QUOTE: "However, I think they may be wrong when they go on to say [marriage 1.0] was good for “civilization” too. Perhaps the inability of Western cultures to pass the shit test of feminism comes directly from allowing too many Betas to breed in the past and pass their passive and compliant genes down through the gene pool."
I sometimes suspect that this is what we are supposed to “do.” To pass the shit test… there is something better on the other side, something we are supposed to find out – maybe something that will change us, but we are never going to get there until we pass these shit tests that keep destroying us.
Many messages have been sent to us, obviously trying to warn us about “something.” These things are, I think, “twinkling reminders of humanity’s past.” The story of Pandora’s box… the legend of Atlantis… the Garden of Eden… Jason and the Argonauts… Egypt’s Punt… They are all of a similar theme, containing similar messages or warnings etc. They are talking to us from the deep, deep past. Perhaps if we pass the shit test and finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves like pathetic lemmings, our civilization will develop enough to finally “figure it out.”
What “it” is, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a better way of living. Maybe without civilization always collapsing and needing to be rebuilt, we will figure out how the hell to get out of the solar system, maybe find other lifeforms?… because our technology won’t reset 500 years back in time if we don’t collapse.
I know it sounds kinda New Age, but, imagine how different the world would be today if say, Rome had never degraded its principles, and it had never fell. How advanced do you think our technology might be today if that had not happened but rather they kept pushing forward, advancing and learning, all the way up to the present day? I suspect I might be taking my hover-craft to the corner store instead of my crappy old car. Who knows? Maybe we “figure something out.” But it does seem like we keep getting sent “warnings” from the past from our ancestors saying “watch out” and “fix this problem.”
I’ll tell you one thing what I see – our “moral codes” try to tell us not to behave like animals. That means not succumbing to our base passions, such as monkey sex without responsibities. Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet etc. etc. – all things that animals do, but which humans are told not to do. The “Point” is to rise up from being beasts of the field – of living like animals and basing our decisions in passion, rather than reason.
If the point is to be anti-animal and pro-reason, then I wonder what would happen when we finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves by succumbing to our base animal passions, of which our sex drives are most likely the strongest, and the way women stop men from “thinking” and rather living by pure passion, as they do. Maybe if we overcome this lemming tendency that has plagued us for thousands of years, there is something else on the other side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
MGTOW as a Form of “Cultural Game”
Fitness Testing (Shit Tests)
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Monday, January 09, 2006
Women Pursuing Their "Dreams and Aspirations"
QUOTING A FEMALE: "As long as mothers and/or wives don’t allow their careers to consume their lives and interfere with their God-given duties, then I don’t see a problem. Women have their own aspirations and dreams as well just like men (and no I don’t believe that the only reason people have careers is to make money)."
---
I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations.
Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.
One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesn’t?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.
Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.
But, look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).
A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!
And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?
Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot!
And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work fulltime jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances.
Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.
---
QUOTE #2, A MAN: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.
Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.
If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."
---
No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves, or their own sex.
And, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” And I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.
But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of society – including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.
And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.
Previous Index Next
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Zenpriest #44 - The Box Feminism Builds For Women
---
I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations.
Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.
One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesn’t?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.
Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.
But, look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).
A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!
And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?
Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot!
And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work fulltime jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances.
Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.
---
QUOTE #2, A MAN: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.
Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.
If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."
---
No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves, or their own sex.
And, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” And I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.
But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of society – including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.
And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Zenpriest #44 - The Box Feminism Builds For Women
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Government, Keep Your Thievin' Mitts Outta My Pockets!
.
QUOTE: "…which is part of the reason I don't mind a little wealth redistribution. I also believe that if we aren't ensuring that individuals with the most merit are educated properly then we are harming our competitiveness versus the other world powers in the long run."
Those two things, wealth redistribution & ensuring individuals with merit are educated properly to promote competitiveness, are in opposition of eachother. It’s like pushing and pulling at the same time.
The only type of wealth redistribution scheme that has any merit at all is a consumption tax. This is what the USA (& other places in the West) used to have, and it is also what many tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands still have.
For example, in the Caymans, you pay about 33% tax on what you spend. (Or import). Not on what you earn. That is why things are so expensive there – but, they have no income tax, property tax, inheritance taxes, capital gains or dividend taxes etc.
And this does promote wealth distribution, because rich people spend more money than poorer people. But, if a person were to work hard, and be thrifty at the same time, it is much easier to pull ahead and start getting your money to work for you, rather than you working for your money.
For example. If you live here in Canada, and gross around $4,000/month, after taxes and deductions, you will be left with around $2,700-$2,800 net take home pay. And from there, you pay for your living expenses, most often eating it all up.
However, the other way around is, I earn $4,000 a month, with zero tax, but I pay $2,750/month for living expenses plus $925 in consuption taxes for my goods, totalling up my expenses, including tax, to $3,675/month, and I am now $325/month ahead of the game than the other way, and since I am now batting above my living expenses, and I can directly control my living expenses, hot damn am I going to be motivated to hustle my ass to make some more money. Why, I might even get up off the beach and put in a few hours overtime!
That leads to excellence.
In the same way, I see no problem with wealth redistribution via things like mill rates for property taxes, as per the justification put forth by Adam Smith on that particular subject: Since wealthy people have larger houses, with more things in them to protect etc., it is only fair that their property taxation be higher (as per assessed real estate value, which again becomes a controllable consumption tax, rather than each citizen paying exactly the same amount regardless of their real estate value) because they have more to protect, and therefore are more in need of things like fire and police services, and often times will use them more. Fair enough.
However, progressive taxation on income is a silly invention, that retards economic growth, and removes the motivation to excel by merit There is a reason that Karl Marx puts this out in the Communist Manifesto – because he wants to destroy Capitalism, and civilization.
Also, anything the government touches generates about 30% wastefulness compared to the private sector. And while the government needs 15 workers plus 25 supervisors just to change a friggin’ light bulb, the private sector manages to crank out a miracle a minute. We should stop punishing the private sector and people with initiative, and start punishing the government instead.
Most people are just willfully blind to what they are saying the government should do.
For example: With the Haiti Earthquake, the Canadian government offered to match any private donations made by the people to Haiti. And here everyone goes off nodding their heads, “Yup, yup. T’is a good thing they do that. Uh huh, uh huh.”
No it isn’t! I not only feel like taking out my whacking stick on the government, but also on the people who feel this is a good thing. Hosers!
.
What is really going on is they are saying, “Geez Fedrz, how generous of you to reach into your righthand pocket and give away $100 to Haiti. So, allow us to reach into your lefthand pocket and match that with another $100 of your money.”
“Whack!” Fedrz swings his whacking stick.
”Whack! Whack! WHACK!”
Assholes did the same thing with the Tsunami, after the citizens donated hundreds of millions of dollars privately, and the government didn’t want to appear cheap. I guess better a thief than a cheapskate, eh?
Those two things, wealth redistribution & ensuring individuals with merit are educated properly to promote competitiveness, are in opposition of eachother. It’s like pushing and pulling at the same time.
The only type of wealth redistribution scheme that has any merit at all is a consumption tax. This is what the USA (& other places in the West) used to have, and it is also what many tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands still have.
For example, in the Caymans, you pay about 33% tax on what you spend. (Or import). Not on what you earn. That is why things are so expensive there – but, they have no income tax, property tax, inheritance taxes, capital gains or dividend taxes etc.
And this does promote wealth distribution, because rich people spend more money than poorer people. But, if a person were to work hard, and be thrifty at the same time, it is much easier to pull ahead and start getting your money to work for you, rather than you working for your money.
For example. If you live here in Canada, and gross around $4,000/month, after taxes and deductions, you will be left with around $2,700-$2,800 net take home pay. And from there, you pay for your living expenses, most often eating it all up.
However, the other way around is, I earn $4,000 a month, with zero tax, but I pay $2,750/month for living expenses plus $925 in consuption taxes for my goods, totalling up my expenses, including tax, to $3,675/month, and I am now $325/month ahead of the game than the other way, and since I am now batting above my living expenses, and I can directly control my living expenses, hot damn am I going to be motivated to hustle my ass to make some more money. Why, I might even get up off the beach and put in a few hours overtime!
That leads to excellence.
In the same way, I see no problem with wealth redistribution via things like mill rates for property taxes, as per the justification put forth by Adam Smith on that particular subject: Since wealthy people have larger houses, with more things in them to protect etc., it is only fair that their property taxation be higher (as per assessed real estate value, which again becomes a controllable consumption tax, rather than each citizen paying exactly the same amount regardless of their real estate value) because they have more to protect, and therefore are more in need of things like fire and police services, and often times will use them more. Fair enough.
However, progressive taxation on income is a silly invention, that retards economic growth, and removes the motivation to excel by merit There is a reason that Karl Marx puts this out in the Communist Manifesto – because he wants to destroy Capitalism, and civilization.
Also, anything the government touches generates about 30% wastefulness compared to the private sector. And while the government needs 15 workers plus 25 supervisors just to change a friggin’ light bulb, the private sector manages to crank out a miracle a minute. We should stop punishing the private sector and people with initiative, and start punishing the government instead.
Most people are just willfully blind to what they are saying the government should do.
For example: With the Haiti Earthquake, the Canadian government offered to match any private donations made by the people to Haiti. And here everyone goes off nodding their heads, “Yup, yup. T’is a good thing they do that. Uh huh, uh huh.”
No it isn’t! I not only feel like taking out my whacking stick on the government, but also on the people who feel this is a good thing. Hosers!
.
What is really going on is they are saying, “Geez Fedrz, how generous of you to reach into your righthand pocket and give away $100 to Haiti. So, allow us to reach into your lefthand pocket and match that with another $100 of your money.”
“Whack!” Fedrz swings his whacking stick.
”Whack! Whack! WHACK!”
Assholes did the same thing with the Tsunami, after the citizens donated hundreds of millions of dollars privately, and the government didn’t want to appear cheap. I guess better a thief than a cheapskate, eh?
.
.
“Whack!”
But, if any one feels the overwhelming need to redistribute any of their hard earned cash to someone who needs it… my pockets are feeling a little light – especially after the gov’t has been pick-pocketing my generosity, as well, my beer kitty jar could use some wealth redistribution from other people’s labours.
“Whack,” goes the whacking stick. “Keep your theivin’ mittens outta Rob’s pockets!”
Related: The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government Into Our Lives
.“Whack!”
But, if any one feels the overwhelming need to redistribute any of their hard earned cash to someone who needs it… my pockets are feeling a little light – especially after the gov’t has been pick-pocketing my generosity, as well, my beer kitty jar could use some wealth redistribution from other people’s labours.
“Whack,” goes the whacking stick. “Keep your theivin’ mittens outta Rob’s pockets!”
Related: The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government Into Our Lives
Friday, January 06, 2006
The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth
I think there is something very fundamental about Absolute Truth over Relative Truth which is the very basic to the nature of humans… that which separates humans from animal living and allows us to rise up from being beasts of the field.
Of course, the “tool” which humans have been given by God or by Nature – our equivalent to which every animal has been give his specialty (elephants have tusks, giraffes have long necks) - is our ability to choose, and of course, along with the ability to choose necessarily comes the ability to question. And in order to go from question to choosing an answer, there is the necessity to rationalize. Virtually all of human power resides in this feature. These are things humans can do which no other animal can do. Everything else works on pure instincts.
But…
This power we have to choose is like all power – it has the potential to be dangerous as much as it has the potential to be beneficial. I think the concept of “power needing to be tempered” before it becomes something useful certainly makes sense. And so it is that our human mental abilities need to tempered, or perhaps a better phrase is "anchored to reality," or else we humans also have the ability to “think” ourselves right off the rails and into la-la land. We humans kinda have a lemming feature built into us where we “think ourselves to death.”
In fact, this is the story of the Garden of Eden in a nutshell: It is a story of the battle of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth, and the danger of what happens by placing the Relative Truth higher in importance than the Absolute Truth. It is a story about humankind’s ability to bend the truth to over-ride reality… often with dire consequences.
Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom… Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truth which she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed.
Ahem… could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the “original sin?”
Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the Manosphere: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her.
And, when regarding how male and female brains “work” in order to ascertain “truth,” this holds true – men and women “find truth” in different ways. G.W.F. Hegel describes the phenomenon in the following way:
“… 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
Women, because they are herd creatures by nature, find Truth by consensus among the herd. If the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 3, then it is right, because the herd says so. Tomorrow, if the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 1, then that will be right, because the herd says so. The herd is always right. This is why women are more attuned to fashion, which is forever changing, and it is the underlying cause of the phenomenon in Game known as “Social Proofing.” Women believe a man is sexually valuable because the rest of the women around her find him sexually valuable – not because of any particular iron clad attributes or principles mind you – but simply because all the other women believe a guy is hot, so will the next woman believe it as well. The herd’s consensus is what is right, and it is subject only to itself.
You can see this all through females’ nature, in that right down to even their genetic make-up, they huddle around the average/mean in far greater concentration than males, who exist outside the herd and exists in the outer extremes of averages. ie. There are more males than females with an IQ of 140, but there are also more males than females with an IQ below 70. The males are on “the outside of the herd” and the females ARE “the average,” or, they are all clustered around the average. (Heh, this even goes into female psychology, where far fewer females desire to truly stand out from the norm – in areas such as company CEO - than men do – and the differences are signficant!).
In this way, it will always be males, in the aggregate, that are better equipped to “find Absolute Truth.”
It will be the males who will, like an angry MGHOW, declare: “BULLSHIT! 1 + 1 = 2!!! I don’t care what you say, I don’t care if all you cows believe 1 + 1 = 2.5, I will refuse to comply with you because, dammit, 1 + 1 = 2!
In this way, it is important for the male principle to lead the female principle, because the male principle is closer to Absolute Truth than the female principle. The female principle is almost pure Relative Truth. Now, the male principle has relative truth in it too – lots of it! Look at all the manginas out there! Men desire to follow women’s Relative Truths because that is what we would do if we behave like animals, driven by our baser instincts. But man’s mind is better equipped to discover Absolute Truth than the female’s, and thus, having men/the male principle leading a society will lead to that society following much closer to Absolute Truth… a much safer place to exist than a world full of Relative Truth, where nothing stays real.
"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..."
Because you listened to your wife’s Relative Truths… you were cursed, Adam.
You should have held true to the Absolute Truth, and all would have been fine. Even after she had already bogged herself down with her Relative Truths, Adam should have been a MGHOW and stuck to his principles based upon Absolute Truth. All would have worked out fine for him.
.
- It was Eve who seduced the man - in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path. This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her - and she believes everything - perhaps also because the thought of being the man's savior is so very satisfying to her. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals
Previous Index Next
The Feminization of Christianity
Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field
Truth, Truth, Truth… What Is The Truth?
In the Beginning
Of course, the “tool” which humans have been given by God or by Nature – our equivalent to which every animal has been give his specialty (elephants have tusks, giraffes have long necks) - is our ability to choose, and of course, along with the ability to choose necessarily comes the ability to question. And in order to go from question to choosing an answer, there is the necessity to rationalize. Virtually all of human power resides in this feature. These are things humans can do which no other animal can do. Everything else works on pure instincts.
But…
This power we have to choose is like all power – it has the potential to be dangerous as much as it has the potential to be beneficial. I think the concept of “power needing to be tempered” before it becomes something useful certainly makes sense. And so it is that our human mental abilities need to tempered, or perhaps a better phrase is "anchored to reality," or else we humans also have the ability to “think” ourselves right off the rails and into la-la land. We humans kinda have a lemming feature built into us where we “think ourselves to death.”
In fact, this is the story of the Garden of Eden in a nutshell: It is a story of the battle of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth, and the danger of what happens by placing the Relative Truth higher in importance than the Absolute Truth. It is a story about humankind’s ability to bend the truth to over-ride reality… often with dire consequences.
.
.
There was only one rule in the Garden… DON’T EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow… and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpent’s assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:
- The serpent was right when he says “you will not surely die.” (He was right, they did not surely die… After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life – if they chose to follow God’s path).
- The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil.
And then Eve’s female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth.
“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.”
There was only one rule in the Garden… DON’T EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow… and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpent’s assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:
- The serpent was right when he says “you will not surely die.” (He was right, they did not surely die… After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life – if they chose to follow God’s path).
- The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil.
And then Eve’s female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth.
“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.”
Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom… Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truth which she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed.
Ahem… could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the “original sin?”
Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the Manosphere: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her.
.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 RSV “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of relative-truth laden brain… but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point. But like a mangina eager to please, he said, “sure thing, Toots!” and swallowed ‘er down whole.
Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived.
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,’… (Man’s Curse)
It’s pretty clear.
Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition… God expected Adam to “know better” than Eve… because Adam has the capability to know better.
Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God… is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in God’s image. Adam is a copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam… Adam is “one step closer” to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is.
Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of relative-truth laden brain… but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point. But like a mangina eager to please, he said, “sure thing, Toots!” and swallowed ‘er down whole.
Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived.
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,’… (Man’s Curse)
It’s pretty clear.
Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition… God expected Adam to “know better” than Eve… because Adam has the capability to know better.
Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God… is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in God’s image. Adam is a copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam… Adam is “one step closer” to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is.
And, when regarding how male and female brains “work” in order to ascertain “truth,” this holds true – men and women “find truth” in different ways. G.W.F. Hegel describes the phenomenon in the following way:
“… 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
Women, because they are herd creatures by nature, find Truth by consensus among the herd. If the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 3, then it is right, because the herd says so. Tomorrow, if the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 1, then that will be right, because the herd says so. The herd is always right. This is why women are more attuned to fashion, which is forever changing, and it is the underlying cause of the phenomenon in Game known as “Social Proofing.” Women believe a man is sexually valuable because the rest of the women around her find him sexually valuable – not because of any particular iron clad attributes or principles mind you – but simply because all the other women believe a guy is hot, so will the next woman believe it as well. The herd’s consensus is what is right, and it is subject only to itself.
You can see this all through females’ nature, in that right down to even their genetic make-up, they huddle around the average/mean in far greater concentration than males, who exist outside the herd and exists in the outer extremes of averages. ie. There are more males than females with an IQ of 140, but there are also more males than females with an IQ below 70. The males are on “the outside of the herd” and the females ARE “the average,” or, they are all clustered around the average. (Heh, this even goes into female psychology, where far fewer females desire to truly stand out from the norm – in areas such as company CEO - than men do – and the differences are signficant!).
In this way, it will always be males, in the aggregate, that are better equipped to “find Absolute Truth.”
It will be the males who will, like an angry MGHOW, declare: “BULLSHIT! 1 + 1 = 2!!! I don’t care what you say, I don’t care if all you cows believe 1 + 1 = 2.5, I will refuse to comply with you because, dammit, 1 + 1 = 2!
In this way, it is important for the male principle to lead the female principle, because the male principle is closer to Absolute Truth than the female principle. The female principle is almost pure Relative Truth. Now, the male principle has relative truth in it too – lots of it! Look at all the manginas out there! Men desire to follow women’s Relative Truths because that is what we would do if we behave like animals, driven by our baser instincts. But man’s mind is better equipped to discover Absolute Truth than the female’s, and thus, having men/the male principle leading a society will lead to that society following much closer to Absolute Truth… a much safer place to exist than a world full of Relative Truth, where nothing stays real.
"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..."
Because you listened to your wife’s Relative Truths… you were cursed, Adam.
You should have held true to the Absolute Truth, and all would have been fine. Even after she had already bogged herself down with her Relative Truths, Adam should have been a MGHOW and stuck to his principles based upon Absolute Truth. All would have worked out fine for him.
.
.- It was Eve who seduced the man - in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path. This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her - and she believes everything - perhaps also because the thought of being the man's savior is so very satisfying to her. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Further Reading:The Feminization of Christianity
Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field
Truth, Truth, Truth… What Is The Truth?
In the Beginning
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Truth, Truth, Truth... What is The Truth?
"Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable...
Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth." -- George Orwell
QUOTE: "Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers/John Locke got the order wrong. The way that it is actually practiced is the only way that it can be done (since we are on the inside looking out):
1 – Natural Law = Objective Truth
2 – God’s Law = Absolute Truth
3 – Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth
This is the correct order because religion also uses the Scientific Method (Objective Truth), just not very well.
—
Yes, you are right – I have struggled with this before too, and this is why I say the need for Absolute Truth to be placed highest, may actually be important to human nature beyond even the scope of whether that truth is actually “true.”
I have come into this from the scope of what Karl Marx is “trying to do.”
Well, one thing Marx says he wants to do is to “Dethrone God and Destroy Capitalism.”
In other words – he wants to destroy the Absolute Truth.
How come? Because it prevents him from manipulating the subjective truth into overcoming the objective truth. (The world of Orwell’s 1984).
Humans have “the ability” to be blind to the “objective truth” because of how they allow their brains to process “subjective truth.” In other words, humans often get so confused with the subjective/relative truth that they manage to convince themselves that the objective truth does not matter… that’s why there has to be an Absolute Truth above the Objective Truth.
Take the way constitutions of free countries peg themselves to an Absolute Truth, whereas countries without freedom have no Absolute Truth, but only Subjective Truth – with the subjective truth creating objective truth.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…” — United States Declaration of Independence
versus the United Nations “constitution” (a knock off of all totalatiarian gov’t):
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State… the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.” — Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The reason why the Founding Fathers placed rights in the hands of the Creator is because what God gives only God can take away… in other words, the tendency of mankind to trick himself with the subjective truth into not believing in the objective truth is completely curtailed by placing “rights” out of reach of mankind.
If we ever end up re-writing our constitutions to remove "God" from them, please, oh please, let me get my rights from Santa or the Easter Bunny, rather than the state and its subjective laws. I have much more faith that Santa won't come like a thief in the night to take back my rights, than I do for the government refraining from curtailing my rights in the future - especially in a democracy.
Whether “God is real” matters not so much as that “God ‘pins’ down the Truth” so that we don’t convince ourselves that what is all about us is not true… the same way we have convinced ourselves of such nonsense as feminism has produced. As far as anyone “objectively” looking at the situation, they would declare we are nuts and should just open our eyes… and yet, what is happening in society? We are choosing to place the Subjective above the Objective.
And that is very dangerous!
Now, think about how looooooooooong it takes to create “civilization.” It does not happen overnight. We have been “following the Bible” for approximately 3,300 years. (The Pentateuch was written by Moses, and Moses is thought to be contemporary of 1300BC or so).
During that timeframe, “the Truth” has more or less stayed the same. Humans are prevented, by the existence of an unchanging Absolute Truth that trumps all others, from convincing themselves that the subjective truth is higher than the objective.
Sooner or later, humans will convince themselves to overlook some sort of “objective truth” in favour of the “subjective truth” and then “Absolute Truth” will wipe them from the face of the earth… just like Sodom & Gommorah.
Perhaps it will be that we convince ourselves that sexual monogamy is silly… that this religion thing telling us not to hump like monkeys is just that – religious trappings. (Using the subjective truth to convince ourselves of what we wish to be true, rather than what is actually true). And so, everyone throws away their sexual restraint because they believe they are seeing objective truth, and perhaps 40 years later, STD’s start becoming so rampant throughout the population that the fertility rates begin to decline… or perhaps, the “unordering” of the male –> female –> child hierarchy, while it looks to be “objectively smart” in our heads, turns out to be something which repels men and women from eachother, and our birthrates decline below replacement levels… until we are wiped from the face of the earth.
“SMACK!” says the Absolute Truth.
Start over and don’t make that same mistake again!
How would a civilization manage to “stay on the right path” for thousands of years, while always having to battle this human tendency? I suspect that it could not, unless it somehow managed to contain this human tendency… and the best way to do that is to place an Absolute Truth above all others – for those things we know “we need to do” in order to sustain ourselves, but have a tendency to wish wasn’t true.
Whether that truth is real or not, is less significant in this purpose, than the need for Truth to exist.
I think it was Voltaire who quipped “If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent Him.” (Although, I don’t know if he was referring to my argument… but you get the point).
What Karl Marx believes he can do is change the world into a Utopia by manipulating truth.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it.” — Karl Marx
He means he is going to take philosophy, and use it to manipulate reality in order that he might change the world. And this is what he does, by using the Relative Truth uber Alles, which his predecessor Hegel identified with the Hegelian Dialectic.
1 – Relative Truth
2 – Relative Truth
3 – Relative Truth
(And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, this is the Feminine Principle, and it is also the “animal principle.” Animals live completely from moment to moment – everything is subjective to them – their instincts lead, not their reason).
Karl Marx believes, through use of evolution, that he can “bend the truth” and by “bending reality” he can “evolve mankind into a new form of human” – one that has never existed before.
He believes if he can manipulate reality, he can remove man’s greed and desire to put the self first etc. etc. and then a completely new form of mankind will emerge, unencumbered by mankind’s worst traits, and therefore, he will have defeated God because he will have created Heaven on Earth. (Marx wants to make the Lion lie down with the Lamb).
One of the reasons why the Bible is so damaging to Marx’s plans is because it places Truth out of his reach and therefore Marx is severely handicapped in manipulating the truth for his own designs.
And, like I pointed out before, it appears that Marxism and Animal-ness are very closely related in how they process “Truth,” and in fact, Marxism is as old as the Garden of Eden itself.
So…, lol, I guess what I mean is, there are two roads here:
One can look at Truth for the purpose of “seeking Truth.”
and
There is also a human need for A truth to exist, in order to “temper” man’s mind, so that he doesn’t behave like a lemming and kill himself with his brain – which sometimes can create realities inside of our heads that don’t really exist (or will unwittingly kill us).
QUOTE: "As long as those above are supporting a specific Absolute Truth, those below (who are willing to accept truth that is independent of evidence) will be prevented from mucking things up, in a specific way.
But when those in charge wish to move in a different direction, all that they have to do is make a few minor modifications, like a farmer changing the fence lines..."
Yes, I know. This is why I quite often look at books like the Bible, and, realizing how incredibly wise it is in regard to understanding human nature, I have concluded that regardless of whether God exists or not, that book knows more about human nature than I, or anyone else around me does… so the Bible ought not to be dismissed lightly.
Also, keep in mind that this is how cultures “grow.”
They start off small, with perhaps a few hundred people hanging around on an internet forum… within a larger culture that perhaps might not even acknowledge they exist… but eventually, if their formula is correct, they will out-succeed the rest by following their form of “Truth” until they overtake the culture.
It appears that all cultures start out small, adhering to one form of truth (Cultural Hegemony), and because they have got “the right kind of formula in their truth” they grow and grow over time, until they overtake the culture.
That seems to be the way it works… rather than a small group of people convincing a large group of people of the error of their ways. Without “one truth” no Cultural Hegemony can occur, and thus, neither will civilization appear.
QUOTE: "For something to be an actual Absolute Truth, it would need to be pinned to objective reality, in order to be truly “out of reach of mankind” while being directly accessible to all."
I think the exact same thing… sometimes I say, when we identify a Truth, we have to “pin it to the wall.” (So that some asshole doesn’t come along and try to alter it with subjective truth).
But how can you pin any objective truth to anything, unless there is an absolute to pin it to?
Btw, I have sometimes philosophized if Absolute Truth can be created outside of the religious realm – with mathematics, for instance. Could mathematics be used as a replacement “pin”?
For example:
If we know that divorce/feminism causes ever falling birth rates… and yet we also know we need X number of babies to move forward… then the maximum tolerance of divorce that society can handle without destructing is X% of marriages ending in divorce.
Can that create a “morality” that humans can follow?
BUT, then you also start getting into the law of unintended consequences – as in, is it also then “morally proper” to say “this is the maximum amount of old people we can tolerate in society, while still sustaining ourselves… therefore…”
Scary business, when we think we are God.
The Bible knows a lot more than people give it credit for. I suspect it might still suprise us and show that it still knows more than we do… like how STD’s due to promiscuousness are causing our fertility rates to fall. (It is not just that we are choosing NOT to have children, but also, we are physically having more problems having them… in many cases due to STD’s).
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People have always spoken of the absolutely necessary [absolutnotwendigen] being, and have taken pains, not so much to understand whether and how a thing of this kind can even be thought, but rather to prove its existence.... if by means of the word unconditioned I dismiss all the conditions that the understanding always requires in order to regard something as necessary, this does not come close to enabling me to understand whether I then still think something through a concept of an unconditionally necessary being, or perhaps think nothing at all through it." -- Immanuel Kant, Critic of Pure Reason
.
Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. ... Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness," somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it. -- Friedrich Nietzche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth
Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field
The Feminization of Christianity
In the Beginning
The Male's Ability to Reach the Truth
Totalitarianism and the Female Principle
The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government into Our Lives
QUOTE: "Rob has written a lot about the pitfalls of inviting even more government intrusion into and control of your life."
“Free men” don’t beg for a piece of the pie from “the master.”
Free men bake their own damn pies, and tell everyone else to “fuck off!”
If you think the government will solve your problems with shared parenting, you are begging for your piece.
If you think the government will solve your DV problems with DV Shelters for men, you are begging for your piece.
I prefer to associate with men who don’t realy upon government to solve their problems.
Government is only preferable because it is removed from the imperfections of “mankind” and transformed into some entity nobody really understands, called “government.” It's because government is abstract from most human thinking that people believe they can foist their personal problems off onto some “generic” entity called government which we can imagine in our minds should be perfect. History has shown is this exactly the wrong approach – over and over again! And yet, because government is removed from the “personal” and thus also, “personal responsiblity”, it's easy for us to blame all of our problems upon this impersonal “entity” which does not represent us personally, but is in the abstract, and thus, “perfectable” in our minds.
No wife thinks her husband is perfect. But she thinks the abstract of government, which she doesn’t understand by nature, is somehow “perfect” because it is abstract.
Government “permission” is not the answer.
In fact, it is THE PROBLEM!
---
QUOTE: "I hear you Rob, but how does that pertain to men’s rights? For example, most fathers are awarded custody about 7% of the time. Women obtain custody 93% of the time. And of course there are a whole host of other men’s issues. Do you have any position on these at all? That’s cool if you don’t; I’m just curious."
OK, But I am bit going to write out a big explanation – however, I am going to ask you to answer me.
Almost every shared parenting activist cannot manage to write about their goals without decelaring… “except in cases of Abuse!!!!” Now, if you want to follow that route, and say that women will recieve less custody, and less money from a non-abusive father than from an abusive one (which will be the case), should I believe there will be less or more men falsely accused of abuse, as a result of shared parenting?
Second question,
Do you think those people who advocate for Shared Parenting, despite knowing the increased amount of fathers that will be falsely charged with abuse… should they be let off the hook and be allowed to blame this increase in false abuse cases on the government – or are the Shared Parenting advocates also directly responsible for their actions, and the results?
Is only the government accountable, or also those MRA’s who will be sticking more innocent men into prison for their own personal benefit… and yet, blaming it all on the abstract, impersonal, “government?”
So far, in my time in the MRM, I have not yet ONCE seen a Shared Parenting activist address these issues:
1 – They are increasing the motivation for women to NOT have an amicable divorce. In fact, they are trying to SOCIALLY SANCTION divorce, by coming to a “consensus.” (Rob pukes up a bit of Marxist bile).
2 – They are increasing the motivation for wives to make false accusations of abuse in order to gain money.
3 – They are increasing the motivation for wives to make false accusations of abuse in order to gain sole-custody.
4 - They totally wish to sidestep that shared-parenting will automatically restrict the right to freely move about the country. As in, if you are divorced and in a shared parenting situation, you will have to go to court and beg a judge to allow you to relinquish your shared parenting responsibility (which will eventually become mandatory) should you need to relocate to another city to find employment or whatnot - and so will your ex, and so will the person who remarries your ex. What a great way to bring in "papers please" type of totalitarianism into our society when we travel/move about the land. It's all for the children, after all.
The advocation of this “issue which we can all agree upon” will do enormous damage to “men.” Just not currently divorced fathers, I suppose – who seem quite willing to fuck over the fathers that will come in the years after them, in order that they may get their piece of pie today.
But, some of those fathers that come later will be their sons!
---
QUOTE: "Perhaps, as F. Roger Devlin says, it is time to initiate full custody."
You are certainly right about Devlin – he gets it! Especially when you see him at the end of his “Rotating Polyandry & It’s Enforcers” essay. Of course, “It’s Enforcers” was written by Baskerville – yet another shared parenting advocate, and yet another academic “leader” that is “acceptable.” Devlin notes, at the end, that indeed it appears that a system of sole father custody is most likely what is needed – and I applaud his courage in seeking truth. For, as he notes, as far as Baskerville goes, while he might agree with sole father custody in theory, he doesn’t believe it is acheivable, it is too fringe and therefore some form of shared parenting… yada yada… equality… yada yada… I have no brains… yada yada… because I have a Ph D … yada yada… and I have been brainwashed… yada yada…
Devlin asks a very poignant question after this (paraphrasing): “How ridiculous was it for gay activists 30 years ago to talk of same sex marriage, until today where it is talked of without a smirk on people’s faces? Surely, it is not a stretch for fathers to reinstate that which has always been in the face of what we have today!”
Yet, this is the wimpiness what we hear today.
Devlin makes a point after that, which I also fully agree with, that most of these shared parenting activists seem to miss – the point of activism is to move the fringe. The fringe controls the middle of the road.
Those of you who have been following along with my posts over the past while must know what I think about the “Absolute Truth” and the need to “take a stand.”
This is exactly the same thing, you guys.
Shared parenting is 1 + 1 = 2.3
We all know reality is 1 + 1 = 2
I don’t support living in a world where the math doesn’t work – and shared parenting doesn’t work.
Short term solutions = long term problems.
It is not responsible for parents of today to foist their problems onto kids of tomorrow… the way the parents of my generation dropped the ball and foisted no-fault-divorce the next generations… this is our no-fault-divorce. I just cannot imagine absolutely any benefit that shared parenting will add to humanity in the future.
What the hell are people thinking?
Involving government into the family even more????
Even Baskerville – a man whose fame is made upon being screwed by government doesn’t seem to get it.
Everyone sees the government as some abstract “perfectable entity” rather the faulty individuals in front of them. That’s why they run to them asking for their piece of the pie, along with the other serfs.
I guess the thing what gets me so hopped up about things like Shared Parenting and DV Shelters… or rather “me too Mra-ism” is, this is exactly the reason I have been shrieking about Marxism for years! And while people certainly understand when they see the word Marxism that looks like, and sounds like, that thing called Marxism – not enough of us seem to get it, what it is about, and it is crucial that we do.
Look, this isn’t a fight between men and women so much as it is a fight against our freedom.
Women are simply the best way to start the machine to self-destruct.
But, they only start it!
We finish it!
It will be us who closes the barn door – the backlash consolodates the gains.
They said they wanted to remove children from their parents… obviously, it is easier to remove fathers than mothers… and if you follow the Marxist line further, it should be obvious that upon “the backlash” that the fathers will remove the mothers from their children.
When might this happen?
I don’t know… maybe they will wait until around 50% or more of children aren’t raised in homes with fathers. Whenever that may be.
Feminism is toast… this bus is turning our way. You can tell me if you think it is an accident or not. According to the agenda’s stated goals themselves, it is about time for them to discard feminism and allow a “backlash.”
So far, all I see is “Marxist approved Backlash.”
So far, this hasn’t worked out well for anyone in the world.
But every one of the people who fell for it thought that it would.
And so do we.
“Free men” don’t beg for a piece of the pie from “the master.”
Free men bake their own damn pies, and tell everyone else to “fuck off!”
If you think the government will solve your problems with shared parenting, you are begging for your piece.
If you think the government will solve your DV problems with DV Shelters for men, you are begging for your piece.
I prefer to associate with men who don’t realy upon government to solve their problems.
Government is only preferable because it is removed from the imperfections of “mankind” and transformed into some entity nobody really understands, called “government.” It's because government is abstract from most human thinking that people believe they can foist their personal problems off onto some “generic” entity called government which we can imagine in our minds should be perfect. History has shown is this exactly the wrong approach – over and over again! And yet, because government is removed from the “personal” and thus also, “personal responsiblity”, it's easy for us to blame all of our problems upon this impersonal “entity” which does not represent us personally, but is in the abstract, and thus, “perfectable” in our minds.
No wife thinks her husband is perfect. But she thinks the abstract of government, which she doesn’t understand by nature, is somehow “perfect” because it is abstract.
Government “permission” is not the answer.
In fact, it is THE PROBLEM!
---
QUOTE: "I hear you Rob, but how does that pertain to men’s rights? For example, most fathers are awarded custody about 7% of the time. Women obtain custody 93% of the time. And of course there are a whole host of other men’s issues. Do you have any position on these at all? That’s cool if you don’t; I’m just curious."
OK, But I am bit going to write out a big explanation – however, I am going to ask you to answer me.
Almost every shared parenting activist cannot manage to write about their goals without decelaring… “except in cases of Abuse!!!!” Now, if you want to follow that route, and say that women will recieve less custody, and less money from a non-abusive father than from an abusive one (which will be the case), should I believe there will be less or more men falsely accused of abuse, as a result of shared parenting?
Second question,
Do you think those people who advocate for Shared Parenting, despite knowing the increased amount of fathers that will be falsely charged with abuse… should they be let off the hook and be allowed to blame this increase in false abuse cases on the government – or are the Shared Parenting advocates also directly responsible for their actions, and the results?
Is only the government accountable, or also those MRA’s who will be sticking more innocent men into prison for their own personal benefit… and yet, blaming it all on the abstract, impersonal, “government?”
So far, in my time in the MRM, I have not yet ONCE seen a Shared Parenting activist address these issues:
1 – They are increasing the motivation for women to NOT have an amicable divorce. In fact, they are trying to SOCIALLY SANCTION divorce, by coming to a “consensus.” (Rob pukes up a bit of Marxist bile).
2 – They are increasing the motivation for wives to make false accusations of abuse in order to gain money.
3 – They are increasing the motivation for wives to make false accusations of abuse in order to gain sole-custody.
4 - They totally wish to sidestep that shared-parenting will automatically restrict the right to freely move about the country. As in, if you are divorced and in a shared parenting situation, you will have to go to court and beg a judge to allow you to relinquish your shared parenting responsibility (which will eventually become mandatory) should you need to relocate to another city to find employment or whatnot - and so will your ex, and so will the person who remarries your ex. What a great way to bring in "papers please" type of totalitarianism into our society when we travel/move about the land. It's all for the children, after all.
The advocation of this “issue which we can all agree upon” will do enormous damage to “men.” Just not currently divorced fathers, I suppose – who seem quite willing to fuck over the fathers that will come in the years after them, in order that they may get their piece of pie today.
But, some of those fathers that come later will be their sons!
---
QUOTE: "Perhaps, as F. Roger Devlin says, it is time to initiate full custody."
You are certainly right about Devlin – he gets it! Especially when you see him at the end of his “Rotating Polyandry & It’s Enforcers” essay. Of course, “It’s Enforcers” was written by Baskerville – yet another shared parenting advocate, and yet another academic “leader” that is “acceptable.” Devlin notes, at the end, that indeed it appears that a system of sole father custody is most likely what is needed – and I applaud his courage in seeking truth. For, as he notes, as far as Baskerville goes, while he might agree with sole father custody in theory, he doesn’t believe it is acheivable, it is too fringe and therefore some form of shared parenting… yada yada… equality… yada yada… I have no brains… yada yada… because I have a Ph D … yada yada… and I have been brainwashed… yada yada…
Devlin asks a very poignant question after this (paraphrasing): “How ridiculous was it for gay activists 30 years ago to talk of same sex marriage, until today where it is talked of without a smirk on people’s faces? Surely, it is not a stretch for fathers to reinstate that which has always been in the face of what we have today!”
Yet, this is the wimpiness what we hear today.
Devlin makes a point after that, which I also fully agree with, that most of these shared parenting activists seem to miss – the point of activism is to move the fringe. The fringe controls the middle of the road.
Those of you who have been following along with my posts over the past while must know what I think about the “Absolute Truth” and the need to “take a stand.”
This is exactly the same thing, you guys.
Shared parenting is 1 + 1 = 2.3
We all know reality is 1 + 1 = 2
I don’t support living in a world where the math doesn’t work – and shared parenting doesn’t work.
Short term solutions = long term problems.
It is not responsible for parents of today to foist their problems onto kids of tomorrow… the way the parents of my generation dropped the ball and foisted no-fault-divorce the next generations… this is our no-fault-divorce. I just cannot imagine absolutely any benefit that shared parenting will add to humanity in the future.
What the hell are people thinking?
Involving government into the family even more????
Even Baskerville – a man whose fame is made upon being screwed by government doesn’t seem to get it.
Everyone sees the government as some abstract “perfectable entity” rather the faulty individuals in front of them. That’s why they run to them asking for their piece of the pie, along with the other serfs.
I guess the thing what gets me so hopped up about things like Shared Parenting and DV Shelters… or rather “me too Mra-ism” is, this is exactly the reason I have been shrieking about Marxism for years! And while people certainly understand when they see the word Marxism that looks like, and sounds like, that thing called Marxism – not enough of us seem to get it, what it is about, and it is crucial that we do.
Look, this isn’t a fight between men and women so much as it is a fight against our freedom.
Women are simply the best way to start the machine to self-destruct.
But, they only start it!
We finish it!
It will be us who closes the barn door – the backlash consolodates the gains.
They said they wanted to remove children from their parents… obviously, it is easier to remove fathers than mothers… and if you follow the Marxist line further, it should be obvious that upon “the backlash” that the fathers will remove the mothers from their children.
When might this happen?
I don’t know… maybe they will wait until around 50% or more of children aren’t raised in homes with fathers. Whenever that may be.
Feminism is toast… this bus is turning our way. You can tell me if you think it is an accident or not. According to the agenda’s stated goals themselves, it is about time for them to discard feminism and allow a “backlash.”
So far, all I see is “Marxist approved Backlash.”
So far, this hasn’t worked out well for anyone in the world.
But every one of the people who fell for it thought that it would.
And so do we.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
The Feminization of Christianity
QUOTE: “Do not think it is different from other philosophies.
Zen monks, Jesus’ offer the other cheeck, Gandhi no violence way are all the same. Like it or not.”
Jesus beat the shit out of people with a braided rope too. He also flouted the authorities and humiliated religious leaders. And his principles stood above all else.
In other words, Jesus was no Ned Flanders, and had many masculine qualities.
It has only been recently that Christianity has come to be synonymous with “wimp.” For much of history it wasn’t that way, because Christianity celebrates the masculine. In fact, much of the “struggle” of the Israelites wandering through the desert is about a struggle of the masculine over the feminine – if you understand that many of the cultures they encountered were the same matriarchal descendents which Abram left behind when he went his own way after making a covenant with God.
And the Israelites were not nice about it either.
Take Moses’ wife. (Btw, philosophically speaking – when looking at the “message” of the Bible from a metaphorical sense, Adam = Noah = Abraham = Moses = Jesus. They all metaphorically refer to the same “message.”) Anywho, back to Moses’ wife. When they encountered the tribe she came from (The “M”-something or others), they showed no mercy – even though before they were more or less allies, and after defeating them they killed every man, woman and child, and wiped them from the face of the earth. God commanded them to do this with many cultures they encountered – in fact, the Israelites in the Old Testament under Moses were a warring bunch of nomadic barbarians more than anything else.
The war between the Masculine and the Feminine in the Bible is something which seems to be carefully covered up, but if you were to get into the old texts and the old cultures, and understand that the Hebrew often clearly refers to their greatest threats in the feminine (like in languages such as French), as well as the gods they were fighting against were most often pure sex goddesses or their male consorts…
Further, “God” himself existed in the first civilization of Sumeria. The Sumerian civlization knew of ”El” – the God of the house of Shem, the son of Noah. (Noah’s other son disappeared somewhere, while the other rejected El because El was the God of the Flood, and his son was the ancestor of Gilgamesh who swore vengeance upon him for killing his ancestors.) Anyway, the Sumerians worshipped all gods – and “El” – the god of Shem, existed in those times and in that culture. The plural of “El” is “Elohim.” This is the God that Abram took with him as he left this multi-god (multi-truth = feminine) culture and Went His Own Way into the wilderness.
Now, here is where is gets kinda interesting. Apparently, what the Sumerians loved to do with their gods was “play soap opera” with them. (Abram’s father was an idol maker, remember). Every “god” that they had also had an opposite sex counterpart, and within the culture, these goddesses/gods (goddesses came before gods in those cultures) were constantly marrying and divorcing, cheating on eachother and so on. Some of the ancient stuff they have found are so pornographic they would make a hardcore internet porn surfer blush, I understand. Many ancient rituals, of course, also include elements of sexual acts in them.
However, “El” was very unpopular in this culture.
Why?
Because El had no wife. (A Marriage Striker!!!) He was pretty much the only god in Sumerian culture that had no opposite sex counterpart, and the people didn’t like that all.
“El/Elohim” of the House of Shem/House of Abraham, was a God that did not include sex worship.
‘Elohim” is the repudiation of the rule of the feminine principle (sex worship = the feminine = animalness) over the masculine principle (reason – a covenant with one Truth).
It is very telling about what has happened to our culture in that Christianity used to represent something very masculine, whereas today the first thought when you hear Christian is “Ned Flanders.”
Do you picture Ned Flanders in knight’s armour when you think of “Christian?”
Whatever one believes of Christianity, to note how this once masculine religion which founded our civilization has become so thoroughly feminized is, well, noteworthy.
---
QUOTE: With respect for the quality and helpfulness of your posts and for what your OT sermon just now was trying to teach, it might be worth considering that a sizeable portion of your audience probably doesn’t know what all those biblical references mean. Of course, many have probably heard of Moses and Noah and even Elohim, but how many know what characteristic they represent? Equating Adam with Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus is courageous OT character exegesis, even for an OT scholar, but the average Joe would find this fundamentally confusing, right-headed though it may be. You’ve also covered a lot of ground – can you break your main points down into easily digestible portions?
Yeah, this is something which has been percolating inside of me for a long time – it is directly related to my views about Absolute Truth’s struggle with Relative Truth. I think I have been trying to write about this in one way or another for at least 5 years or more now… slowly on it is coming clearer into focus for me. This is not strictly “Bible,” btw, but also includes a hobby of mine which is studying ancient cultures etc. – often in regard to religions/myths and “The Fall of Man.” So, being raised in a religious environment when I was younger, plus having a “hobby” of sometimes delving into ancient cultures just for fun (where I regrettably don’t save links as, lol, religiously as for the MRM), plus what I have learned over the past few years from being involved with MRM… studying Marxism… Relative Truth vs. Absolute Truth… The Power of Female Sexuality… Game…
Well, if we were ever getting into “Book of Rob” stuff, I guess this is it, because I don’t know another person I’ve ever read who shares my views – but I’ve never found an O/T scholar, minister, or layman who wasn’t apologizing for the Bible’s misogyny or trying to downplay it, either. But I am Fedrz, the great misogynist!
.
.
It was when I started to learn “other things” that I started thinking, “Instead of downplaying or apologizing for these things, why doesn’t anyone ask why they felt it was so important?” Then with realizing the nature of other cultures that surrounded the O/T, and what their culture was like… it starts to become clear that Adam and Eve were struggling with Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth in the Garden, and Abram, for instance, was making a covenant with God (Absolute Truth) and leaving a culture filled with Multiple Gods (Relative Truths). In Marxism, one of the features I keep talking about is how they abolish Absolute Truth and live solely by Relative Truth. And also, when I discuss “thought patterns” of males and females, I am often trying to point out that men have the ability “to find Absolute Truth” because of their patterns, while females are mired in Relative Truth because of theirs.
Almost all religions/myths follow one simple over-riding theme: There once was a paradise, man screwed up, and because he screwed up he now has to struggle on this earth… and one thing they all offer at the end is a return to the paradise lost. (Hope – like in Pandora’s Box).
The Old Testament figures are the same general theme.
Adam lived in paradise but fell from grace because he ignored the Absolute Truth and let Eve convince him to follow Relative Truth. God kicked him out of the Garden for it, but also made a promise to Adam after that if Adam followed God’s ways (Absolute Truth), he would find salvation and Eternal Life (Return to the Garden/Paradise/Hope).
During the days of Noah, he was the only one who followed the ways of God (Absolute Truth). Everyone else was living in falseness (Relative Truth). Noah followed God’s ways and he was saved. After the flood, God again makes promises to Noah – it is basically the Garden Story over again, except that Noah followed the Truth and was saved… death to the Relative Truth (the drowned civilization of pre-flood earth) and Noah again is told that following the Truth is “the way.”
During the days of Abram/Abraham, he leaves the corruptness of the Sumerian Culture or its descendent cultures – depending on your biblical timeline – Sumerian culture is the oldest civilization; I think the stories are about the times after the end of the great flood that occurred at end of the Pleistoscene Ice Age some 12,000 years ago - "the post-deluge world/culture" - if you were to follow the Bible literally, Abram was 50 years old when Noah died, and Noah died around 300 years after the great flood. However, if you follow backwards from the timeline of Christ, Abram lived much later in history, and should come from around 2000 B.C. Which is it? Who cares – the “theme” is what is trying to be conveyed – Post Sumerian Cultures like Babylon are related in the way that Britain is related to America, or “The West” – the one directly birthed the next. This place was much like ours is today – lots of sex worship etc. etc. which, as what we know about men and women, leads to a lot of women leading men into falseness (Relative Truth over Absolute Truth – the Garden Story). Once he leaves, God makes a covenant with Abraham, which is again, the same thing: Follow me! Leave Relative Truth behind (animalness = living in the moment, or living in Relative Truth). Follow the Absolute Truth, this is “The Way.”
During the days of Moses, he leads the Israelites out of Egypt – again, an exodus (Adam out of the Garden, Noah out of pre-flood civilization, Abram out of post-flood civilization, and now Moses out of Egypt). And… what are the Israelites marching in front of them? Why, the Ark of the Covenant. (God’s Truth is leading them – and defending them).
Jesus is “The Fulfillment of the Covenant” – The “theme” of the Old Testament is completed by the coming of the Messiah. In fact, this is also the reason for the genealogies in the Old Testament – to show that Jesus is indeed, a descendent of Adam, and Abraham, and thus, a “fulfillment of God’s Covenant.” The “metaphorical purpose” has become complete with Jesus.
- Adam falls from the graces of Truth and gets kicked out of Paradise.
- Noah struggles and follows the Truth and is saved.
- Abram struggles and follows the Truth and is saved.
- Moses/The Israelites struggle, and following the Truth saves them.
- Jesus also struggles, and defeats them completely (ie. The Temptations of Satan – Jesus defeats the struggles of the flesh, including death – the fulfillment of God’s Word to Adam).
Jesus finally “wins” the struggle of Adam/Noah/Abram/Moses (Mankind) and is restored to Paradise.
Heh, heh, of course, Jesus also makes a new covenant – known as the New Testament, but that is a different subject.
As for “El,” well, this comes from Sumerian Culture. This is the “first” culture – so, let’s just call it Post Deluge/Flood Civilization, really. There were eight people who stepped off of Noah’s Ark: Noah, his sons Japeth, Shem, and Ham and their wives. Japeth buggered off somewhere (I’ve heard speculations of Europe or Africa – who cares, if it is metaphorical story), and Ham was the one who “fell out” with Noah – remember, Ham found Noah naked in his drunkenness and called his two brothers to show them their father’s pathetic state. When Japeth and Shem see Noah’s state, they avert their eyes and cover his nakedness, and when Noah awakes and finds out what Ham had done, he curses him. Ham/Ham’s descendents end up leaving – and it is Ham’s descendents that found the “post-deluge culture,” and it is Ham’s descendents that try to build the Tower of Babel in rebellion against God, in response to the flood. In Sumerian legend as well, there is mention of Noah (he was a semi-god), and Ham is also mentioned as the son of Noah, and the great-grandfather of Nimrod (Gilgamesh?) of the Sumerians/Post-Deluge Civilization. The Bible and Sumerian culture are intricately linked – and Sumerian culture and the Biblical story are continually warring with each-other. (It is fairly well acknowledged by now that the early Genesis stories come from Sumerian Culture, btw – I believe even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this – it doesn’t really discredit the Bible).
Now, the way the Sumerians became “the first” civilization was based upon their military techniques, but the success of their civilization were based upon two things: Every time they conquered another “tribe,” they simply adopted them into their culture and accepted their way – including their gods. And the second is, there was no “competing culture.” It truly was a “one world order.” It was totalitarian in the way Marxism wishes to be – when there is only “one order” and no competing one to destroy it, then there will be heaven on earth – the Marxist mantra. (This is where you get the “Masons” – who build the Tower of Babel, and other various occult crapola that all the way-out tin-foil hatters keep yacking about. It is pure speculation even beyond the speculation of ancient history, and quite frankly, it pisses me off they obfuscate things so much with that garbage, while leading people away from THE TRUTH!). So, anyway, the people that were conquered by the culture didn’t really object too much with it, because the conquering culture simply adopted the gods of the conquered into their own culture. The conquered didn’t really much care, as it were.
So, as Sumerian culture developed, so did the amount of gods they had. In fact, they had gods for everything. The god of wind, the god of sun, the god of rain, the god of harvest… and so on. You name it, there was a god for it.
Of course, each “god” represents a particular “truth.” This became a culture that followed multiple truths because they had multiple gods. This is the exact same “philosophy” as the female mind produces – Relative/Multiple Truths. Guess what following “multiple truths” lead to? You guessed it: Totalitarianism. The first civilization was not “free.” Nothing that lives by Relative Truth/The Female Principle can be “free.” (Only the TRUTH will set you free!). We all know this – the more we live by the female, the less freedom we have.
Anyway, in this culture as well, was the god “El.” In Sumerian culture, the god of the flood was “El.” And when they refer to it in the plural, it becomes Elohim. Think of it this way – Abram’s father was an idol maker in this culture, and one single idol of the god of the flood would be called “El,” whereas a table full of “El idols” would be called “Elohim.” Don’t forget, being forbidden to worship idols did not happen until much later, when Moses showed up on the scene and wrote the Pentateuch (The first books of the Bible). It is possible that Noah and his son Shem, and Abram, actually did worship idols that represented God.
El, being the god of the flood, was also therefore, the god which brought Noah and his sons through the flood. This is “God” in the Bible. In the beginning of the Bible, God is called “Elohim,” as well as in other various Hebrew texts. That is where it comes down from Sumerian culture into the Judeo culture.
Now, something that is significant here is that Abram left a culture with multiple gods which represent multiple truths and he rejected it all in favour of monotheism and one Truth.
This is the basis of the Ten Commandments, when in the first part, God establishes that he IS the truth (put no other gods before me = put no other truths before me = Absolute Truth), and the next parts are dictating to behave opposite of animals – Do not kill/steal/commit adultery/covet… yada yada. If you live under the female principle, you are living under sex worship, which is animalness, which leads to multiple truths and falseness. This is what Abraham rejected and instead, went into the wilderness, with his covenant with the Absolute Truth leading the way.
In the ancient Hebrew texts, the worst of demons are always female. In the Hebrew language, Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in “the feminine,” and in fact, are the only two cities in the entire region which are denoted as such. Both were wicked – and very much wicked in sexuality – or, the female principle.
When Moses is walking around in the desert, they are always fighting against “false gods” or according to Fedrz, “false truths.”
Baal, for example, is mentioned often throughout the Bible – Baal is a male god who is associated with the goddess Ashtaroth. Baal was under the influence of the female principle – a kitchen bitch, adhering to Relative Truth. In the Bible, all of the names of the female goddesses are removed from the scriptures, but, it is likely that if there was Baal worship, there was also Ashtaroth worship, and so on.
God/El had no wife – it was the repudiation of the female dominating the male.
When you strip things back and classify the Old Testament as a Patriarchal Religion, you will see that they were surrounded by Matriarchal Religions and goddess/sex worship.
Given all the other things which we know about the problems of male/female, and the way we see how easily females lead males astray from the Truth – even here in the MRM, much of Christianity’s ancient anti-feminine stance makes an awful lot of sense… and has an awful lot of relevance to the modern day and the sorry state that so many men find themselves in.
Zen monks, Jesus’ offer the other cheeck, Gandhi no violence way are all the same. Like it or not.”
Jesus beat the shit out of people with a braided rope too. He also flouted the authorities and humiliated religious leaders. And his principles stood above all else.
In other words, Jesus was no Ned Flanders, and had many masculine qualities.
It has only been recently that Christianity has come to be synonymous with “wimp.” For much of history it wasn’t that way, because Christianity celebrates the masculine. In fact, much of the “struggle” of the Israelites wandering through the desert is about a struggle of the masculine over the feminine – if you understand that many of the cultures they encountered were the same matriarchal descendents which Abram left behind when he went his own way after making a covenant with God.
And the Israelites were not nice about it either.
Take Moses’ wife. (Btw, philosophically speaking – when looking at the “message” of the Bible from a metaphorical sense, Adam = Noah = Abraham = Moses = Jesus. They all metaphorically refer to the same “message.”) Anywho, back to Moses’ wife. When they encountered the tribe she came from (The “M”-something or others), they showed no mercy – even though before they were more or less allies, and after defeating them they killed every man, woman and child, and wiped them from the face of the earth. God commanded them to do this with many cultures they encountered – in fact, the Israelites in the Old Testament under Moses were a warring bunch of nomadic barbarians more than anything else.
The war between the Masculine and the Feminine in the Bible is something which seems to be carefully covered up, but if you were to get into the old texts and the old cultures, and understand that the Hebrew often clearly refers to their greatest threats in the feminine (like in languages such as French), as well as the gods they were fighting against were most often pure sex goddesses or their male consorts…
Further, “God” himself existed in the first civilization of Sumeria. The Sumerian civlization knew of ”El” – the God of the house of Shem, the son of Noah. (Noah’s other son disappeared somewhere, while the other rejected El because El was the God of the Flood, and his son was the ancestor of Gilgamesh who swore vengeance upon him for killing his ancestors.) Anyway, the Sumerians worshipped all gods – and “El” – the god of Shem, existed in those times and in that culture. The plural of “El” is “Elohim.” This is the God that Abram took with him as he left this multi-god (multi-truth = feminine) culture and Went His Own Way into the wilderness.
Now, here is where is gets kinda interesting. Apparently, what the Sumerians loved to do with their gods was “play soap opera” with them. (Abram’s father was an idol maker, remember). Every “god” that they had also had an opposite sex counterpart, and within the culture, these goddesses/gods (goddesses came before gods in those cultures) were constantly marrying and divorcing, cheating on eachother and so on. Some of the ancient stuff they have found are so pornographic they would make a hardcore internet porn surfer blush, I understand. Many ancient rituals, of course, also include elements of sexual acts in them.
However, “El” was very unpopular in this culture.
Why?
Because El had no wife. (A Marriage Striker!!!) He was pretty much the only god in Sumerian culture that had no opposite sex counterpart, and the people didn’t like that all.
“El/Elohim” of the House of Shem/House of Abraham, was a God that did not include sex worship.
‘Elohim” is the repudiation of the rule of the feminine principle (sex worship = the feminine = animalness) over the masculine principle (reason – a covenant with one Truth).
It is very telling about what has happened to our culture in that Christianity used to represent something very masculine, whereas today the first thought when you hear Christian is “Ned Flanders.”
Do you picture Ned Flanders in knight’s armour when you think of “Christian?”
Whatever one believes of Christianity, to note how this once masculine religion which founded our civilization has become so thoroughly feminized is, well, noteworthy.
---
QUOTE: With respect for the quality and helpfulness of your posts and for what your OT sermon just now was trying to teach, it might be worth considering that a sizeable portion of your audience probably doesn’t know what all those biblical references mean. Of course, many have probably heard of Moses and Noah and even Elohim, but how many know what characteristic they represent? Equating Adam with Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus is courageous OT character exegesis, even for an OT scholar, but the average Joe would find this fundamentally confusing, right-headed though it may be. You’ve also covered a lot of ground – can you break your main points down into easily digestible portions?
Yeah, this is something which has been percolating inside of me for a long time – it is directly related to my views about Absolute Truth’s struggle with Relative Truth. I think I have been trying to write about this in one way or another for at least 5 years or more now… slowly on it is coming clearer into focus for me. This is not strictly “Bible,” btw, but also includes a hobby of mine which is studying ancient cultures etc. – often in regard to religions/myths and “The Fall of Man.” So, being raised in a religious environment when I was younger, plus having a “hobby” of sometimes delving into ancient cultures just for fun (where I regrettably don’t save links as, lol, religiously as for the MRM), plus what I have learned over the past few years from being involved with MRM… studying Marxism… Relative Truth vs. Absolute Truth… The Power of Female Sexuality… Game…
Well, if we were ever getting into “Book of Rob” stuff, I guess this is it, because I don’t know another person I’ve ever read who shares my views – but I’ve never found an O/T scholar, minister, or layman who wasn’t apologizing for the Bible’s misogyny or trying to downplay it, either. But I am Fedrz, the great misogynist!
.
.It was when I started to learn “other things” that I started thinking, “Instead of downplaying or apologizing for these things, why doesn’t anyone ask why they felt it was so important?” Then with realizing the nature of other cultures that surrounded the O/T, and what their culture was like… it starts to become clear that Adam and Eve were struggling with Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth in the Garden, and Abram, for instance, was making a covenant with God (Absolute Truth) and leaving a culture filled with Multiple Gods (Relative Truths). In Marxism, one of the features I keep talking about is how they abolish Absolute Truth and live solely by Relative Truth. And also, when I discuss “thought patterns” of males and females, I am often trying to point out that men have the ability “to find Absolute Truth” because of their patterns, while females are mired in Relative Truth because of theirs.
Almost all religions/myths follow one simple over-riding theme: There once was a paradise, man screwed up, and because he screwed up he now has to struggle on this earth… and one thing they all offer at the end is a return to the paradise lost. (Hope – like in Pandora’s Box).
The Old Testament figures are the same general theme.
Adam lived in paradise but fell from grace because he ignored the Absolute Truth and let Eve convince him to follow Relative Truth. God kicked him out of the Garden for it, but also made a promise to Adam after that if Adam followed God’s ways (Absolute Truth), he would find salvation and Eternal Life (Return to the Garden/Paradise/Hope).
During the days of Noah, he was the only one who followed the ways of God (Absolute Truth). Everyone else was living in falseness (Relative Truth). Noah followed God’s ways and he was saved. After the flood, God again makes promises to Noah – it is basically the Garden Story over again, except that Noah followed the Truth and was saved… death to the Relative Truth (the drowned civilization of pre-flood earth) and Noah again is told that following the Truth is “the way.”
During the days of Abram/Abraham, he leaves the corruptness of the Sumerian Culture or its descendent cultures – depending on your biblical timeline – Sumerian culture is the oldest civilization; I think the stories are about the times after the end of the great flood that occurred at end of the Pleistoscene Ice Age some 12,000 years ago - "the post-deluge world/culture" - if you were to follow the Bible literally, Abram was 50 years old when Noah died, and Noah died around 300 years after the great flood. However, if you follow backwards from the timeline of Christ, Abram lived much later in history, and should come from around 2000 B.C. Which is it? Who cares – the “theme” is what is trying to be conveyed – Post Sumerian Cultures like Babylon are related in the way that Britain is related to America, or “The West” – the one directly birthed the next. This place was much like ours is today – lots of sex worship etc. etc. which, as what we know about men and women, leads to a lot of women leading men into falseness (Relative Truth over Absolute Truth – the Garden Story). Once he leaves, God makes a covenant with Abraham, which is again, the same thing: Follow me! Leave Relative Truth behind (animalness = living in the moment, or living in Relative Truth). Follow the Absolute Truth, this is “The Way.”
During the days of Moses, he leads the Israelites out of Egypt – again, an exodus (Adam out of the Garden, Noah out of pre-flood civilization, Abram out of post-flood civilization, and now Moses out of Egypt). And… what are the Israelites marching in front of them? Why, the Ark of the Covenant. (God’s Truth is leading them – and defending them).
Jesus is “The Fulfillment of the Covenant” – The “theme” of the Old Testament is completed by the coming of the Messiah. In fact, this is also the reason for the genealogies in the Old Testament – to show that Jesus is indeed, a descendent of Adam, and Abraham, and thus, a “fulfillment of God’s Covenant.” The “metaphorical purpose” has become complete with Jesus.
- Adam falls from the graces of Truth and gets kicked out of Paradise.
- Noah struggles and follows the Truth and is saved.
- Abram struggles and follows the Truth and is saved.
- Moses/The Israelites struggle, and following the Truth saves them.
- Jesus also struggles, and defeats them completely (ie. The Temptations of Satan – Jesus defeats the struggles of the flesh, including death – the fulfillment of God’s Word to Adam).
Jesus finally “wins” the struggle of Adam/Noah/Abram/Moses (Mankind) and is restored to Paradise.
Heh, heh, of course, Jesus also makes a new covenant – known as the New Testament, but that is a different subject.
As for “El,” well, this comes from Sumerian Culture. This is the “first” culture – so, let’s just call it Post Deluge/Flood Civilization, really. There were eight people who stepped off of Noah’s Ark: Noah, his sons Japeth, Shem, and Ham and their wives. Japeth buggered off somewhere (I’ve heard speculations of Europe or Africa – who cares, if it is metaphorical story), and Ham was the one who “fell out” with Noah – remember, Ham found Noah naked in his drunkenness and called his two brothers to show them their father’s pathetic state. When Japeth and Shem see Noah’s state, they avert their eyes and cover his nakedness, and when Noah awakes and finds out what Ham had done, he curses him. Ham/Ham’s descendents end up leaving – and it is Ham’s descendents that found the “post-deluge culture,” and it is Ham’s descendents that try to build the Tower of Babel in rebellion against God, in response to the flood. In Sumerian legend as well, there is mention of Noah (he was a semi-god), and Ham is also mentioned as the son of Noah, and the great-grandfather of Nimrod (Gilgamesh?) of the Sumerians/Post-Deluge Civilization. The Bible and Sumerian culture are intricately linked – and Sumerian culture and the Biblical story are continually warring with each-other. (It is fairly well acknowledged by now that the early Genesis stories come from Sumerian Culture, btw – I believe even the Catholic Church has acknowledged this – it doesn’t really discredit the Bible).
Now, the way the Sumerians became “the first” civilization was based upon their military techniques, but the success of their civilization were based upon two things: Every time they conquered another “tribe,” they simply adopted them into their culture and accepted their way – including their gods. And the second is, there was no “competing culture.” It truly was a “one world order.” It was totalitarian in the way Marxism wishes to be – when there is only “one order” and no competing one to destroy it, then there will be heaven on earth – the Marxist mantra. (This is where you get the “Masons” – who build the Tower of Babel, and other various occult crapola that all the way-out tin-foil hatters keep yacking about. It is pure speculation even beyond the speculation of ancient history, and quite frankly, it pisses me off they obfuscate things so much with that garbage, while leading people away from THE TRUTH!). So, anyway, the people that were conquered by the culture didn’t really object too much with it, because the conquering culture simply adopted the gods of the conquered into their own culture. The conquered didn’t really much care, as it were.
So, as Sumerian culture developed, so did the amount of gods they had. In fact, they had gods for everything. The god of wind, the god of sun, the god of rain, the god of harvest… and so on. You name it, there was a god for it.
Of course, each “god” represents a particular “truth.” This became a culture that followed multiple truths because they had multiple gods. This is the exact same “philosophy” as the female mind produces – Relative/Multiple Truths. Guess what following “multiple truths” lead to? You guessed it: Totalitarianism. The first civilization was not “free.” Nothing that lives by Relative Truth/The Female Principle can be “free.” (Only the TRUTH will set you free!). We all know this – the more we live by the female, the less freedom we have.
Anyway, in this culture as well, was the god “El.” In Sumerian culture, the god of the flood was “El.” And when they refer to it in the plural, it becomes Elohim. Think of it this way – Abram’s father was an idol maker in this culture, and one single idol of the god of the flood would be called “El,” whereas a table full of “El idols” would be called “Elohim.” Don’t forget, being forbidden to worship idols did not happen until much later, when Moses showed up on the scene and wrote the Pentateuch (The first books of the Bible). It is possible that Noah and his son Shem, and Abram, actually did worship idols that represented God.
El, being the god of the flood, was also therefore, the god which brought Noah and his sons through the flood. This is “God” in the Bible. In the beginning of the Bible, God is called “Elohim,” as well as in other various Hebrew texts. That is where it comes down from Sumerian culture into the Judeo culture.
Now, something that is significant here is that Abram left a culture with multiple gods which represent multiple truths and he rejected it all in favour of monotheism and one Truth.
This is the basis of the Ten Commandments, when in the first part, God establishes that he IS the truth (put no other gods before me = put no other truths before me = Absolute Truth), and the next parts are dictating to behave opposite of animals – Do not kill/steal/commit adultery/covet… yada yada. If you live under the female principle, you are living under sex worship, which is animalness, which leads to multiple truths and falseness. This is what Abraham rejected and instead, went into the wilderness, with his covenant with the Absolute Truth leading the way.
In the ancient Hebrew texts, the worst of demons are always female. In the Hebrew language, Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in “the feminine,” and in fact, are the only two cities in the entire region which are denoted as such. Both were wicked – and very much wicked in sexuality – or, the female principle.
When Moses is walking around in the desert, they are always fighting against “false gods” or according to Fedrz, “false truths.”
Baal, for example, is mentioned often throughout the Bible – Baal is a male god who is associated with the goddess Ashtaroth. Baal was under the influence of the female principle – a kitchen bitch, adhering to Relative Truth. In the Bible, all of the names of the female goddesses are removed from the scriptures, but, it is likely that if there was Baal worship, there was also Ashtaroth worship, and so on.
God/El had no wife – it was the repudiation of the female dominating the male.
When you strip things back and classify the Old Testament as a Patriarchal Religion, you will see that they were surrounded by Matriarchal Religions and goddess/sex worship.
Given all the other things which we know about the problems of male/female, and the way we see how easily females lead males astray from the Truth – even here in the MRM, much of Christianity’s ancient anti-feminine stance makes an awful lot of sense… and has an awful lot of relevance to the modern day and the sorry state that so many men find themselves in.
Monday, January 02, 2006
The History of Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
The History of the Men’s Rights Movement According to Fedrz
Ferdinand Bardimu says: "A few days ago, Chuck, David Brandt, and I asked Fedrz to fill us in on the history of the men’s rights movement as he knew it. Here’s what he had to say":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don’t know if I am perhaps the best guy to give a complete history of the MRM. I have only been around online for about 5 or 6 years now. After fooling around on forums for a while, I started becoming an activist by spamming porno forums with my yahoo group. I was pretty low-class back then (not much has changed, eh?). For ancient history, you’d have to get Zed to talk of all his experiences, because he’s been around since before fire was invented. Ragnar as well has been around for a while, and is one of the original MGTOW guys. From what I understand from Zed, many of the “smarter” people in the MRM used to have to talk in sort of a “code” with eachother, and much of the more intellectual things were actually passed from man to man via e-mail rather than publicly on a forum.
I was around for perhaps a year or two before MGTOW made their debut, and it was sorely needed. I had pretty much abandoned the MRM already by that point – although, I am a bit of a hothead with a big mouth, so it is perhaps not fair to blame everything on others… lol, not everything.
It was not very intellectual though. Making generalizations would get you the boot. Making even the slightest un-PC argument would get you the boot – unless you could back everything up with ”peer reviewed research.” That was about the only way you could make any case that went against the general views of society. It was silly, actually. Kind of like asking a Jew to defend himself in a Nazi court, and only allowing him to use peer-reviewed arguments approved by a Nazi University. Of course, for every peer-reviewed study you could find supporting your argument, there were 25 more opposing your argument. Everybody would sit around pissing their pants, worrying about what people would think about us, so writing a few opinioned paragraphs on a forum would require quite a bit of effort, finding links and of course, an out had to be given several times during your spiel – ie. "Not ALL Women Are Like That…" Mostly, I found MRM forums to mainly consist of people finding articles from the MSM and posting them on a forum, followed by a long string of PC one-liner comments such as “Good Article! Great Find!” or “Tsk, tsk, how misandric!” It was really about the only thing that would keep in good standing. Certainly asking questions like, “but why are things this way?” and trying to explore such notions, would get you into hotwater in a hurry.
Also, the MRM consisted of many people who didn’t want open criticism of feminism, because feminism represented “equality,” and that would make us look bad. Many of the more prominent people within the MRM were openly identifying themselves to be feminists, and actually defending the whole hate movement. ”Not ALL feminists are like that! Some of us are ‘Equity-Feminists!’”
So, as I remember the MRM when I first found it, MRA’s called themselves “egalitarians,” and what was politically correct to ask for was “our piece of the equality pie.” Basically, trying to show that men were victims too, asking for sympathy. That the sympathy never came, and we were obviously getting our asses handed to us time and time again, could never be properly examined, in my opinion.
Another feature that became evident time and time again, was that the women that showed up “to help” were a complete disaster. They would shut down any conversation they didn’t like, often by befriending forum members and then pitting one against the other. We had to walk on eggshells, and several times, a woman would get all emotional and threaten to leave and no longer support us… and then the Captain Save-a-ho’s would come out of the phone booth and chastise the evil bastard who upset everyone’s favourite woman.
Many women were there making sure we knew that “there were still good women out there – look at me! I treat my husband with respect, and love him to bits, and he is always happy with me.” In other words, “It’s sad that you’ve gotten kicked in the balls by the past 25 women you’ve met, but you are just picking the wrong women – don’t give up hope, and certainly don’t stop trying to find that tootsie roll in the big pile of turds that is society!”
Others would show up and and talk about their big tits, or what kind of panties they were wearing… tantalizing men to be their allies through their sexuality.
Others would convince men that nothing was worth doing unless all the women agreed… if the women didn’t agree, then we certainly would never be able to sell it to society. So, if a woman opposed you, that was that. Time to shut it Mister!
Another womanly feature in the MRM was Sorenstam Syndrome, where a woman who merely voiced support for men, and did a few minor things to support “the cause,” was automatically highlighted as a fierce warrior, far and above more valuable than the men who were doing much more. Nobody knew who the 5th place guy was, but we certainly knew the woman who was 95th out of 115 – and she was extremely valuable, and her voice would be given much more weight than it was worth.
Once the women showed up “to help,” you could pretty much set an egg-timer to watch the destruction that followed.
Like Angry Harry says, “Having a woman help with the MRM is like having a 5 year old help you put up wallpaper. No thanks!”
And, worst of all, everyone only hung out on these forums. It was totally impotent, and certainly things were not moving forward intellectually.
So, a few guys – like Zed and Ragnar, got together – they even travelled to meet eachother, and they discussed what could be done about the situation. One thing they apparently observed was that men were so pigheaded and stubborn, and undermined eachother so much, that it was like each Man was Going Their Own Way. And thus, the term MGTOW was born. It is left as “MGTOW” on purpose, so that it is unpronounceable – slicksters that they were!
MGTOW did not neccessarily mean “marriage strike” in the beginning, although it certainly had large elements within it that supported that. What I understood it more to mean was “Go your own way! Get off these restrictive forums! Start your own blog! Say what you want to say, and don’t give a shit about the rest!”
And, that’s how I entered into the fray with MGTOW.
We were just a few ragtag bloggers, and we were quite under-educated in many ways, coming out of the PCness that had been bashing us up the side of the head. There was quite a bit of anger in the beginning, and we were certainly not the nicest of people – we spent a lot of time telling people who didn’t like what we had to say to simply “fuck off!” Fred X called everyone a femcunt about 60 times in each article, and Eternal Bachelor was a good writer who skewered people left and right… and we all basically supported a free speech policy, even to our enemies… but… that also gave us free speech, and man did we use it to attack anyone so stupid to come and white knight us. There were a lot of pissed off guys out there!
But, what we did agree to was to link to eachother, and to support eachother. And we did. Anyone who started up a MGTOW blog instantly got a shout-out from us to the rest of the community, and recieved a link on the sidebar.
This “each man for himself” mode made a “free market of ideas.” Some bloggers made it, and others didn’t. But, the result was that our intellectual ability went through the roof (after we calmed down a bit). Many politically incorrect things started to be examined and researched. The whole notion of “equality” began to be examined, and so on. History began to get talked about sometimes, and politics questioned. We began to form our own “Studies of the Sexes.”
And then “Game” entered into the picture, and it supported many of the observations and arguments we had been making… namely, rather than asking for sympathy and begging for a few scraps from the table of equality, things began to come together in an explainable way of why things had developed the way they did, and how this whole sordid mess was created, and why so many of the earlier arguments were completely useless – such as demanding male equality in the home and family being a complete fantasy due to biological circumstances like hypergamy. If you had tried that argument before, you would have found yourself under quite a bit of attack for not being an “egalitarian.”
And, well… that’s the way I seen it develop since I’ve been involved. In my opinion, the two neccessary ingredients that were missing, have now been provided. The first was MGTOW turning men’s weakness of pigheadedness into a strength instead of a hindrance, and the second is the introduction of Game’s knowledge of Sexual Dynamics, which supported so many of our own ideas and observations.
In fact, I think we now have what is neccessary to create a serious body of intellectual work that will stand the test of time. Now we just have to keep building it… and we will… because we are men!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comment Made by Ragnar:
Just stumbled upon this blog and thanks Fedrz for writing the History of MGTOW. Allow me to correct a minor thing. It was Meikyo and I who got together in Hickory N.C. in October 2004. Zed was invited and supposed to come also, but was unable due to illness. The MGTOW manifest was written by me according to the notes Meikyo took on our meeting. It was originally posted on the now defunct “Our Board” as “My Way” or “Men Going Their Own Way”.
Today it has been revised several times. Basicly the wording (spelling, my errors) and a few additions were made. Jadedguy did a lot of rewriting and commenting. We moved to a board set up by Zed, we actually had several boards which all seem to be defunct by now, but MGTOW lives on in the minds of men.
-
A small comment to some ideas presented here. The talk was about womens rights. Basically men make society by bonding and standing shoulder by shoulder to defend it. This means that men have all the negative rights as they are the makers of civilisation. We give women some positive rights in order to make society function better.
These rights can clearly be discussed and changed by men. Women can leave our society if they do not like it. This is the only negative right women have. When they stay in Our Society they must abide by Our rules!
Don’t ever forget that we, the men, are the makers of civilisation.
We, the Men are “We the People” – period!
Ferdinand Bardimu says: "A few days ago, Chuck, David Brandt, and I asked Fedrz to fill us in on the history of the men’s rights movement as he knew it. Here’s what he had to say":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don’t know if I am perhaps the best guy to give a complete history of the MRM. I have only been around online for about 5 or 6 years now. After fooling around on forums for a while, I started becoming an activist by spamming porno forums with my yahoo group. I was pretty low-class back then (not much has changed, eh?). For ancient history, you’d have to get Zed to talk of all his experiences, because he’s been around since before fire was invented. Ragnar as well has been around for a while, and is one of the original MGTOW guys. From what I understand from Zed, many of the “smarter” people in the MRM used to have to talk in sort of a “code” with eachother, and much of the more intellectual things were actually passed from man to man via e-mail rather than publicly on a forum.
I was around for perhaps a year or two before MGTOW made their debut, and it was sorely needed. I had pretty much abandoned the MRM already by that point – although, I am a bit of a hothead with a big mouth, so it is perhaps not fair to blame everything on others… lol, not everything.
It was not very intellectual though. Making generalizations would get you the boot. Making even the slightest un-PC argument would get you the boot – unless you could back everything up with ”peer reviewed research.” That was about the only way you could make any case that went against the general views of society. It was silly, actually. Kind of like asking a Jew to defend himself in a Nazi court, and only allowing him to use peer-reviewed arguments approved by a Nazi University. Of course, for every peer-reviewed study you could find supporting your argument, there were 25 more opposing your argument. Everybody would sit around pissing their pants, worrying about what people would think about us, so writing a few opinioned paragraphs on a forum would require quite a bit of effort, finding links and of course, an out had to be given several times during your spiel – ie. "Not ALL Women Are Like That…" Mostly, I found MRM forums to mainly consist of people finding articles from the MSM and posting them on a forum, followed by a long string of PC one-liner comments such as “Good Article! Great Find!” or “Tsk, tsk, how misandric!” It was really about the only thing that would keep in good standing. Certainly asking questions like, “but why are things this way?” and trying to explore such notions, would get you into hotwater in a hurry.
Also, the MRM consisted of many people who didn’t want open criticism of feminism, because feminism represented “equality,” and that would make us look bad. Many of the more prominent people within the MRM were openly identifying themselves to be feminists, and actually defending the whole hate movement. ”Not ALL feminists are like that! Some of us are ‘Equity-Feminists!’”
So, as I remember the MRM when I first found it, MRA’s called themselves “egalitarians,” and what was politically correct to ask for was “our piece of the equality pie.” Basically, trying to show that men were victims too, asking for sympathy. That the sympathy never came, and we were obviously getting our asses handed to us time and time again, could never be properly examined, in my opinion.
Another feature that became evident time and time again, was that the women that showed up “to help” were a complete disaster. They would shut down any conversation they didn’t like, often by befriending forum members and then pitting one against the other. We had to walk on eggshells, and several times, a woman would get all emotional and threaten to leave and no longer support us… and then the Captain Save-a-ho’s would come out of the phone booth and chastise the evil bastard who upset everyone’s favourite woman.
Many women were there making sure we knew that “there were still good women out there – look at me! I treat my husband with respect, and love him to bits, and he is always happy with me.” In other words, “It’s sad that you’ve gotten kicked in the balls by the past 25 women you’ve met, but you are just picking the wrong women – don’t give up hope, and certainly don’t stop trying to find that tootsie roll in the big pile of turds that is society!”
Others would show up and and talk about their big tits, or what kind of panties they were wearing… tantalizing men to be their allies through their sexuality.
Others would convince men that nothing was worth doing unless all the women agreed… if the women didn’t agree, then we certainly would never be able to sell it to society. So, if a woman opposed you, that was that. Time to shut it Mister!
Another womanly feature in the MRM was Sorenstam Syndrome, where a woman who merely voiced support for men, and did a few minor things to support “the cause,” was automatically highlighted as a fierce warrior, far and above more valuable than the men who were doing much more. Nobody knew who the 5th place guy was, but we certainly knew the woman who was 95th out of 115 – and she was extremely valuable, and her voice would be given much more weight than it was worth.
Once the women showed up “to help,” you could pretty much set an egg-timer to watch the destruction that followed.
Like Angry Harry says, “Having a woman help with the MRM is like having a 5 year old help you put up wallpaper. No thanks!”
And, worst of all, everyone only hung out on these forums. It was totally impotent, and certainly things were not moving forward intellectually.
So, a few guys – like Zed and Ragnar, got together – they even travelled to meet eachother, and they discussed what could be done about the situation. One thing they apparently observed was that men were so pigheaded and stubborn, and undermined eachother so much, that it was like each Man was Going Their Own Way. And thus, the term MGTOW was born. It is left as “MGTOW” on purpose, so that it is unpronounceable – slicksters that they were!
MGTOW did not neccessarily mean “marriage strike” in the beginning, although it certainly had large elements within it that supported that. What I understood it more to mean was “Go your own way! Get off these restrictive forums! Start your own blog! Say what you want to say, and don’t give a shit about the rest!”
And, that’s how I entered into the fray with MGTOW.
We were just a few ragtag bloggers, and we were quite under-educated in many ways, coming out of the PCness that had been bashing us up the side of the head. There was quite a bit of anger in the beginning, and we were certainly not the nicest of people – we spent a lot of time telling people who didn’t like what we had to say to simply “fuck off!” Fred X called everyone a femcunt about 60 times in each article, and Eternal Bachelor was a good writer who skewered people left and right… and we all basically supported a free speech policy, even to our enemies… but… that also gave us free speech, and man did we use it to attack anyone so stupid to come and white knight us. There were a lot of pissed off guys out there!
But, what we did agree to was to link to eachother, and to support eachother. And we did. Anyone who started up a MGTOW blog instantly got a shout-out from us to the rest of the community, and recieved a link on the sidebar.
This “each man for himself” mode made a “free market of ideas.” Some bloggers made it, and others didn’t. But, the result was that our intellectual ability went through the roof (after we calmed down a bit). Many politically incorrect things started to be examined and researched. The whole notion of “equality” began to be examined, and so on. History began to get talked about sometimes, and politics questioned. We began to form our own “Studies of the Sexes.”
And then “Game” entered into the picture, and it supported many of the observations and arguments we had been making… namely, rather than asking for sympathy and begging for a few scraps from the table of equality, things began to come together in an explainable way of why things had developed the way they did, and how this whole sordid mess was created, and why so many of the earlier arguments were completely useless – such as demanding male equality in the home and family being a complete fantasy due to biological circumstances like hypergamy. If you had tried that argument before, you would have found yourself under quite a bit of attack for not being an “egalitarian.”
And, well… that’s the way I seen it develop since I’ve been involved. In my opinion, the two neccessary ingredients that were missing, have now been provided. The first was MGTOW turning men’s weakness of pigheadedness into a strength instead of a hindrance, and the second is the introduction of Game’s knowledge of Sexual Dynamics, which supported so many of our own ideas and observations.
In fact, I think we now have what is neccessary to create a serious body of intellectual work that will stand the test of time. Now we just have to keep building it… and we will… because we are men!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comment Made by Ragnar:
Just stumbled upon this blog and thanks Fedrz for writing the History of MGTOW. Allow me to correct a minor thing. It was Meikyo and I who got together in Hickory N.C. in October 2004. Zed was invited and supposed to come also, but was unable due to illness. The MGTOW manifest was written by me according to the notes Meikyo took on our meeting. It was originally posted on the now defunct “Our Board” as “My Way” or “Men Going Their Own Way”.
Today it has been revised several times. Basicly the wording (spelling, my errors) and a few additions were made. Jadedguy did a lot of rewriting and commenting. We moved to a board set up by Zed, we actually had several boards which all seem to be defunct by now, but MGTOW lives on in the minds of men.
-
A small comment to some ideas presented here. The talk was about womens rights. Basically men make society by bonding and standing shoulder by shoulder to defend it. This means that men have all the negative rights as they are the makers of civilisation. We give women some positive rights in order to make society function better.
These rights can clearly be discussed and changed by men. Women can leave our society if they do not like it. This is the only negative right women have. When they stay in Our Society they must abide by Our rules!
Don’t ever forget that we, the men, are the makers of civilisation.
We, the Men are “We the People” – period!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
.
.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Not All Women Are Like That! (NAWALT)
"Meanwhile, as long as there's one honest woman living at the temple atop Mount NAWALT in Tibet..." -- White Knight
"...while I was still searching but not finding - I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." -- Ecclesiastes 7:28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Mathieu of Boulogne (1295) on NAWALT
From “The Lamentations of Matheolus”
Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one's general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, "Who could find a virtuous woman?" The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What's more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she's doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don't need to look for further proof. That's enough logical demonstration.
My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has - and there is ample evidence of this - deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belfort Bax on NAWALT
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Bonecrcker #71 – Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT)
Bonecrcker #151 – The Woman Who Is The Exception Phenomena
"...while I was still searching but not finding - I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." -- Ecclesiastes 7:28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
From “The Lamentations of Matheolus”
Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one's general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, "Who could find a virtuous woman?" The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What's more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she's doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don't need to look for further proof. That's enough logical demonstration.
My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has - and there is ample evidence of this - deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belfort Bax on NAWALT
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Bonecrcker #71 – Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT)
Bonecrcker #151 – The Woman Who Is The Exception Phenomena
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
