Achilles Heel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You get the idea.

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

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

Is it easy? Yes and No.

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

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

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

Not much!

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

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

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

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

.

.

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

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

.

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

.

Rob Fedders said...

.

Mamonaku,

.

Another spectacular piece by you!

.

This simple quote really jumps out at me:

.

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

.

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

.

(The Taizokai Mandala)

.

Thanks Mr. Fedders!

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

Thought

.

Word

.

Deed.

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

.

Ten Thousand Rivers flow into the Sea.

.

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

.

For example, people think about:

.

My car...

.

This house...

.

That terrorist attack...

.

Melissa's blog...

.

and so forth.

.

This is a mistake.

.

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

.

God is ONE.

.

And yet, He is three:

.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

.

Thought, Word, and Deed.

.

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

.

"By whom all things were made."

.

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

.

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

.

As it is written:

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.
Mr. Fedders continues:

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

/100% Agreed.

.

When I began writing my Rights of Man series, I pointed out that:

.

Now dear reader, we have heard from two different sources about how the father is a “sperm donor.” And biologically, this is true. However, you also know how desperately needed fathers are in the development and survival (especially in today's crack filled Ghettos) of their children.

.

Therefore I take issue slightly with these great authors by saying that they are arguing from a position from weakness, whereas I will argue from a position of strength. God's law is on our side gentlemen.

.

I will boldly claim that a man’s desire for a family is a natural and a moral idea implanted in his spirit by the Creator. And if the barriers to having said family are not prohibitively high, most men will act on these desires honorably.
And I meant what I wrote.

.

Some men attempt to argue for the Rights of Man meekly; as if they doubt, in their heart of hearts, that Men have natural rights that ought to be respected.

.

However, there are universal truths that cannot be redefined; there are laws in place that no man, or woman can disregard with any measurable degree of success.

.

Patriarchy is one of these.

.

It is written:

.

“But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death (Proverbs 8:36).”
Living in the Matriarchy reminds me of a person jumping off a cliff naked in defiance of the Law of Gravity.

.

We can choose to break the law, but we will suffer the consequences for our actions all the same.

.

Knowing this fact, only a fool would jump from the cliff. But, many people, in their delusion and ignorance, choose to defy the Natural Laws that the Master has set into motion.

.

To their own destruction.

.

Mr Fedders writes:

.
(I will refer to the Bible from here, as it is the religion we are all most familiar with)

.

The Bible tells us the same thing: The Lion will not lie down with the Lamb (on Earth).

.

God tells us that good and evil is all around us. God tells us that mankind cannot defeat evil. Only God can defeat evil. We, mankind, are told to fight evil and to resist it but ONLY GOD can defeat evil, and we are released from the belief that WE, mankind, are so powerful as to be God himself by thinking that we can defeat evil.

.

Now, the notion of Good & Evil, of Black & White, and the Yin & Yang are truly as old as mankind and likely time itself. Every successful religion acknowledges this in one form or another - and then goes on to discuss with mankind his eternal struggles with Good & Evil... the undefeatableness of the Yin & Yang.

.

Agreed.

.

God moves in His own time. Yin is replaced with Yang, Yang is replaced with Yin.

.

Even in our age of Yin (the feminine principle), there are still vibrant pockets of Yang (the male principle) . Even in our Matriarchy, there is still Manliness afoot.

.

Working, ever so quietly, to supplant and upend our Yin dominant culture.

.

There is no stopping it. Resistance is Futile!!

.

Men in general have to remember two things.

.

1) We are not separate beings seeking to turn the wheel of Darma. We ARE the wheel, inseparable from it, grinding down all resistance in our path.

.

2) The natural law is on our side. God Himself has said numerous times that Patriarchy and headship by Men is the preferred order on this Earth, until He returns with power and glory to Judge both the living and the dead.

.

It is written:

.
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3).

.

To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master (Genesis 3:16).

.

Even though, at the present time, we are under the dominion of women, and men who defer to women...

.

Since it is not the "preferred" order of things, the dominion of woman is maintained with great difficulty and high cost.

.

You know as well as I do that our society today is far and away worse off since we entered the age of Yin.

.

It won't last very long.

.

The effort to maintain it, is simply too great.

.
Whether one believes in religion/God or not, if we establish that all successful societies were based on the religious foundation of Patriarchal Marriage... patriarchal marriage leads to a growing and successful society... that indeed does, from an agnostic point of view, support that the Bible (religious marriage) is indeed the "Book of Life" and therefore it also becomes the "Book of Truth." And in the "Book of Truth" we are told that Good & Evil (Polar Opposites) are all around us - and we cannot defeat them!

.

We cannot defeat them, and it only brings suffering when Men rebel against the established order.

.

The goal is to seek harmony with the Universe, as represented by the Taizokai Mandala, while at the same time, cultivating a spirit that does not change no matter how much the Universe does.

.

This idea is represented by the Kongokai Mandala.

.

(The Kongokai Mandala: every man has a destiny)

.

To rail against the Universe without changing yourself is wrong, and to change yourself without being in harmony with the Universe is also wrong.

.

God is God without man; man is nothing without God.

.

But God gives us FREE WILL, and together, man can "move mountains."

.

Working together in harmony, in accordance to the law of Heaven.

.
Mankind CANNOT bring about heaven on earth. To say that mankind can create heaven on earth is indeed for mankind to deny the Yin & Yang.

.

It is all about earth and sky, fire and water, night and day, man and woman... everywhere around us in the very nature of nature/father sky/mother earth herself - there is no denying the polar opposites. They are positively everywhere - this IS nature.

.

Now, from my interpretation of Marx's Utopia (which is Heaven on Earth), what is Karl Marx saying to do?

.

Marx believes that Utopia (Heaven on Earth) is possible if mankind can somehow be suspended between the Yin & Yang - and then to collapse all of the other structures of mankind.
.

Excellent points!

.

Way back when I started on my History of Feminism series, I wrote:

.
The philosophers are flawed in all of their thinking simply because they deny the existence of the Divinity, from where all knowledge springs. The Bible makes clear that “As God says in the Scriptures, "I will destroy the wisdom of all who claim to be wise. I will confuse those who think they know so much." (Corinthians 1:18).

.

Marx, Engles, Friedan, Nietzsche...All flawed because they were not in tune with the source of all knowledge. The thought that by their reason alone, they could rewrite Natural Law to suit themselves best.

.

The Lankavatara Sutra tells us that:

.
Discrimination of self-nature is to make discriminations according to the views of the philosophers in reference to the self-nature of all things which they imagine and stoutly maintain to be true, saying: "This is just what it is and it cannot be otherwise." Discrimination of cause is to distinguish the notion of causation in reference to being and non-being and to imagine that there are such things as "cause-signs."

.

Discrimination of philosophical views means considering different views relating to the notions of being and nonbeing, oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness, existence and non-existence, all of which are erroneous, and becoming attached to particular views.

.

Discrimination of reasoning means the teaching whose reasoning is based on the grasping of the notion of an ego-substance and what belongs to it. Discrimination of birth means getting attached to the notion that things come into existence and pass out of existence according to causation.

.

Discrimination of no-birth is to see that causeless substances which were not, come into existence by reason of causation.Discrimination of dependence means the mutual dependence of gold and the filament made of it. Discrimination of bondage and imagination is like imagining that there is something bound because of something binding, as in the case of a man who ties a knot and loosens one.

.
Mr. Fedders continues:

.

This is where we get the eternal Marxist drive to equalize/homosexualize/androgynize everything about mankind - and then hold it in place and collapse all other things... to bring forth the "New Kind of Man" who will live in Marx's Utopia (Heaven on Earth).

.

Karl Marx is talking about how to force the Lion to lie with the Lamb (with Totalitarianism) by denying that the Yin and Yang exist. He is saying that mankind can be God & defeat nature itself & create Heaven. He is going against the very "Book of Truth" itself.

.

This is why he embraces Hegel's "Truth is Relative" and why Marx posits that he will use this philosophy to change the world.

.

He is going to deny absolute truth and manipulate mankind with the "Truth is Relative" to make the truth whatever he needs it to be at the moment - always working towards the denial of the Polar Opposites that make up nature itself!

.

Marx is going against "Truth." Truth = Life, and therefore Karl Marx is advocating for Death.
.

My thoughts exactly!

.

I wrote previously:

.
However, if we look at the utopias of North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, the U.S.S.R., Eastern Europe, and others, we see the truth of Marxist thought. The way of Marxist-Feminism is the way of Death.

.

We humans blame God for so much of our troubles. We accuse Him of being cruel, and of abandoning His creation.When I hear or read commentary like this, I always remember a passage from the most Manly of works, The Odyssey:

.

"Men are so quick to blame the gods:they say that we devise their misery.But they themselves - in their depravity -design grief greater thanthe griefs the fates assign."
.

As represented by the Taizokai and the Kongokai...

.

and as told to us by God Himself in His word...

.

We have freewill, but unfortunately, WE human beings, male and female alike, choose to hold selfish and deluded views, to assign blame to others when we should be looking at ourselves, to rely on our own powers when we should be looking to Him for wisdom and understanding.

.

Marxism and feminism are failed philosophies of men that were too smart for their own good.

.
If one examines the theory of Urreligion (all religions derive from a Universal Primordeal Religion = the Universal Truths), and in fact religions are parables of mankind's follies since the times of the Stone Age, from whence Religions came... Religions and ancient legends/lore/mythology are a twinkling of a remembrance of the Fall of Man.

.

All religions and mythology seem to play on this one universal theme:

.

The Fall of Man from Paradise --> Man's Eternal Struggles between Good & Evil (cannot be defeated by man himself, he must accept it) --> but he can endure the struggle of Yin and Yang by being given Hope (Pandora's box... return to Paradise).

.

But mankind MUST accept the Yin and Yang - accepting the existence of Polar Opposites = Life itself.

.

Karl Marx denying the Polar Opposites = Death itself.

.

Therefore, when we get men like Abraham (the father of 3 successful religions) being told by the one true God (truth, life), that he must reject the idols of his father (in Tyre, I believe... worship of Goddesses = Matriarchy...), and God tells him to leave such wickedness and go forth into the wilderness...Lol! Well Abraham is the first MGTOW!

.

Haha yes indeed... I never thought about the original Patriarch in those terms... But very true none the less.

.
This theme plays over and over again.

.

Soddom and Gomorrah were immoral and homosexual. (Homosexuality is the denial of Yin and Yang), and God "wipes them from the face of the earth." They ignored THE Universal Truth... whether they were really smitten with fire and brimstone or whether the story is a parable about people who embraced Matriarchal Androgyny and ended up dying out as a result - it really matters very little - the fact is that they were "wiped from the face of the earth" because they ignored the Universal Truth.

.

I agree with most of your analysis, although I would like to dispute the notion that homosexuality is a denial of Yin and Yang.If we look closely at the Yin and Yang symbol:

.

.

One will note that there is a small portion of Yang (white color) in the Yin (black color), and vice versa.

.

Please consider:
.

Sex and Character, by Otto Weininger advances an interesting theory with respect to the nature of the sexes.

.

"In the widest treatment of most living things, a blunt separation of them into males and females no longer suffices for the known facts. The limitations of these conceptions have been felt more or less by many writers. The first purpose of this work is to make this point clear...

.

... Sexual differentiation, in fact, is never complete. All the peculiarities of the male sex may be present in the female in some form, however weakly developed; and so also the sexual characteristics of the woman persist in the man, although perhaps they are not so completely rudimentary. The characters of the other sex occur in the one sex in a vestigial form. Thus, in the case of human beings, in which our interest is greatest, to take an example, it will be found that the most womanly woman has a growth of colourless hair, known as "lanugo" in the position of the male beard; and in the most manly man there are developed under the skin of the breast, masses of glandular tissue connected with the nipples. This condition of things has been minutely investigated in the true genital organs and ducts, the region called the "urino-genital tract," and in each sex there has been found a complete but rudimentary set of parallels to the organs of the other sex.

.

. . . The fact is that males and females are like two substances combined in different proportions, but with either element never wholly missing. We find, so to speak, never either a man or a woman, but only the male condition and the female condition. Any individual is never to be designated merely as a man or a woman, but by a formula showing that it is a composite of male and female characters in different proportions..."

.

In a nutshell, hard and fast definitions of Masculinity and Femininity are false, according to Weininger.

.

We should understand the qualities of being male and female on a sliding scale, and every person falls on this scale.

.

Most Feminine --- Moderately Feminine --- Slightly Feminine

.

Most Masculine --- Moderately Masculine --- Slightly Masculine

.

And while the majority of biological females are "Feminine dominant", there are women with a "Manly spirit".

.

Likewise that the majority of biological males are "Manly Dominant", there are men with a "Feminine nature"... aka Girly men.

.

With this in mind, I believe that there are some Homosexual men (please remember that the Bible does not condemn intercourse involving two women) that contain a whole lotta Yin with a Yang outer shell.

.

What does this mean with respect to the laws of God? That is truly a Mystery.

.

It is clear that God condemns Homosexual male intercourse. However, on a personal level, I don't truly believe that God will condemn those homosexuals that are truly Gay due to their biology, and seek His Face instead of engaging in outright rebellion.

.

This is something to meditate on.

.
We too live in a Matriarchy that worships adrogyny (sameness, denial of Yin and Yang), and our birthrates are plummeting and we will soon be wiped from the face of the earth. We are ignoring the Universal Truth of Polar Opposites.

.

Polar Opposites CREATE life.

.

Karl Marx denies truth... and promotes the way of death... warned to us from the earliest of times.

.

We have to embrace the polar opposites to have life.

.

Marxist ideology is the belief that man is in fact God himself - and so powerful is mankind that he can defeat the Yin and Yang. This is anti-truth. Anti-truth = death.

.

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

.

A Universal Truth. Embracing opposites = life.

.

Lol! I guess this is kind of a long comment... the rambling of Rob trying to figure things out!

.

Not long at all!!

.

Although I apologize to my readers for my long winded, and utterly boring, reply.

.

All of us need to have these inward journeys, in order to discover what is the truth, no matter where it may lead.

.

Rob, I understand where you are going with your thoughts. You are seeking to integrate the teachings of Christ with the wisdom of the East.

.

I recommend the book, "Christ the Eternal Tao". It will enlighten you my friend.

.

(Front cover: Christ the Eternal Tao)

.

While I still know nothing, and understand nothing, I have the good fortune of being exposed to ancient knowledge that not many people will ever have the chance to learn. But I've had to put in some serious work: Meditation, Prayer, Fasting, and Bible study.

.

One last thing I would like to share with my readers...

.

You've heard that "Form is emptiness, and Emptiness is form."

.

But translated from the Japanese, we can also get:

.

"Form is everything, and everything is form."

.

Please think about this.Who made the form?

.

What force is able to be Everything?

.

And once you are enlightened, seek His Face.

.

Mamonaku.

.

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

.

Quotation added by Rob:

.

"As I see it, our revolutionary task is to destroy phallic identity in men and masochistic nonidentity in women--that is, to destroy the polar realities of men and women as we now know them so that this division of human flesh into two camps--one an armed camp and the other a concentration camp--is no longer possible. Phallic identity is real and it must be destroyed. Female masochism is real and it must be destroyed." -- Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics - The Root Cause, (Harper & Row, 1976)

.

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

Note - I also transferred the comments in that were on Google Cache, as some of them were pretty good. I hope no-one minds. I you do, let me know and I will remove them.

What is this Apocalypse coming to? -- by Jim Untershine

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/24/what-is-this-apocalypse-coming-to/

If we replace the Joint Stock Trust with Health & Human Services, replace the World Bank with the American Bar Association, replace the IMF with the Family Court, and replace the underdeveloped countries with American families, we suddenly see what Joe Biden sees – A system of control whereby radical feminists pressure women to break up families to allow the Family Courts to impose an outrageous child support debt on the breadwinner of that family by any means possible (including false allegations of domestic violence). The women coaxed into these deals rarely benefit from it, and usually end up on welfare, or their children are taken into Foster Care. Meanwhile, the family breadwinner is forced into insolvency, their wages are garnished, their credit is ruined, their privileges are suspended, and they are put in Debtor’s Prison if they refuse to relinquish all of their financial resources.

The Rockefeller Foundation funded ‘Womens Lib‘ for the same reason the CIA funded ‘MS Magazine’: 1) Tax women, 2) Break up families. The CFR has completely taken control of the major media outlets preventing the American people from understanding where their Country is actually headed or the real reason many countries hate us. Every penny Americans pay to the US Treasury as taxes on their wages is paid to the Federal Reserve as interest on the National debt. Every penny spent on our government is loaned at interest by the Federal Reserve and is essentially put on our children’s tab.

---

Read the entire piece here:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/24/what-is-this-apocalypse-coming-to/

OK, Winston, Start Your Two Minutes of Hate… N.O.W.!

I have to laugh at all the people that came here from http://www.rense.com/ to leave insulting comments on my blog.

The world may be struggling with shortages in resources, but useful idiots abound at every corner. If I could turn them into fuel, I would become a billionaire overnight!

Here are a bunch of people who very likely pride themselves on their “knowledge” of what is going on in the world, but still have not put two and two together and realized that feminism is of Marxist origins, and its purpose is to destroy the family and put in a system of tyranny where the weak rule the strong – kinda like making a society where children rule adults. Lol! You shrieking women are next. Haven’t you read Hillary’s thesis? How about the UN’s “Rights of the Child”? Think men are going to rescue you? The very men you so love to hate today? The ones you’ve kicked out of their own homes, and have stolen their very children from? The ones you offered up to state supported slavery? Think again. The plan is to separate men from families so they won’t help you when you really need it.

Totalitarian regimes know that the family is their biggest obstacle in maintaining tyrannical rule. Any moron can conquer a country… keeping it under control is a different matter altogether. Fathers who are attached to their own families are usually the ones that run the oppressors out of the country with pointy sticks. Remove men from their families, and you remove the desire of good to men to search for pointy sticks. DUH!

I notice this disease all over the place on the web. There are many excellent sites out there that document all kinds of government abuses… Prison Planet… Freedom Force etc. They are filled to the brim with excellent articles documenting the abuses being inflicted upon the people by corrupt governments, BUT, nary do they mention feminism and the state encouraged destruction of the family, inspired by evil feminists who often outright state that they want to destroy the family and destroy society and the nature of the sovereign state.

Of course, will any of these useful idiots who come here to screech “FAGGOT!” ever bother to read articles like this one, which documents how our No Fault Divorce laws are an exact replica of Russian marriage laws in the early 20th Century?

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

(Did you read it, you Gorgons?)

Yes indeed, Russia did so much damage to their population that during WWII, they had to abandon such insanity because they were screwing themselves even worse than the Nazis breathing fire outside the city gates. Gorbachev commented in his book that the reason why the Soviet state collapsed was because of the damage they inflicted on people’s families and close relationships in the early part of the century. 50 years after reversing such policies, they were not able to save themselves, such was the extent of the damage which they did, and which we are replicating under the name of “feminism” and “equality.”

As I mentioned in the comments, in between the 2 minutes of hate, one wonders if all of these politically correct shriekers (Did you know Political Correctness was invented by Lenin and perfected by Stalin?) also scream so loudly and hurl such hatred towards the people that produce shirts saying “Boys are Stupid. Throw Rocks at Them!”

Are they half as concerned that over 80% of teen suicides are committed by boys?

I doubt it.

I am sure that many of them giggled and tittered when they heard about Lorena & John Bobbit too. Certainly they didn’t screech and shout such vitriol at their cohorts as they do when a man asks if women invented anything.

A little perspective is in order, perhaps?

Many probably used to run around their university campuses, fueled by an estrogen high as they emphatically told men that “A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle.” (By the way, Irina Dunn was the woman who coined the phrase, and she stole it from a male philosopher who stated “Man Needs Religion Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle.” Oh, the irony, you mighty inventors.)

I wonder how many of these fucktards took an equal amount time which they spent hurling insults of “you must be gay, FAGGOT!” to send Barack Obamanation a nasty note when he blamed father’s for abandoning their families this past Father’s Day. How many of these useful idiots even realize that women file 2/3 of all divorces, and the number one reason is not “abuse” but rather, they simply feel bored and unfulfilled?

How many of them are equally upset about Joe Biden’s VAWA, a completely sexist, one sided law, that strips men of their constitutional rights?

How many of these Useful Idiots even understand that Obama & Biden are going to try and pass over sovereignty of the USA to the United Nations, under the entirely corrupt CEDAW and i-VAWA? Do you even understand the implications, you hate mongers? Holy Totalitarianism! And it's all being done in the name of women's equality - fueled by people like the useful idiots who feel justified in shrieking mindless insults at any man who dares say even the most trivial of negative things about the "fair" sex.

Our freedoms are disappearing daily because no-one dares speak out against feminism and its totalitarian excesses.

Why do you think they targeted women as the best group of useful idiots to crumble the institution of the family and bring in cradle to grave socialism? It’s because they knew the tendency of people to never dare to speak out against women. People like the idiots from Rense that came here to shriek mindless insults over the most trivial of things.

Useful Fucking Idiots.

Have Women Invented ANYTHING!?!

I mean, have they?

With all of that time they had living in Betty Friedan's "Comfortable Concentration Camp", one would think they would have had lots of time to dream up all kinds of crap.

But...

Have they?

Seriously!

You know, I used to pinch severely off of Buster B's phrase "name something that a woman has invented that involves more than two moving parts."

(You haven't read Buster B? Well, where have you been living? On that ever cooling sun? You can find his archives here: http://busterb.mgtow.net/ T'is good stuff!)

But, I think Buster and I were both aiming too high.

I got into a conversation about female inventions today, and, I insisted that only a woman could have invented those stupid little doilies that the fair sex likes to stick under ever solid object in a house.

I despise those ridiculous things!

I was sure that only a woman would have invented them. I mean, they are so enamoured by them that I know not of a woman who has not purchased several.

Surely, such a frivilous, stupid, little lacey circle couldn't have been invented by a man!

WRONG!

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00110/salon.html

“Who invented the doily? Count D'Oyley was supposedly a decorator back in 17th Century London. He created the first doilies. They were made of a woolen material. In the 1800s in France, they started making the paper doily. They were brought here to the United States in the mid-1800s.” (13)

I mean, trust me! When the rest of us men invent the time machine, I will be the first to support the notion that this asshat should be removed from the past gene pool! And justified in my support I should be, as this jerkoff has tormented men with stupid lacey crap adorning the base of every truly masculine thing within the home which he has built! Death is too merciful! Only banishment from the gene pool will suffice!

But, dammit!

I was certain that women must have invented those darn things... if only to irritate their menfolk, which they seem to so love doing.

But I was wrong!

So, dear readers, please help me along!

Can I change the phrase from "Can you name anything with more than two moving parts that was invented by a woman" to "can you name ANYTHING that was invented by a woman?"

I want to remain accurate... but, after the doily incident, my faith has been shaken.

Follow Along with the Events Between Russia and Georgia

This guy at the blog "Once Upon a Time in the West" has been monitoring this kind of stuff for quite a while already:

http://once-upon-a-time-in-the-west.blogspot.com/

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

Online Book: "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin

I know how much my readers absolutely salivate over the opportunity to read an online book. Please guys, slow down with the e-mails begging me to post another book so you are not forced to watch more mind-numbing episodes of Big Brother. (Some day soon, that show will be a real reality anyway, so do something else with your time while you can, eh?)

A few months back I posted a review of this book here on this most superb of all blogs on the world wide web:

---

Reveiw by MPC at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/SEX-CULTURE-J-D-Unwin/dp/B000K7AQFC

That is the basic thesis of this unjustly forgotten book. According to Professor Unwin, who was influenced by Freud, it is the "limitation of sexual opportunity" which creates the "mental energy" necessary to build a civilization.

He backs this up with exhaustive examples of the historical cycle he proposes. The cycle goes as follows: in a primitive society, people take their pleasure at whim, without commitment or limits. Then the practice of monogamous marriage, including premarital chastity, is instituted. (How he believes this first arises would take far too long to summarize here; read the book!) The sexual repression required for this chastity and fidelity increases the "mental energy" and the inner strength of those who practice it, enabling them to embark on long-term projects such as monumental architecture, agriculture, and conquest. In this early stage, men have enormous power over their wives and children, even when the children have grown up.

The "sexual opportunity" of women is always, of necessity, more limited than that of men in a civilized society, and this has a powerful effect, according to Unwin; they convey this repression and its benefits to their children. Indeed, he blames the decline of feudalism on its habit of putting its "best" women into convents to live as nuns - it is true that for a woman with intellectual aspirations, a convent was her only real option - instead of having them bear children to whom they could convey their "mental energy".Unwin also criticizes polygamous societies; the easy "sexual opportunity" it affords men limits the "mental energy".

He says, "That is why, I submit, the Moors in Spain achieved such a high culture. Their fathers were born into a polygamous tradition; but their mothers were the daughters of Christians and Jews, and had spent their early years in an absolutely monogamous environment. The sons of these women laid the foundations of rationalistic culture; but soon the supply of Christian and Jewish women was insufficient, so the incipient rationalism failed to mature greatly."

It always begins with the ruling class, the aristocracy, being the most chaste and monogamous. As they grow decadent after a few generations, the "middle class" (not necessarily in our modern understanding of it) is just getting the hang of it, having aped it from their betters, and they acquire more power in the society.

In time, however, the strict monogamy loosens. Unwin speculates that the extreme power the builders of civilizations have over their wives and children is unbearable to most, and the decrease of this power is inevitable. Unwin's attention is more on the monogamy than on the legal position of women, but the two seem to march hand in hand. "A female emancipating movement is a cultural phenomenon of unfailing regularity; it appears to be the necessary outcome of absolute monogamy. The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women, which is sometimes emphasized, has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity."

Indeed, as sexual opportunity becomes easier - which always takes place in concert with female emancipation - the society's mental energy weakens, it cannot continue to invent things or maintain what it has, and in a few generations it is easily conquered by a robust monogamous patriarchy, which is fairly bursting with the mental energy of repressed sexuality.

Professor Unwin, by the way, was not in any way a male chauvinist. He concluded his book with a hopeful wish that we may find some way to have sexual repression and the equality of the sexes at the same time, and clearly believed that women are not inherently unfit for power and independence.

That is one of the two criticisms I would make of this excellent work. But one can hardly blame Professor Unwin, who was writing in 1934, long before scientific study had verified that all of the traditional stereotypes about women were based in biological fact. Indeed, thanks to feminist domination of mass media, few people today are aware of this.

The other criticism is that Unwin focuses all of his attention on the "mental energy" caused by sexual repression. I suspect he is right about it, but there is another vital factor in the building of a civilization, and that is paternity. Men build things - houses, palaces, empires, codes of ethics - so that they can pass them on to their own children, and thus achieve one kind of immortality. Men who know they cannot train and endow their children are disinclined to produce. This, even more than the lack of opportunity for personal enrichment, is why communism and socialism are such abysmal failures, and why inheritance tax is such a dangerous threat to civilization itself. It would be good to read an intertwining of this theory and Unwin's. This book has long been out of print and copies are rare and expensive, but until this situation is remedied, it can be obtained through inter-library loan. I highly recommend it for its exhaustive documentation.

-----

A further review by "married":

Unwin's research is extremely valuable, but his explanation is nonsense. One has to understand that as a liberal anthropologist, he never expected the results that he found, and was undoubtedly not very happy with them, but he was honest enough to report that facts as he found them. His explanation is an attempt to reconcile the facts with his liberal beliefs, when they are, in fact, irreconcilable. The only limit of sexual opportunity in the historical societies that he describes is limits for women. Prostitution was very widespread in these societies, so men never lacked sex.

-----

Here is where to find the book online:
.
Sex and Culture -- by J.D. Unwin (1934) - PDF
.
----

or,

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4341114

Easiest way to get this file with torrent, is to download Opera Web Browser 9.5. It has built in torrent support. Just click on the link and leave the browser open.

1) Go to http://www.opera.com/download/

2) Download a copy.

3) Open and install.

4) Go to http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4341114

5) Click on "Download this torrent'

6) Leave Opera Browser up and running, leave computer on.

Or,

Or download it as a zip file, containing the several formats listed: http://www.tenjune.com/SexCulture.zip

Father's 4 Justice Protest in Canada, NDP Leader, Jack Layton's Office

Woohoo! Give 'em hell, boys!

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/ontario/story.html?id=0caf70dd-6dfb-4d94-9b18-2bb1ca7768b4

Global News
Published: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:34:02 PM

The suspect dressed as 'Spiderman' has surrendered peacefully to police. The other suspect being addressed as, 'Plywood Man' remains on the roof of the building.

1:26:08 PMPolice are on the scene of a roof-top protest at Jack Layton's riding office at 221 Broadview Ave. A man dressed as Spider-Man is on the roof of the building trying to bring attention to father's rights. It's believed the group Fathers 4 Justice is behind the protest. Reports indicate there are two men on the roof of the building and that they have enough supplies to camp out for an extended period of time. The group claims they will "tirelessly promote, every child's right to be raised by both parents on an equal basis in the event of separation and or divorce, and further believes that such equality in parenting has been clearly shown to be in the best interests of children."

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

Lol! Jack Layton, leader of the radically far-left New Democrat Party of Canada (NDP) is on TV moaning like a little lefty. "They should be writing letters instead of doing this, sob, sniffle."

They have been for years, Jack, you dope. Now get off your tax-funded, useless ass and do something for the citizens of this country that pay your exhorbitant wages, which are mainly men & fathers.

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

Update:

"Plywood Man" is a Northerner!!!

As some of you might know, I have a special soft spot in my heart for Northerners!

Well then, kick some ass like only a Northerner can, Plywood Man!

.

Thanks for the info/comment from Kevin G, posted at the mightiest blog on the web (yeah, you know it simply as No Ma'am):

Too Bad CTV didn't televise these two outgoing supporters banner "NDP = No Dads Party"! Surprise, surprise.

Layton says "He doesn't know much about the group or why". I call B.S. but if he really doesn't, he better find out soon:

Plywood Man began his mission for equal parenting 6 years ago in Yellowknife , NWT. With no tall buildings to climb he began his simple but persistent protest for equal parenting with large pieces of painted plywood. His campaign drew overwhelming community support and led to the unanimous resolution passed on June 17, 2008 by the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories in support of Equal Parenting and a call to NDP MP, Denis Bevington to support Private Members Motion M483 for Equal Parenting.

To date Mr. Bevington has been unable to publicly support the bill because he has been oppressed by his party and in particular NDP leader Jack Layton.

A big thumbs up to these two courageous men. They're fighting for one of, if not thee, most important issues of today: OUR CHILDREN! Everything else is immaterial with out them.

.

Home of the Best Show on Earth!

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/08/09/6394026-sun.html

Perhaps upset The Dark Knight broke all his box office records, Spiderman returned to Toronto yesterday.

A man dressed as the action hero and another in lumberjack attire calling himself "Plywood Man" had a stand-off with police for nearly six hours after climbing to the roof of Jack Layton's east-end riding office.

The makeshift superheroes climbed the NDP -- the No Dads Party, as they called it -- leader's building as part of the protest group Fathers 4 Justice.

"Fathers 4 Justice ... will tirelessly promote every child's right to be raised by both parents on an equal basis in the event of separation and or divorce," their website says.

'WANT TO SEE MY KID'

Yesterday, Plywood Man barked back and forth with police negotiators as he demanded his son, who lives with his mother in Pickering, be brought to him or he might jump off the Broadview and Dundas Aves. E. building.

"I want to see my kid," he yelled.

Emergency task force officers were on the roof near the men, keeping a safe distance because Plywood Man was close to the edge with a rope tied around his neck.

The man dressed in the Spiderman costume surrendered without incident at 2 p.m., but no one knew how long Plywood Man, who travelled to Toronto from the Northwest Territories and had food and a portable toilet with him, planned to stay on the roof.

Some three hours later, police let go two loud, flash-bang "distractionary devices," dazing the man before he was swarmed by ETF officers.

---

Since Jack Layton so wants people to e-mail him their concerns rather than sit on his roof, why not send him an e-mail describing what a sack of shit he is for dissing men, fathers, and the democratic system: laytoj@parl.gc.ca

Movie: A Father's Rights

Check out the website for the film here: http://g2rdistribution.com/

.

Watch the trailer here: http://g2rdistribution.com/afr.trailer.html

.

Now, before someone reminds me to put in the required politically correct disclaimer, I would like to state that not all women are like that.

.

Nope. Some are even worse!

The Feminist Road to Totalitarianism - by Aidan Rankin

http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/636.htm

I. Compulsory Niceness And The Failure of Nerve

The unquestioned acceptance of feminist goals has become almost universal in European political and intellectual life. That is not to say that the populations of European nations have been converted to feminism en masse. On the contrary, feminism and feminists themselves are probably more objects of revulsion and ridicule than ever before. That revulsion and ridicule is now accentuated by fear. Fear stems from an awareness of the power that feminist ideology exerts over academics, educators, policy-makers and the media, over those who make intimate decisions about other people’s lives, such as doctors and social workers, or those who interpret and enforce the law. It explains the tendency of institutions, including highly traditional institutions, to give in to feminism and become vehicles for dogmatic social engineering. ‘I am a feminist,’ protests the conservative commentator. ‘I am not a sexist,’ the Anglican traditionalist assures his critics. ‘Of course “equal opportunity” is a good thing,’ declares the Infantry officer, defensively. Such protestations effectively neutralise moral arguments for the traditional family, theological arguments against the ordination of women, or the case for the all-male regiment, with the pride, stability and esprit de corps that it engenders. Thus important and valuable arguments are being lost before they even begin. This has nothing to do with whether they are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. For each of the arguments I have listed raises distinctive questions, moral, social and in one case theological. They can be resolved, therefore, only as individual problems on a case-by-case basis, not in the context of an abstract, all-embracing doctrine of ‘equality’. But as soon as the word ‘equality’ is mentioned, feminism’s opponents suffer a failure of nerve.

---

Read the rest of the article here: http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/636.htm

The Real Reason Hillary Has Not Yet Dropped Out Of The Race...

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=89d59491-3910-45c2-9643-3a2fd9347606

She's locked in her car outside party headquarters!!!

"Automatic car features are supposed to make life easier for motorists, but they may be leaving some people without the know-how to do things the old-fashioned way. That’s what happened to a driver in Utah County who became trapped inside her own car.

A woman called Orem police Friday afternoon needing help because her battery died and she was locked inside her car.

When police arrived, they found the woman sitting in the car, unable to get herself out. She couldn’t hear the officers instructions through the rolled-up windows so she motioned to them to call her on her cell phone, according to police.

Once officers were able to talk to the woman on the phone, they were able to tell her how to manually operate the slide lock mechanism on the inside door panel to open the door and free herself.

“I'm just glad she had a cell phone to call for help,” an officer said."

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

Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3UGhRjPry4

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

Quite frankly, I think I might change my stance on Hitlery for Prez. I can think of no-one better to have their finger hovering over the button than someone who doesn't understand how it works.

Then again...

http://www.bofunk.com/video/4494/if_a_woman_were_president.html

PS - I don't support Obama or McCain either.

Fedders for President! Or, better yet: Fedders for Grand Puba of the New World Order!

Online Book: New Lies for Old -- by Anatoliy Golitsyn

I could write a summary of this book, to make it easier for everyone, but... my experience has shown there are only two types of people out there on the web:

1). Those who wish me to write a summary, will oppose whatever summary I write, and never bother to actually read the book themselves anyway.

and,

2). Those who will read my summary and go, "hmph, that's nice, Rob," then read the book themselves so they can come to their own conclusions.

I wish there were less #1's and more #2's, but alas, from what I understand, only 1 in 6 people are willing to let go of group think and come to their own conclusions after examining the facts put before them.

Very troubling.

New Lies for Old -- by Anatoliy Golitsyn

http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/index.php?s=68e413f8a8ba4c7f541e3b1c9c98601b&act=attach&type=post&id=452

OK, OK, here is short paragraph about who Mr. Golitsyn is. (I have been aware of him for a while, and read several articles about his work, but have never actually read his book before).

In the early 1960’s, a Russian named Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the USA. He was a Major in the KGB and thus the highest ranking KGB Officer to ever defect to the USA. The CIA’s Soviet Bloc Division debriefed Golitsyn, trying to get him to identify KGB moles working at various embassies around the world. They showed him thousands of pictures trying to get him to identify “who.” Eventually, Golitsyn got angry with the CIA for forcing him through such a tedious exercise, and shouted at his interrogators, “What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/looking.htm

---

The West needs to go through a paradigm shift in regard to how they view Communism-Marxism. Kind of like when you look at the following picture, and discover that there are actually two ladies in it. So must we learn to look at Marxism to begin to truly understand its dangers.

The Earth is Wicked Again...

"The Earth is wicked again. I'm going to flood it and start over," God told Noah. "Build another ark and save two of every living thing."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no boat. "Where's the ark?" he roared. "I'm about to start the rain."

"Well, things have changed," Noah said. "First, I needed a building permit. Then some group said it was inhumane to put the animals in such a close space. Then the government halted construction to conduct an environmental-impact study on the flood."

Suddenly, the clouds cleared and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

"You mean, you're not going to destroy the world?" Noah asked.

"What's the point?" God said. "Looks like someone beat me to it."


Gavin Esler

This Way To See The Great Egress!

There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit." -- Zenpriest

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

Genesis 3:16 - 19

(16) To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

(17) To Adam he said, "because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

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

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

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

One wonders, with all the talk about how much smarter women are than men... Have you ever heard men screeching and hollering for the "right" to be cursed like women?

And we're not gonna let you shirk your responsibilities anymore, ladies, because you have proven that you can do it... at least not until the stress of the workplace makes women die a few years earlier, or less stress makes men live a few years longer... because, um, you do believe in equality, eh? (And no, we are not looking for ways to find out how painful childbirth is - only idiots would do that). -- RF

Now read this:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013170

Men are Getting Happier (and Women More Miserable)

It's not like Paul is a total writeoff. He cleans up the yard, makes sure the bills get paid, does far more than his share of the laundry. But when his common-law wife Catriona reflects on their relationship - and how casually her 32-year-old spouse has thrown off the cares of the workaday world - a note of resentment creeps into her voice. "Sometimes I get jealous of his freedom," admits the 25-year-old public relations coordinator from Vancouver. "He just doesn't get stressed, ever, really. I'm more uptight. I worry about a lot of things."Seven years ago, Paul quit a potentially lucrative job as a business consultant to try his hand at writing fiction, having decided there was more to life than climbing the corporate ladder. (Names of couples in this story have been changed.) The dynamic of their relationship shifted accordingly: Catriona is now the household breadwinner; Paul is living an urban male's dream. When he isn't working on his novel, he spends his days listening to music, riding his mountain bike or indulging his growing interest in urban development. Sometimes he reads books on the topic, and occasionally he strolls about the sites of local construction projects, getting a first-hand look at cutting-edge developments as they rise from the West Coast soil.

Catriona, meanwhile, scarcely has time for household chores or to attend the meetings of the charitable foundation she joined a few months back. With a high-tempo career and commitments to do volunteer work two or three times a week, she certainly can't while away a night at the bar watching Vancouver Canucks games, as Paul has been doing with increasing frequency. And while she doesn't consider herself miserable ("Paul supports me a lot in my work"), his general nonchalance clearly contributes to her anxiety. When he recently blew off an important appointment after a night of drinking with his brother, she fell into a black mood for days. "I'm not usually snarky," she says ruefully. "I realized later I was jealous or hostile or bitter that he didn't have to work and I did."

As the sands of gender roles shift in households and workplaces across the Western world, the future may hold more Catrionas and - to the fascination of social economists - a lot more Pauls. Far from suffering a crisis of confidence amid all those high-powered females, men are actually getting happier as the women around them find their place in the workforce, recent U.S. studies suggest. Blessed with salaried spouses and an economy that increasingly values their brains over their brawn, males now enjoy more of what one Princeton University scholar calls "neutral downtime" - a fancy term for hours spent watching football, playing computer games or drinking with their pals. For guys, things have never been better.

Their wives, moms and girlfriends cannot say the same. Adult females actually report lower levels of happiness now than before they streamed into the workplace in the 1970s and '80s, according to a study by two economists at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, which has been making waves in academia since it was published in September. Previous studies of rising STRESS among females tended to focus on the simple burden of time allocation: instead of choosing one or the other, fully 73 per cent of Canadian women raise children and go to work. And numerous studies suggest women still bear the brunt of child-rearing and household duties even if they work - hence all the anxiety.

But the so-called "happiness gap," where more men than women tell pollsters they're pleased with their lives, has highlighted some unexpected trends in the interplay of the sexes. More and more males seem willing to take a back seat to the ambition of their wives, statistics show, content in the knowledge women can now make enough to support the whole family. According to a TD Economics report released last September, as a wife's annual income rises to $100,000, her husband is more likely to share domestic chores, or stay at home altogether.

Sometimes the shift can take constructive form: stay-at-home dads now make up some 11 per cent of married couples. But not all the guys are using their newfound freedom to become nurturers. Other studies suggest they use a good portion of it watching television or playing computer games. All of which raises questions that hardline feminists will undoubtedly find perverse, if not outright heretical. Are career pressures sucking the joy from day-to-day life for many women? Were they wrong to think professional success would ultimately yield happiness? And if the rise of financially successful, multi-tasking women over the past few decades is doing little more than allowing men to load up on couch time, who are the real beneficiaries of the women's movement?

The idea might seem less provocative if the women's movement of the 1970s hadn't promised the moon and the stars to begin with. On top of better jobs with better salaries, it told of a utopian future - a gender-neutral society where women and men would suddenly be considered absolutely equal. "We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned," feminist Gloria Steinem once pronounced with characteristic grandeur. And in some ways, the Steinem crowd delivered.

In its report, TD Economics said that participation in the workforce of Canadian women aged 25 to 44 jumped from 50 per cent 30 years ago to nearly 82 per cent in 2005. In fully 28 per cent of some 4.6 million couples surveyed, women had higher salaries than their husbands, compared to 11 per cent in the late 1960s - a figure broadly reflective of similar trends across the Western world. On average, U.S. women now earn 76.9 per cent as much as men (63.6 per cent as much in Canada), marking steady growth from the 59.4 per cent they earned in 1970.

Education saw even more sweeping change. By 2004, 62 per cent of all B.A.s in Canada were granted to women. Even more impressive is the revolution at medical school. According to the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, the majority of students at 13 of Canada's 17 med schools are women. At Université Laval's faculty of medicine in Quebec City, for example, female enrolment has hit 70 per cent for the past two years, after peaking at a record 80 per cent in 2005, while on five other campuses last year more than 60 per cent of first-year medical students were women. And the laundry list of advancements goes on. Reliable birth control; more freedom at work; better vacuums and washing machines - all played their part in making women's lives easier. Yet the lift in women's spirits you might think would result is nowhere to be seen, say Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, co-authors of the Wharton study, "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness." "We found that in the 35 years in which women made the greatest progress, they got less happy," Wolfers said in an interview from Philadelphia. "The big question is why."

One popular theory, to borrow a phrase from the financial world, is irrational exuberance. Through media imagery and peer pressure, goes this thinking, women have been encouraged in recent years to seek it all - be smart, accomplished, a good mother, a good lover and manage to look svelte and fashionable all at the same time - never realizing that the headlong pursuit of perfection would cause bone-numbing fatigue. Stevenson and Wolfers accept this explanation, but only to a point. "The natural thing for people to assume is, of course, women are less happy than men because they have to juggle a career and kids and they're tired," says Stevenson. "But this is not just a story about moms. It might be about women pushing themselves to excel."

It might also be a story about chemicals. Comprehensive studies of psychiatric data show that nearly twice as many women as men will develop depression-related disorders at some point in their lives, and the numbers are growing. In 1990, seven million American women suffered from depression; this year the number is up to 12 million, exactly twice as many as men. "Because this depression gender gap coincides with puberty and disappears after menopause," advises the Mayo Clinic in a publicly disseminated circular, "some researchers believe that hormonal factors increase." Even after puberty, with its attendant identity issues and screaming matches with mom, the risks for women remain disproportionately high. Premenstrual trouble, postpartum depression, menopause itself - all create a landscape fraught with psychological sinkholes for women as they go through life.

This is all a way of saying that whatever's making women sadder may merely be aggravating what's already in their heads. And that's where the gender wars come in. Some critics believe that by convincing females they could succeed in the workplace without sacrificing family life, the women's movement set up the vast majority for disappointment; whether you're talking hormones or spare time or fatigue, they're just not equipped to handle what the feminists envisioned. It's a theory so freighted with controversy that Wolfers jokingly calls it the "Rush Limbaugh interpretation," implying as it does that women were better off when they were barefoot in the kitchen. "Did the women's movement make things worse? Unattainable? Plausibly, yes," muses Wolfers. "The puzzling part of the data is not why women are unhappy today, but why they were so happy in 1970."

The counter-interpretation, say Stevenson and Wolfers, lies in women's aspirations outpacing society's attempts to accommodate them. In the 1970s, if women told pollsters they were happy, they were likely "comparing themselves to the housewife next door," explains Stevenson. Today, that's just not good enough. The educated, ambitious career woman is now inclined to compare herself to the man in the next cubicle - a shift in mindset no enlightened person would regard as a bad thing. That would be fine, says Stevenson, if perception of women in the workplace had caught up to reality. Instead, they still are too frequently treated as second-class colleagues. "I have had this happen to me," she says. "A woman says something in a meeting and she maybe doesn't say it quite as forcefully as she should and so a guy picks it up and everybody says 'Damn, what a great idea!' " Thirty years ago, says Stevenson, women felt glad just to be allowed into the meeting. "Now," she says, "you think, what the f-?"

WHATEVER THE REASON for female unhappiness, the success of women appears to be changing expectations for males as surely as it is for females. Imagine, for a moment, that you are Toby, a 27-year-old male and one-half of a Vancouver couple whose now-defunct relationship was recently described in detail to Maclean's. While your girlfriend, Sarah, also 27, works 60-hour weeks trying to get her small business off the ground, you follow your dream of becoming a musician, applying your time to playing gigs, smoking pot and hanging out at her apartment - not necessarily in that order. She is patient. "The fact he was an artist made it seem legitimate or justifiable," she later confides. "The idea was that there was a higher purpose that could also potentially pay off."

Toby eventually gets a job as a barista at Starbucks, but by then it's too late. She ditches him, and on reflection he marvels that the good times lasted as long as they did. But in the end, he's glad she dumped him because the fact she made more money was starting to make things kind of awkward. And it's not like he really wanted to change his lifestyle.

While the male layabout is an archetype in almost every human society, the idea of an intelligent, able-bodied North American man dedicating a good part of his existence to non-productive activity is relatively new. In the mid-1960s, men spent nearly half their time on paid work or work-like activities, according to Alan Krueger, a Princeton University economist and author of a recently released study comparing how men and women allocate time. By 2005, that had fallen to 36 per cent while the amount of time typically spent on unpleasant tasks declined marginally, and men suddenly found themselves with a surfeit of "neutral downtime," which offers in relaxation what it lacks in character-building. Forty years ago, watching TV and similar activity consumed 14.5 per cent of an average American man's day. Today it takes up nearly a quarter.

Some of this is due to technology, notes Krueger; a lot of former men's work is now performed by machines, both at work and around the home. But it's hard not to see the growth in their spare time with the concomitant reduction in women's. Unlike men, women are spending more time at paid work than they did in, say, the early 1970s, while their downtime has been steadily declining. To some experts, this points to males gaining R & R at females' expense. More troubling still, says Michael Kimmel, a sociologist at the State University of New York, Stoney Brook, the behaviour seems more deeply entrenched in each generation of males. "Young men today see the lives of their fathers as the opposite of fun," he says. "Sober. Parental. Responsible. It's taking a lot of these guys about eight years to commit to a career."

The result, he says, is a state of drift among men that in many cases doesn't lift until they reach their mid-30s. "They come out of high school with this incredible sense of entitlement," he says. "Virtually everyone I talk to here at the university thinks he's going to write for television and move to Hollywood." Most of them eventually snap out of it, adds Kimmel, but the short-term impact on women can be disconcerting. Some girls simper pathetically in the presence of dour slouches, preening for a bit of attention. Others, like Sarah, wait for emotionally stunted boyfriends to grow up so they can get married, buy a house and have kids.

As all this is going on, the respective life cycles of men and women are increasingly at odds, with serious potential consequences a generation or two down the line. While men are resisting the trappings of adulthood through their late 20s, revelling in the sort of infantile world depicted in the Will Ferrell comedy Old School, women are establishing careers and accumulating wealth. "Realistically, men can get their shit together at 40," laments Sarah. "They can catch some woman 13 or 14 years their junior just like me who's going to say okay, because all the guys my own age are turkeys."

Which is fine for women who find successful mates, or who happen to appreciate older guys. But pity those who must settle for a man who, at 40, never launched a career, frittered away his money, burned off a few too many brain cells and left the hard work of child-rearing until he was too tired to perform it well. That's as surefire a formula for female disaffection as a person can imagine. And if Kimmel's observations are anything to go by, it's one we'd better get used to.

It will be all the more irksome if another long-term trend that is transforming the workplace holds. While women are leading dual lives as employees and nurturers, they're steadily supplanting men as occupiers of the desk where the buck stops. In 2004, the proportion of women occupying managerial positions had reached 37 per cent - a number that today's feminists see as too low, but would nonetheless impress their mothers and grandmothers. In certain prestigious professions, women are actually overrepresented. Fully 55 per cent of the doctors and dentists in Canada are now women, up from 43 per cent in 1987; women make up more than half the business and financial professionals in this country.

All of this has unfolded according to the plans of the women's movement; if feminists have any complaint it's that it's gone too slowly (certain sectors, such as engineering and natural sciences, remain male-dominated). What no one seemed to anticipate was how women who attained heights formerly reserved for men would wind up feeling. How would they cope with the anxiety and long hours that come with rank and responsibility? How would they deal with the related pathologies of obsessiveness and workaholism - the curses, so to speak, of the ambitious classes?

Pretty much the way men do, it turns out. "The women's movement gave women permission to get on the gerbil wheel," says Barbara Killinger, a Toronto psychologist who has written extensively on workaholism. While almost no women came to her for treatment 25 years ago, fully half of her patient load today is female, she says, and they demonstrate the same addictive patterns as men. "There is a very definite breakdown syndrome: fears of failure, of laziness, of boredom, that other people will find out they are not effective; then chronic fatigue and paranoia. The obsession to work is coupled with the addiction for control."

Suffice to say, this is not the sort of analysis that sits well with modern feminists. As the data on female unhappiness piles up, they increasingly question the connection to careerism, or the entire premise of happiness surveys. "The women's movement was never about happiness," says the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and feminist Susan Faludi, in an assertion that will surely surprise many a woman who marched for equal rights. "It was about claiming one's full place in the world. What is described as women's unhappiness isn't about them being unable to handle all of these great new opportunities. It's unhappiness over the fact that things haven't changed: that they are still burdened with a second shift."

Perhaps. But the findings to date are disturbing enough to lead researchers to drill deeper in search of a more nuanced understanding of women's responses. Is unhappiness a reflection of their emotions on the day they are surveyed? Is it frustrated ambition, as Faludi would have it? Or is it something less tangible, such as spiritual hunger, or longing? Stevenson, for one, floats the hypothesis that women are simply conditioned to expect more from life than they did three decades ago. This tends to apply to all aspects of life, however, meaning all but the most gifted women are bound to run up against their own limitations. Stevenson tells a troubling story about a teenage girl who had just accomplished a near-perfect score on her college admission tests. She was brainy and athletic, but that wasn't enough. "She said it was very important to her to be 'effortlessly hot,' " Stevenson says. "I was flabbergasted."

The beneficiaries, of course, are the men lucky enough to have such women in their lives. They are gaining downtime by having a breadwinner. They get joy from their wives' accomplishments. They are fulfilled by the presence of physical beauty. If they are family-oriented, they may even get to become stay-at-home dads. For the few men who understand the price their spouses pay for happiness, it may inspire the sort of emotional generosity we tend to associate with females. But it's a safe bet for now that a good many won't. And if you told feminists 30 years ago that a generation of Tobys and Pauls would be the ones enjoying the fruits of women's efforts today, more than a few might have put down their placards and gone home.
.

Yes, it is time for a New World Order... not the one the fembots and their Marxist bedfellows were dreaming of though. Perhaps with all our free time we will take over this wicked movement and make it into something suitable for men. -- RF

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

Further Reading:

Zenpriest #39 – Brer Patriarch

The Same Old Story – by Adam Kostakis

International Women’s Working Day – by V.I. Lenin

Sex and Culture

The following is an Amazon review of the book Sex and Culture, authored by J.D. Unwin and published in 1934. As well, after this review, another short review by a fellow MGTOW'r who makes some critical comments of his own (& who is also trying to get permission to put this book online - so keep your eyes out).

http://www.amazon.com/SEX-CULTURE-J-D-Unwin/dp/B000K7AQFC

(Review by MPC)

That is the basic thesis of this unjustly forgotten book. According to Professor Unwin, who was influenced by Freud, it is the "limitation of sexual opportunity" which creates the "mental energy" necessary to build a civilization.

He backs this up with exhaustive examples of the historical cycle he proposes. The cycle goes as follows: in a primitive society, people take their pleasure at whim, without commitment or limits. Then the practice of monogamous marriage, including premarital chastity, is instituted. (How he believes this first arises would take far too long to summarize here; read the book!) The sexual repression required for this chastity and fidelity increases the "mental energy" and the inner strength of those who practice it, enabling them to embark on long-term projects such as monumental architecture, agriculture, and conquest. In this early stage, men have enormous power over their wives and children, even when the children have grown up.

The "sexual opportunity" of women is always, of necessity, more limited than that of men in a civilized society, and this has a powerful effect, according to Unwin; they convey this repression and its benefits to their children. Indeed, he blames the decline of feudalism on its habit of putting its "best" women into convents to live as nuns - it is true that for a woman with intellectual aspirations, a convent was her only real option - instead of having them bear children to whom they could convey their "mental energy".

Unwin also criticizes polygamous societies; the easy "sexual opportunity" it affords men limits the "mental energy". He says, "That is why, I submit, the Moors in Spain achieved such a high culture. Their fathers were born into a polygamous tradition; but their mothers were the daughters of Christians and Jews, and had spent their early years in an absolutely monogamous environment. The sons of these women laid the foundations of rationalistic culture; but soon the supply of Christian and Jewish women was insufficient, so the incipient rationalism failed to mature greatly."

It always begins with the ruling class, the aristocracy, being the most chaste and monogamous. As they grow decadent after a few generations, the "middle class" (not necessarily in our modern understanding of it) is just getting the hang of it, having aped it from their betters, and they acquire more power in the society.

In time, however, the strict monogamy loosens. Unwin speculates that the extreme power the builders of civilizations have over their wives and children is unbearable to most, and the decrease of this power is inevitable. Unwin's attention is more on the monogamy than on the legal position of women, but the two seem to march hand in hand. "A female emancipating movement is a cultural phenomenon of unfailing regularity; it appears to be the necessary outcome of absolute monogamy. The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women, which is sometimes emphasized, has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity."

Indeed, as sexual opportunity becomes easier - which always takes place in concert with female emancipation - the society's mental energy weakens, it cannot continue to invent things or maintain what it has, and in a few generations it is easily conquered by a robust monogamous patriarchy, which is fairly bursting with the mental energy of repressed sexuality.

Professor Unwin, by the way, was not in any way a male chauvinist. He concluded his book with a hopeful wish that we may find some way to have sexual repression and the equality of the sexes at the same time, and clearly believed that women are not inherently unfit for power and independence.

That is one of the two criticisms I would make of this excellent work. But one can hardly blame Professor Unwin, who was writing in 1934, long before scientific study had verified that all of the traditional stereotypes about women were based in biological fact. Indeed, thanks to feminist domination of mass media, few people today are aware of this.

The other criticism is that Unwin focuses all of his attention on the "mental energy" caused by sexual repression. I suspect he is right about it, but there is another vital factor in the building of a civilization, and that is paternity. Men build things - houses, palaces, empires, codes of ethics - so that they can pass them on to their own children, and thus achieve one kind of immortality. Men who know they cannot train and endow their children are disinclined to produce. This, even more than the lack of opportunity for personal enrichment, is why communism and socialism are such abysmal failures, and why inheritance tax is such a dangerous threat to civilization itself. It would be good to read an intertwining of this theory and Unwin's. This book has long been out of print and copies are rare and expensive, but until this situation is remedied, it can be obtained through inter-library loan. I highly recommend it for its exhaustive documentation.

-----

A further review by married:

Unwin's research is extremely valuable, but his explanation is nonsense. One has to understand that as a liberal anthropologist, he never expected the results that he found, and was undoubtedly not very happy with them, but he was honest enough to report that facts as he found them. His explanation is an attempt to reconcile the facts with his liberal beliefs, when they are, in fact, irreconcilable. The only limit of sexual opportunity in the historical societies that he describes is limits for women. Prostitution was very widespread in these societies, so men never lacked sex.

(married is currently attempting to get permission to publish the book online - so, if he is successful, I will post the link to it on the blog).