Perhaps I have given the wrong impression with my last post. It is not so much that I "want to quit," but more that I am very worried that for some issues, we are behaving exactly as "they" would expect us to. There is virtually no doubt that we are dealing with Marxist techniques of how to manipulate mass populations, and upon studying such techniques from the past, it becomes evident that Marxists never walk in a straight line. They always zig zag to get to their goal. They push to the left to cause the debate & the change, then they allow the backlash to the right to consolodate their gains.
So, for example, take Marriage/No Fault Divorce. They created No Fault Divorce 35 years ago or so. No Fault Divorce/The Decline of Marriage is one of the largest underlying factors of our societal ills. I don't think I need to go into them all, as most of you already understand them. But the point I would like make is that this was a radical push to the left. VERY RADICAL! Never heard of before! No Fault Divorce Laws have caused an enormous amount of other laws, it has created entirely new organizations, and it has created entirely new multi-billion dollar industries.
No Fault Divorce should go. Follow the time line from the advent of No Fault Divorce and let the pieces fall into place. This is Marxism at work - create the conflict and have a predetermined outcome. It does not become visible unless one has the benefit of 35 years of hindsight. No Fault Divorce has, over its time frame, become exactly the same as "Man Fault Divorce" before No Fault Divorce existed. And it was no accident. They wanted to split apart the sexes.
But it becomes so outrageous that "they" know there will be a backlash. They are not dummies. And don't forget, their whole game is to create a conflict with a predetermined outcome - so they can offer the "proper" solution. That it was women who spearheaded all of this claptrap with feminism was done more because it is obvious to everyone from Aristotle to Marx that women control the culture - so they must always be the spearhead into changing society, and the rest will follow. But these people are not stupid either. They know about people's psychology, women may be able to push unreasonably, but men will push back - eventually.
Men pushing back will be "the movement to the right." It will consolodate the gains they made with No Fault Divorce and also open the can of worms for their other stated goals: taking children from women and turning them over to the state. Shared parenting will reinforce the public's notion that there is nothing wrong with divorce and it will make it as firm as if it were in concrete that the State has more rights and power over people's children than the actual parents to whom such children belong! 50 or 60 years ago, people would have chased the state with pitchforks and shotguns if it were so arrogant to assume such a thing! Domestic Violence laws and shelters for men will also reinforce the "state's right" to invade our homes and control our personal lives. (Does anyone even remember Assault and Battery laws anymore?)
At any rate, I have much to say on this subject, including something that would work but is very difficult for me to convey to others properly. So, I will take my time and not try to do it all in one post. In the meantime, however, I am going to put up an old post for review because this is exactly what I wish to discuss... but with a twist.
******************************************************
First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read:
http://www.newswithviews.com/community_policing/community_policing.htm
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 man that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his uses 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory_(Frankfurt_School) 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 torture out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values:
1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence,
2 - MOVING the subject to the next level,
3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs.
(Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)
---
So, could you destroy something absolute, like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.
It's all pretty simple, 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 Mr. Rob Fedders files his 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 a 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. Rob 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!
---
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: "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 (***Note: Patai & Koertge write from a critical perspective of the aforementioned logic and use it in the context of an example. See Daphne Patai's website here: http://www.daphnepatai.com/ And read about her work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai )
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 theme:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30
Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:
- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?
- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"
- 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 2 or 3 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" http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )
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 Marriage's 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 gov't be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people. The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!
No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.
TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Thing You Have To Remember About The Will Of The People Is That 10 Years Ago We Were All Crazy For The Macarena
Well, the phrase went something like that anyway. I got it from the Reader's Digest, a Quotable Quote from Jon Daly, I believe. I couldn't find the issue any more; so sue me, Mr. Daly.
But its true, isn't it? The will of the people is a fickle beast that does not adhere to logic, but rather, to fashion.
These posts I am making (the last one and the next few) are all going to be related, although it may appear that they are completely separated. Marxism has never been defeated, and one of the things I keep looking for when I read more and more about Marxism/Cultural Marxism is: What is its Achilles Heel? I think I see one - something we could do right now that would be effective, but please bear with me as I need to make a few points first in order for it to make sense.
Now, onto the business of saving the world from itself, sigh.
I have spent some time reading through The Men's Tribute http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/home.htm which is an excellent site, btw.
There are many pieces, in chronological order, on the reading list of The Men's Tribute, including several that were written about the suffragettes & the vote from the actual time that the arguments were happening in society (ie. - the late 1800's & early 1900's). Reading these articles & essays are a way to obtain a unique perspective on the situation, and it is likely more accurate than listening to the mindless anally derived hot air that academics, the media & government keep directing at us about women being oppressed because they didn't have the vote.
Now, as for a disclaimer, I do not know for certain that I am correct. I am theorizing. Although, the more I look at the situation, the more confident I am becoming that with some hard digging & research, I could make a pretty strong case for this theory.
It is essential to understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy in order for this theory of mine to make sense. Why did the US Founding Fathers create a Republic? Why did they purposefully omit any mention of the word "Democracy?" They certainly knew what a Democracy was. The US Founding Fathers omitted the word Democracy because a Democracy was not what they intended for at all. They wanted a Republic and that's what they made. They did not make a system with universal democracy. The people are just plain and simple too busy or too stupid to understand the issues in the great depth needed on some of the issues, and therefore adhere to the fashion of the day, which can be easily manipulated via propaganda. This, of course, leads to the political leaders scrambling to do what they need to in order to get re-elected, rather than truly serving the best interests of the state/people. What politician worries about the effects of their actions 20 or 30 years from now when they might not even be in power in 6 months if they fail to adhere to the fashion of the day and thus, don't get re-elected?
“Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’” -- Samuel Adams
“...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” -- James Madison
"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." -- Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1801-1835
It is for these reasons that Benjamin Franklin said that they had formed a Republic, in the hope that it would keep.
The problem of a Democracy is that it turns Statesmen into Politicians.
It is this very problem of a Democracy adhering to fashion rather than logic & altruistic intentions that Karl Marx noted when he stated:
"Democracy is the Road to Socialism." -- Karl Marx
If one looks back in time, it seems that Socialists/Marxists were very intent on injecting Democracy into the nations of the world.
And, ummm... gee folks, what famous old ladies do we know of that were heavily involved with Socialism in the 1800's & early 1900's? Why, I do believe it was the suffragettes!
Now, "Feminism" organized itself from a bunch of whining, moaning women into an official organized movement in the year 1848 - the same year as the Communist Manifesto was released.
And why would they have done so? To get the vote you say? Because men had the vote and women didn't.
Not so, I say!
Landless white men did not get the vote in the USA until 1856, Black men did not get the vote until 1870, and women in 1920 (in the USA - mid 1890's in New Zealand). In fact, here in Canada, women who owned property could vote up until 1867, when Canada separated from Britain and became a Dominion - which means it should be safe to say that this was because of British law, and therefore all throughout the entire British Empire, which was substantial in the 1800's, it is likely that women owning property all around the world had the same voting rights as men.
Why, oh why then, why in 1848 did Feminism officially organize itself, chock full of Socialist women?
"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx
Some of the "old articles" I read at The Men's Tribute made mention of the Suffragettes first demanding the right to vote for widows and spinsters who owned property, but had no vote. The thought of the day back then was "one property/household, one vote," and they were supported very quickly by a vast majority of men & society as a whole with this idea. But, after they acheived that, they quickly turned the whole of society amock with the notion of Universal Suffrage.
Think about it, in about 2 or 3 generations the idea of a having a "Republic" was completely thrown out of society and replaced with a "Universal Democracy," going exactly against what the Founding Fathers had intended and exactly according to what Marxists wanted. As Marx alluded to, if you want to change society you have to get the women on board first, as they control the culture & the morals, and the men will follow. Even if they were the last to actually get the vote, is it possible that they were the Agent Provacateur which caused the debate/conflict that got the whole of society to radically alter itself and oppose people as wise as Benjamin Franklin?
Isn't this about the same thing as has happened with the institution of marriage in our modern day?
Again, this is pure theory on my part about the hidden purpose of the suffragette movement, and I will have to keep my eyes and ears open for more clues & facts to prove my case.
Out of all of this, the one point I would like make clear, the only one that matters for the ultimate overall point I will be trying to make in the next few posts, is that the reason Marxists wanted us to have Democracies is because a Democracy can be easily manipulated to work against the people.
“You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.” -- G.K. Chesterton
Read more about Republics vs. Democracy here:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/republic-versus-democracy.html
But its true, isn't it? The will of the people is a fickle beast that does not adhere to logic, but rather, to fashion.
These posts I am making (the last one and the next few) are all going to be related, although it may appear that they are completely separated. Marxism has never been defeated, and one of the things I keep looking for when I read more and more about Marxism/Cultural Marxism is: What is its Achilles Heel? I think I see one - something we could do right now that would be effective, but please bear with me as I need to make a few points first in order for it to make sense.
Now, onto the business of saving the world from itself, sigh.
I have spent some time reading through The Men's Tribute http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/home.htm which is an excellent site, btw.
There are many pieces, in chronological order, on the reading list of The Men's Tribute, including several that were written about the suffragettes & the vote from the actual time that the arguments were happening in society (ie. - the late 1800's & early 1900's). Reading these articles & essays are a way to obtain a unique perspective on the situation, and it is likely more accurate than listening to the mindless anally derived hot air that academics, the media & government keep directing at us about women being oppressed because they didn't have the vote.
Now, as for a disclaimer, I do not know for certain that I am correct. I am theorizing. Although, the more I look at the situation, the more confident I am becoming that with some hard digging & research, I could make a pretty strong case for this theory.
It is essential to understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy in order for this theory of mine to make sense. Why did the US Founding Fathers create a Republic? Why did they purposefully omit any mention of the word "Democracy?" They certainly knew what a Democracy was. The US Founding Fathers omitted the word Democracy because a Democracy was not what they intended for at all. They wanted a Republic and that's what they made. They did not make a system with universal democracy. The people are just plain and simple too busy or too stupid to understand the issues in the great depth needed on some of the issues, and therefore adhere to the fashion of the day, which can be easily manipulated via propaganda. This, of course, leads to the political leaders scrambling to do what they need to in order to get re-elected, rather than truly serving the best interests of the state/people. What politician worries about the effects of their actions 20 or 30 years from now when they might not even be in power in 6 months if they fail to adhere to the fashion of the day and thus, don't get re-elected?
“Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’” -- Samuel Adams
“...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” -- James Madison
"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." -- Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1801-1835
It is for these reasons that Benjamin Franklin said that they had formed a Republic, in the hope that it would keep.
The problem of a Democracy is that it turns Statesmen into Politicians.
It is this very problem of a Democracy adhering to fashion rather than logic & altruistic intentions that Karl Marx noted when he stated:
"Democracy is the Road to Socialism." -- Karl Marx
If one looks back in time, it seems that Socialists/Marxists were very intent on injecting Democracy into the nations of the world.
And, ummm... gee folks, what famous old ladies do we know of that were heavily involved with Socialism in the 1800's & early 1900's? Why, I do believe it was the suffragettes!
Now, "Feminism" organized itself from a bunch of whining, moaning women into an official organized movement in the year 1848 - the same year as the Communist Manifesto was released.
And why would they have done so? To get the vote you say? Because men had the vote and women didn't.
Not so, I say!
Landless white men did not get the vote in the USA until 1856, Black men did not get the vote until 1870, and women in 1920 (in the USA - mid 1890's in New Zealand). In fact, here in Canada, women who owned property could vote up until 1867, when Canada separated from Britain and became a Dominion - which means it should be safe to say that this was because of British law, and therefore all throughout the entire British Empire, which was substantial in the 1800's, it is likely that women owning property all around the world had the same voting rights as men.
Why, oh why then, why in 1848 did Feminism officially organize itself, chock full of Socialist women?
"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx
Some of the "old articles" I read at The Men's Tribute made mention of the Suffragettes first demanding the right to vote for widows and spinsters who owned property, but had no vote. The thought of the day back then was "one property/household, one vote," and they were supported very quickly by a vast majority of men & society as a whole with this idea. But, after they acheived that, they quickly turned the whole of society amock with the notion of Universal Suffrage.
Think about it, in about 2 or 3 generations the idea of a having a "Republic" was completely thrown out of society and replaced with a "Universal Democracy," going exactly against what the Founding Fathers had intended and exactly according to what Marxists wanted. As Marx alluded to, if you want to change society you have to get the women on board first, as they control the culture & the morals, and the men will follow. Even if they were the last to actually get the vote, is it possible that they were the Agent Provacateur which caused the debate/conflict that got the whole of society to radically alter itself and oppose people as wise as Benjamin Franklin?
Isn't this about the same thing as has happened with the institution of marriage in our modern day?
Again, this is pure theory on my part about the hidden purpose of the suffragette movement, and I will have to keep my eyes and ears open for more clues & facts to prove my case.
Out of all of this, the one point I would like make clear, the only one that matters for the ultimate overall point I will be trying to make in the next few posts, is that the reason Marxists wanted us to have Democracies is because a Democracy can be easily manipulated to work against the people.
“You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.” -- G.K. Chesterton
Read more about Republics vs. Democracy here:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/republic-versus-democracy.html
Nihilistic Newspeaking Nitwits
The most important institution which the Cultural Marxist PC Idiots have attacked is our language. The language controls our thoughts as a society. Of course, Orwell spoke of this in 1984, refering to it as "Newspeak."
But it really is true, isn't it? If there is no word for something then we tend to think that thing doesn't exist. Likewise, a word can also be expanded upon to expand the the thoughts in the mind.
The blog "Exposing Feminism" has been making some excellent posts about how this word usage is being used against us, so I will quote a portion of one of his posts which does a good job of illustrating this:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/word-manipulation-another-example/
Let’s examine the phrase ‘positive discrimination’.
Surely it follows that the phrase ‘negative discrimination’ exists also? In the absence of a clear definition of ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ discrimination, can they truly be said to exist?
The truth is that there is no such thing as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ discrimination. Both of these vague concepts need only one word - discrimination.
You can apply the same logic when breaking down the phrase ‘reverse sexism’.
These awkward, fabricated phrases have only recently come into modern usage. They are idioms constructed and designed to make you think in a certain way about particular groups of people.
How true. And they are positively everywhere. It's not an accident that these words exist. However, it can get more sinister than this. It can actually be used to destroy things when coupled with the use of Critical Theory and the Dialectical.
Let's look at how these word associations have been used to destroy the institution of marriage.
Think about the word No Fault Divorce. Clever, isn't it? The cold hard fact is that there is nothing "No Fault" about divorce in the modern day. Court decisions come down as hard on men as they would have before the days of No Fault Divorce - pretty much to the extent that No Fault Divorce means the same thing as "Man's Fault Divorce" back in the 1950's. It is a sneaky little ploy against men to call this travesty of justice "No-Fault," but the word association is very powerful. Furthermore it sounds very "equal," the very virus that has removed so many of our freedoms. Of course, at the time, the Gender Idiots from Academia, Government & the Media told us that problems within people's relationships were far to complex to be assigning blame. Yeah, right! Too bad these hypocrites don't take the same approach when assigning 100% of the blame to men in Domestic Violence Disputes. No problem assigning blame within people's relationships there, eh? Even when sick little serpents like these are bragging amongst themselves of their Criminal DV Acts against men: http://jezebel.com/gossip/domestic-disturbances/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have-294383.php
Here are some more points to illustrate how language has been used to destroy the institution of marriage by the treasonous asshats in Academia, Government & the Media (the Axis of Evil):
- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?
- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"
- 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 2 or 3 years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family." All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots.
---
But language is not only used to destroy by division, sometimes it's used to protect one's position. The Marxist institution of Feminism is also using language to divide its definition to protect itself from the inevitable onslaught that is coming from my good and angry XY comrades that compromise MGTOW, the MRM, and society in general. Feminists know what they have done, and something is happening which they fear intensely: Scrutiny of the evil lies and social engineering agenda they have been forcing upon us.
So, how do they use language to defend themselves?
Well, they have split up feminism into many different branches. We now have Gender Feminism, Equity Feminism, Marxist feminism, Eco Feminism, Racial/Ethnic Feminism, Don't Shave Armpits Feminism, Obnoxious Loud Mouth Feminism etc etc.
So, now when someone attacks feminism, the XX gender idiots can go: "But, but, I'm not one of those Marxist Feminists! I'm an equity feminist! We're not all the same!"
Yeah right!
And next week I'm travelling to New York City to give a speech to the brothers in Harlem that I'm an "Equity White Supremacist." Do you think that they should accept such retarded nonsense? I think I'd be lucky to get out of there alive.
The fact is that the very word "feminism" implies that men were, as a class, oppressing women as a class - and therefore women needed to be liberated from men. This is the very crux of Marxism itself; it needs to polarize society into separate groups and then work the interests of those groups against eachother until there is no more freedom.
All feminism is based on Marxism. Period.
If an "equity feminist" wants my sympathetic ear, the first thing she has to do is drop the word feminist from anything that describes her and then try to be a normal freakin' human being for a few years so as to prove her worth to me.
Pfft. Equity Nazis. Absurd!
But, rant off about those who maketh Rob's blood boil.
Language is also used to consolodate a whole bunch of things into one word, so that even the smallest portion of a subject gets treated as the most encompassing thing that such a word can imply.
The Societal Traitors that work in the Domestic Violence/Rape Industry are famous for this. They make infractions like shouting or arguing over finances to be construed as domestic violence and define it as such, but then sell the whole works of Domestic Violence as some 240lb asshole who comes home drunk on daily basis only to pin his wee wikkle 110lb wife down to the floor and bust her lips and nose open. The fact is, this is such a small portion of what makes up the "real" numbers these leacherous traitors keep spewing out, that there is no doubt that an immediate fraud investigation should be be launched against these women - they are, after all, cooking the books to steal money from the taxpayers. When one looks deeper at the overall agenda behind it, Treason investigations would not be out of line either. Hell, I've even seen a "study" where one Gender Nitwit from Academia cooked the books by claiming that women who contract STD's are victims of Domestic Violence because of the effects that contracting such diseases had on their psyche. Of course, DV is 100% men's fault. When men get STD's, they go into the basement of the Patriarchy's Club House and stick their penis in the STD machine, and select which affliction they prefer to abuse a woman with. But, of course, the Gender Idiots manipulate the language to imply that Domestic Violence means a women (not men) getting hit physically, and they wouldn't dream of losing the all encompassing term "Domestic Violence."
What actually is "violent" about arguing over the visa bill coming back with an $85 charge for the wife's special herbal shampoo, after she spent last weekend bitching at you that the family couldn't afford your weekend case of beer?
Anyway, there are lots of people who have been writing about this very most important aspect of Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism so I won't bore you with my take on it any longer. Except to say that I keep looking for Marxism's Achilles Heel, and I believe that I have found one - albeit a bit complicated of one - but it definitely involves language.
But it really is true, isn't it? If there is no word for something then we tend to think that thing doesn't exist. Likewise, a word can also be expanded upon to expand the the thoughts in the mind.
The blog "Exposing Feminism" has been making some excellent posts about how this word usage is being used against us, so I will quote a portion of one of his posts which does a good job of illustrating this:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/word-manipulation-another-example/
Let’s examine the phrase ‘positive discrimination’.
Surely it follows that the phrase ‘negative discrimination’ exists also? In the absence of a clear definition of ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ discrimination, can they truly be said to exist?
The truth is that there is no such thing as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ discrimination. Both of these vague concepts need only one word - discrimination.
You can apply the same logic when breaking down the phrase ‘reverse sexism’.
These awkward, fabricated phrases have only recently come into modern usage. They are idioms constructed and designed to make you think in a certain way about particular groups of people.
How true. And they are positively everywhere. It's not an accident that these words exist. However, it can get more sinister than this. It can actually be used to destroy things when coupled with the use of Critical Theory and the Dialectical.
Let's look at how these word associations have been used to destroy the institution of marriage.
Think about the word No Fault Divorce. Clever, isn't it? The cold hard fact is that there is nothing "No Fault" about divorce in the modern day. Court decisions come down as hard on men as they would have before the days of No Fault Divorce - pretty much to the extent that No Fault Divorce means the same thing as "Man's Fault Divorce" back in the 1950's. It is a sneaky little ploy against men to call this travesty of justice "No-Fault," but the word association is very powerful. Furthermore it sounds very "equal," the very virus that has removed so many of our freedoms. Of course, at the time, the Gender Idiots from Academia, Government & the Media told us that problems within people's relationships were far to complex to be assigning blame. Yeah, right! Too bad these hypocrites don't take the same approach when assigning 100% of the blame to men in Domestic Violence Disputes. No problem assigning blame within people's relationships there, eh? Even when sick little serpents like these are bragging amongst themselves of their Criminal DV Acts against men: http://jezebel.com/gossip/domestic-disturbances/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have-294383.php
Here are some more points to illustrate how language has been used to destroy the institution of marriage by the treasonous asshats in Academia, Government & the Media (the Axis of Evil):
- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?
- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"
- 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 2 or 3 years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family." All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots.
---
But language is not only used to destroy by division, sometimes it's used to protect one's position. The Marxist institution of Feminism is also using language to divide its definition to protect itself from the inevitable onslaught that is coming from my good and angry XY comrades that compromise MGTOW, the MRM, and society in general. Feminists know what they have done, and something is happening which they fear intensely: Scrutiny of the evil lies and social engineering agenda they have been forcing upon us.
So, how do they use language to defend themselves?
Well, they have split up feminism into many different branches. We now have Gender Feminism, Equity Feminism, Marxist feminism, Eco Feminism, Racial/Ethnic Feminism, Don't Shave Armpits Feminism, Obnoxious Loud Mouth Feminism etc etc.
So, now when someone attacks feminism, the XX gender idiots can go: "But, but, I'm not one of those Marxist Feminists! I'm an equity feminist! We're not all the same!"
Yeah right!
And next week I'm travelling to New York City to give a speech to the brothers in Harlem that I'm an "Equity White Supremacist." Do you think that they should accept such retarded nonsense? I think I'd be lucky to get out of there alive.
The fact is that the very word "feminism" implies that men were, as a class, oppressing women as a class - and therefore women needed to be liberated from men. This is the very crux of Marxism itself; it needs to polarize society into separate groups and then work the interests of those groups against eachother until there is no more freedom.
All feminism is based on Marxism. Period.
If an "equity feminist" wants my sympathetic ear, the first thing she has to do is drop the word feminist from anything that describes her and then try to be a normal freakin' human being for a few years so as to prove her worth to me.
Pfft. Equity Nazis. Absurd!
But, rant off about those who maketh Rob's blood boil.
Language is also used to consolodate a whole bunch of things into one word, so that even the smallest portion of a subject gets treated as the most encompassing thing that such a word can imply.
The Societal Traitors that work in the Domestic Violence/Rape Industry are famous for this. They make infractions like shouting or arguing over finances to be construed as domestic violence and define it as such, but then sell the whole works of Domestic Violence as some 240lb asshole who comes home drunk on daily basis only to pin his wee wikkle 110lb wife down to the floor and bust her lips and nose open. The fact is, this is such a small portion of what makes up the "real" numbers these leacherous traitors keep spewing out, that there is no doubt that an immediate fraud investigation should be be launched against these women - they are, after all, cooking the books to steal money from the taxpayers. When one looks deeper at the overall agenda behind it, Treason investigations would not be out of line either. Hell, I've even seen a "study" where one Gender Nitwit from Academia cooked the books by claiming that women who contract STD's are victims of Domestic Violence because of the effects that contracting such diseases had on their psyche. Of course, DV is 100% men's fault. When men get STD's, they go into the basement of the Patriarchy's Club House and stick their penis in the STD machine, and select which affliction they prefer to abuse a woman with. But, of course, the Gender Idiots manipulate the language to imply that Domestic Violence means a women (not men) getting hit physically, and they wouldn't dream of losing the all encompassing term "Domestic Violence."
What actually is "violent" about arguing over the visa bill coming back with an $85 charge for the wife's special herbal shampoo, after she spent last weekend bitching at you that the family couldn't afford your weekend case of beer?
Anyway, there are lots of people who have been writing about this very most important aspect of Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism so I won't bore you with my take on it any longer. Except to say that I keep looking for Marxism's Achilles Heel, and I believe that I have found one - albeit a bit complicated of one - but it definitely involves language.
Foundational Arguments
Has anyone ever noticed that all of feminism is based on only a few foundational arguments?
"Gender is a social construct."
"Men are the sole perpetrators of Domestic Violence."
"Marriage is akin to slavery for women."
You know them all. But have a look at how this whole system works. It works on the basis of Dialectical Arguments. Basically, it is set up to work like the legal system, it is all based on precedents. The fembots have convinced the masses of their foundational argument, and all of their subsequent arguments are based on the "precedent" at the very bottom.
"Gender is a social construct."
"Men are the sole perpetrators of Domestic Violence."
"Marriage is akin to slavery for women."
You know them all. But have a look at how this whole system works. It works on the basis of Dialectical Arguments. Basically, it is set up to work like the legal system, it is all based on precedents. The fembots have convinced the masses of their foundational argument, and all of their subsequent arguments are based on the "precedent" at the very bottom.
The problem that we keep having, is we are arguing about the thing at the "top." By the time we are done defending our position against the "new" fembot argument, 10 other things have cropped up in the meantime.
I wonder what would happen if we stopped arguing "at the top," and started arguing "at the bottom?"
"Gender is a social construct?"
REALLY?
How about we divide gay activists from feminism by demanding that "Gender" actually is a social construct? Hmmm... You can't be BORN GAY if Gender is a social construct, n'est pas?
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!
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
***************************************************************
.
The Tao of God, the Way and its Power. - by Mamonaku
.
.
Greetings one and all, and Peace be with you.
.
(The Taizokai Mandala)
.
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:"
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.
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)
"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:
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.
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.
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)
(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).
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!
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.
.
.
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.
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).
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
.
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/
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/
Sunday, August 24, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, August 22, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
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
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
Friday, August 08, 2008
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.
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
Monday, July 21, 2008
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!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
