Wednesday, January 07, 2009
The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women
Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator's hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier's life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.
The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizen have quite small properties, others have very large ones; hence the land has passed into the hands of a few. And this is due also to faulty laws; for, although the legislator rightly holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give or bequeath it. Yet both practices lead to the same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
The Man-Woman – by Hic Mueller, 1620
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this same issue, here is an abstract from the essay ”Rulers Ruled by Women” – An Economic Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights in Ancient Sparta
ABSTRACT: Throughout most of history, women as a class have possessed relatively few formal rights. The women of ancient Sparta were a striking exception. Although they could not vote, Spartan women reportedly owned 40 percent of Sparta’s agricultural land and enjoyed other rights that were equally extraordinary. We offer a simple economic explanation for the Spartan anomaly. The defining moment for Sparta was its conquest of a neighboring land and people, which fundamentally changed the marginal products of Spartan men’s and Spartan women’s labor. To exploit the potential gains from a reallocation of labor – specifically, to provide the appropriate incentives and the proper human capital formation – men granted women property (and other) rights. Consistent with our explanation for the rise of women’s rights, when Sparta lost the conquered land several centuries later, the rights for women disappeared. Two conclusions emerge that may help explain why women’s rights have been so rare for most of history. First, in contrast to the rest of the world, the optimal (from the men’s perspective) division of labor among Spartans involved women in work that was not easily monitored by men. Second, the rights held by Spartan women may have been part of an unstable equilibrium, which contained the seeds of its own destruction.
The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizen have quite small properties, others have very large ones; hence the land has passed into the hands of a few. And this is due also to faulty laws; for, although the legislator rightly holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give or bequeath it. Yet both practices lead to the same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
The Man-Woman – by Hic Mueller, 1620
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this same issue, here is an abstract from the essay ”Rulers Ruled by Women” – An Economic Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights in Ancient Sparta
ABSTRACT: Throughout most of history, women as a class have possessed relatively few formal rights. The women of ancient Sparta were a striking exception. Although they could not vote, Spartan women reportedly owned 40 percent of Sparta’s agricultural land and enjoyed other rights that were equally extraordinary. We offer a simple economic explanation for the Spartan anomaly. The defining moment for Sparta was its conquest of a neighboring land and people, which fundamentally changed the marginal products of Spartan men’s and Spartan women’s labor. To exploit the potential gains from a reallocation of labor – specifically, to provide the appropriate incentives and the proper human capital formation – men granted women property (and other) rights. Consistent with our explanation for the rise of women’s rights, when Sparta lost the conquered land several centuries later, the rights for women disappeared. Two conclusions emerge that may help explain why women’s rights have been so rare for most of history. First, in contrast to the rest of the world, the optimal (from the men’s perspective) division of labor among Spartans involved women in work that was not easily monitored by men. Second, the rights held by Spartan women may have been part of an unstable equilibrium, which contained the seeds of its own destruction.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
EOTM: This Is Zen
Like listening for the sound of one hand clapping, looking at this picture for a while will tell you all the essence of zen. It cannot be described, tho much good writing about it exists. Each of us leaves footprints in the sand as we travel through this adventure called life. If we pause for a moment and look back at those footprints, we are struck with their smallness and temporary nature when set against the backdrop of the immense elemental forces of the seashore. The yin & yang of the waves within the larger yin/yang of the tides will wash them away within hours, if the wind does not blow them away within minutes.
I call myself a zen priest, yet that is purely self-appointed. When I was young and full of myself, I wanted to be a zen master and teacher. One day it occurred to me that the road to mastery was to live it every moment. There are far more rewards from living it than from the public recognition of my "mastery". It is a remarkably fulfilling and serene way to view life. I promote it as an answer to the increasingly chaotic world in which we live.
In the best (perhaps only true) zen movie ever made, ”Cirlce of Iron,” the protagonist, Cord (that which binds), finds that all answers are found in the mirror. Today, in western culture particularly, all answers seem to lie outside ourselves. We are a culture of reacters, blamers, and victims. There are always buts, whys, and becauses which explain our destructive behavior. None of them make it non-destructive. The destruction and violence will continue until each person begins to stay one's own hand and take complete responsibility for one's own acts.
There are other cosmologies which include this, one in particular called Wicca, and I hope to be able to provide the means to explore them as well on these pages.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Philosophy and Theology: The Old Gods
Science and Technology: The New Gods
The Goddess and The God of the Wicca
The God
The Goddess
Monday, January 05, 2009
Buddha: Selected Writings of Nichiren
- Women are messengers from hell. They cut off the seeds of Buddhahood. They have the faces of bodhisattvas, but their hearts are like demons. Women can no more attain Buddhahood than can a dried up seed sprout.
- The course of a river and a woman's mind both wander. Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions. The right fades like a line drawn on the water. Women's nature is unsteady: though they see what they should be, they soon become what they should not be. Buddhahood is founded on integrity. Therefore, women, who are easily swayed, cannot become Buddhas. Women have the "five obstacles" (inability to become anything great) and the "three followings" (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son). Thus in one sutra it is written: "Even should the eyes of all the buddhas of the three worlds fall to the earth, women cannot become Buddha." Another text says: "Even if you can capture the clear wind, you can never capture the mind of a woman."
- The passions of all the men of the three thousand worlds and the hindrances to the salvation of one woman are comparably immeasurable.
- Among the three pleasures of Yung Ch'i-ch'i (in "Tales of Chuang Tzu") was the pleasure of not being born as a woman. He also named the pleasure of not being reborn in heaven as a woman.
- The course of a river and a woman's mind both wander. Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions. The right fades like a line drawn on the water. Women's nature is unsteady: though they see what they should be, they soon become what they should not be. Buddhahood is founded on integrity. Therefore, women, who are easily swayed, cannot become Buddhas. Women have the "five obstacles" (inability to become anything great) and the "three followings" (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son). Thus in one sutra it is written: "Even should the eyes of all the buddhas of the three worlds fall to the earth, women cannot become Buddha." Another text says: "Even if you can capture the clear wind, you can never capture the mind of a woman."
- The passions of all the men of the three thousand worlds and the hindrances to the salvation of one woman are comparably immeasurable.
- Among the three pleasures of Yung Ch'i-ch'i (in "Tales of Chuang Tzu") was the pleasure of not being born as a woman. He also named the pleasure of not being reborn in heaven as a woman.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
EOTM: Welcome to Eye of the Mind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Visual Reality
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Philosophy and Theology
The Deep Water: Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Environment
Science and Technology
Creating the Future
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only in the mind's eye can things truly be seen. The blind man often sees more than his "sighted" cousin because he is less misled by the surfaces of things and is more interested in their substance. Perception includes mind, body, emotion and, most of all, spirit. One must be aware in all 4 dimensions to be fully alive.
Any and all possible futures will be seen first in the eye of the mind. We create the world as we see it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These pages are dedicated to those seeking to become accomplished artists in the Art of Living. Most artists become comfortable with a few selected media and materials. The selection of topics represent my favorites. Many more are worthy of consideration, but that's why there are other web pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two great mystical forces which rule the lives of human beings. One is the life force itself. The other is that elusive force we call consciousness. Life, we share with countless other entities on this planet. But we maintain the belief that consciousness sets us apart and above all other forms of life: that it belongs to the god-like alone. In our desire to be as gods, we have elevated the force of consciousness and begun to worship it while we have shown ever increasing contempt for all life save our own and, often enough, for our own as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I heartily agree with the geocities' stated philosophy of creating new communities on the new frontier and thank them for providing such a forum. The new milennium is upon us and humanity has pillaged the planet to support its ever growing need to consume. We humans, so anxious to see ourselves in the images of the gods & goddesses we worship, have achieved only one of the godlike powers, the power to destroy. We need to turn as much energy toward the power to create and generate as we have toward consuming the resources of the earth if we are to survive.
Today the cerebral cortex of the brain rules. People want to believe that all behavior is thought out in advance and that it follows the sterile logic of only half the brain, the left brain. Their analysis of the motivations underlying the behavior are speculative nonsense which leaves out 90% of the information available and adheres to a peculiar line of thinking specific to that individual. The results are presented as "logical" but there is no logic whatsoever behind it. It is merely the result of their own built in biases, which they are so close to that they cannot see.
The MIND is NOT the BRAIN. The mind is just as aware of the information it is receiving from the little toe as it gets from the 5:00 news. The mind has a sense of connection to a power greater than itself. And the mind receives information from something called the soul. There is something deep within us that is the essence of the will/desire/drive/whatever to be ALIVE. Something that BELIEVES and WANTS and KNOWS right from wrong.
We need to make people as mindful in their behavior as we currently would like to believe they are. My goal for these pages is to celebrate and provide a forum for the full development of all dimensions of the mind. I invite contributions and suggestions. I consider art to be an integral part of mental and spiritual development and I hope visitors will see a certain esthetic unity, if not homogeniety. Please comment on this aspect of the site as well. At present, I have only established the general structure of the site. Things that look like links hopefully will become so. Suggestions for sites in each of the categories are welcome.
While the content of this site is definitely "adult", it is not so in the sense that one usually sees on the net. My intent is to deal in subjects that only a mature mind can really grasp, thus the only ones interested in pursuing those subjects. While these subjects contain details of the type usually not easily discussed by parents with their children, I don't believe that anyone will find my treatment of the subjects to be offensive except that I don't cut people much slack for silliness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents who are willing to let the child indulge her/his own natural tendency to learn and question can freely move around this site if they use the eye as a navigation aid. The eye will lead to controversial topics, but the controversial discussions lie behind links which you have to look for. If the content intrigues you, you will be interested in reading further. Children will not. The eye will lead them on a tour and the big eye will always lead them home. Anyone willing to wade through the verbage to get the content, deserves it in my book. Most parents can rest secure in the fact that I am going to make it so much work that their children will never do it. Roam around yourself a bit first then, if you are comfortable with the content and the way in which it it addressed, feel free to bring your son or daughter back to start a dialogue on things you'd like to talk to them about. Sortof.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Visual Reality
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Philosophy and Theology
The Deep Water: Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Environment
Science and Technology
Creating the Future
.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Buddha: From "The Sutra of the Past Vows of Earth Store Bodhisattva" (Commentary by Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua - in America)
Sutra:
Buddha: "If there are women who detest the body of a woman, and who full-heartedly make offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva's image, whether the image be a painting or made of earth, stone, lacquerware, brass, iron, or some other material, and if they do so day after day without fail, using flowers, incense, food, drink, clothing, colored silks, banners, money, jewels, and other items as offerings, when the female retribution body of those good women is exhausted, for hundreds of thousands of aeons they will never again be born in the worlds where there are women, much less be one, unless it be through the strength of their compassionate vows to liberate living beings. From the power of the meritorious virtues resulting from these offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva, they will not receive the bodies of women throughout hundreds of thousands of tens of thousands of aeons.
Commentary:
Do not think that being a woman is a good thing, for being a woman involves a great deal of trouble. There are women who do not like it and always wonder why they have to be women; they want to learn what they can do about it. Through worship of Earth Store Bodhisattva these questions can be resolved.
What is the trouble involved in being a woman? Because there are people who might like to investigate this further, I will go into a bit more detail. You should not think of this as an attempt to cause women to dislike their state and leave home. If that occurred then there might be even more problems for me to deal with.
There are Five Obstructions and Ten Evils encountered by women. First we will discuss the Five Obstructions. The first is that women are not able to become the Great Brahma Lord because that position is accomplished through purity, and the body of a woman has a great many impurities. Second, women cannot become Sakra. An astute student may object that earlier we discussed the thirty-three women who became lords of the heavens. This objection is a valid one, but it should be realized that upon reaching the heavens their bodies became male, because only males can be lords of the heavens. Although Sakra has some desire remaining, that desire is quite light; women, on the other hand, are extremely libidinous and consequently cannot become Sakra.
Third, women cannot become demon kings. This is not too bad. They cannot attain this position because demons are extremely hard, solid, and firm, while women are extremely soft and weak. As soon as anything unusual comes up they are at a loss and have to seek help. Fourth, beings cannot be wise wheel-turning kings - the gold, silver, copper, and iron wheel-turning kings - as long as they have female bodies. Wise kings have hearts of great compassion and kindness; they teach people to maintain the Five Precepts and the Ten Good Deeds. Whenever women see something good occur to others, they become jealous, and this keeps them from having great compassion. Because of this basic problem, they cannot become Buddhas. Buddhas have ten thousand virtues; women have many evils. They are jealous and obstructive, and their hearts are about the size of a sesame seed.
If, however, women are able to rid themselves of jealousy, desire, weakness, defilement, and of all evils, they may become men, and so theirs is not a hopeless plight. There is, for example, the case of the dragon king's daughter. When Sariputra said that she could not become a Buddha, she took a precious gem, her most valuable and cherished possession, and offered it to the Buddha, who accepted it. She then asked Sariputra if the Buddha's acceptance of her offering was fast, and he replied that, indeed, it had been quick. "I shall become a Buddha that quickly," she said and then she became a Buddha. This is proof that women's lot is not hopeless. All they must do is resolve to cultivate courageously and they too can become Buddhas.
There are also Ten Evils that pertain to women. First, at their birth their parents are displeased. Although it is not always the case that parents are displeased at the birth of a daughter, in most societies this is the case, and a daughter starts out life by making a bad impression on her parents.
The second evil is that raising daughters is not a very interesting task. The third is that women are always afraid of people. Boys are not usually afraid, but girls almost always are. The fourth evil connected with women is that their parents undergo a great deal of worry about their daughters' marriage. In America this is not a major matter, but in most other countries parents have to give a great deal of consideration to finding good husbands for their daughters.
Once girls grow up, the fifth of the Ten Evils occurs, when they have to leave their parents alone. The sixth comes after they have been married and are in constant fear of their husbands. When a husband likes something, they are pleased, and when he is angry, they cower in terror. The seventh evil of women is the difficulty and fear of giving birth.
The eighth difficulty is that no matter what they do or say, the report gets back to their parents that they are not good. Although the good remains, it is a goodness that does not influence their parents. The ninth is that they are always controlled by their husbands and are subject to many restrictions, which, if broken, can lead to divorce.
The above nine evils apply to women in their youth. They are old when the tenth arrives and their own children and grandchildren slight them. As the proverb says, "To be old and not yet dead is to be a thief." These are only a few of the many problems involved with being a woman. To explain all of them in detail would be an unending task.
Buddha: "If there are women who detest the body of a woman, and who full-heartedly make offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva's image, whether the image be a painting or made of earth, stone, lacquerware, brass, iron, or some other material, and if they do so day after day without fail, using flowers, incense, food, drink, clothing, colored silks, banners, money, jewels, and other items as offerings, when the female retribution body of those good women is exhausted, for hundreds of thousands of aeons they will never again be born in the worlds where there are women, much less be one, unless it be through the strength of their compassionate vows to liberate living beings. From the power of the meritorious virtues resulting from these offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva, they will not receive the bodies of women throughout hundreds of thousands of tens of thousands of aeons.
Commentary:
Do not think that being a woman is a good thing, for being a woman involves a great deal of trouble. There are women who do not like it and always wonder why they have to be women; they want to learn what they can do about it. Through worship of Earth Store Bodhisattva these questions can be resolved.
What is the trouble involved in being a woman? Because there are people who might like to investigate this further, I will go into a bit more detail. You should not think of this as an attempt to cause women to dislike their state and leave home. If that occurred then there might be even more problems for me to deal with.
There are Five Obstructions and Ten Evils encountered by women. First we will discuss the Five Obstructions. The first is that women are not able to become the Great Brahma Lord because that position is accomplished through purity, and the body of a woman has a great many impurities. Second, women cannot become Sakra. An astute student may object that earlier we discussed the thirty-three women who became lords of the heavens. This objection is a valid one, but it should be realized that upon reaching the heavens their bodies became male, because only males can be lords of the heavens. Although Sakra has some desire remaining, that desire is quite light; women, on the other hand, are extremely libidinous and consequently cannot become Sakra.
Third, women cannot become demon kings. This is not too bad. They cannot attain this position because demons are extremely hard, solid, and firm, while women are extremely soft and weak. As soon as anything unusual comes up they are at a loss and have to seek help. Fourth, beings cannot be wise wheel-turning kings - the gold, silver, copper, and iron wheel-turning kings - as long as they have female bodies. Wise kings have hearts of great compassion and kindness; they teach people to maintain the Five Precepts and the Ten Good Deeds. Whenever women see something good occur to others, they become jealous, and this keeps them from having great compassion. Because of this basic problem, they cannot become Buddhas. Buddhas have ten thousand virtues; women have many evils. They are jealous and obstructive, and their hearts are about the size of a sesame seed.
If, however, women are able to rid themselves of jealousy, desire, weakness, defilement, and of all evils, they may become men, and so theirs is not a hopeless plight. There is, for example, the case of the dragon king's daughter. When Sariputra said that she could not become a Buddha, she took a precious gem, her most valuable and cherished possession, and offered it to the Buddha, who accepted it. She then asked Sariputra if the Buddha's acceptance of her offering was fast, and he replied that, indeed, it had been quick. "I shall become a Buddha that quickly," she said and then she became a Buddha. This is proof that women's lot is not hopeless. All they must do is resolve to cultivate courageously and they too can become Buddhas.
There are also Ten Evils that pertain to women. First, at their birth their parents are displeased. Although it is not always the case that parents are displeased at the birth of a daughter, in most societies this is the case, and a daughter starts out life by making a bad impression on her parents.
The second evil is that raising daughters is not a very interesting task. The third is that women are always afraid of people. Boys are not usually afraid, but girls almost always are. The fourth evil connected with women is that their parents undergo a great deal of worry about their daughters' marriage. In America this is not a major matter, but in most other countries parents have to give a great deal of consideration to finding good husbands for their daughters.
Once girls grow up, the fifth of the Ten Evils occurs, when they have to leave their parents alone. The sixth comes after they have been married and are in constant fear of their husbands. When a husband likes something, they are pleased, and when he is angry, they cower in terror. The seventh evil of women is the difficulty and fear of giving birth.
The eighth difficulty is that no matter what they do or say, the report gets back to their parents that they are not good. Although the good remains, it is a goodness that does not influence their parents. The ninth is that they are always controlled by their husbands and are subject to many restrictions, which, if broken, can lead to divorce.
The above nine evils apply to women in their youth. They are old when the tenth arrives and their own children and grandchildren slight them. As the proverb says, "To be old and not yet dead is to be a thief." These are only a few of the many problems involved with being a woman. To explain all of them in detail would be an unending task.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies?
Quote: "I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists."
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: "I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: "I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Buddha: Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma Sutra
"When the Dharma is about to disappear, women will become vigorous and will at all times do deeds of virtue. Men will grow lax and will no longer speak the Dharma."
"When my Dharma disappears it will be just like an oil lamp which flares brightly for an instant just before it goes out. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow."
"Good persons will be hard to find; at most there will be one or two. Men will die younger, and women will live longer."
"When my Dharma disappears it will be just like an oil lamp which flares brightly for an instant just before it goes out. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow."
"Good persons will be hard to find; at most there will be one or two. Men will die younger, and women will live longer."
Monday, August 25, 2008
On Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap
Many people will instinctively try to dismiss the notion of feminism being Marxism as some sort of red-herring related to tin-foil-hat "conspiracy" theories. However, a quick perusal of the quotes found throughout this blog ought to discredit that notion enough for a reasonable and rational man to inquire further into the subject.
.
.
I maintain that the communist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS communism" would be the "red herring."
What Is Marxism and How Does It Work?
First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read. (I really cannot praise that article enough. One could spend years and years reading horribly dry Marxist literature, and then further years deciphering it in an attempt to understand it... or one could spend 20 minutes reading Phil Wort's article and learn more than enough about the general philosophy to have an intelligent conversation with the former.)
It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:
1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.
Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."
That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of humans that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his use of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.
Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.
2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.
3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of mass-psychology with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.
4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group. AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical parts out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values: 1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence, 2 - MOVING the subject to the next level, 3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs. (Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)
.
It's all pretty simple, one orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood (N.O. M.A.A.M.) files their taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.
Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges are made up of segments. In fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."
.
As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. NO MA'AM doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what BIGOTS!
The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."
I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!
Connecting the Marxist Dots
Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx
Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."
Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."
"We shall destroy you from within!" Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.
Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement, which is critizing feminism: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116
Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary ideology:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30
Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:
- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?
- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?" With the word "sex" there is only male and female.
- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?
- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?
- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.
- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry only a scant few years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family?" All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots. (Also, see my piece: A New Kind of Bigotry)
These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?
Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that gay-marriages are not equal, because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon." You will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.
Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.
Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that government be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people.
The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!
No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.
TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!
Previous Index Next
.
I maintain that the communist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS communism" would be the "red herring."
What Is Marxism and How Does It Work?
First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read. (I really cannot praise that article enough. One could spend years and years reading horribly dry Marxist literature, and then further years deciphering it in an attempt to understand it... or one could spend 20 minutes reading Phil Wort's article and learn more than enough about the general philosophy to have an intelligent conversation with the former.)
It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:
1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.
Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."
That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of humans that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his use of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.
Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.
2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.
3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of mass-psychology with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.
4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group. AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical parts out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values: 1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence, 2 - MOVING the subject to the next level, 3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs. (Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)
.
So, could you destroy something absolute like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.
.
.
It's all pretty simple, one orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood (N.O. M.A.A.M.) files their taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.
Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges are made up of segments. In fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."
.
.
The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange. The "truth is relative," remember? She tells me that it is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional.As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. NO MA'AM doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what BIGOTS!
The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."
I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!
Connecting the Marxist Dots
Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx
Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."
Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."
"We shall destroy you from within!" Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.
Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement, which is critizing feminism: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116
Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary ideology:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30
Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:
- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?
- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?" With the word "sex" there is only male and female.
- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?
- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?
- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.
- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry only a scant few years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family?" All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots. (Also, see my piece: A New Kind of Bigotry)
These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?
Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that gay-marriages are not equal, because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon." You will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.
Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.
Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that government be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people.
The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!
No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.
TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Which came first? Dishonesty or Dissimulation?
.
Dissimulation in women leads to dishonesty in men. Dishonesty in men leads to dissimulation in women. It's a chicken and egg argument to a "T."
.
I think that we all know what the definition of dishonesty is, so I don't feel the need to try and define it. Dissimulation in women, however, is not often defined so I wish to state exactly what I mean by this. What I mean by dissimulation in women is when they are behaving like pool hustlers. When they are "faking" their position while their intentions truly lie elsewhere. This typically starts when a man and a woman begin the "dance" of getting to know each-other. She tells him she is interested in a non-sexual relationship and only wants some companionship. This is dissimulation if what she is really interested in is establishing whether the man is worthy enough for her to be sexual with. She wants him to prove her worth to him with the hoops he will jump through to "win her." This will establish her emotional and sexual superiority over him and weigh the balance of power in any possible future relationship decidedly in her favour. It's like Br'er Rabbit. "Please don't throw me in the briar patch." Dissimulation to a "T."
.
"...Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women
.
It is the way almost every relationship starts off. She is attracted to the man yet dissimulates that she does not want him, and that men who chase her sexually are not worthy of her. The only response a man unaware of the crimson arts can have, if he actually wants to get closer to what he (and she) wants, is to be dishonest.
.
"I'm not like that," he replies, "I like you for your mind, for your intelligence and for your wit. I want to get to know you because you are a strong woman."
.
He believes it's the only response that will keep the game going. Be honest with her here, and he will never get her. If he were completely open and honest and told her he was attracted to her sexually, the game would be over. The next pussy-starved schlub she talks to will be dishonest with her and tell her it is only "her mind" that interests him, and he will be the one that gets to see her panties slide down her legs to the floor. Maybe not that very day, but probably in a few weeks, after she has satisfied that he is worthy because of "his efforts." She didn't really want someone who was interested in her mind. She was interested in the sexuality of a man being attracted to her and chasing her. She gets a "high" from it, from making him work as a result of her dissimulation. Her value goes up in this process, while his goes down.
.
And so, the only men that she ever gets involved with are men who are lying to her. They are the only ones who get over the first hurdles she puts up with dissimulation. Why does she feel it is so necessary to dissimulate? Because dissimulation is the only way she can counter the dishonest men she meets. Most of the men she has been with have been forced to lie to her to actually "be with her." Therefore, she believes that all men are lying pigs, only interested in her for what is between her legs. Dissimulation is her most effective weapon in countering male dishonesty in the mating dance.
.
But for the man, he knows soon enough that if he doesn't "play the game," he will be the man who grows into a 40 year old virgin while the girls he dared to be honest with will be sleeping with the men who didn't care at all that they were being dishonest to her. He realizes that women aren't really saying what they mean, and the only way to counter that and actually get to what they both want, is to be dishonest about his intentions until he gets to the end of the initial dance and "gets her." The only way to counter female dissimulation is by being dishonest.
.
And so it goes, with men and women starting their relationships this way, continuing like this while the relationship exists, and then ending the whole shebang in the same manner. How many marriages decline into celibacy with the husband believing she is not interested in sex, only for him to find out she was having an affair, or that "after the divorce" she turned into an oversexed nymphomaniac? Is there any other proper, effective way for the man to respond to this except to be dishonest about his emotions and act like she didn't matter a hoot to him? That dishonesty about the pain will bother her because she needs to know that she hurt him with her actions... and if she doesn't see that, she will start to dissimulate, often slyly trying to use her new lover to make her ex insane with jealousy. Once the ex blows up in anger, she knows that he did care that she hurt him and she can move on without him. But both sides will realize how much dissimulation or dishonesty they were exposed to in the relationship and be twice as "on guard" to protect themselves the next time around, and of course, that will only lead to more intense dissimulation and dishonesty with future partners.
.
I do, however, believe that some dissimulation and dishonesty is neccessary. This has been the way it has been ever since men and women have existed on earth, I believe. We would not try to change the mating habits of ducks, and neither should we with humans.
.
The problem lies, I believe, in that with the social system we currently live in, there becomes far to much dissimulation/dishonesty to bear in one lifetime.
.
When one looks at the high stress situations in the average person's life, the top situation is the death of a spouse, the second is divorce/end of a relationship, and I believe that around number 3 is fearing the loss of respect and acceptance amongst one's peers. (I remember health being up there too, but not sure where anymore). These things are directly about people's personal relationships with others. To humans, their interactions with those around them are far more important than virtually anything else in their lives. Humans are social creatures.
.
I look at my own parents relationship, compared to the typical serial monogamy style of relationships today.
Now my parents did not have a perfect marriage. They argued and got angry about things just like everyone else. In their 48 years together, they had good years and they had bad years. But, what my parents had different in their lives was lowered amounts of dissimulation, dishonesty and the betrayals that such behaviours naturally cause.
.
They got married when my Dad was 20 and my Mom was 19. They had both dated other people before they met, but considering their ages, I don't think it would have been more than one or two people at most. I don't know if either was "in love" with someone previous to their meeting. Possibly, who knows.
.
Think of what they missed out on that people don't escape today!
.
They don't know what it is like to be lied to, betrayed by someone so close, to know the anguish of having their hearts ripped out. They have no idea what it is like to be hurt by someone so close and to lie awake at night in anguish, knowing that someone you know so intimately is most likely, at that very moment, lying naked in bed next to a person they betrayed you for. They don't have any idea of the gut wrenching emotions involved with losing access to their children - not until the children were prepared to leave the nest at the proper time anyway.
.
Never experiencing extreme amounts of dishonesty or dissimulation from those who hold the key to their hearts allowed them to emotionally mature. They were able to grow to accept that men and women behave differently without it always leaving them in extreme emotional pain. They might have had some feelings that it was necessary to protect "their" position, but it would never rise to the extreme levels of dishonesty and dissimulation which men and women will naturally cling to if they experience the emotionally devastating levels of loss, betrayal and bitterness towards the opposite sex that the average modern 30 year old will already have experienced today, due to serial monogamy and the games that come with the mating dance.
.
I don't think that humans are supposed to be subjected to so many emotional highs and lows throughout their lives. Certainly, a single/divorced 30-something in today's world must be dealing with 4 or 5 times the emotional pain by that age than the vast majority of people from previous generations ever would have experienced in their entire lifetimes. The lack of pain would lead to more trusting, less dishonesty and less dissimulation. Time obligates, of course, but also does drastically reducing the amount of times one's fingers get burnt in the fire. With the amount of dishonesty and dissimulation necessary to be successful in a society that promotes serial monogamy, one must naturally become callous and uncaring to the opposite sex and such behaviour can only cause more of the same. It becomes a vicious circle in which no-one will ever ultimately win.
.
Of course, it all makes sense why Cultural Marxists integrated so much Freud/sexology into their plans, of which one plan was to split apart the genders. People who have been burned several times already before they actually do "try" are far more likely to fail, because of a lack of complete trust, than those who are not so fearful of those kinds of bad memories.
Related:
Hate Bounces
Zenpriest #18 - The Designated Initiator
The Fine Art of TV Repair
Is something wrong in your house? 
.
.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
Bonecrker #17 - Movies Desensitize Social Problems
.
Is there a constant subtle drone always permeating throughout what should be your retreat from the harsh world?
.
Do you think that Man Hatred is just everywhere?
.
Chances are, your TV is broken!
.
Therefore, No Ma'am will provide you with an easy, illustrated, 4-step method to fixing your "best friend."
.
.--------------------------------------------------------
.
STEP #1: Get the Proper Tools
.
.
.The best tools for TV Repair can likely be found in the backyard shed. Two favourites are the pick-axe and the sledgehammer. Also find some gloves and safety goggles - The Safety Bear recommends this, so I will defer to his judgement in regard to safety.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Step #2: Swinging the Pick-Axe
.
.
.Take a few steps to the side of your friend and grasp the pick-axe firmy with both hands. Your aim should be directly for center of the screen, as this is where the heart of the problem is..The swing is performed much like a golf swing. Keep your eye on the center of the screen from the beginning of the swing right through to the end.
.
Bring the pick-axe behind you and begin your swing. Your upper body should shift the energy through your shoulders while at the same time, the weight of your body should shift from your back foot through to your front foot. Remember to keep your eye on the center of the screen throughout your swing!.The above illustration is an example of the results of a good first swing. The pick-axe should penetrate to the heart of the problem with a depth of at least 6 inches. A professional TV Repair Man consistently hits 10 inchers, but 6 inches is the minimum penetration needed.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Step #3: Sweeping the Field
.
.
.Sometimes it is best to change tools and grab your sledgehammer for this task.
.
You must remove all of the glass to fully repair your TV.
.
Don't be afraid to choke up on the hammer nor to get down on your knees to get every last piece of glass out of there. There is nothing "sissy" about this. The only "sissy" thing would be to not do a thorough and complete job. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
.
Notice the craftsmanship of this professional job in that he has even removed the knobs. This attention to detail is the mark of true guildsmanship, but you need not be this fancy. Removing the glass will most likely fix your problem completely.
.
This is also an excellent time to have a look around inside the TV. You will realize that there is really nothing of substance behind the glass.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Step #4: Call the Wife
.
With the most manly bellow you can muster, holler out the following words:
.
"Woman! Come Hither!"
.
.
A real professional might manage to include the following:."And bring me a cold one!"
.
But your main job is to have the wife come and look at your craftsmanship.
.
You can now gently explain to the missus that you believe in the "Eek-Wallet-Tee" of both sexes equally doing the housework. Point out that you have done your 50%, and the other 50% is the clean up - so hop to it!
..Be sure to stay with the missus while she works.
.This is where the cold one would have come in handy, as it would give you something to do rather than just stand there doing nothing.
.
Don't be afraid to direct your wife to any teeny tiny piece of glass that she may have missed. You might impart some manly wisdom at her here by telling her that "anything worth doing is worth doing well!"
.
. .
You're all done!
You're all done!
.
Go back into the house and see if that annoying drone of man-hatred has disappeared.
.
And rest assured, it will only get better from here!
.
Good job, Mr Repairman!
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
Bonecrker #17 - Movies Desensitize Social Problems
The Jiggly Room
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ah, yes. Boobs!
.
Two things that are constantly on the minds of both genders are a woman's breasts. Of course, fembots have been convincing women that men are pigs because they can't keep their eyes off of a woman's chest when they talk to her. Bad, bad, men! They treat women like nothing more than sex objects!
.
.
.
Yes, men are pigs!
.
But, why aren't women considered to be pigs when they expose the fleshy globes for the whole world to see? Does anyone really believe that a woman "innocently" didn't realize that she was advertising her jahoobies when she pulled on a blouse like this in the morning?
But, why aren't women considered to be pigs when they expose the fleshy globes for the whole world to see? Does anyone really believe that a woman "innocently" didn't realize that she was advertising her jahoobies when she pulled on a blouse like this in the morning?
.
.
Women, unlike men, never buy clothes without trying them on first. When the above (appropriately faceless) woman bought that blouse, she first pulled it on in a dressing room, stood in front of a mirror, and I guarantee you that her eyes were fixed on her boobs in the mirror's reflection. It is no accident when a woman displays cleavage. It is not like accidentally walking around with your fly unzipped.
.
Back in the day, before I unplugged from the fematrix, I used to make damn sure that I never looked at woman's boobs when talking to her, no matter how flagrantly she displayed them. I listened to the ceaseless propaganda about how degrading it was for a man to talk to a woman's chest instead of her face, and I let non-logical PCism cloud my mind and not think about the woman's role in all of it.
Back in the day, before I unplugged from the fematrix, I used to make damn sure that I never looked at woman's boobs when talking to her, no matter how flagrantly she displayed them. I listened to the ceaseless propaganda about how degrading it was for a man to talk to a woman's chest instead of her face, and I let non-logical PCism cloud my mind and not think about the woman's role in all of it.
.
Women are intensely aware of their boobs. Before puberty, girls ache for their first training bra. Flat chested teenage girls are viciously jealous of the girl who blooms early and receives male attention for it. At the same time, the earlier bloomer hears the propaganda about how degrading it is for men to like her breasts and goes into her first, of many to come, victim modes and allows her clouded female brain to be contradictory by believing she's a victim of her boobs while secretly loving it and playing on her sexual power over the boys at the same time. Of course, the woman who remains flat chested into adulthood believes she is equally victimized because she doesn't receive similar male attention.
Women are intensely aware of their boobs. Before puberty, girls ache for their first training bra. Flat chested teenage girls are viciously jealous of the girl who blooms early and receives male attention for it. At the same time, the earlier bloomer hears the propaganda about how degrading it is for men to like her breasts and goes into her first, of many to come, victim modes and allows her clouded female brain to be contradictory by believing she's a victim of her boobs while secretly loving it and playing on her sexual power over the boys at the same time. Of course, the woman who remains flat chested into adulthood believes she is equally victimized because she doesn't receive similar male attention.
.
Women buy bras that make their boobs look firmer than what they are, that lift and separate them to make them more appealing, there are padded ones to make them bigger, and they can even buy ones with built-in hard nipples. Women are intensely aware of their boobs and the power that they wield. Boob jobs are the number one plastic surgery done in our femi-narcististic world.
Women buy bras that make their boobs look firmer than what they are, that lift and separate them to make them more appealing, there are padded ones to make them bigger, and they can even buy ones with built-in hard nipples. Women are intensely aware of their boobs and the power that they wield. Boob jobs are the number one plastic surgery done in our femi-narcististic world.
.
When this woman left the house in the morning, she knew she was putting her boobs on display for the world. Go ahead. Have a good, long look at them! That's what she wants - no matter what her flapping gums might be currently whining about.
.
.
.
"Talk to my face, not my chest. Pig!" Says the appropriately faceless creature.
.
This reminds of what I once read in Jack Kammer's excellent book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make All The Rules, http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf in which Mr. Kammer makes a keen observation about the difference between Men & Women's sexuality. He says that when a man "comes on to a woman," it is like dealing with an annoyingly pushy door to door salesman who targets one customer and digs his heels in trying to convince the one person in front of him. But women's sexuality is advertised like annoying junk mail (or internet spam). It is ever present. You cannot escape it. She advertises to the whole world and whether the recipient wants to recieve her advertisement or not is of little concern to her. She targets everyone and plays the numbers game of "if I advertise to 100 people, I will get one nibble - and if I advertise to 1,000 people, I will get 10 nibbles."
.
So, let's get it straight. Women who show off the jahoobies, are trolling for sexual attention. It is very rare for a woman to "accidently" let someone see her fleshy globes. A woman who wears a tight, form fitting blouse like the following, fully well knows that her blouse accentuates her breasts:
. .
And when a woman leans forward and "accidentally" lets you look clear down her blouse to her belly button, like the following, it is no accident either.
..
Don't believe me that it is no accident? Then ask yourself why only women with "boobs to be proud of" allow this. How come flat chested women never "accidentally" flash the mammaries? How come older women, whose boobs are well passed their prime years, are never giving you shots like that? How come men aren't wearing shirts that show off the man-boobs every time they lean over? Because the women whose cleavage & boobs you do see are quite aware that they are "accidentally-on purpose" doing it. That's why.
.
"Now, Rob," you say, "what's the big deal?"
.
Well, as some of you may know. The only Television I watch anymore is the Business News Network. A few weeks ago I was watching and listening for business reports of various natures when, in typical TV propaganda fashion, the filthy TV programmers decided it would be prudent to have a short 5-minute interview with some stunned female academic who was "an expert" on workplace etiquette. It didn't take this harpy with a BS in Academia more than one breath after introducing herself before she femi-moaned about sexual harrasment in the workplace, like when male co-workers are looking down a woman's blouse.
.
I just can't tell you how much it annoys me that the only "intellectual" thing that "academic" women seem capable of discussing, when interviewed, is women's victimhood in some way at the hands of those awful males. I taught the TV screen a few things about how foul my mouth can get when confronted with sexist women like that.
. I just can't tell you how much it annoys me that the only "intellectual" thing that "academic" women seem capable of discussing, when interviewed, is women's victimhood in some way at the hands of those awful males. I taught the TV screen a few things about how foul my mouth can get when confronted with sexist women like that.
But it reminded me of a place where I worked once, and where I had a lower-level manager who was a woman.
.
Now, this woman came to work each day like a tarted up little whore. Her blouses would be unbuttoned down to the maximum point - as in, undo one more button and she would be displaying below the bottom of her bra - you know the type. This woman, every day, wore very short skirts - very short. Short enough that everyone knew she was wearing stockings instead of pantyhose, because the lacy top of the stockings would sometimes come into display if she bent over to pick something up etc.
.
But what this woman, a manager, used to do to me was complete sexual harassment. Passive sexual harrassment. On several occasions, when in her office discussing various work related issues, this woman would lean back in her chair, locking her hands behind her head like she was stretching - and lean way back, with a short skirt, legs open, and display clear shots up her skirt of the crotch of her panties.
.
.
I don't believe it was an accident. Exhibitionism is a top female sexual fantasy.
.
.
And here becomes the situation: You have to talk to a woman, out of work related neccessity, who is either leaning forward to talk to you, and fully displaying her cleavage to you - or she is leaning back and talking to you, fully displaying the crotch of her panties. Yet, you are expected to only be looking her in the eyes while she is displaying herself like a Penthouse Centerfold. She is looking at your face, and if you should allow your eyes to betray that you are fully aware that she is displaying herself sexually, YOU could be charged with sexual harassment in the workplace and not her! You could lose your job, wind up being sued, and have difficulty securing another job - the stakes are positively huge!
.
Now, the thoroughly corrupted feminist legal system has ambiguously defined Sexual Harassment in the Workplace as "that which would make a reasonable woman uncomfortable." But what about men? This woman made me uncomfortable in the workplace! I even contemplated discussing it with higher level management but I decided against it, contemplating that if I allowed them to know that I had been seeing down this woman's blouse and up her skirt, that I would get the boot for sexually harassing her. So I kept my mouth shut and endured the tightrope that this sexually flagrant harlot forced me to walk. And it did affect my professional performance, because I dreaded dealing with her, and that did affect the bottom line profitability of that particular business. I go to work to make money, not to ogle women. And the owner of the company started the business to make money, not to provide some tramp a venue to fulfill her exhibitionism fetish.
.
As I previously pointed out, women don't put themselves on display by accident. All women know this. Women are very aware of how to hide their bad features and accentuate their desireable features. The boobs you see are boobs you are meant to see. Yet, should some woman level a charge of sexual harassment against a man for looking at the boobs that you were meant to see, all the other women will quickly rally around the "afronted" woman and support her over the male pig. Even though they full well know "the game." At best, the other women will remain silent and not call the exhibitionist woman out on her bullshit and let the man go down in flames.
.
Women should be discriminated against in the workplace until they all start dressing for business instead of dressing for attention. It's about time that women start showing up in suits, with a tie, so that they are forced to "button up." Otherwise, given the sexual harassment bias of our legal system, coupled with female sexual fetishes, women are a profit draining lawsuit waiting to happen and it is justifiable to unemploy their asses.
.
.
Previous Index Next
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise Is Deafening
.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Further Reading:
Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise Is Deafening
The Multi-Tasking Pink Proletariat
It is interesting to read descriptions of modern day feminism. Many times you will read that feminism has now branched out in other areas of Civil Rights and that they champion the causes of Ethnic Diversity, Gay/Lesbian/Trans-sexual Rights and they combat Racism.
.
It all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? The Pink Proletariat is branching out and finally caring about others instead of their usual screeching of “ME, ME, ME!” We should applaud them… or should we?
.
.
Yes, the idiot box comes on the second we walk in the door. It holds us in a hypnotic trance, requiring that the viewer shut off all private thought and conversation and let the propaganda box fill our minds with its message. We now eat dinner in the living room rather than gathering at the dinner table where we can converse while eating... It is a great babysitter for the kids... It does not get turned off until we go to bed, and even then, many of us have another propaganda box in the bedroom that we watch until drifting off to sleep, often with the box still on throughout the night, filling our subconscious with still more messages.
.
.
...Men are bad... men are rapists... men are violent... men hurt women and children... men are evil... the boogey monster beneath your bed is a typical male... the world is becoming increasingly global (communist)... globalization (communism) is happening... we have to prepare for globalization (communism)... accept globalization (communism)... globalization (COMMUNISM) is here!!!... there is no escaping globalization (COMMUNISM)...
.
.
HEY ROB! Will you SHUT UP already? I can't watch TV while you are continually yacking at me!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 
.
.
.
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” -- Theodore Roosevelt 1917
.
It all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? The Pink Proletariat is branching out and finally caring about others instead of their usual screeching of “ME, ME, ME!” We should applaud them… or should we?
.
Maybe we should have a look at the big picture.
.
The first thing that we must acknowledge is that Marxism did not fail when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. The whole idea of Marxism is to collapse all of mankind's superstructures, including the State, to enable Marx's "new kind of man" to walk on Utopia (Heaven on Earth).
.
"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." -- V.I. Lenin
.
Marxism fully intends to collapse the State. All of the States around the world! Karl Marx outlines that to collapse the State, you use the known economic failure of Socialism to collapse the State.
.
"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism." -- Karl Marx
.
The real failure of Marxism was that it engulfed only 1/3 of the world before the state of the Soviet Union collapsed, which was planned all along by Marx!
.
That was a pretty damn good first run, if you ask me!
.
We also make a mistake in calling the Soviet form of government "Communism." This is incorrect. What the Soviet Union had was pure Socialism. True Socialism means that the government will control every aspect of your life, from when you wake up until you go to bed, from when you are born until you die. Socialism is complete control of the individual by the State.
.
What Communism means, from the purely Marxist perspective, is Globalization!
.
"[After Communism succeeds] ...then, there will come a peace across the earth." -- Josef Stalin
.
Yes, the word "Globalization" is nothing more than a prettier sounding synonym for "Communism."
.
And, to go on a bit of a quick sidetrack here, isn't it great how we have become fully addicted to propaganda? Goebbels would be wiping the drool from his chin if he could have had access to the type of propaganda we are subjected to.
.
In World War II, bombers used to drop leaflets. In Vietnam, Saigon Sue was chattering on the radio at American G.I.'s in between playing their favourite songs... but today, the whole population in the West runs home after work and automatically does what?
.Yes, the idiot box comes on the second we walk in the door. It holds us in a hypnotic trance, requiring that the viewer shut off all private thought and conversation and let the propaganda box fill our minds with its message. We now eat dinner in the living room rather than gathering at the dinner table where we can converse while eating... It is a great babysitter for the kids... It does not get turned off until we go to bed, and even then, many of us have another propaganda box in the bedroom that we watch until drifting off to sleep, often with the box still on throughout the night, filling our subconscious with still more messages.
.
And what messages are we being told?
.
....Men are bad... men are rapists... men are violent... men hurt women and children... men are evil... the boogey monster beneath your bed is a typical male... the world is becoming increasingly global (communist)... globalization (communism) is happening... we have to prepare for globalization (communism)... accept globalization (communism)... globalization (COMMUNISM) is here!!!... there is no escaping globalization (COMMUNISM)...
.
.HEY ROB! Will you SHUT UP already? I can't watch TV while you are continually yacking at me!
. 
.
CLICK!
.
Sorry, I got a bit sidetracked by the real opium of the masses for a minute there. Now let's get back to the big picture, shall we?
.
.
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
.CLICK!
.
Sorry, I got a bit sidetracked by the real opium of the masses for a minute there. Now let's get back to the big picture, shall we?
.
."We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
.
"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep." -- Mikhail Gorbachev
"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep." -- Mikhail Gorbachev
.
Now, where was I?
.
Oh yes. The goal of Marxism is to have Marxist ideologies engulf the people of the world, and then when you have them "suspended" in absolute equality, you use Socialism, a known economic failure, to collapse the State.
.
Currently, human society is/was structured like this:
.
Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World
.
The ultimate longterm goal of Marxism is to create a human society that looks like this:
.
Individual --> World
.
The only thing left, aside from the individual, will be a select group of elites at the top who will govern every aspect of the individual's lives across the entire globe. This is Utopia, and mankind will be walking upon it in Communist bliss.
.
Now, the elites at the top need to set up shop somewhere, so perhaps they might pick a fancy shmancy building like this one, from which to decide how the insignificant peons of the world should live:
.
.Hey, I'm just saying... it would be a good place, wouldn't it?
.
Remember now, the failure of Marxism was not the collapse of the Soviet Union - that was a success!
.
"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." -- - Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
.
The failure was that Marxism failed to spread across the whole world like a wildfire during/after the First World War, as Marx had predicted it would. This is why brilliant Marxist theorists such Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs set about to tackle the problem of what caused the Marxist malfunction which resulted in only 1/3 of the world taking up the Marxist cause. While Marx had stopped at saying the destruction of economics/Capitalism would cause Marxism to engulf the world, Gramsci and Lukacs theorized that certain other factors, which Karl Marx had failed to identify, had stopped Marxism cold.
.
The following factors were present throughout Western Culture and needed to be destroyed for Marxism to succeed in engulfing the world, so said Gramsci and Lukacs, and later the Frankfurt School: Christianity, Capitalism, Authority, the Family, Patriarchy, Hierarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual Restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity, Ethnocentrism, Convention and Conservatism.
.
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." -- Josef Stalin
.
Now, if we could just assume that Rob Fedders, in his infinite wisdom, is correct when he says that Feminism is Communism.
Now, if we could just assume that Rob Fedders, in his infinite wisdom, is correct when he says that Feminism is Communism.
.
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." -- - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
.
"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." -- - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
.
By such an assumption, it would also be safe to say that "feminism" is nothing more than a false front for a subversive Marxist movement. (***Note to Harpies: I am not saying that women should not have rights, but rather that the evils of Marxism has hidden behind "women's rights" to push through a master plan intent on collapsing our great civilization, all under the rubric of "equality." Sigh, keep reading.)
.
So, if this is true, then does it not make sense for "modern day" feminists to say that they also stand for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Trans-sexual rights as well as stating that they fight racism? They are also determined to end "white privilege."
.
This sounds like a divergence from "women's equality," which in the sense of that aspect it certainly is, but note that they still have their eye on the ultimate goal: Globalization/Communism.
.
Feminism was never about "women's rights," it was always about Communism, and it still is. Just like, despite what Lenin told the people, the Russian Revolution was not about freeing the people from Tsarist Tyranny.
.
"Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligentsia." -- V. I. Lenin, "Robert Conquest," The Harvest of Sorrow, (London: Arrow Books, 1988), p.234
.
The reason for Gay rights support is obvious, I believe. Gay rights is being used to further undermine the family by Critical Theory - to further divide it, and then redefine the smaller "divisions" until there is nothing left of the family which makes any sense whatsoever.
.
Lol! Feminism has pretty much run its path of destruction through the family. It is hard for me to imagine what else feminism could possibly do to destroy the family anymore than it already has. There are few loose ends to tie up, like getting things like State Run Daycare pushed through to ensure that women are no longer given the option of being a Stay At Home Mom. Off to be a slave in the fields with you, peon-ette! But for the most part, feminism has succeeded in mortally wounding the family.
.
So, the next thing to do is to undermine what is left of the family by completely redefining what ever little bits and pieces of it are left. (Read my piece, "What is Marxism and How Does It Work? http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-marxism-and-how-does-it-work.html )
.
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
.
."[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
.
"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of the family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30
.
(Also, read my piece, "A New Kind of Bigotry," here: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )
.
And for the ultimate in supreme irony. I predict that when the family is completely demolished, the powers that be will use "Useful Idiots" from the "Men's Movement" to completely slam the door shut and take full totalitarian control of the family by granting those men who are clamoring for Male DV Shelters/Laws & "Equitable" Divorce & Custody Laws what they are asking for. I predict that some unwitting baby-boomer with a Ph D in something will be allowed to make headway with the MRM, position himself as a "leader," and will bring a "male styled feminism" into society. And that will be it! There will be full government control of every aspect of people's close relationships & family. Remember, the trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that both sides find themselves running to the government to get their piece. This is the "Totalitarian Trap."
.
It should be noted that with the Totalitarian Trap, the eternal drive to "equalize" is met by first pushing down one side, and then pushing down the other side until they are "equal." Equality is never reached by restoring rights. It is achieved by removing rights. Always.
.
The best thing that women could do to preserve their "rights," is to fully abandon feminist lies and throw their full weight at demolishing the Marxist creep. Because women are next on the Marxist destruction list. But this would require allying themselves with those icky men that they've been gleefully bashing for the past 4 decades. (Let's see if you've got the "right stuff," ladies.)
.
Ahem...
.
And now onto Racism & Ethnic Diversity.
.
Now, you're going to say, "Rob, surely you're not a racist white supremacist."
.
No, I am not. I couldn't give a tinker's damn about people's skin color.
.
What I do give a damn about is multi-culturalism.
.
.Multi-culturalism is another thing that is "designed" to create conflict. It is a natural agent provacateur. And once the "conflict" begins, the government gets to rush in and "solve" the problem... with... guess what... here it comes... MORE LAWS!
.
And yet, somehow, we get Politically Corrected sunshine blown up our wazoos telling us that there is "strength in diversity." What a supreme load of bullshit! And it all evades criticism by hiding behind people's natural fears of being called a racist. Much like how people are mentally censored from speaking out against feminism by brownshirts screeching at disenters that they are misogynists.
.
There is no strength in cultural diversity! Open up any history textbook and look for the causes of World War One... which one jumps out at you? Could it be the one that details "Unrest in the Balkans?"
.
.Yes, ask the people from the former Yugoslavia how great Cultural Diversity is.
.
.Or ask the people in the Middle East.
.
..Or tell me what the Paris Riots were about? Oh yes, the Paris Riots were about the strength of cultural diversity.
..Why don't other countries around the world seek this strength? Why is it only predominently Caucasian Western World Nations that need to "seek" this strength? Why not the Japanese? Why not African countries? Why aren't they offering incentives for people from all over the world to move to their countries and encourage them to maintain a completely separate sub-culture contrary to the majority of the nation's population?
.
Because it's utter nonsense, that's why. It plays on the subtly propagandized message that tells white people to feel guilty for being white. Shame on you, bow down and repent of your White Privilege. Lol! Why don't they tell the Japanese to repent from their Japanese Privilege?
.
Multi-culturalism causes conflict. This is not news, it's been know to cause conflict for centuries. But Marxism needs conflict to work.
.
If you have a look throughout the history of the West, you will notice a distinct shift that occured a few decades ago... it occured around the same time as the rise of Second Wave Feminism... when all of those people, what are they called again? The bloomers... the late bloomers... the cry-baby generation... damn, it's on the tip of my tongue. It'll come to me. Anyway, I remember that they were all severely smacked up the side of their intellect by heavy Marxist indoctrination through the Peace Movement and previous Frankfurt School Marxist thinkers like Herbert Marcuse... all aided by a good spattering of illicit drugs..
Out of this age, it seems that the drift from the "melting pot" to the "cultural mosaic" began to occur.
.
If we have a bit of a closer look, what were some of the "pillars" which the Cultural Marxists declared needed to be destroyed, amongst others?
.
Patriotism, Nationalism and Ethnocentrism.
.
When my family immigrated to Canada after the Second World War, they spoke no English and were from a different culture. But they assimilated themselves into being Canadians very quickly! For me, a second generation Canadian, that is exactly what I am: CANADIAN! And damn freakin' proud of it! I am a foreigner to my parents' native country. I have no desire to be anything but Canadian, except perhaps a Western Canadian if Ottawa continues be a bunch of asshats. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/solution-to-save-western-civilization.html
.
.This is how most immigrants who came to the "New World" were encouraged to behave, up until the last few decades. And we built one helluva powerhouse of a civilization out of nothing here in North America by doing it this way, didn't we? Now that is some culture we should not be ashamed of at all. Brave pioneers, seeking adventure, carving their own futures. Why are we propagandized to believe we have a trash culture in North America? We have a very brave and honourable culture! It was also strong enough to "naturally" resist the Marxist wildfire after WWI.
.
All throughout North American history there has been a direct effort to accept immigrants mainly from Europe, because even if the language is different, there are still many similarities like the same basic religion, the same geographic origination (European), etc. etc. This was done on purpose, not out of white supremacy, but out of the desire to take in immigrants who will easily assimilate to the Canadian Culture (or its copycat little brother, the 11th province, American Culture. Heh, heh.)
.
But over the past few decades, there has been a distinct shift in Canadian immigration policy, specifically since Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a Marxist admirer, took over Canada and slammed it full of Socialism, a known economic failure. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/pierre-elliot-trudeau-cultural-marxist.html.
Keep in mind that Trudeau spent the late 40's studying MARXISM!
.
.
"Trudeau was interested in Marxist ideas in the late 1940s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, he was a supporter of the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party — which became the New Democratic Party. During the 1950s, he was blacklisted by the US and prevented from entering the country because of a visit to a conference in Moscow... ...and because he subscribed to a number of leftist publications..."
.
And what did Trudeau the Traitor do as soon as he began to rise to power?
.
"He [Trudeau] introduced legislation permitting therapeutic abortions, legalizing adult consensual homosexual acts, allowing the dissemination of birth-control materials and contraceptive information, and authorizing judicial divorce based on a range of fault and no-fault grounds." (The Globe and Mail: Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1919-2000, by Lorraine Weinrib, Oct 2000)
.
.
Trudeau did all things Marxist, it appears. The Status of Women Canada was created by this Traitor. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created by this Traitor, which got rid of the old documents which already guaranteed us the same freedoms - except the new Charter was carefully worded by Trudeau to allow for Hegelian-Marxist Dialectical Arguments - which allows minority groups to over-rule the will of the majority by technically manipulating the document itself. All things Marxist!
.
And what else did this Traitor bring to us? Why, he introduced multi-culturalism to Canada.
.
"The government will support and encourage the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitatity to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expressions and values with other Canadians and so contribute to a richer life for us all.'' -- Pierre Elliot Trudeau
.
What a complete load of horseshit! At the time when Trudeau took office, Canada was one of the most prosperous and powerful nations on earth!
.
We were doing pretty good with the "melting pot." The melting pot was our "structure and vitality."
.
Why abandon it and replace it with the "cultural mosaic?"
.
Patriotism, Nationalism, Ethnocentrism. Pillars of Western Civilization which Cultural Marxists had identified as needing to be destroyed.
.
After 30 years of the Cultural Mosaic, the word "Canadian" has very little more meaning than a typical gerund. French-Canadian, Italian-Canadian, Indo-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, First Nations, Lebanese-Canadian... All specifically encouraged to maintain a sub-culture which is contradictory to what was the Canadian Culture, effectively destroying any uniqueness we used to have.
.
Will the Canadian-Canadians please stand up to be counted? (Hey, why am I the only one standing up?)
.
Multi-culturalism has given Canada a globalized identity! Whatever uniqueness we once had, that which bound us together as a people, has been replaced with nothingness and everything at the same time.
.
And notice, as a country, we now prefer to hinder those from Western Europe, who are highly educated and skilled, from immigrating to our country while at the same time we are willing to allow thousands upon thousands of immigrants from nations where people are not highly educated or skilled - from the Third World. People who are as radically different from us in their culture as possible!
.
This is goes along nicely with the Marxist Utopia Masterplan, which is to equalize everone and everything and then collapse all of society's superstructures:
.
Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World
.
Individual --> World
.
For Marxism to work, the poorer Third World Nations must also be equalized with the richer Western Nations. (This is what is so scary about the UN's relentless drive to create world taxes - with the stated goal of using the money from the richer countries to equalize the wealth to the Third World. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm And remember, people - the power to tax is the power to govern - and we don't vote for these guys!)
.
In the perfect Marxist world, the West would be made to be poorer, and would be filled up with dirt cheap labour from the Third World.
.
Now, dear reader, I can tell I am boring you... and you are saying, "OK, Rob. But what does all this have to do with feminism?"
.
Well, I'm about to tell you, grasshopper.
.
We have a Demographic Trap looming up in the future that will force Globalization (Communism) upon us.
.
. I hope you are all beginning to see that this is all one big perpetual motion machine that keeps chugging along down the road to Globalization/Communism - and a worse future for all of us.
.
Thanks to Feminism, the nuclear family has been mortally wounded. Since the advent of Second Wave Feminism a few decades ago, our birthrates have plummeted from 3.9 per couple to 1.5 per couple. And it is not getting better, it is getting worse!
.
..
"Two-thirds of Canada's rapid population increase over the past five years came from immigration — a force that in coming decades will account for almost all of the country's growth..."
.
.
From the same article: With births slowing, Canada is reaching a unique situation, said Laurent Martel, a Statistics Canada analyst. "We're heading towards a point where immigration will be the only source of growth in Canada," he said."
.
Again from the same article: The country's shift toward immigration as the only source of growth is still a couple of decades away. That point will not be reached until after 2030, when the peak of the baby boomers born in the 1950s and early 1960s reach the end of their lives.
.
"You're going to see an increase in the number of deaths in Canada, and the number of deaths will exceed the number of births — so natural increase will become negative," said Martel. "The only factor of growth will then be immigration."
.
At the same time, let's consider what else has been happening - here in Canada it was a direct result of Trudeau the Treacherous Traitor:
.
.
In 1968, when Trudeau went from rich, socialist professor to prime minister, Canada's national debt was a modest $11.3 billion; the federal deficit was zero. When Trudeau left office in 1984, the debt had mushroomed to $128 billion; the deficit to $25 billion annually.
.
When Trudeau entered office, Ottawa spent 30% of Canada's total economic output (the same as the U.S.). When he left, government spending had skyrocketed to almost 53%. With half of Canadians working directly or indirectly for Ottawa, the nation became infected with state-sponsored laziness.
.
* After Trudeau retired, his unstoppable socialist juggernaut picked up speed. Canada's federal debt - the amount Ottawa borrowed in the past that remains unpaid - has skyrocketed to $576 billion, or $54,000 per taxpayer.
.
A third of your federal taxes go to paying interest on this debt - just like on a credit card with an unpaid balance. In 1999 alone, Canadians paid $41.5 billion on debt interest, four times what Ottawa spent on defence.
A third of your federal taxes go to paying interest on this debt - just like on a credit card with an unpaid balance. In 1999 alone, Canadians paid $41.5 billion on debt interest, four times what Ottawa spent on defence.
.
Add $2.3 trillion of unfunded pension liabilities, and the figure rises to a staggering $244,000 owed per taxpayer. Canada's "just and compassionate" society is built on a mountain of debt, passed on to future generations.
Add $2.3 trillion of unfunded pension liabilities, and the figure rises to a staggering $244,000 owed per taxpayer. Canada's "just and compassionate" society is built on a mountain of debt, passed on to future generations.
.
* In 1970, Canada had one of the lowest debts - and lowest tax rates - among industrial nations. Today, Canada ranks as one of three leading debtor nations, along with socialist-run Belgium and Italy. While Ottawa's annual deficit was ended by imposing crushing taxes, the monster debt hangover remains... ...At Ottawa's puny repayment rate, it will take Canada 288 more years [to pay off the debt].
* In 1970, Canada had one of the lowest debts - and lowest tax rates - among industrial nations. Today, Canada ranks as one of three leading debtor nations, along with socialist-run Belgium and Italy. While Ottawa's annual deficit was ended by imposing crushing taxes, the monster debt hangover remains... ...At Ottawa's puny repayment rate, it will take Canada 288 more years [to pay off the debt].
.
THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRAP!!! (and these financial figures are old - from Oct 2000)
.
Do you see the machine?
.
Do you see the trap?
.
Whether there are 30 million Canadians or 15 million Canadians, the debt figure does not change!
.
But I guarantee you this: It will be far more difficult for 15 million Canadians to struggle with servicing the debt than it will be for 30 million Canadians to do so.
But I guarantee you this: It will be far more difficult for 15 million Canadians to struggle with servicing the debt than it will be for 30 million Canadians to do so.
.
We do not reproduce nearly enough to be able grow our population on our own. Therefore, if we take in zero immigrants we would soon go flat broke as this ridiculous debt would crush us with a smaller population and destroy Capitalism!
.
The solution, of course, is to keep on taking in more immigrants to maintain a population that can cope with this debt - of course they will continually be encouraged to maintain their multi-national identities under Canada's policy of the "Cultural Mosaic," forcing Canadian Identity to become even more obscure than it already is. (Anyone... Anyone... further destruction of Patriotism, Nationalism and Ethnocentrism... pillars of Western Civilization which Cultural Marxists declared must be destroyed for Marxism to win.)
.
Now, please also note, these immigrants only slow down the destruction of Capitalism. They will not solve the problem at all. We will not be taking in immigrants from other Western Nations, remember. We will be taking in immigrants from Third World Nations who are uneducated and unskilled compared to us. Therefore, they will not come as high-earning, high tax paying workers. They will come as very low paid workers. But a low paid individual earning $20,000/yr still uses as much of our inefficient yet extravagent Socialist Welfare Services, such as our Healthcare, as a skilled worker earning $60,000/yr. In fact, in order to maintain our GDP, we would have to take in 3 unskilled immigrants to equal the output of 1 skilled labourer... and we would be taxing our entirely useless Socialist Service system at three times the rate! This means higher taxes for EVERYONE. The higher the taxes, the less efficient is the Capitalist system.
.
Eventually, we will no longer be able to sustain ourselves, and Capitalism will collapse.
.
"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." -- V.I. Lenin
.
Western Civilization Pillars identified for destruction by Marxists: Christianity, Capitalism, the Family, Authority, Patriarchy, Hierarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual Restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity, Ethnocentrism, Convention and Conservatism.
.
The Marxist goal is to change us from this:
.
Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World
.
...into this:
.
Individual --> World
.
"We shall destroy you from within." -- Nikita Krushchev, during the Kitchen Debate, 1959
.
Cultural Marxism is a SOCIAL NUCLEAR BOMB! -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2007
.
.Now, dear reader. I can see that you are eagerly awaiting to see what solutions I propose. Yes, I can tell from the drool that has escaped the side of your mouth and now glistens as a droplet on the edge of your chin..
.Alas, I do not have all the answers because I have not yet reached the end of the internet, which is where I assume the answer sheet will be located.
.
I do have some ideas, however. I mean, how could I be contemplating running for Leader of the Universe if I did not have some ideas?
.
But first, let me ask you a question.
.
.Was there a television set playing in the background while you read this?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Theodore Roosevelt on Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” -- Theodore Roosevelt 1917
.
************************************************************************
.
Read Dworkin's idea of Utopia:
.
"...[W]omen and men are distinct species or races ... men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself... in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to 'encourage' women to 'collaborate' with men--no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her 'energy' which must not be dissipated keeping 'weaker' women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears." -- from a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that met in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977; Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, - Take Back The Day - Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea (1977), (Dutton Publishing, 1989) p.146.
*******************************************************************
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
