a form of empowerment.”

Lol! Control over your bodies in the form of getting a tattoo? Holy Gender Studies, Batman! I would have thought control over your body would have been, like, being toilet trained - or perhaps possessing the mobility of a biped.

I call bullshit. It has nothing to do with "control" or "empowerment." It has to do with this:

"She recalls a 12-student graduate studies seminar last semester, when a student presented a paper on female empowerment as it related to tattoos. After the presentation, 11 of the 12 women revealed they had tattoos."

A picture is worth a thousand words. Need we discuss the real reason behind women getting tattoos any further? (Hint: It is not empowerment.)

"Somehow — and Vicente isn’t sure exactly how — tattoos went from being something sailors got when they were at war, to something women find as sexy. In fact, 42 percent of women in the Harris poll said having the tattoo made them feel sexy, compared with 25 percent of men."

Now, there's something not new. Women trying to decide for men what is sexy about women. One wonders what women would say if men pulled the reverse. And why do you want to feel sexy? I thought all the fembots in gender studies hated that the world views them as sexual objects? Why do chase after making yourself feel like one then?

“My parents aren’t into them,” she says, “but my nieces think they’re very cool. My grandma is, like, horrified of them. She didn’t even want to hear the story.”

Go figure, I'll bet her parents and grandmother don't consider themselves feminists either. Granny must be wondering what the hell making yourself "ugly in a sexy way" has to do with the whole empowerment thing, along with the saner XY bearing sex. But as long as she feels justified that they are cool because her nieces think so. Maybe they should advise her on her stock portfolio too. Though, what do you expect after the way young girls are raised in a feminized world, getting read "I've Got Two Mommies - (with 40 tattoos)" from daycare onwards, while running around wearing a T-shirt saying "Boys are stupid - throw rocks at them."

“And maybe most importantly, these days everybody knows you can have a tattoo removed. It’s not the lifetime commitment it once was.”

Yeah, more dizzy logic here. It is very expensive to get a tattoo removed, so I hope you starting socking $100/mo into a separate account for the laser treatments. The decent guys who could afford to pay for you having them removed aren't attracted to you anymore, remember? It's bikers and thugs who you'll be dating now. And no man should have to pay for your stupid mistakes, so make sure to start up that bank account - and don't go spending it on shoes you don't need just because there is a 10% off sale. The whole "tattoo removal argument" is kind of a scam anyway, because even with expensive lasers, the tattoos never fully go away and the skin never returns to normal. Imagine what that big tramp stamp above your ass will look like when it's "removed." But who needs a real dose of reality when the herd beckons you to act?

Remember, there's not a man around who finds a woman to be repulsive because she does not have a tattoo.

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

Also read: Bonecrker #19 – Tattoos and Piercings

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

"Other people's tattoos are like other people's children: Only you can see how bad they are." -- Comic Claudia Cogan

Feminism and Cults

2010-09-21T00:01:00.001-07:00

Well, I have "wasted" another afternoon surfing around on the web getting an education that is far superior to anything a typical radical-leftist university could possibly hope to deliver me. In between their censorship and brownshirting, where would they find the time to educate?

Actually, for the past few days I have been reading up on propaganda and brainwashing techniques and that led me to reading about the "cult mentalities" of various religious cults for a day or so. Communism uses many different techniques that are similar to religious cults in that they actively promote half truths, use brainwashing, allow for no dissenting, revise history etc. etc.

I haven't researched all of this enough to write a piece on it yet, but I have come across several "cult tests" and many, many other pieces which show how "cult mentality" both works and is enforced. It is becoming evident to me how many purposeful brainwashing techniques have been employed by Marxofeminists - not only on women, but on men as well.

Example: Compare this description of a Communist Brainwashing Technique to how Marxofembots convert weak minded men into becoming manginas with the use of guilt:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q1.html#Reds

Guilt induction is a very powerful tool for manipulating people's minds. In his study of Communist "brainwashing" of American and British prisoners during the Korean War, Edward Hunter wrote:

The Reds had found that the easiest way to subdue any group of people was to give its members a guilt complex and then to lead them on from self-denunciation to self-betrayal. All that was required to put this across was a sufficiently heartless exploitation of the essential goodness in people, so that they would seek self-sacrifice to compensate for their feelings of guilt. The self-sacrifice obviously made available to them in this inside-out environment is some form of treason. -- Edward Hunter, Brainwashing, From Pavlov to Powers, p. 169

For example, the brainwashers would criticize a white prisoner for having lived a live of luxury, never caring about the fate of the poor Negroes, being just an uncaring heartless monster who went along with the Capitalist agenda because he personally benefited from it, even if it was killing others. Then the confused white fellow had to confess all of that in public self-criticism sessions. Then, to make amends, he had to do something like snitch on a fellow prisoner, or memorize and espouse Communist dogma. And then it went on and on like that until a few prisoners had switched sides.

Also in play is the mass scale brainwashing that has been foisted upon women. For example, examine these criteria which are deemed essential for any effective brainwashing or mindcontrol program, as described by Margaret Thaler Singer: "Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, guilt, and dependency."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It is becoming obvious to me that Marxofeminists have copied many of these tactics to push through their completely irrational agenda of hatred and ultimate societal destruction - specifically pushed by the Marxofeminists who were not useful idiots - like Dworkin, Mackinnon, French, Morgan, Greer et. al.

It is also becoming apparent to me that many of the people who most virulently condemn what the philosophers of the 19th century said about the differences between the sexes despised such works not because they were wrong, but because they were often right and the people who have been condemning and censoring these "old views" the most are the ones who actually believe in these views 100% and are exploiting women by using them! And they might get caught if these views became common knowledge again! They fully recognized that it is easier to run society into the dirt by playing on women's natural succeptibilities and manipulating them to in turn manipulate men.

Here is an example of someone who has studied cults, Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq., where we find the following:

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/rosedale_herbert_women_and_cults.htm

No one considered whether or not there was a gender differentiation in a person’s vulnerability to cults and cult recruitment, and, particularly, whether women were more susceptible to recruitment. Recent research, however, has consistently produced samples that are 60% to 70% female (Chambers, Langone, Dole, & Grice, 1994).

This is one of the best pieces I have found so far describing the various methods that cults use to brainwash people. Have a browse through it and see what you think:

http://orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html

It is fairly long and detailed, but it sure is interesting to browse through and is conveniently broken into easy to digest sub-sections - you will be amazed by the COUNTLESS similarities!

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

"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

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

Belfort Bax on NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That)

2010-09-18T00:01:00.001-07:00

It seems not much has changed in a century, but this is a beautiful reply (Notice how he only responds to male feminists? Lol!):

The Fraud of Feminism - Belfort Bax, 1913 pp24-26

At the time of writing, the normal person who has no axe to grind in maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn't see it I can't prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts.

One often has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair play among women in general.

The afore said peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only dis-puted by those persons--to wit Feminists--to whose theoretical views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that indi-vidual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible--although, as I before said not perhaps very probable--that any given man's experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly bona fide.

The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist's denials. In this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is usually too biassed a witness in this particular question.

Divide and Conquer

2010-09-15T00:01:00.000-07:00

I often ponder that we in the MRM are guilty of not being able to see the forest for the trees. We rant and rail against feminism as if it is the only cause of Western demise. The fact is, feminism is only one face of the subversive Marxist movement to curb freedom and consolidate power. Though, in our defence, feminism is the most vocal and rabid group out there and like the Brown Shirts they emulate, they are easily despised.
.
.
But the fact is that it is not just MRA's that are fighting this battle. Before we all go blinking insane trying to rationally argue some sense into feminists and their pussified political mangina lackeys, we should stand back and recognize that ultimately the battle is against Marxism and there are tremendous amounts of people fighting its many different assaults on freedom and the very foundations of Western Civilization.

The problem is that we don't recognize that we are all fighting the same thing, resulting in us being divided - and therefore we are easily conquered, as has been plainly evident for the past several decades.

The main thing that must be realized about the goal of Marxism is that it must first destroy society in order for their new utopian society to emerge from the ruins of the old. This is not a joke! This is a common theme heard over and over again from Marx to Lenin to Gramsci to feminists to gay rights activists. The similarities in their words and thoughts are astounding! What they all agree they must do to bring down the present society is simple:

1 - Eliminate Christianity/religion from society
2 - Destroy Marriage and the family unit

These two things must be accomplished before the Marxist utopia can arrive. Why? Because these are two things that exist in society which virtually all men who are committed to them will die to defend. The Marxist elitists will never be able to control the direction of the masses as long as people believe in the unwavering authority of the Bible, nor as long as people have the natural urge to protect and nurture those who they love in "family situations." Marxists need human robots who will do what they are told without causing much of a fuss.

What the cultural Marxists have been brilliant in doing is fracturing their opponents into so many different groups that they are each virtually powerless to launch a counter-offensive.

- Many MRA's are anti-religious, and therefore are alienating themselves to potential allies.

- Some MRA's are for abortion and so they are alienated to anti-abortionists.

- Many father's rights activists only oppose custody and family law - but couldn't be bothered about other draconian laws against men, like biased rape laws.

- Religious activists are for strengthening marriage and are against abortion but many are also proudly proclaimed feminists and would rather light themselves on fire than recant it.

- Those who oppose the evolution theory are written off as religious nuts even though many who question it are not religious at all. (And who told us religion was "nuts" to begin with?)Questioning evolution theory in Western schools is asking for a quick dismissal because it is essential in discrediting religion.

- Environmental groups are hellbent on passing Marxist style restrictions on society, especially since the "Global Warming Report", yet there are many scientists and historians out there who are screaming on apparent media-deaf ears, that since humans have been recording temperatures there have been many dramatic, decades long temperature shifts that are similar to what we are experiencing - both warming and cooling.

The list could go on almost forever about all of the anti-freedom movements that have taken hold since the 60's "anti-establishment movement" has become the "new establishment." And we should all recognize that every one of the groups opposed to the Marxist left has the same frustration with fact distortion, advocacy research, illogical logic and basic bulldozer "Brown Shirt" tactics that MRA's face!

The fact is, those freedom loving hippies from the 60's didn't know the first thing about freedom, but they did get propagandized about Marxism - over and over again. Now they are in power and are carrying out their drug induced utopian vision via any totallitarian means their elitist egos see fit. Marxism has no room for honesty, integrity, civility, logic and the like. Marxists believe the ends justify the means and the "new utopia" is the ultimate end - therefore, they will bulldoze any and all opposition, believing with their elite view that they know best, and the rest of us are just silly children who don't know what's good for them.

It's time for all of the various groups to recognize that we don't have to agree on everything. What we have to do is put our differences aside and defeat our PC Marxist overlords first. We can work out the details later - when we can have free access to all the facts.

United, we could kick these dipshits to the curb.
.

Anti-Sexism for Idiots

2010-09-12T00:01:00.000-07:00

I came across the website Anti-Sexism for Idiots several years ago, read it completely, enjoyed it thoroughly, and then let it slip from my mind. Recently, I stumbled across it again, and have decided to read it through once more, and thought that I would throw a link up - in case some of the rest of the you haven't surfed through it and are looking for something more constructive to do with your time rather than watch Big Brother.

Here is an article from the website, which I particularly enjoyed:

----

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT

From their lofty moral high ground, feminists have applied women’s superior ways of knowing to gently remind us male heathens that we just don’t “get it”. I would like to return the favour. Here are some things that feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around.

Feminists complain about the under-representation of women in the workplace. They want to enjoy the same employment opportunities as men. They don’t get it that for men, work is not a hobby. They don’t get it that for men, work is not something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you, something you do to while away the hours. For the vast majority of men, not working is not an option. Men do not have the freedom to stay at home to rear the children if they like, or to do nothing particular if their fancy takes them, or to do the shopping if they’re bored, or to get a part-time job to make friends, or to watch the soapies to have something to talk about.

Feminists don’t get it that higher paying jobs aren’t generously bestowed on men out of the goodness of their bosses’ hearts, just because they are men. They don’t get it that if women were as efficient as men and as profitable as men to employ, then there would have to be something seriously, gravely wrong with any organisation choosing men over women, just because they are men. Feminists just don’t seem to understand that organisations function according to the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, and make those recruitment decisions most likely to benefit the bottom line. To do otherwise is to deserve to fail.

They don’t get it that if a majority of women don’t want to do certain types of work, then perhaps it might be a little difficult balancing the numbers. Feminists don’t get it that focusing on equal outcome instead of equal opportunity is not equality but bias. If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in government or in coal mines, what do you do if a majority of women prefer not to work, or if they prefer not to expend the same effort and commitment to their careers as what men are required to do? If you want to balance the numbers of men and women in parliament, what do you do if you can’t find women who want the job badly enough? Recruit check-out chicks? Or bored housewives?

Feminists don’t get it that mowing the lawn, or repairing the car, or painting the bedroom, is domestic work. They think that men do these things to get out of doing the dishes.

The statistics from the feminist website, Gender Gap in Government, (link now defunct) will shock you. WOMEN ARE 52% of the adult population, yet even after over 3 decades of affirmative action, women have barely dented the ranks of politicians. Are women really be this lazy?

Feminists don’t get it that women's failure to participate is not due to oppression. Instead of blaming others for their own laziness, they should look inwards. Feminists' cherished statistics prove conclusively that even today, with all the affirmative action policies that have been enshrined in law, with everything that has been done to facilitate women’s access to men’s jobs without their having to earn them, women are still not pulling their weight. Feminists don’t understand that they have now provided us with proof of what we have known all along - that women are bone lazy, and that they never actually wanted to work.

Feminists don’t get it that when women have the escape-hatch of stay-at-home mom, they are more likely to pull out of the career paths that might otherwise lead to higher salaries. Stay-at-home moms are less likely to have the sort of career experience that pays well. The presence of the stay-at-home escape-hatch profoundly influences the choices that women make.

They don’t understand that only men fight wars, pollute environments and generally, do the dirty-work also of women, because women are too comfortable in the security provided by men to be bothered to do it themselves.

They don’t get it that the reason that the majority of people over 60 who are now living in poverty are women is that they are more likely to have been married to providers who are now dead.

Feminists don’t get it that when a woman dresses to be looked at, she’s going to be…… looked at. They don’t get it that when a woman dresses to lure, she’s going to be…… approached. Perhaps it's a bit too deep for them. It is a rather difficult notion well beyond feminists’ grasp, as it is founded in abstract, rational principles (rationality) foisted on everyone by The Patriarchy.

They don’t get it that women’s fantasies about being raped reveal a secret about women’s sexuality. They don’t get it that rape scenes in novels written by women for women derive their appeal from tapping into this private side of feminine nature. They don’t understand the connection between their thoughts and their longings or the duality that exists between being protected and being violated. Sure, feminists reassure us, rape is terrible and just because a woman fantasises about being raped, does not mean that she wants to be raped. What they don’t get is that women’s unspoken secrets can influence and justify (in their minds) the choices that women make, in fashion and in men. They don’t understand that the thrill of dressing to lure, to be desired, to be dominated and to be taken, can come at a price and so, has its responsibilities.

They don’t get it that when women choose wallets without character, they might finish up with characters who won’t share their wallets.

Feminists don’t get it that, when a man cheats on his wife, there is usually a woman who cheats with him. And no, it’s not because of something he put in her drink.

They don’t get it that when women say no and then give in to the types of jerks least likely to take no for an answer, other men are going to have a hard time believing that no means no.

Feminists just can’t seem to wrap their brains around the fact that, the women that enforce, supervise and participate in the tribal African custom of female genital mutilation are not, actually, men dressed in drag. And no, the fact that men generally do not participate in sacred women’s rituals (such as FGM) does not mean that innocent mothers, grand-mothers and aunties have had their drinking-water drugged by scheming patriarchs.

They don’t get it that when women wear fashions and apply lipstick and makeup in order to deceive men, they are not helpless victims of a Beauty Myth, but active participants, motivating companies to give them more of what they demand.

Feminists don’t get it that blaming men for the oppression of women is like blaming mothers for the oppression of little boys. And little boys become men. They don’t understand that what goes around comes around.

They don’t get it that feminism is the princess syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. They don’t understand that feminism cannot exist without chivalry, without Patriarchy’s Galahads who have traditionally always done women’s dirty-work.

There is so much that feminists don’t get, one can be forgiven for wondering whether there is something inherent in the nature of femininity that precludes women from understanding the most basic, simple logic. With women’s silence and complicity while the injustices rage against men, we might forgive those who regard feminism as proof that women are less able than men in almost every sphere of life. You will have to be patient with them. You will have to remind them that feminism is not about women, but about chivalry, and feminist women demanding and extracting privileges from men. If feminist women are nincompoops, what does that make the men that so readily comply with their demands?

Collective Projection

2010-09-09T00:01:00.000-07:00

Do any of you guys out there believe there could be such a thing as collective projection?

We all know what projection is… the “projecting” of one’s own behaviour onto another’s. But, could women have so much of a herd mentality that they are capable of projecting as an entire gender?

Think about it.

Women believe that men are violent towards children, yet ALL research shows that the problem is really with women… is it that women are so willing to believe this about men because they know something about themselves?

Women are quick to jump on the bandwagon of “psychological abuse” for things as minor as an impolite facial gesture, believing it is just as damaging as physical abuse – yet women are definitely the major perpetrators of psychological abuse. Just google “social aggression” or “relational aggression” and discover how researchers have attributed this as a stereotypical female form of aggression… So are women so quick to believe this is a form of domestic violence because they recognize the sheer hatred and malevolence in their own hearts when they do this to other people – often their spouses.

Do women believe the myth that men hold them in oppression via the threat of violence because they know deep down that they hold men in oppression via the threat of “social/relational aggression?” Think about it, who is walking around with T-shirts & bumper-stickers advertising their psychologically abusive domestic violence tendencies? “Zero to Bitch in 2.0 seconds” comes to mind, yet I’ve never seen a guy walking around with a t-shirt proudly proclaiming “Zero to Fist in 2.0 seconds.”

Which gender proudly proclaims they are high-maintenance – also a borderline advertisement of an abuser. Is this because they truly want men to behave callously and rude to them? Otherwise, why would they think that moniker is even remotely funny?

Are women so willing to believe in the deadbeat dad myth because they know themselves that were the shoe on the other foot, they would quickly become a selfish dead-beat mom? The evidence suggests this is true.

Women believe in the need for "womens' healthcare departments." Could this be because they know that if they were in the position to split resources between genders that they would quickly take care of women before men - so they automatically believe that men are doing this to women? (Of course, while forgetting about all those honourable guys who stuck women in their lifeboat seats).

Think about when a woman posts in on-line dating ad. What does she say about herself? She is a STRONG, INDEPENDENT woman. She likes to get her way, she is a successful career woman…blah, blah, blah. Is she projecting what she herself is looking for in a man? Could be. Cause I don’t give a fuck about your career, honey. I care that you are feminine enough to make me feel masculine.

This is why women get tattoos and advertise themselves playfully as “bad girls.” Women like bad boys – so they think that men also like bad girls. WE DON’T. We like nice girls. But here’s the real kicker, when she’s dating “Hank the Hell’s Angel”, do you think he asks her nicely and considers her feelings when he gets her to blow all of his buddies at the biker jamboree? Hell no, he tells her “on yer knees, bitch!” So perhaps when women are saying that they would like a guy with a nice sense of humor who is respectful and will listen, they are actually projecting characteristics THEY WISH THEY HAD THEMSELVES! Cause it’s obvious that nice guys aren’t what turn them on, is it?

This mentality women are displaying is just as stupid as men growing tits & wearing lacy boxers to attract women.

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

Further reading:

Projection – by BusterB

Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind – In Mala Fide

DGM 3.0

2010-09-06T12:00:00.000-07:00

Lee sent me an e-mail yesterday informing me that he has been hard at work resurrecting the old Don't Get Married Board that shut down 18mos ago, which was actually already DGM 2.0., or parts of it, or something like that.

Check it out:

http://www.dontmarry.proboards.com/

Well, maybe this one isn't actually DGM 3.0, this one is simply called "Don't Marry." Ah, the economy of using two words instead of three! This two-word name will free up much time to play video games and remain a man-child!

Philalethes #29 - They Can Do It Because They Really Believe It!

2010-09-06T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quote: It has always fascinated me how the fems can deny ANY responsibility in a rape victim.

They can do this because they really believe it. Camille Paglia remarks somewhere in the “Sex and Violence” essay that the structure of the relationship between the sexes requires the female to be the passive receiver of male action, and unfortunately women have come to believe that this superficial melodrama actually reflects the real state of things. Which, of course, it does not; but only a few women take the trouble (or, perhaps, even have the necessary intelligence) to become aware of this truth.

The “wise women” of older and indigenous cultures know this, but modern women have forgotten–which is why I find feminists’ pretense to being “wise women” laughable. A real “wise woman” knows her power and doesn’t need to flaunt it. I actually met such a woman once: a Mohawk shamaness; she was awesome. She was also kind and considerate toward men, as she knew that she could either support or destroy them, and that it was in her best interest to support them being their best. Feminists take exactly the opposite view, believing that using their power to suppress and destroy men proves their “superiority.” This is akin to a carpenter deliberately dulling his saw, breaking his hammer. In a word, stupid. Feminists disprove their claims by their own actions.

I heard once of a study done by putting video cameras in singles bars; it was found that every encounter began with a covert, subliminal glance from a woman to a man: an invitation. In most cases, this invitation is unconscious on the woman’s part. And so, she believes (and so men believe) that he made the first move, that she is merely the passive object of his active power.

Quote: "The sad fact is that many men are literally afraid of their wives."

Yes, especially now, as nearly all of us have been heavily conditioned to that fear by what our mothers did to us when we were born. The “balance of power” between the sexes is actually very delicate, as it depends entirely on women raising their sons to be strong and independent, able to meet their future wives in the arena and hold their own. When mothers give in to their own greedy impulse to keep their “little men” mother-bound, weak and dependent, their daughters will not have developed men to marry. And, following their mothers’ example, will believe a healthy relationship consists of dominating their men. Look around.

Quote: "The good news is that as we age and get into our upper 40′s and beyond the hormones begin to dissapate and some of our pre-puberty clarity returns."

Well, I don’t know about “pre-puberty clarity”; I’d say it’s more like a combination of life experience with the slow dissipation of the “hormone-induced fog.” I remember when I was in my early 30s reading a biography of Gandhi wherein that great man remarked on what a relief it was as he got older that the slavery to sexual desire faded. At the time I found his sentiment nearly incomprehensible; now in my 60th year I have a better understanding what he meant. The purpose of all those “initiation rituals” discussed in another thread is to help a male master himself, so he is not ruled by his impulses. A man ruled by his impulses will also be ruled by women, and a man who is ruled by women will be unable to give them what they really need.

Quote: "I think I understand what you are saying here…that women by default have power and a vested interest in their position and in their capacity to manipulate men. The circumcision fiasco is more a result of this than a planned action. Is that what you are saying?"

Uh, not exactly, I don’t think. Again, this subject requires more time and energy than I presently have to do it justice. One thing I am saying is that there is more to the world, and to our experience, than what appears on the surface. This world we live in is a realm of paradox, and cannot be understood until we go beyond the conventional way of seeing and thinking.

An Oriental teacher I studied said, “Everything has a front and a back. The bigger the front, the bigger the back.” The front of the relationship between the sexes is what we all see, and what women believe when they say that they are the helpless victims of male power. That’s the front; the back is much the same, but reversed, like a photographic negative. And (mostly) unconscious. Our being is like the proverbial iceberg: what is conscious is above the surface and visible; the unconscious is below the surface, invisible to the ordinary mind, far larger, and dangerous. It is what we all do unconsciously that hurts us most. The solution, then, or at least the beginning thereof–as I see it–is to bring what is unconscious into the light of consciousness.

It is precisely because the natural realm of women’s power is in the unconscious that we cannot afford to turn over the running of the world to women–and why, when that happens, women suffer as much as men (or even more). “Equality” between the sexes is a myth; either one or the other is “on top.” In the natural order of things, first the female contains the male, physically and emotionally; but eventually, if the male fulfills his potential, the male contains the female, mentally and spiritually. In the beginning, it is the female’s task to protect and nurture the male, so that later on he will be able to protect and nurture the female and her offspring–who become the next generation, and repeat the cycle. The circumcision program breaks this fundamental contract, by aborting the proper development of the male.

Again, when women attempt to use their power deliberately, the result is destruction. It is not exactly an accident that the #1 feminist “issue” is abortion–the supreme act of irresponsibility, whose apparent “necessity” arises directly out of the female’s inability to control her own unconscious power. Notice that feminists never speak of their “right to choose” not to engage in the activity which results in “unplanned” pregnancy. If they were able/willing to “plan” at that end, abortion would never be “necessary.” But they take sex as an unavoidable, unquestionable given, because apparently they are unable to restrain their impulses.

Quote: "Sometimes they would refuse to assist in circumcisions and sometimes they would form groups within the hospitals to function as conscientious objectors to the procedure."

This is interesting. So far as I’m aware, the only place nurses have organized to resist circumcision is here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where about a dozen years ago some two dozen nurses at the local hospital stepped out as “conscientious objectors.” It was their action which brought the issue into public view here, which eventually resulted in my reliving the experience myself, which … well, it’s a long story. They remain a continually persecuted minority in their place of work.

Certainly there are “some women who are working for what is just”; but they remain very few. And, to my mind, “what is just” is not really the point; it’s a lot deeper, more fundamental than that. “Justice,” again, is a concept, a product of the intellect, the “male” side of human consciousness. It’s abstract, cerebral. What I’m interested in is women realizing that the present trend is not functional; it just won’t work. Unless what they really want is more suffering. I don’t bother to argue with women about “justice” or “fairness” because I understand that that isn’t what really motivates them. The female is fundamentally practical, the ultimate pragmatist. Only when she realizes on a level below, and prior to, conscious thought, that what she is doing isn’t working, will she change.

This is why I rather think the disease must be allowed to run its course. They want it all? If that’s what they want, nothing men can do will stop them, so might as well quit resisting and let them do it. Just go fishing, I say. Let them stuff themselves until they choke on it. “Never argue with a woman” is not just an old joke; it is really the wisdom of wise men of old. To carry it off, though, a man must know himself and be in control of himself. In short, he must be a man, not an overgrown mama’s boy–which is what nearly all of us are these days. Including, I will add, myself: only in my 50s have I gotten some clarity on what was done to me (and not done for me) in childhood and youth, and begun to try to figure out how to grow myself up, in the midst of a culture which does its best in every way to discourage me in this endeavor. A culture totally dominated and run by women. Who clearly do not understand that one hand does not benefit by cutting off the other.

Previous Philalethes Index

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

“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002

Philalethes #28 - Feminism Is Successful Precisely Because Its Basic Premise Is Not True!

2010-09-03T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quote: Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a fine book on the subject, “The War Against Boys.”

I saw this book in the library and applied my usual test: looked in the index for “circumcision.” Not a mention of what is clearly the preemptive, decisive, surgical first strike in the war she purports to be writing about.

Christina Hoff Sommers appears to mean well, but like others of her type she isn’t ready to really challenge feminism, she just wants to adjust it a little so its uglier aspects will be tucked back out of sight. Another book by her asks “Who Stole Feminism?” Nobody “stole” feminism, Christina, it’s only that with such overwhelming success its real character has become plain for all the world to see.

This is a complex subject; ‘fraid I don’t have time right now to examine it fully. I realize that my statement might seem mysterious to someone who hasn’t thought it through as I have. I’ll try a few points, in hopes the picture might fill itself out with some thought.

First, one thing I’ve realized over the last decade of thinking about the American infant male circumcision program, and the wider/deeper subject of relations between the sexes, the origin and nature of female power, etc., is this: It is not necessary to be conscious of ones power in order to use it effectively. This fact is key in understanding the entire phenomenon of feminism, as well as female psychology. The power exercised by women, like the powers of Nature whence it is derived, is primarily unconscious. This is why, although it is obvious to anyone who really thinks about how the world works that it is women who have and use the real power, women see themselves as helpless victims–and can usually, easily convince men to agree with their world view.

“Women run the world. No man ever did anything unless he was allowed or encouraged by a woman.” – Bob Dylan (interview in Rolling Stone, late 1980s)

Thus the rape victim who becomes incensed if someone suggests that perhaps she might have had something to do with what happened to her, when she wandered half-drunk, in short-shorts and halter top, into a locker room full of testosterone-enhanced males. “But I didn’t do anything!” she wails, and the feminists scream about “blaming the victim!”

Again, it is curious that even while any biologist (including even female biologists) will affirm that in all other species sexual behavior is totally controlled by the female, her needs, cycles, and signals, amongst humans the idea that the female is anything but a victim of oppressive male power and violence is totally unthinkable. Why? Female power, subtly, unconsciously applied: what women do not want to acknowledge will not be discussed.

Ever wonder how it is possible for a little, tiny woman to control a great, huge, hulking man? Think about it. Obviously, the idea is preposterous: the one who is more powerful must dominate the one who is less powerful. Yet we see this archetypal encounter acted out all around us. Feminism is successful precisely because its basic premise is not true!

The Zuni Indians, whose home is in what we call western New Mexico, have a story, about a couple of young hunters who one day freed a dragonfly from some mud. The dragonfly, being of course a magical creature, offered its saviors a couple of wishes. The first young hunter said he would like to be the smartest man in the world. “Done,” said the dragonfly. The second young hunter naturally was a little miffed at this, but then he had an idea: “I want to be smarter than the smartest man in the world,” he said. “All right,” said the dragonfly, “you’re a woman.”

I’m old enough to remember Harry Belafonte’s great hit song in the 1950s: “Dat’s right! De woman is – uh! – smahtah! Dat’s right. Dat’s right.” Never forget this. However, also remember that “smart” is not necessarily the same as “wise.” In older times, it was this knowledge, more than anything else, that male elders passed down to their sons, nephews and grandsons. More than anything else, it is the loss of this knowledge that has led to our present predicament.
(I remember another song from the 50s, an early rock-n-roll ditty whose refrain went, “De girl cain’t he’p it, de girl cain’t he’p it…” I’ve come to the conclusion, based on observation of the actual results of several decades of feminist denial, that this is true–and that a “civilization” based on ignoring this fact cannot last.)

So no, I wouldn’t say the circumcision program was a “deliberate move.” Like much of what women do, it didn’t (and doesn’t) have to be “deliberate,” i.e. consciously conceived and executed, to work very well indeed.

As I understand it, the circ program was first marketed during the Victorian era (the time when “civilized” women spoke of the “limbs” of a table, because “legs” was too suggestive–also the time of families, like my father’s, of a half-dozen children or more, sometimes many more) as a “cure” for the terrible problem of masturbation, the “nasty habit” to which boys were unfortunately all too susceptible, which at the time was the known cause of a whole host of both personal health difficulties and societal ills. As that idea fell out of fashion in the early 1900s, newer “scientific” excuses were made up. Which also are obviously bogus, not holding up even to brief examination. So why is the circ program such a “sacred cow”? Nobody will talk about it, the media won’t discuss it, mothers become hysterical when it is questioned. Again, female power: what women don’t want to confront will not be discussed.

Note that the circ program is based on the idea that there’s something wrong with males–something, indeed, that requires drastic corrective measures. This is the very cornerstone of feminism. I note also that the American practice of male circumcision came out of the same Northeastern WASP/Puritan cultural matrix (check the origin of this word) which also produced Prohibition–another force-based “solution” to the problem of What’s Wrong with Men–and Feminism, whose official birthday was at a conference (originally to promote “female suffrage”) in upstate New York in 1848.

Feminism is based on the proposition that there is no significant difference between the sexes. This is usually taken to mean that women are not “inferior” relative to men, but this is just another red herring. The truth is that female power–if/when she wishes to use it–totally trumps anything a man can do. Feminists insist on being dealt with as if they were men, and ignorant, “honorable” men do just that–and don’t/can’t see the knife under the table, in the realm of darkness which is women’s real field of power. “Take back the night!” is misleading: they never lost it. As Camille Paglia makes clear, there is truly “No Law in the Arena.” Whatever else it may be (and sometimes it can be very pleasant), the sexual encounter is a war, and, as I remarked elsewhere, women (a) don’t fight fair, and (b) fight to win. Men enter the arena handicapped by ideas of honor–but if we abandon such principles, we betray ourselves. If we attempt to meet women at their own level, we lose–and so do they.

This picture is the truth behind that old axiom of male wisdom: “Never argue with a woman.” I’ve not yet come across a woman who is willing to really confront what I’m talking about here. Sooner or later, she will take evasive action, like Scarlett O’Hara: “I don’t want to think about that, and I don’t have to, so I won’t, and you can’t make me.” True, I can’t, if she doesn’t want to. Throughout human history, this tactic has worked for women, as it must. This is the reason for all the “keep women in their place” “oppression” that feminists complain about. Now that they have been allowed out of “their place,” the results are becoming plain.

The only thing men can do in response to female power is to create a limited, artificial realm where such power is not allowed to rule–and then show women how it is in their interest to subject themselves to the discipline necessary to live in such an environment. This can be called human culture, or civilization: a way of living together and relating that is different from how other, unconscious animals do it. Where the rule of law–an artificial, human construct–is paramount, rather than the rule of power. In order for this to work, men must be wise to women’s tricks, and not allow them to get away with the kind of unconscious manipulation that is their natural, instinctive skill. None of this is easy, which is why it is not easy to be a man: because to do this, we must also be aware of the trickster in ourselves, and not let ourselves “get away” with anything that is less than our best: self-aware, and self-disciplined.

All I have time for now; perhaps some food for thought. Regarding the subject of circumcision itself, some useful links if you haven’t seen them:

Sexually Mutilated Child
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages
A Brief History
NOCIRC
NOHARMM

Of course, you’ll see little or no mention of women/mothers and their role in any of this information–because they’re seldom if ever evident on the surface of events. However, note the Bob Dylan quote above. I put it this way: There is no human culture that is not fundamentally a Matriarchy. Any apparent “Patriarchy” is no more than a front for the Matriarchy that really runs everything in this world. It wouldn’t be happening if it didn’t somehow serve the female agenda.

Previous Philalethes Index Next
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies?

Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist.

Philalethes #16 = Who Stole Feminism? Nobody!

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision

Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?

Philalethes #24 – Who’s to Blame II

Philalethes #27 - In the "Battle of the Sexes," If She "Wins," She Loses!

2010-08-31T00:01:00.000-07:00

In truth, this [is] the real, difficult paradox of gender relations, and especially of the female position. The two sexes are like sparring partners; we must strive with each other to keep each other strong, healthy, and alert. However, the female, as the original creator of the male, actually holds all the power; the male is strong only as she allows him to be. So she’s faced with a difficult conflict of interests: in the “battle of the sexes,” if she “wins,” she loses! A few women ... are beginning to realize this, though they still don’t understand what to do about it. I could almost feel sympathy for women faced with this fundamental conundrum, if I weren’t so conscious of what their unconscious rage has cost me.

If women are oppressed, they are oppressed by their own creations. We are the front men, fall guys and whipping boys for the conflicted complexities of female psychology. As graphically illustrated in this woman’s confusion.

Quote: "So relax, I think her intentions are absolutely good here."

Ah yes, those wonderful “good intentions” that, in the female/liberal mind, excuse anything and everything. Frankly, I don’t care a whit what her “intentions” are, I care only what she (or anyone) actually does.

The encounter of the sexes is not, in Mao’s words, “a dinner party.” It’s serious business, the origin of birth and death, a dance of creation/destruction between the two most dangerous predators on the planet. “How do porcupines mate? Very carefully.” It’s like sparring partners in a martial art: we keep each other strong, healthy, alert, we teach each other and check each other’s excesses. In order for it to work, we need each other whole.

For the past century, American women have been using Mother’s power to cripple their sons. The short-term results have been gratifying to short-sighted females like the author of this article, who appreciates the “independence” the feminist movement has given her. In truth, women are no more “independent” than they ever were, but because they’ve transferred the job of protecting and caring for them from the men they personally know to the State, they can pretend to themselves that they no longer need men. Modern women are as “independent” as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. All that’s changed is that men, who still do all the dirty, dangerous jobs that must be done, and pay all the taxes and alimony and child-care payments, and fight the wars, etc. etc., that enable women to have the comfortable world they want, no longer get the respect we used to get in return. In the long run, this is a recipe for disaster. We may be stupid, but we’re not harmless.

Women have always controlled men. It’s the natural order. Ever notice how so many teenage girls have an affinity for horses? They’re exercising the same set of skills: how to control a large, dangerous but very useful animal. Any girl who owns a horse will understand that treating the animal with respect is the best way to have a successful relationship. Unfortunately, many (most?) women do not seem to understand this basic fact in their relations with men. As Camille Paglia points out, the great tragedy of sexual relations is that women believe their own “defenceless victim” mythology. Delusion, as the Buddha says, leads to suffering.
.
Previous Philalethes Index Next

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

Related:

Bonecrcker #44 – Women Have Contradictory Love

Philalethes #26 - The Law

2010-08-28T00:01:00.000-07:00

As I said above, this essay raises some important points, but unfortunately is not very well thought out or presented. I believe I understand what the writer is trying to say, but I also understand that this is because I’ve been pursuing a course of study for some two decades that’s taken me far away from the conventional collective consensus of present-day culture — a consensus that’s been carefully nurtured by the forces Graham Strachan wrote about (in his response to Devvy Kidd), who “want to destroy the institutions of civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage.”

As Will Rogers remarked, it’s not what folks don’t know that hurts them, so much as what they think they know that ain’t so.

In order to understand the subjects under discussion, we must first understand that there are two kinds of “law” being referred to.

Two thousand years ago there lived in Cairo a famous rabbi named Hillel, who was widely celebrated for his knowledge of the Law. One day, the story goes, a Roman military officer, having heard of the rabbi’s fame, challenged him to expound the Law while standing on one foot. The rabbi raised one foot and said, “Do not do to others what is hateful to yourself. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is merely commentary.”

This is the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God” to which Thomas Jefferson referred in the Declaration of Independence. And it was on this Law, more or less, that our Republic was founded. This is not the “law” that is studied and elaborated in modern university law schools, or practiced by modern lawyers, or enforced in modern courts. All these are concerned with human law, otherwise known as statutory or case law. At best, human law is, as the rabbi said, a commentary and clarification on God’s Law; at worst — and most often — it is an attempt, by the endless obfuscation at which our immature minds (smart is not the same as wise, though smart thinks it is) are so skilled, to get around God’s Law.

The hundreds of yards of “law” books in the State Law Library a few blocks from my house (I’ve been there to do research) are almost entirely concerned with this kind of “law.” As the Roman historian Tacitus famously remarked, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

Those who are most skillful at this obfuscation are called “lawyers.” It is not an accident, I believe, that the United States, the world capital of feminism, also hosts, by orders of magnitude, a larger population of lawyers per capita than any other country. Or that, for instance, last I heard, out of 100 members of the federal Senate, 98 are lawyers. The original 13th Amendment to the Constitution would have prevented members of the Bar from holding government office. I really don’t believe it was an accident that this amendment was somehow conveniently forgotten during the “Civil War.”

Those who have studied Law from the perspective I am outlining commonly make a distinction between what is Lawful and what is merely “legal” — i.e. sanctioned by human “law” though it may violate the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Most of what goes on “under colour of law” nowadays is in the latter category.

A single example should suffice: Any workable human system of laws must begin with a statute outlawing murder. This is clearly an application of the Law cited by Rabbi Hillel: since I would hate to be killed against my wish, I must not impose the same fate on another. No society which allows its members to kill each other without restraint can possibly survive. This is why the first of the Judaeo-Christian Commandments addressing social relations (after those defining the relationship of man to God) says “Thou shalt not kill.” And why the first Buddhist Precept is “Do not kill.”

It is not an accident that the number one feminist “law” was the Supreme Court decision that “legalized” abortion. Abortion is clearly murder in the sight of the Law expounded by Rabbi Hillel, but under our modern system of “law” it is allowed. Thus it must be clear that the “law” which presently rules is not the same as the Law. The difference is absolute, and crucial.

It’s important to understand that we in the present-day United States live under the original Constitution of the Republic only in regard to Article I Section 8 Clause 17, which grants Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over any territory which is the property of the federal government, or has been ceded thereto by any of the States. Through a process of “legal” sleight-of-hand that has been going on since the 1860s, all the territory of the formerly sovereign States has been gradually transferred into this jurisdiction, while the Citizens of the same States have been induced to trade in their natural sovereignty, as claimed in the Declaration and guaranteed in the Constitution, for a federal “citizenship” under the so-called 14th Amendment, which makes them “subject to” the jurisdiction of the United States, i.e. chattel with which the latter authority may do whatever it will.

This is, according to many researchers who’ve spent many years investigating recent history, the reason for all the excesses of our current governmental/legal system — from the “income tax” through the “family courts” to a president declaring war on his own — which, though it still wears the trappings of the original Republic, has actually been converted into an empire in the classic mold, with all power vested in the State, which rules its citizens according to its own whims.

The author does indeed cite some precedents in law for his argument, including several Supreme Court cases and a key provision of the federal Constitution (“No State shall…pass any…Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”). I don’t have the resources at hand to look up the case cites, but the name Hale vs. Henkle (or maybe it was Henkel) I know I’ve seen in some of what I’ve read in my studies. So I wouldn’t dismiss the “legal” basis of his argument out of hand. Unfortunately, though the principles involved are really quite simple, getting back to them requires a lot of work clearing away the all the underbrush of obfuscation that’s been piled into all our heads by the system of education, indoctrination and control run by the government and the corporations that control the government, all of them in turn controlled by lawyers and their ilk.

And of course, I would agree that it won’t succeed in court, not only because it hasn’t been sufficiently worked out, but because the court system is specifically designed and operated to avoid the truth behind this argument. There are effectively no Article III courts left in America today; what we now call “courts” are merely administrative tribunals whose function is not to determine the truth but simply to decide how much the guilty (anyone who’s summoned into such a court is assumed to be guilty) must pay. I’ve heard of a few who’ve been able to confront the court system directly and force it to acknowledge and obey the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and the original Constitution, but this is very rare and requires really advanced skills.

Quote: "An argument requires an offer, acceptance and consideration, and this situation requires all but three of these elements, since bearing a child can hardly be considered an “offer,” while being born can hardly be considered 'acceptance.'"

I assume you’re referring to a “contract” requiring offer and acceptance. How else then would you characterize the process by which a new human life appears in the world? The “offer” is made when the individual decides to engage in sexual congress; the offer is “accepted” when it results in the creation of a new human life — a life which is fully equal in fundamental character and rights (if the concept of rights is to have any meaning at all) to those of the parents. The “consideration” is (1) whatever it is we think we get out of sex — which must be something, considering how much most of us are willing to spend for it, and (2) what we get out of having progeny (satisfying the “urge to reproduce,” etc.), in exchange for (3) the energy spent in the support and rearing of the child. That both of these “rewards” are mostly sought out of instinct rather than reason (which is why there are nearly seven billion humans on a planet that cannot possibly support than number “in the style to which we’ve become accustomed”) does not mean they are not real, or that the consequences of our seeking them are not real.

Of course, most of us have probably insisted at one time or another in our childhood that “I didn’t ask to be born!” To which I recall my mother responding that according to her memory of the process of childbirth, I certainly did! It’s basically a question of responsibility. Am I responsible for my existence or not? To be human, in my view, I must accept that responsibility, with all its implications. If I am unwilling to do so, I have no basis to claim the rights of a human being. Nor, I believe, will I have any hope of getting out of the prison wherein I find myself.

I understand your unease with the “insulting” implications of this line of reasoning. However, I think we have to start with what’s real, and what’s real is that in this world, the male of any species is, to begin with, no more than a means to serve the female’s ends, which are the ends of Nature Herself: the endless production of more life. Nature doesn’t “insult” anyone, any more than does an earthquake. Reality just is; attempting to ignore it will only make everything worse.

Yes, “when we assess and define the ‘needs’ of civilization, we are actually referring primarily to the needs of women and children.” Don’t forget that “men” also were once children. There never has been a man who was not a child first. That men may develop and concern themselves with issues beyond the simple “needs” of women and children does not excuse us from first seeing to those needs as well as we are able. You can’t build the roof before the foundation and walls, and they must be built well if the roof is to last.

And the point — again, not very well made, but it’s there — of the article under discussion is that the traditional “patriarchal” cultural system did better at that than the matriarchy that’s recently been made to replace it. Or, more exactly, that the matriarchal system actually has not replaced it, since men are still being held responsible under “patriarchal” principles as if they were still the heads of the families from which they’ve been ejected. And that a system thus based on a lie cannot possibly succeed. So the author demands that women really shoulder the responsibilities that men have carried in the past, now that they have demanded the power/freedom that men have had based on that responsibility. Or admit that their whole ideology is a lie, so we can get to work on solutions that might actually work. In other words, put up or shut up.

My response to the idea that “women and children are civilization and humanity” is to say that it is precisely because men are somewhat “outside” the world of women and children that humanity has any chance at all of becoming more than just another kind of chimpanzee, eternally trapped in the endless round of birth-and-death. It is not an accident that all the great moral/religious teachers of human history have been men. Either the purpose of life is just to keep the wheel turning, grinding out suffering for all eternity, or it is to find a way out of this trap. Each of us can choose between these two; if there’s any meaning at all to human life, it must begin with how we respond to this choice.

You see, I don’t believe there really is a war between the sexes. I don’t believe the real interests of men and women differ in the least. The lesser may be at war with the greater, but the greater is never at war with the lesser. A child may dispute its parent’s authority, but the parent, if the authority is genuine, is never in conflict with the child. Man may think he is at war with God, but God is not at war with man; and a man who understands this is not at war with women, though women may be at war with him.

The traditional authority of the male in the “patriarchal” family can be properly understood and exercised only in the understanding that “to rule is to serve.” This is why Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. And the male can play his role successfully only when he understands that he too is subject to a Higher Authority. Most of the problem with the “patriarchal” family has resulted from men forgetting this fact. Encouraged, I will add, by women. “Women rule the world; no man ever did anything unless allowed or encouraged by a woman.” (Bob Dylan said that.)

Quote: "There’s nothing about a woman’s gender which will make one single bit of difference to a baby, since it doesn’t know a breast from a baby-bottle as long as it provides equal nourishment."

Well, you may think there’s no difference between a woman’s breast and a baby bottle, but I do. It’s a religious question, really; you’re a materialist, and I’m not. You believe that everything can be reduced to chemicals, no more; I do not. Apparently you also believe the feminist dogma that there is no real difference between the sexes beyond an “accidental” variation in plumbing arrangements; I do not. Even in the “men’s movement,” I find most men these days thinking like women. Which is why I wouldn’t call myself a “masculist” or whatever; I’m not at war with women over who gets what goodies. I suppose it’s unavoidable, since the “men” of our time are the sons of the women who created feminism; but this will have to be addressed if there’s to be any response to feminism besides a mirror of its own fallacies.

Quote: "And let me remind you that in a few years men will create their sons by themselves through the use of artificial wombs. We don’t need women to obtaining eggs anymore, so ectogenesis will be a by-word for the end of matriarchy."

Well, maybe so, but that’s not a world I would want to live in. That’s really responding to feminism on its own level, and will certainly not get us out of the pit. I’m not the least bit “submissive” to women, as I think my writing should make clear. Respect is not the same thing as submission. I try to be polite because I believe that’s my job as a man, as Kipling wrote in his famous poem: “If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs….”

I try to recognize and acknowledge reality, the better to respond to it effectively. I try to see women as they are, precisely so they won’t rule me. It’s certainly not easy, because of the “hormone-induced fog” Warren Farrell so aptly identified, which rules all men’s view of women. But neither capitulating to their unconscious, arbitrary power, nor responding with unreasoning anger (at which they’ll always be better than we are anyway), nor running away in fear (where shall we go? Mother is everywhere) is a productive response. “Artificial wombs” do not address the issue, any more than do any of the artificial rearrangements of reality promoted by feminism.

“Independence” is an interesting concept; though I believe Jefferson was mostly correct, and advanced human progress greatly, it must be understood that true “independence” exists only against a background understanding of our absolute interdependence with the entire universe, including our fellow beings, and most especially the “opposite sex.” It is precisely the feminists’ childish idea that they can be “independent” in some absolute sense that has led to all their mischief.

Regardless of how well or poorly this essay presents its case, the point it raises is crucial: either you believe that the “Law of Nature and of Nature’s God” is absolute, or you believe that it can be abrogated, modified, juggled, finessed, jawboned, whatever, by human cleverness. If you believe the latter, then eventually all you will be left with is the “Law of the Jungle.” Which is where feminism, and all its sister ideologies, are taking us.

.
Previous Philalethes Index Next

Philalethes #25 - You Can Have as Much Freedom as You Are Willing to be Responsible For, But No More

2010-08-25T00:01:00.000-07:00

... Basically it comes down to the lesson my father taught me: that freedom and responsibility come together, that I could have as much freedom as I was willing to be responsible for, but no more.

Having broken the marriage contract and declared her “independence” and full capability to be the head (as well as the heart) of the family, woman should be held to her words. If she is the head of the family, she should provide its support, as man did when he was its head. If she is unwilling to render her part of the traditional exchange between the sexes, man should not be required to contribute his part either.

But of course, in the present circumstances, this will never happen.

When it comes to questions of responsibility, woman makes Ronald Reagan (the “Teflon president”) look like Uncle Remus’s Tar Baby. Woman’s unwillingness (perhaps even inability) to acknowledge responsibility for her own power, even as she uses it ruthlessly and without restraint, is the fundamental psychosis of the human species, which may well lead to our total self-destruction.

The concept of “fairness” is not native to the female mind. To a man, “fairness” is a check on personal greed: “what’s fair” means getting less than the most I may want, so that everyone may have some. To a woman, “what’s fair” means “I get what I want”; if she doesn’t get what she wants, it’s “not fair.” Add unchecked political power to this kind of “thinking,” and you have — well, what we have.

This is why the 19th Amendment was the direct road to our present matriarchal totalitarian collective. American women were “given” the same political power as men, but not required to shoulder men’s responsibilities. They have freedom without responsibility, otherwise known as “license.” According to the law dictionary, “license” is “permission to do what would otherwise be unlawful” — in essence, to exercise freedom without being held responsible for the consequences. Men created a society of laws to enforce responsibility and thus allow freedom; the modern matriarchy has turned it into a society of license. Notice how nowadays you have to get a license for everything?

Human life entails an unavoidable internal contest, between our nature-as-given from our animal antecedents, and our potential as creatures of reason. Insofar as we are ruled by the former, we are no more than extra-clever chimpanzees, subject to the same endless round of suffering birth-and-death as all the other dumb creatures. However, we can escape that fate if we are willing to use our reasoning capacity and subject our behaviour to its rule.

The ability to reason is certainly present in the female mind; woman, after all, is the human species, man is merely a variation on her theme. However, where man has an incentive to develop his reasoning capacity, because he lacks woman’s overwhelming natural power, woman, possessing that power and using it, usually without conscious thought, does not have such incentive. Or at least, she “thinks” she doesn’t.

Nature is utterly practical; she wastes no energy she can avoid spending. So long as woman, fundamentally a creature of Nature (the very same Goddess feminism worships), can get what she wants without subjecting herself to the discipline of conscious thought, she will continue to take everything she can — even if, like a horse that’s got into the oats, she eats herself to death. On her own, she doesn’t know any better.

This is why a matriarchal political system cannot lead us to a better world; why, indeed, the matriarchy of the dim past (so celebrated in feminist myth) gave way to the patriarchal system that created civilization — including all the conveniences women now take for granted, as well as the very concepts of equality and fairness (entirely products of the male mind) they use to wrest ever more privileges from cowed and bewildered men.

Perhaps our present headlong dive into chaos can be averted, but only if, and when, women themselves decide they want to change course. For it is always women’s natural power that decides our collective fate. Girls do indeed “rule”; boys, as always, can only give them what they want — if we have anything to do with them at all. We cannot make the fundamental decision, because we don’t have that power; after all, it is women who make men, not vice-versa. If we don’t wish to participate in the collective self-immolation, we can only withdraw and turn away — as many men have done in the past.

We can take charge if they ask us to — which is essentially what happened some 10,000 years ago, when women decided (unconsciously, but nevertheless it was their decision) they wanted something better than “grass huts” to live in, and put men in the driver’s seat so we could create civilization for them. Now they seem to have decided that we’ve given them what they wanted, and they can take over again and run it for themselves. I don’t think this will work; cell phones and SUVs or no, women have not changed that much in the last ten millennia. I can point this out — and get blasted, as I have been — but there’s not much more I can do to affect the situation; they have the power.

We can’t take them on head-on; in that arena their power is overwhelming. The only thing that’s likely to get their attention is a wholesale departure, a turning-away, a refusal to cooperate. There are ways to avoid the crushing burden of modern “fatherhood” as defined by the matriarchal court system. Unfortunately, to do so requires a man to betray his own best self-image: to become, in the short term at least, as irresponsible as women. And accept without complaint the shame women will heap on them for doing so — this very shaming being one of their principle means of exercising power over men.

Naturally, few men are able to think their way through to the long-term wisdom of such a strategic retreat, despite its obvious logic: for if women are absolutely morally superior to men, then men should follow their example, and do our best to behave like them. Notice the general moral collapse of our culture; where before at least lip-service was paid to concepts of honour and responsibility, now it’s positively fashionable to take everything you can, and too bad for the loser who’s fool enough to restrain his greed.

In the end, all this will happen anyway, as our civilization collapses under the weight of feminist irrationality and avarice, and we return to those grass huts. Which women will rule as absolutely as they have always ruled the home, their natural realm of power. You go, grrrl!

Previous Philalethes Index Next
.

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

Related:

Bonecrcker #153 – People Can Choose Anything They Want To… But They Can’t Choose The Consequences

Philalethes #24 - Who's to Blame II

2010-08-22T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quote: "I find it curious that by exposing an inconsistency in feminist thinking, I’m (indirectly) accused of blaming women. I consider this an unnecessarily defensive reaction."

I hope you don’t have the impression that I was making such an accusation. My comments were directed at the remark(s) I quoted, and others similar (not by you), which demonstrate just the knee-jerk feminist reaction you discuss here.

My take on that reaction, the reflexive, sometimes almost violent refusal to acknowledge any similarity between female and male genital mutilation, is that it is a turf defence: The entire edifice of feminism is built on the definition of the female as the eternal helpless victim of male power, thus to admit that the “oppressor” (i.e. the white male) might be a “victim” in any circumstance would literally jerk the ground right out from under the feminist position. Moreover, I believe that all women know, whether they admit it to themselves or not, that infant male circumcision is an expression of Mother’s power; thus the instant refusal to even look at the issue, because to do so will necessarily lead to other thoughts they cannot bear to contemplate–including that they may be to “blame” for this egregious wrong.

In my own case, my mother has steadfastly stonewalled the subject for the last ten years. She was, has been and is in most respects a very good mother, but I suspect that as the notion of “blame” figures large in her thinking (as it does with most people, and especially, I feel, with women), her instinctive, emotional response is to refuse to deal with something that, if allowed into her consciousness, would, as she understands it, force her to feel very badly about herself.

The solution to this dilemma, as I’ve attempted to suggest, is to dump the concept of “blame,” which is useless in any case, since its only effect is to perpetuate suffering. As a Buddhist, my single aim is to decrease and if possible to prevent suffering; anything I do or say must be measured against this standard. If someone has done harm, of course that must be redressed if possible, but to add “guilt” or “blame” to the situation is a waste of energy that could be better used for the real task: to determine exactly what happened, why, how, and what best can be done to correct it.

So long as those whose power is the final authority in the situation refuse to acknowledge this fact, the cause-and-effect chain of suffering will continue. Including, I believe, in the case of infant male circumcision, many of the very same behaviours of men that women so complain about. Any badly abused animal will tend to be unreliable, treacherous, and sometimes violent; infant, pre-rational baby boys who were so savagely violated by their mothers–who in this world can we possibly trust if we cannot trust our mothers?–naturally grow into men who subconsciously fear women, and such fear can easily lead to unexpected violence–unexpected even by the perpetrator–when circumstances evoke such deeply repressed, unconscious feelings. Even at best, the encounter of the sexes will always be confusing, frustrating and sometimes frightening; the wisest preparation is to leave our children whole and support their growth into whole, internally-secure beings who can deal with challenges without losing their mental equilibrium.

Circumcision of children of either sex, like the branding of cattle or the docking and cropping of the tails and ears of dogs, is the physical manifestation of Mother’s instinctive sense of ownership: that her children are her possessions, to be modified to suit her tastes, and used to gratify her needs. After all, she made them, didn’t she? But is this the proper attitude toward children?

Previous Philalethes Index Next
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?

Philalethes #21 - Circumcision