QUOTE: “Feminism is a problem with a built-in cure: it kills itself.”
This is true. And perhaps the Amanda-Marcotte-feminists of the world
are just Useful Idiots… but Hillary Clinton sure isn’t as dumb as
Amanda Marcotte. Hillary Clinton exported feminism globally when she was First Lady, and now she’s back in the halls of power, promoting it globally again.
Marxists understand the inherent problem with their socialist ideologies. They know socialism weakens the state until it either gets conquered or gets absorbed by a superior competing system.
So, the only way to stop being overtaken by such societies, is to have only one
society – so there is no competition. This way, they can run their
global state at 50% capacity, or 30% capacity, or whatever, because it
simply won’t matter. Who are we gonna compete with? The Martians? Once
this is in place, the real social engineering can begin. Both Marxists and Feminists want to create a Utopia by evolving people into a new form of human – and using state force to do so.
“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.” — Karl Marx
“[After Communism succeeds] …then, there will come a peace across the earth.” — Josef Stalin
This is why Marxist theory demands that once a global structure is in place above
the level of the “state,” they will use socialism to collapse all the
states around the world. (This was supposed to happen during WWI, but
didn’t, thus the creation of Cultural Marxism). Once that happens,
things will “pop up” to the next level, which will be a global
government operating as a Communist dictatorship, with no individual
states below them.
“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” — V.I. Lenin
The world once looked like this (how we identify ourselves):
Individual –> Family –> Community –> Region/State/Province –> Nation –> World
If you destroy the family, the individual will “pop up” to identifying with the community, and if you destroy the community, they will “pop up” to their region and so on.
What they are after creating is a world that looks like this:
Individual –> World Government
One of the things they have been doing is called “trans-valuation.” (I
believe the notion came from Neitzche as a way to discredit
Christianity). What trans-valuation means is taking the “bottom” value
and placing it on the top. You can see this done with homosexuality in
our society, where the values of homosexuals (who have at best, neutral
survival value to society) are placed above the values of heterosexuals
who have positive survival value.
Feminism has done this in regards to men and women. The man should lead. The man has always led. The “hierarchy” works like this:
Men –> Women –> Children
Now, also, keep in mind that just because men are the “top” in the
hierarchy, in terms of who is the most valuable humans, things work in
the opposite direction. Children are preferred over women and women are
preferred over men (we think it right for a mother to die saving a
child, but not a child dying to save a mother).
What has happened with Marxist manipulations is we now have a society in which the hierarchy looks like this:
Women –> Men –> Children
The next step in transvalueing the family is to make it look like this:
Children –> Women –> Men
And how will this come about, you ask? All you have to do is give
children more rights over their parents than their parents have over the
children. This is exactly what feminism did with men and women, and
the next step in destroying the family is putting children’s rights
first. (Ahem! Hello shared-parenting advocates!) Don’t forget, it takes
a village. Hillary Clinton’s thesis was on this very subject, where
she compared children in families suffering abuses similar to the
Indians living on the reserve. She claims that children’s rights are
ignored in favour of parental rights. She recommends that a government
bureaucracy ought to be created to ensure children’s rights separately
from their parents.
And they are doing it globally, right now, with the United
Nations’ CEDAW agreement. (Covenant to End Discrimination Against
Women). The CEDAW has within it, the declared “Rights of the Child.” In
it, you will find things like children having the “right” to choose
their own religion and having the right to all forms of
media/communication etc. etc.
The thing about these international treaties is they supercede
national constitutions. If the CEDAW disagrees with the US
Constitution, it is the CEDAW that wins. I believe there are only seven
countries left in the world who have not signed it – the USA being the
most notable hold-out, simply because Americans value their
Constitution so much – with good reason.
Canada signed it several years back, and a few years ago, a father in
Ontario got taken to court by his teenage daughter, funded by legal
aid. The girl was using the internet in her bedroom to communicate with
her friends and sneak out of the house in the middle of the night. The
father found out and grounded her from the computer, taking it
completely out of her room. Well, legal aid took the guy to court to
show he had violated “The Rights of the Child” under the CEDAW Canada
had signed, because by removing access to the computer, he had violated
her right to freely use all forms of communication etc.
How can you run a family in such a way?
You can’t.
What are you going to do when you are a devout Catholic, but your 8
year old child comes home from a screwed-up school system that
brainwashed him into becoming a Muslim or a Wiccan? Are you gonna drop
him off at the church of Satan on your way to Mass? The CEDAW says you
must.
Many shared-parenting advocates as well are talking about “the rights
of the child.” It should make everyone stand up and take notice. What
kind of rights are we talking about here?
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Evolving Humankind with Social Brainwashing
“I agree with 98% of what you stated… However I believe you are
mistaken as to how the Marxists want to force people to evolve to bring
about a utopia. I believe Marxists/socialists simply identify large
segments of society, the segments they believe will stand in the way of
the revolutionary transformation of society into a perpetual
dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the central committee which of
course speaks for the proletariat) and they liquidate/massacre that
segment.
Marxists identify those who have no place in their utopia and then go about the pursuit of their utopia by murdering those who don’t belong.” — Bryan
You are correct. But they aren’t evolving individuals, rather they are evolving humankind – society as a whole.
Think about it this way. If you are removing the “undesirables” from the population, you are evolving the society, and if it is the only society that exists on earth (Marxism invented the term "global governance"), then you are altering humankind by doing so. If you don’t want people in your society to have blond hair, the simplest way is just to kill all the blond haired people. As these people are removed from the gene pool, they will also be failing to pass on their blond genes to the next generations… do this for a few generations, and how much do you think the amount of the future populations will continue to be born blond?
Further, they also believe in social “evolving.” This is precisely what we have already been dealing with today. Homosexuals, for example, have long since claimed they could “cure” society of their homophobia by having mandatory school instruction on the subject, where they claim it will be possible to rid society of homophobia in merely one generation – by brainwashing it out of the kids in the classroom.
"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be Bolshevik forever." -- V.I. Lenin
"We must declare openly what is concealed, namely, the political function of the school...It is to construct communist society." -- V.I. Lenin
This is also happening in feminism. A few years back, someone sent a me a document from my province’s teacher’s association/union, where it was seriously being promoted as part of Grade Eight Social Studies, to have all the boys write an apology to all of the girls in the class, for their historical misogyny and abuses against women. This type of social conditioning, they claimed, would remove misogyny from society in a mere generation as well.
And it's true. It does work that way.
We have been socially “brainwashed” over the past couple of generations to have a new view of marriage and family as well. Everyone now comes from a divorced family, or has been divorced, or at least has a sibling or some other relative who is divorced. It is now something like 50% of children live in homes without a biological father present. It is normal now.
And the only people who really know what a society was like when marriage was still a semi-viable institution, are the Baby-Boomers and a few spatterings of the elderly who are older than them. Once the Baby Boomer generation dies off, will there be anyone left who remembers what such a society was like? There is still some talk today that No-Fault-Divorce was a really bad idea, comparing it to the time before it came in. But once those people are gone, who is gonna talk? Does anyone really talk about presumed-father-custody being undermined by the suffragettes anymore? 99.9% of people probably don’t even realize that for thousands of years, the bedrock of society was based on marriage involving presumed father custody rather than mother custody – nor that the divorce epidemic began with this change, and not with no-fault divorce. (The divorce rate rose from less than 2% before the 1870′s – which had held constant for thousands of years – to around one in seven by the 1920′s. That is about a 700% increase in divorce. Since then, divorce has risen only a modest 300% or so).
So, yes, Marxists often just simply killed those they didn’t like, but just because some of the Marxist states used such brutal tactics, does not necessarily mean it is an “ironclad” Marxist technique to use murder. It is more about the belief that it is possible for man to become god himself, and remake the world into heaven on earth.
By the way, an interesting side note about evolution. When Darwin came out with his thesis, Marx and Engels were extremely excited. Remember that Marx based his ideology on Hegel’s notion of “The Truth is Relative.” (There is no Absolute Truth). When Darwin came out with his book, they regarded it as the science that “proved” they were right. What evolution means in regard to “The Truth” is that because the world is always changing, what was true yesterday is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today is not necessarily the truth tomorrow.
At any rate, Marx and Engels wrote a letter to Darwin and asked him to affiliate his science with their political ideology.
Darwin declined the honour.
Marxists identify those who have no place in their utopia and then go about the pursuit of their utopia by murdering those who don’t belong.” — Bryan
You are correct. But they aren’t evolving individuals, rather they are evolving humankind – society as a whole.
Think about it this way. If you are removing the “undesirables” from the population, you are evolving the society, and if it is the only society that exists on earth (Marxism invented the term "global governance"), then you are altering humankind by doing so. If you don’t want people in your society to have blond hair, the simplest way is just to kill all the blond haired people. As these people are removed from the gene pool, they will also be failing to pass on their blond genes to the next generations… do this for a few generations, and how much do you think the amount of the future populations will continue to be born blond?
Further, they also believe in social “evolving.” This is precisely what we have already been dealing with today. Homosexuals, for example, have long since claimed they could “cure” society of their homophobia by having mandatory school instruction on the subject, where they claim it will be possible to rid society of homophobia in merely one generation – by brainwashing it out of the kids in the classroom.
"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be Bolshevik forever." -- V.I. Lenin
"We must declare openly what is concealed, namely, the political function of the school...It is to construct communist society." -- V.I. Lenin
This is also happening in feminism. A few years back, someone sent a me a document from my province’s teacher’s association/union, where it was seriously being promoted as part of Grade Eight Social Studies, to have all the boys write an apology to all of the girls in the class, for their historical misogyny and abuses against women. This type of social conditioning, they claimed, would remove misogyny from society in a mere generation as well.
And it's true. It does work that way.
We have been socially “brainwashed” over the past couple of generations to have a new view of marriage and family as well. Everyone now comes from a divorced family, or has been divorced, or at least has a sibling or some other relative who is divorced. It is now something like 50% of children live in homes without a biological father present. It is normal now.
And the only people who really know what a society was like when marriage was still a semi-viable institution, are the Baby-Boomers and a few spatterings of the elderly who are older than them. Once the Baby Boomer generation dies off, will there be anyone left who remembers what such a society was like? There is still some talk today that No-Fault-Divorce was a really bad idea, comparing it to the time before it came in. But once those people are gone, who is gonna talk? Does anyone really talk about presumed-father-custody being undermined by the suffragettes anymore? 99.9% of people probably don’t even realize that for thousands of years, the bedrock of society was based on marriage involving presumed father custody rather than mother custody – nor that the divorce epidemic began with this change, and not with no-fault divorce. (The divorce rate rose from less than 2% before the 1870′s – which had held constant for thousands of years – to around one in seven by the 1920′s. That is about a 700% increase in divorce. Since then, divorce has risen only a modest 300% or so).
So, yes, Marxists often just simply killed those they didn’t like, but just because some of the Marxist states used such brutal tactics, does not necessarily mean it is an “ironclad” Marxist technique to use murder. It is more about the belief that it is possible for man to become god himself, and remake the world into heaven on earth.
By the way, an interesting side note about evolution. When Darwin came out with his thesis, Marx and Engels were extremely excited. Remember that Marx based his ideology on Hegel’s notion of “The Truth is Relative.” (There is no Absolute Truth). When Darwin came out with his book, they regarded it as the science that “proved” they were right. What evolution means in regard to “The Truth” is that because the world is always changing, what was true yesterday is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today is not necessarily the truth tomorrow.
At any rate, Marx and Engels wrote a letter to Darwin and asked him to affiliate his science with their political ideology.
Darwin declined the honour.
It's Not a Conspiracy Theory. It's Happening Right On the Tell-a-vision
For everyone who thinks that feminism will just die out and fade away,
it may be so, but the structure they have built will stay long after
they are gone.
Has no-one put two and two together yet what the implications of the ongoing global economic crisis might be?
For example. Back in 2008 & 2009, at the height of the disaster, all of the world leaders almost immediately started chirping about the need to create an international organization to make sure the global economy still functions. Hell, our ex-Prime Minister, the Right Dishonourable Paul Martin (who is hailed as an economic genius from his time as Finance Minister) went on a bloody tour across Canada trying to convince us that we had to give up some of our Canadian sovereignty in order to "make the world work!" I mean, my God! Is that not the definition of treason? All the world leaders were saying this.
It was complete bullshit. In fact, the reason why the world didn’t completely implode was because there was little affiliation from one nation to the next. Americans, for example, have seen their dollar’s purchasing power decline rapidly, whereas Canada & Australia’s dollar (while still declining) has held value far better. Therefore, should the United States really go belly up, git your money out of US dollars and into Canadian dollars pronto, so you still have some wealth left. This is what the Germans did when they experienced hyper-inflation. The smart ones simply dumped their marks and bought the British pound, thereby preserving their wealth.
It has only been since the most recent Euro-crisis that the world’s leaders have somewhat shut-up about this treasonous notion of handing over national monetary sovereignty to a newly created global organization. I mean, it’s kinda hard to make the case for such a thing while “Global Government-Lite” (The EU) is crashing and burning into the ground precisely because they are bound by the European monetary system. If the EU did not exist, only Greece and the other PIIGS would be screwed. But now, they all are. So, ask yourself, why do all the world leaders keep promoting the idea of creating a global currency, or at least, a global organization to handle the world’s monetary supply? It is suicide!
However, notice what else has happened in Europe. It all started with being an “economic union.” That is where it started. But in order to make the economic union work, things had to be standardized, and so in came the legislation to do so, like trying to force the Brits to accept the metric system… and then further legislation to make labour mobile, so that Suzie's Hairdressing School in Paris also meets the qualifications for working in Berlin… and then laws and bureaucracies ensuring standards of "equality of opportunity" and so on and so on. Once the basic frame-work was in place, they easily passed all kinds of laws and created all sorts of organizations to enforce them – well outside of economic policy and into social policy – and all of the Europeans suddenly discovered the EU was more important and powerful than their own governments.
So, as we watch the USA run up debt to levels that are simply unsustainable anywhere in the world except in Disneyland, we are also watching the EU do the same, and in order to keep propping up these, even countries like Canada and Australia are funnelling in billions of dollars of aid to keep the ponzi scheme going, deflating our own dollar’s purchasing power at the same time. At some point in the near future, this whole puppy is gonna explode. And there will be lots of demand for a new form of government to be created to “deal with it.” Of course, it is always global. And of course, it will only deal with money, not social policy… for now. (It just never works that way over time).
Once they have a structure in place that all are bound to, rather than volunteer to, they will simply start dialectically manipulating the global state from economic policy into social policy, the same way they did in the EU.
Like I said elsewhere about the CEDAW, much of the framework is already in place.
All they really need is a global structure everyone is bound to, and they will get their global government. They tried desperately to convince nations to give up some of their sovereignty to a global structure when the Global Warming Hoax came out, and when the shit hits the fan in our economies, they will try to do it again.
And once it’s done, it’s done. See Greece. They haven’t even got the option to leave the EU. There is no constitutional provision to leave the EU, and the only way they can create one, apparently, is to re-open the constitution and then 100% unanimously vote it in. Except, since Greece is still in the EU, they too have a vote, and why the hell would they vote for their own financial destruction? Lol! They are FUBAR in Europe, and the USA is in even worse shape than them.
The drumbeats for large global government gets louder and louder with each passing year. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s happening every day, right on the tell-a-vision.
Has no-one put two and two together yet what the implications of the ongoing global economic crisis might be?
For example. Back in 2008 & 2009, at the height of the disaster, all of the world leaders almost immediately started chirping about the need to create an international organization to make sure the global economy still functions. Hell, our ex-Prime Minister, the Right Dishonourable Paul Martin (who is hailed as an economic genius from his time as Finance Minister) went on a bloody tour across Canada trying to convince us that we had to give up some of our Canadian sovereignty in order to "make the world work!" I mean, my God! Is that not the definition of treason? All the world leaders were saying this.
It was complete bullshit. In fact, the reason why the world didn’t completely implode was because there was little affiliation from one nation to the next. Americans, for example, have seen their dollar’s purchasing power decline rapidly, whereas Canada & Australia’s dollar (while still declining) has held value far better. Therefore, should the United States really go belly up, git your money out of US dollars and into Canadian dollars pronto, so you still have some wealth left. This is what the Germans did when they experienced hyper-inflation. The smart ones simply dumped their marks and bought the British pound, thereby preserving their wealth.
It has only been since the most recent Euro-crisis that the world’s leaders have somewhat shut-up about this treasonous notion of handing over national monetary sovereignty to a newly created global organization. I mean, it’s kinda hard to make the case for such a thing while “Global Government-Lite” (The EU) is crashing and burning into the ground precisely because they are bound by the European monetary system. If the EU did not exist, only Greece and the other PIIGS would be screwed. But now, they all are. So, ask yourself, why do all the world leaders keep promoting the idea of creating a global currency, or at least, a global organization to handle the world’s monetary supply? It is suicide!
However, notice what else has happened in Europe. It all started with being an “economic union.” That is where it started. But in order to make the economic union work, things had to be standardized, and so in came the legislation to do so, like trying to force the Brits to accept the metric system… and then further legislation to make labour mobile, so that Suzie's Hairdressing School in Paris also meets the qualifications for working in Berlin… and then laws and bureaucracies ensuring standards of "equality of opportunity" and so on and so on. Once the basic frame-work was in place, they easily passed all kinds of laws and created all sorts of organizations to enforce them – well outside of economic policy and into social policy – and all of the Europeans suddenly discovered the EU was more important and powerful than their own governments.
So, as we watch the USA run up debt to levels that are simply unsustainable anywhere in the world except in Disneyland, we are also watching the EU do the same, and in order to keep propping up these, even countries like Canada and Australia are funnelling in billions of dollars of aid to keep the ponzi scheme going, deflating our own dollar’s purchasing power at the same time. At some point in the near future, this whole puppy is gonna explode. And there will be lots of demand for a new form of government to be created to “deal with it.” Of course, it is always global. And of course, it will only deal with money, not social policy… for now. (It just never works that way over time).
Once they have a structure in place that all are bound to, rather than volunteer to, they will simply start dialectically manipulating the global state from economic policy into social policy, the same way they did in the EU.
Like I said elsewhere about the CEDAW, much of the framework is already in place.
All they really need is a global structure everyone is bound to, and they will get their global government. They tried desperately to convince nations to give up some of their sovereignty to a global structure when the Global Warming Hoax came out, and when the shit hits the fan in our economies, they will try to do it again.
And once it’s done, it’s done. See Greece. They haven’t even got the option to leave the EU. There is no constitutional provision to leave the EU, and the only way they can create one, apparently, is to re-open the constitution and then 100% unanimously vote it in. Except, since Greece is still in the EU, they too have a vote, and why the hell would they vote for their own financial destruction? Lol! They are FUBAR in Europe, and the USA is in even worse shape than them.
The drumbeats for large global government gets louder and louder with each passing year. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s happening every day, right on the tell-a-vision.
The Ill-Ooh-Meh-Naughty, Mae's Sons, Zyanism, The Juice, The Rock Fellas and Roth's Child's Pet Lizard
What I always find so irritating about the Marxist debate is when
someone, again, shows up talking about the Illuminati, or the
Rockefellers, or thinks that showing the links between the Rockefellers
& the Rothschilds somehow “proves” what’s going on.
“What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” – Anatoliy Golitsyn, KGB Defector to the USA
The fact is, it really doesn’t matter a whit if you can prove Karl Marx was related to the Rothschilds through one of their step-daughters marrying his great-great grandpa on his mother's side through adoption. If you can’t understand what Marx was trying do then what’s the point of connecting him to others to show who is bankrolling him? (And Gesh! Why go way out on a limb linking in obscure billionaire’s from the past? Hillary Clinton is standing right in front of everyone’s face).
Quite simply, it just doesn’t matter if it is a “conspiracy” or not. If you were standing in the Twin Towers on the morning of 9/11, would you really give a rat’s ass about “who” is behind it, or if the building is going to collapse by naturally occurring physics or via controlled demolition? I wouldn’t give a crap! I would want to get OUT either way!
“Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the “essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism.”
So, whether it is a “conspiracy theory” or not, look at it this way. Each of those “pillars” listed above has been undermined over the past decades.
Every.
Single.
One.
The whole point of the Frankfurt School identifying these cultural pillars, was to say that if these pillars were destroyed, the chaos that would ensue would collapse those cultures.
So, does it matter if it is a conspiracy or a “coincidence?”
Alright. I’ll agree with you. It’s just a coincidence, so there’s no need to be worried about the consequences of it. Just like, if you determined in your mind on the morning of 9/11, it wasn’t a conspiracy, so there’s nothing to worry about here! Back to your cubicle.
The coincidence theorists haven't really thought all of this through very well, I think.
“What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” – Anatoliy Golitsyn, KGB Defector to the USA
The fact is, it really doesn’t matter a whit if you can prove Karl Marx was related to the Rothschilds through one of their step-daughters marrying his great-great grandpa on his mother's side through adoption. If you can’t understand what Marx was trying do then what’s the point of connecting him to others to show who is bankrolling him? (And Gesh! Why go way out on a limb linking in obscure billionaire’s from the past? Hillary Clinton is standing right in front of everyone’s face).
Quite simply, it just doesn’t matter if it is a “conspiracy” or not. If you were standing in the Twin Towers on the morning of 9/11, would you really give a rat’s ass about “who” is behind it, or if the building is going to collapse by naturally occurring physics or via controlled demolition? I wouldn’t give a crap! I would want to get OUT either way!
“Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the “essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism.”
So, whether it is a “conspiracy theory” or not, look at it this way. Each of those “pillars” listed above has been undermined over the past decades.
Every.
Single.
One.
The whole point of the Frankfurt School identifying these cultural pillars, was to say that if these pillars were destroyed, the chaos that would ensue would collapse those cultures.
So, does it matter if it is a conspiracy or a “coincidence?”
Alright. I’ll agree with you. It’s just a coincidence, so there’s no need to be worried about the consequences of it. Just like, if you determined in your mind on the morning of 9/11, it wasn’t a conspiracy, so there’s nothing to worry about here! Back to your cubicle.
The coincidence theorists haven't really thought all of this through very well, I think.
Friday, March 30, 2012
It's Not Marxism Because...
One of the most common arguments I see made against the notion that feminism and Marxism are one in the same goes something like this:
"Feminism and Marxism aren't related because Stalin's policy of xyz was certainly not feminist!" (or Mao's, or Pol Pot's or Gorbachev - take your pick).
Another common argument goes like this:
"Russian women aren't raving feminists like American women, therefore, Marxism and feminism aren't related."
Well, all these things may be true, but, one must also realize that Marxism is kinda like Christianity in that while it has a large over-riding ideology, there are many different denominations with varying beliefs. Marxism as well has many different types. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism was one such type, called Leninism, and when Stalin took over he interpreted Marxism in a different way - over-riding some of Lenin's beliefs - and thus becoming "Stalinism." Mao as well interpreted Marxism differently from Stalin, and this became known as "Maoism." So, just as it is false to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they don't have a Pope and never go to confession, so is it false to say that Marxism and feminism are unrelated because of reason XYZ during Boris Yeltsin' s vodka soaked tenure at the helm.
Mostly when people such as myself assert that Marxism and feminism are one in the same, it has a lot to do with the philosophies behind Marxism, such as the oppressor vs. victim class, the use of the Marxist dialectic to manipulate the population, the "end-goal" of Marxism & feminism being remarkably similar, and most of all it comes from Engels' own words (Marx made a few references to liberating women, but Engels really got into it).
Furthermore, after the Russian Revolution, Lenin (not Stalin or Kruschev) erected a near perfect feminist Utopia. (Stalin, in fact, removed many of Lenin's feminist policies because it was obvious how much it was harming the people and thus, the state).
"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
A few years back, Carey Roberts wrote several articles on this very subject, and I would like to quote a few of them to illustrate why the Soviet Union under Lenin is often referred to as a feminist Utopia.
From The Marxist Prescription for Women's Liberation:
"In the 1840's, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.
This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: "What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production."
In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression: "The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.""
(Here are a few more quotes that follow with this Marxist-feminist theme)
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (New York, International Publishers, 1942), p.58
"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]
"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx (Daughter of Karl), The Woman Question
From When Family Dissolution Becomes the Law of the Land:
"So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.
In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law."
But Lenin's dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.
First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties.
Not suprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history.
But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common theives or prostitutes.
In his recent book, "Perestroika," Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: "We have discovered that many of our problems -- in children's and young people's behaviour, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties.""
Here is a little more Marxist-feminism, from Lenin's March 8th, 1921 speech on International Working Women's Day:
"But you cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed. The working woman and the peasant woman are oppressed by capital, but over and above that, even in the most democratic of the bourgeois republics, they remain, firstly, deprived of some rights because the law does not give them equality with men; and secondly—and this is the main thing—they remain in household bondage", they continue to be “household slaves", for they are overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.
No party or revolution in the world has ever dreamed of striking so deep at the roots of the oppression and inequality of women as the Soviet, Bolshevik revolution is doing. Over here, in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law. The Soviet power has eliminated all there was of the especially disgusting, base and hypocritical inequality in the laws on marriage and the family and inequality in respect of children.
This is only the first step in the liberation of woman. But none of the bourgeois republics, including the most democratic, has dared to take oven this first step. The reason is awe of “sacrosanct private property.
The second and most important step is the abolition of the private ownership of land and the factories. This and this alone opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from “household bondage” through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialised domestic services."
It's not hard to see why the Soviet Union after the Revolution is so often referred to as a feminist paradise, eh?
So, when and why did it change?
From "Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray" -- Statement of Bill Woods to the Committee on Ways and Means:
"FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?
Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.
Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate..."
As one can plainly see from the evidence which I have put forth herein, feminism and Marxism are intricately linked. The fact that Stalin changed the Soviet Union's family policy after he took power in no way discredits that Lenin attempted to create a feminist Utopia after the Russian Revolution. He obviously based his feminist policies on Marx & Engels' ideas on the subject. Feminist goals are 100% aligned with the ideas put forth by V.I. Lenin, and thus ought to be more accurately described as Marxist-Leninist. Feminism is very much based upon Marxism.
"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
.
Further Reading:
.
.
.
.
Trans-valuation and Global Governance
.
Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives -- by Mallory Millet (Sister of famed feminist, Kate Millet)
.
.
Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives -- by Mallory Millet (Sister of famed feminist, Kate Millet)
.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
What a Great Article about Cultural Marxism!
Very well done!
Accurate and well argued.
And thank God, no talk of the flippin' "Illuminati."
“What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” - Anatoliy Golitsyn, KGB Defector to the USA
Accurate and well argued.
And thank God, no talk of the flippin' "Illuminati."
“What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” - Anatoliy Golitsyn, KGB Defector to the USA
Friday, March 23, 2012
The Dialectic, Useful Idiots and Consolodating the Gains to the Left
My last article, Marxism, Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap, argued the case that feminism and Marxism are one in the same. Or more accurately, feminism is one arm of the Cultural Marxist's war on Western Civilization's "cultural pillars." The main weapon used to fight this war is Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the "essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism."
How can mere criticism be used to collapse a culture, you ask? Well, we're not exactly talking about the kind of criticism typical of a nagging wife, but rather a purposeful and precise attack designed to alter the perceptions of "the truth." Therefore, Western Civilization could be made to sabotage itself in very destructive ways until there was such chaos that the people would willingly give up their freedoms and request a totalitarian government to stop the madness. Think of it this way; if during an actual physical war you could make all of your enemy's compasses read south when they are in reality headed east, you could create untold havoc for them without ever firing a shot.
This is the principle behind Karl Marx's statement, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." Marx wanted to create an entirely new human civilization based on his ideologies. In order for him to do that, he reasoned, the present civilization and social order must be destroyed. Since he was heavily influenced by G.F. Hegel, who philosophically came to the conclusion that "The Truth is Relative" (truth is always subject to change and never absolute), Marx was really saying, "I am going to use this concept of The Truth is Relative to destroy civilization for purposes of my own design." This is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology. It is conspiratal right down to its very core, and yet there is nothing "tin-foil-hat" about it. It's done right in the open... in fact, since it is attempting to change society's understanding of the truth, it is necessarily done in the open. What's the purpose of altering your enemy's compass if you then hide it so he can't use it?
Dialectical Arguments
To understand what Marxists are trying to do, one must first understand what Hegel did with the dialectic.The dialectic was not invented by Hegel and it is nothing new. It merely means opposing positions, or in other words, an argument. Traditional logic says that if Position A (1+1=2) is correct, then Position B (1+1=3) is incorrect. Pretty easy speazy, eh? In Hegelian terms, Position A is called the Thesis (position) and the opposing argument is called the Anti-Thesis (opposite position). Essentially what Hegel did was take the two and equalized them, claiming the truth was found in the Synthesis, which means the consensus or compromise, between the two. The Synthesis then becomes the new truth (Thesis), and the next Anti-Thesis is pitted against it creating yet another Synthesis (New Truth), and so on and so on, like a staircase.
Now, this is not an easy subject, nor is it easy to keep one's attention focused on it. But, a diagram of how it works is much easier to understand.
The staircase kind of works like precedents that are set in a court of law. A previous court case (argument) concluded in a certain way, thereby setting a precedent. That precedent is then often used in future court cases as an established truth upon which even further arguments are based. This staircase has been going on in regards to the Gender War as well, and looks something like this:
(You can substitute Affirmative Action for Man Tax, or any other host of discriminations against men based on the inequalities between the sexes generated by "The Truth is Relative.")
Now, keep in mind, that is merely what Hegel did. Marx then said to himself, "How can I use this Hegelian Dialectic thing-a-ma-jig to change the world?" What he concluded was that he ought to "stand Hegel on his head." Karl Marx starts by saying I want that Man-Tax to appear in society, now what arguments can I create which will lead to that conclusion?
In other words, once you declare that feminism IS Marxism, you are also declaring that on a philosophical level, it is indeed a top-down conspiracy. There is an intentional destination of Marxist arguments, whereas Hegel's version builds the truth "naturally" and in a more haphazard way.
You can also see the need for Marxists to think two, three, four or five steps ahead. In fact, I've read before that many Marxists who became national leaders, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc., rose to prominence in large part because of the status they generated by showing how well they could manipulate dialectical arguments. Here is what one famous Marxist had to say on the subject:
"Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion." -- Leon Trotsky
Where most people run amock is they are only thinking about one argument at a time, rather than in a series of them all linked with the intention of arriving at a pre-determined goal.
Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess
After the Russian Revolution, Lenin wrote that he would install a Marxist bureaucratic government without the support of dedicated Marxists. Only the inner elite of his circle would understand the political structure he was building, while others would be manipulated to forward his agenda by their natural vanity and ambition to gain favour so as to further their political careers. He called such people "Useful Idiots."
Furthermore, he understood that an angry pressure builds up (backlash) when manipulating mass-populations and this pressure needs a release valve. Lenin combined this knowledge within dialectical manipulation and allowed for controlled backlashes that, in fact, furthered his agenda even though it appeared to oppose his goals.
"It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin
This is kind of a difficult concept at first, because it doesn't make much sense on the surface. The shortest route between point A and point B is a straight line, and that is how most people think things work - and usually they are right, except when dealing with Marxists.
"Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forwardbackward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived" -- Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade
OK, so they go two steps forward and one step back. But what's the point of that?
Well, the point is that the backlash consolodates the gains! The general modus operandi is to push hard with radical leftism. Of course, radical leftward movements cause lots of social upheavel, such as how the radical move of No-Fault-Divorce has caused untold grief in our society for all parties involved. After time, enough people are angry and bitter about these policies which harmed them on a personal level that a backlash movement begins to develop.That backlash is then "released" to let off the steam, but the backlash is only allowed in ways that concentrate more power in the hands of the State.
These things don't happen fast, mind you, but take several years - often a generation. Lenin sped things up by using government force and direct violence, but Lenin was only one faction of Marxist theory, which is obviously called "Leninism." Another faction is called "Fabianism."
The Long March Through the Culture
Fabian Socialists adopted their name from the Roman general, Fabius, who battled and won against the infamous Hannibal with his elephants when he invaded Italy. Hannibal had a vastly superior army than Fabius but was far from his home and supplies, so Fabius organized a campaign of hit-and-run tactics against Hannibal's army. He harassed and confounded the enemy, wearing them down bit by bit over time until finally Hanibal capitulated and admitted defeat. Fabian Socialists adopted Fabius' strategy, veering away from Lenin's use of violence to speed things up. Instead, the Fabians used techniques involving time to alter perceptions of the truth.
In my last article, I wrote about how the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory utilizes brainwashing techniques to alter the population's perceptions of the truth. The basic plot is to unfreeze the subject from his current comfort level and move him to a different level, then freeze them at that next level until they have accepted their new paradigm as "normal." This technique was based on the practice of torture, but merely removed the physical parts of it while keeping the mental aspects intact. For example, prisoners of war often have described the mental aspect of weeks or months spent in isolation as more damaging to them then the actual physical tortures they endured. Alienation from the group is a very real threat to humans, as we are naturally social creatures. Political Correctness was first invented by Lenin (he called those opposing his views "Enemies of the State") and later it was used by Stalin to run his opponent Leon Trotsky out of Russia and into exile in Mexico, where he had a date with an ice-pick.
The technique of using time rather than violence is the only thing that changed with the Fabian's viewpoint on Marxism. They agreed with Lenin's goals, but only differed with him because he used violence to speed up the populace's willingness to accept his dictats.
Really, if you have a look at it all, what took Lenin four years to implement has taken the Fabians/Cultural Marxist 40 years to replicate. But the end result is pretty much consistent.
For example, a few years after the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin declared "International Women's Working Day" on March 8th, 1921. He bragged about how he had created the first system of equality and had liberated women from their chains. Lenin instituted no-fault divorce, easy abortions, state-run day-care centres, community kitchens, sewing centres, and other such things to alieviate women from their biological duties to children and family, and put them to work with the pick-axe and shovel. He claimed he had ended discrimination against women and had liberated them by doing such. It took him four years, by use of violence, to implement his policies.
In contrast, after forty years of second-wave feminism gradually eroding society, we have arrived at virtually the same place. We now have feminists screeching at the government to impose upon businesses such things as corporate run daycare centres and flex-time so that they may realize their true "equality." (Which can only be enabled by state totalitarianism). In the last few Canadian elections, state-run daycare has been a constant issue. It's only a matter of time before it becomes reality. Basically, everything which Lenin declared he had done to make women "equal" in 1921, is now being seriously debated in our own legislative assemblies in the present day, and no-one bats an eye about it.
Why is it like that? It's because of gradualism.
For example, the population was unfrozen in the 1970's when we introduced the radical concept of No-Fault-Divorce (which the population did not request). This has caused untold grief for millions of people, but after 40 years, and a generation or two of children raised in broken homes, no-one really questions the right to unilaterally force a divorce upon another party. We assume it is normal, even though it is a recent phenomenon that has only existed for around 40 years in Western Civilization's multiple-millenia existance.
What's happened is enough people in society have accepted the notion that divorce is not only normal, but it is a right. Most 40-somethings like me can only remember a distant time in their early existence when divorce wasn't the norm. A cultural paradigm has shifted, by use of gradualism and time. Now virtually everyone has 50% or more of their relationships ending in divorce, or was raised in a broken home to begin with. Divorce is so "normal" that no-one even questions its validity. The proper acceptance of new values, via brainwashing techniques, has been achieved. And now, the push is on for "shared-parenting" to alieviate the problems created by the divorce epidemic. Nobody is openly questioning if we should abolish No-Fault-Diivorce. No, not at all. All that is being said is that the system ought to be re-organized to make it more fair. Divorce is part of our culture now. The "acceptance" phase is now complete. It's time to move the family unit on to a further totalitarian idea that destroys the family, commonly known as Shared-Parenting, where the courts will decide every facet of people's children's lives, right down to the times they are allowed to see their parents. which religion they ought to subscribe to, and how far away their parents are physically allowed to live from them which removes their right to freely move about the country.
And of course, this is what Marxists and radical feminists (the same thing) have wanted all along.
"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179
"It takes a village..." -- Hillary Clinton
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar
"The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254.
"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
Wow! Those gringas really don't like marriage and children!
But it's pretty easy to see what is happening. No-one in our current society is demanding of the government to end No-Fault-Divorce and restore things sanely to the way they were before. Instead, vast lobby groups of disenfranchised fathers are merely complaining that they should have "shared-parenting." In other words, since fathers are marginalized and don't often have sole custody of their children, they would rather that neither the father or mother had custody in favour of the court keeping said custody, and then dictating baby-sitting duties between the father and mother. If there is any dispute, the government will arbitrate it. If there is anything at all which is displeasing, the courts will handle it. If the father wants to take to the child to a Catholic church, while the mother is a dedicated Wiccan, it will be the courts who will paternalistically decide what is in the best interests of the child. Has the government then not effectively taken custody of the children?
And isn't that what they wanted all along?
The backlash to the right is used to consolodate the gains to the left. It's not a backlash to the way things were before. Rather, while the backlash movement thinks they are winning, in effect they are being mere useful idiots and only furthering along the Marxist and Feminist goals of removing children from their parents and placing them into government custody. After 20 or so years of this - long enough to allow society in general to accept the new normal, an abrubt turn will occur and radical leftward movements will again appear, further removing freedom.
And the marginalized fathers of today will no longer be able to complain about their situation... after all, they won! They got their shared-parenting... and all of the totalitarianism that comes along with it.
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." -- V.I. Lenin
Previous Index Next
How can mere criticism be used to collapse a culture, you ask? Well, we're not exactly talking about the kind of criticism typical of a nagging wife, but rather a purposeful and precise attack designed to alter the perceptions of "the truth." Therefore, Western Civilization could be made to sabotage itself in very destructive ways until there was such chaos that the people would willingly give up their freedoms and request a totalitarian government to stop the madness. Think of it this way; if during an actual physical war you could make all of your enemy's compasses read south when they are in reality headed east, you could create untold havoc for them without ever firing a shot.
This is the principle behind Karl Marx's statement, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." Marx wanted to create an entirely new human civilization based on his ideologies. In order for him to do that, he reasoned, the present civilization and social order must be destroyed. Since he was heavily influenced by G.F. Hegel, who philosophically came to the conclusion that "The Truth is Relative" (truth is always subject to change and never absolute), Marx was really saying, "I am going to use this concept of The Truth is Relative to destroy civilization for purposes of my own design." This is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology. It is conspiratal right down to its very core, and yet there is nothing "tin-foil-hat" about it. It's done right in the open... in fact, since it is attempting to change society's understanding of the truth, it is necessarily done in the open. What's the purpose of altering your enemy's compass if you then hide it so he can't use it?
Dialectical Arguments
To understand what Marxists are trying to do, one must first understand what Hegel did with the dialectic.The dialectic was not invented by Hegel and it is nothing new. It merely means opposing positions, or in other words, an argument. Traditional logic says that if Position A (1+1=2) is correct, then Position B (1+1=3) is incorrect. Pretty easy speazy, eh? In Hegelian terms, Position A is called the Thesis (position) and the opposing argument is called the Anti-Thesis (opposite position). Essentially what Hegel did was take the two and equalized them, claiming the truth was found in the Synthesis, which means the consensus or compromise, between the two. The Synthesis then becomes the new truth (Thesis), and the next Anti-Thesis is pitted against it creating yet another Synthesis (New Truth), and so on and so on, like a staircase.
Now, this is not an easy subject, nor is it easy to keep one's attention focused on it. But, a diagram of how it works is much easier to understand.
(You can substitute Affirmative Action for Man Tax, or any other host of discriminations against men based on the inequalities between the sexes generated by "The Truth is Relative.")
Now, keep in mind, that is merely what Hegel did. Marx then said to himself, "How can I use this Hegelian Dialectic thing-a-ma-jig to change the world?" What he concluded was that he ought to "stand Hegel on his head." Karl Marx starts by saying I want that Man-Tax to appear in society, now what arguments can I create which will lead to that conclusion?
In other words, once you declare that feminism IS Marxism, you are also declaring that on a philosophical level, it is indeed a top-down conspiracy. There is an intentional destination of Marxist arguments, whereas Hegel's version builds the truth "naturally" and in a more haphazard way.
You can also see the need for Marxists to think two, three, four or five steps ahead. In fact, I've read before that many Marxists who became national leaders, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc., rose to prominence in large part because of the status they generated by showing how well they could manipulate dialectical arguments. Here is what one famous Marxist had to say on the subject:
"Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion." -- Leon Trotsky
Where most people run amock is they are only thinking about one argument at a time, rather than in a series of them all linked with the intention of arriving at a pre-determined goal.
Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess
After the Russian Revolution, Lenin wrote that he would install a Marxist bureaucratic government without the support of dedicated Marxists. Only the inner elite of his circle would understand the political structure he was building, while others would be manipulated to forward his agenda by their natural vanity and ambition to gain favour so as to further their political careers. He called such people "Useful Idiots."
Furthermore, he understood that an angry pressure builds up (backlash) when manipulating mass-populations and this pressure needs a release valve. Lenin combined this knowledge within dialectical manipulation and allowed for controlled backlashes that, in fact, furthered his agenda even though it appeared to oppose his goals.
"It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin
This is kind of a difficult concept at first, because it doesn't make much sense on the surface. The shortest route between point A and point B is a straight line, and that is how most people think things work - and usually they are right, except when dealing with Marxists.
"Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forwardbackward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived" -- Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade
OK, so they go two steps forward and one step back. But what's the point of that?
Well, the point is that the backlash consolodates the gains! The general modus operandi is to push hard with radical leftism. Of course, radical leftward movements cause lots of social upheavel, such as how the radical move of No-Fault-Divorce has caused untold grief in our society for all parties involved. After time, enough people are angry and bitter about these policies which harmed them on a personal level that a backlash movement begins to develop.That backlash is then "released" to let off the steam, but the backlash is only allowed in ways that concentrate more power in the hands of the State.
These things don't happen fast, mind you, but take several years - often a generation. Lenin sped things up by using government force and direct violence, but Lenin was only one faction of Marxist theory, which is obviously called "Leninism." Another faction is called "Fabianism."
The Long March Through the Culture
Fabian Socialists adopted their name from the Roman general, Fabius, who battled and won against the infamous Hannibal with his elephants when he invaded Italy. Hannibal had a vastly superior army than Fabius but was far from his home and supplies, so Fabius organized a campaign of hit-and-run tactics against Hannibal's army. He harassed and confounded the enemy, wearing them down bit by bit over time until finally Hanibal capitulated and admitted defeat. Fabian Socialists adopted Fabius' strategy, veering away from Lenin's use of violence to speed things up. Instead, the Fabians used techniques involving time to alter perceptions of the truth.
In my last article, I wrote about how the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory utilizes brainwashing techniques to alter the population's perceptions of the truth. The basic plot is to unfreeze the subject from his current comfort level and move him to a different level, then freeze them at that next level until they have accepted their new paradigm as "normal." This technique was based on the practice of torture, but merely removed the physical parts of it while keeping the mental aspects intact. For example, prisoners of war often have described the mental aspect of weeks or months spent in isolation as more damaging to them then the actual physical tortures they endured. Alienation from the group is a very real threat to humans, as we are naturally social creatures. Political Correctness was first invented by Lenin (he called those opposing his views "Enemies of the State") and later it was used by Stalin to run his opponent Leon Trotsky out of Russia and into exile in Mexico, where he had a date with an ice-pick.
The technique of using time rather than violence is the only thing that changed with the Fabian's viewpoint on Marxism. They agreed with Lenin's goals, but only differed with him because he used violence to speed up the populace's willingness to accept his dictats.
Really, if you have a look at it all, what took Lenin four years to implement has taken the Fabians/Cultural Marxist 40 years to replicate. But the end result is pretty much consistent.
For example, a few years after the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin declared "International Women's Working Day" on March 8th, 1921. He bragged about how he had created the first system of equality and had liberated women from their chains. Lenin instituted no-fault divorce, easy abortions, state-run day-care centres, community kitchens, sewing centres, and other such things to alieviate women from their biological duties to children and family, and put them to work with the pick-axe and shovel. He claimed he had ended discrimination against women and had liberated them by doing such. It took him four years, by use of violence, to implement his policies.
In contrast, after forty years of second-wave feminism gradually eroding society, we have arrived at virtually the same place. We now have feminists screeching at the government to impose upon businesses such things as corporate run daycare centres and flex-time so that they may realize their true "equality." (Which can only be enabled by state totalitarianism). In the last few Canadian elections, state-run daycare has been a constant issue. It's only a matter of time before it becomes reality. Basically, everything which Lenin declared he had done to make women "equal" in 1921, is now being seriously debated in our own legislative assemblies in the present day, and no-one bats an eye about it.
Why is it like that? It's because of gradualism.
For example, the population was unfrozen in the 1970's when we introduced the radical concept of No-Fault-Divorce (which the population did not request). This has caused untold grief for millions of people, but after 40 years, and a generation or two of children raised in broken homes, no-one really questions the right to unilaterally force a divorce upon another party. We assume it is normal, even though it is a recent phenomenon that has only existed for around 40 years in Western Civilization's multiple-millenia existance.
What's happened is enough people in society have accepted the notion that divorce is not only normal, but it is a right. Most 40-somethings like me can only remember a distant time in their early existence when divorce wasn't the norm. A cultural paradigm has shifted, by use of gradualism and time. Now virtually everyone has 50% or more of their relationships ending in divorce, or was raised in a broken home to begin with. Divorce is so "normal" that no-one even questions its validity. The proper acceptance of new values, via brainwashing techniques, has been achieved. And now, the push is on for "shared-parenting" to alieviate the problems created by the divorce epidemic. Nobody is openly questioning if we should abolish No-Fault-Diivorce. No, not at all. All that is being said is that the system ought to be re-organized to make it more fair. Divorce is part of our culture now. The "acceptance" phase is now complete. It's time to move the family unit on to a further totalitarian idea that destroys the family, commonly known as Shared-Parenting, where the courts will decide every facet of people's children's lives, right down to the times they are allowed to see their parents. which religion they ought to subscribe to, and how far away their parents are physically allowed to live from them which removes their right to freely move about the country.
And of course, this is what Marxists and radical feminists (the same thing) have wanted all along.
"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179
"It takes a village..." -- Hillary Clinton
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar
"The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254.
"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
Wow! Those gringas really don't like marriage and children!
But it's pretty easy to see what is happening. No-one in our current society is demanding of the government to end No-Fault-Divorce and restore things sanely to the way they were before. Instead, vast lobby groups of disenfranchised fathers are merely complaining that they should have "shared-parenting." In other words, since fathers are marginalized and don't often have sole custody of their children, they would rather that neither the father or mother had custody in favour of the court keeping said custody, and then dictating baby-sitting duties between the father and mother. If there is any dispute, the government will arbitrate it. If there is anything at all which is displeasing, the courts will handle it. If the father wants to take to the child to a Catholic church, while the mother is a dedicated Wiccan, it will be the courts who will paternalistically decide what is in the best interests of the child. Has the government then not effectively taken custody of the children?
And isn't that what they wanted all along?
The backlash to the right is used to consolodate the gains to the left. It's not a backlash to the way things were before. Rather, while the backlash movement thinks they are winning, in effect they are being mere useful idiots and only furthering along the Marxist and Feminist goals of removing children from their parents and placing them into government custody. After 20 or so years of this - long enough to allow society in general to accept the new normal, an abrubt turn will occur and radical leftward movements will again appear, further removing freedom.
And the marginalized fathers of today will no longer be able to complain about their situation... after all, they won! They got their shared-parenting... and all of the totalitarianism that comes along with it.
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." -- V.I. Lenin
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
Friday, March 16, 2012
Marxism, 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 at the top of this blog ought to discredit that notion enough for a reasonable and rational man to inquire further into the subject.
.
.
I maintain that the Marxist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS Marxism" 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. 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.)
Let's Try This Out!
.
So, could you destroy something absolute like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.
.
.
It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which 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 a BIGOT!
The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."
I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!
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, 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 (cough!), 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 governmentt 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 Marxism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.
TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!
.
I maintain that the Marxist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS Marxism" 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. 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.)
Let's Try This Out!
.
So, could you destroy something absolute like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.
.
It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which 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 a BIGOT!
The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."
I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!
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, 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 (cough!), 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 governmentt 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 Marxism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.
TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Marriage is Fraud
.
NOTICE: This article has been updated and moved to The Masculine Principle. Please click here to read the new version or scroll down to continue reading in the old format.
.
[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?
Answer:
Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
.
I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.
You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.
Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.
But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?
Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.
Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.
When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:
Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.
Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.
Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.
The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.
The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.
In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.
In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.
.
So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.
(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).
This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.
This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.
This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?
So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.
But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.
The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”
For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”
You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.
And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
.
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.
She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.
Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.
So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.
Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.
Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.
Have a look around the room you are in.
Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.
Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).
Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.
Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.
So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?"
My answer is a resounding NO!
Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!
It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.
You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.
Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.
The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.
Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.
But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.
Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.
If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.
If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?
Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”
That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.
But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)
So what have we got left here?
WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!
What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!
If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.
The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.
Yup.
But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.
The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!”
MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!
MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!
DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.
Have nothing to do with them.
Do not oppress them with marriage.
Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.
Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?
Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.
Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.
Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.
And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.
Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.
You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.
You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.
Give them as few tax dollars as possible.
Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:
.
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.
DON'T MARRY!!!
It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.
.
Read more on this subject in the following online book, The Case for Father Custody -- by Daniel Amneus
.
Previous Index Next
NOTICE: This article has been updated and moved to The Masculine Principle. Please click here to read the new version or scroll down to continue reading in the old format..
***
[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?
Answer:
Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
.
I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.
You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.
Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.
But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?
Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.
Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.
When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:
Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.
Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.
Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.
The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.
The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.
In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.
In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.
.
So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.
(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).
This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.
This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.
This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?
So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.
But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.
The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
.
.“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”
For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”
You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.
And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
.
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.
She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.
Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.
So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.
Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.
Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.
Have a look around the room you are in.
Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.
Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).
Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.
Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.
So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?"
My answer is a resounding NO!
Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!
It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.
You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.
Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.
The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.
Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.
But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.
Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.
If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.
If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?
Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”
That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.
But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)
So what have we got left here?
WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!
What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!
If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.
The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.
Yup.
But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.
The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
.
.“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!”
MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!
MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!
DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.
Have nothing to do with them.
Do not oppress them with marriage.
Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.
Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?
Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.
Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.
Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.
And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.
Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.
You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.
You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.
Give them as few tax dollars as possible.
Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:
.Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.
DON'T MARRY!!!
It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.
.
Read more on this subject in the following online book, The Case for Father Custody -- by Daniel Amneus
.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
