The following was taken from If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules? pp201-204
Twenty-one Points for Women Who Want Their Men to "Open Up"
A perfectly valid word for an exchange of thoughts and feelings is "intercourse." There's a good reason for this. For every complaint that women have about how we try to get sex from them, we can make a similar point about how women try to get emotion from us.
1. Don't just snap your fingers and say, "Open up."
2. Though you may feel a strong urge to "do it," men are different. Intercourse does not always have to be in and out, back and forth. Men value and enjoy non-verbal intercourse, like being understood and accepted for what they are, not what they say.
3. You can't force intercourse and expect your man to enjoy it. You might force him to fake an understanding just to get it over with.
4. Men will not hop into emotional intimacy with just anyone. Men know that women are always ready to get into someone's head. You must convince him that he is not just another piece of mind.
5. You should let him be on top sometimes. Men are tired of being in the inferior position, especially in hot and passionate intercourse.
6. Don't perform tricks that make him feel inadequate. Remember that you have been raised with more skill in intercourse than he has.
7. Men were taught that only women enjoy intercourse. Help him not to feel wierd or guilty for doing it.
8. Let him take control sometimes. Don't insist on controlling whose needs must be met when.
9. Don't talk and tell. Don't get him to "put out" and then rush to your women friends with the intimate details.
10. If your thrusting and probing hurts him, stop immediately. Don't assume he'll start to like it just because you do.
11. Allow him to initiate. Don't hit on him with so many requests for intercourse that he never feels the urge to start intercourse at his own pace, according to his own needs.
12. Men are often shy and insecure about their flaws and blemishes, about whether you will find them attractive. Don't expect your man to show you everything right away.
13. Remember that good intercourse is not a wrestling match. There should be no winner and no loser.
14. Respect your lover as an equal partner. You don't own him; he does not exist for the sole purpose of providing your pleasure.
15. If you have ever abused him during intercourse, understand that it might take a long, long time for your man to open up to you again.
16. Keep in mind that men's and women's rhythms are different. Don't get angry if his needs don't coincide with yours.
17. If you simply want to release tension, let him know. Don't pretend that you are doing it for him. Men often resist intercourse if they feel pressured about "getting into it."
18. There is no such thing as the ideal lover. Don't try to make your partner into something he isn't. Accept your man as he is.
19. Foreplay is essential; gently stroking of the ego can help. If you encounter a ravenous ego, remember it is ravenous not because it gets too much healthy attention, but because it gets too little.
20. Don't get hung up on achieving simultaneous understanding. Men's understandings take longer, but they are usually more intense.
21. Respect him in the morning.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Monday, November 08, 2010
What's Next? Cries of Sparta?
Um, actually… Yes!
Lol! I had a case of rant-itis the other day over at Dr. Helen’s, not that you care to read my ramblings… oh, wait… why are you here again?
Anyway, the gist of my argument was that academics are stooooopid, and it must be the biggest stimulus package of all time to have thrown away scores of knowledge about humans & the relations of the sexes that was known in the past, under the horrific charge of “misogynist,” only to now pay our modern-day slackademics big bucks to “rediscover it.”
Captain Chivalry showed up with his cape wrapped tightly around his eyes… as well as a professional victim-screecher, er, dissimulator… well, anyway, the link is up there. It was good fun.
Anyhow,
It seems the equality-seekers have found another university study revealing some shining light on knowledge “never before known.” I guess we can now talk about it, since the seekers of truth have sanctioned it with a real study! Yippee! It must be real now!
Study Shows Disparities in Criminal Sentencing
“The assessment of fees and fines also appears to be influenced by defendant characteristics: Hispanic defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than white defendants, and male defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than female defendants.” – The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State
(dumb dee dumb dumb… moving along…)
“The report urges the state to overhaul the way Superior Court judges assess those penalties.”
Attorney Marc Angelucci writes that this study corroborates others that show, for example, ‘gender differences favoring women are more often found than race differences favoring whites.’ (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v.35, pp.136-68)”
Ssh! Quiet! Can you hear it?
“Click…clunk…creeeeeeek.”
Yup. That’s the sound of yet another door to the Mysteries of the Universe being unlocked by our modern high priests, the Slackademics.
Yessirree! And the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends the following actions:
Step One: Run to the government.
Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee.
Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase: “DOOOooooOOOoooOOOooo something! We’re not EEEEeeeEEEeeekwal!”
.
Of course, for a lot cheaper, they could have just read this kind of stuff:
Excerpts from The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women
Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state… / …in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury… / …But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.
Huh?
Whatchoo talkin’ about, Aristotle?
You mean to tell us that it’s near impossible to bring both sexes equally under the law?
I call BS! Has there been a peer-reviewed study done on this?
No?
Then shut up, you misogynist! Telling us clearly with your words that women belong in the kitchen! The nerve!
Obviously women never get into trouble with the law because they never sin! Don’t you believe in equality?
How else can you explain it?
—
(Dissimulation = A form of deception similar to pool hustling).
Excerpts from Schopenhauer’s Essay on Women
“… Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength, but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and cuttlefish with its dark inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic for the very stupid as the very clever.
Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to those weapons when attacked; and they feel that in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all…"
Holy crap, Arthur! You Neanderthal! How dare you say that women should be chained to the bed but the chain should be long enough to reach the kitchen?
What’s that? You say it should reach the bathroom too? Cause you ain’t cleanin’ no toilets?
What do you mean Darwinists ought to believe this too? You’re so full of it. One of the basic premises of Darwinism is that animals devolve into creatures that are less suited for tasks and defences… isn’t it?
—
Well, since I do believe that men and women are equal – but vastly different, and especially since I believe that we are equal in sin… let’s make sure that men don’t get let off the hook completely.
Here’s an excerpt of Otto Weininger’s preface from Sex and Character:
"Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be.
I need not say that I am prepared for the answer women will have to the judgment I have passed on their sex. My investigation, indeed, turns against man in the end, and although in a deeper sense than the advocates of women's rights could anticipate, assigns to man the heaviest and most real blame."
Okay then, as long as it’s men that are being blamed and not women!
Mutter, mutter… you’re still a cretin… mutter.
The fact is that women have always been able to get away with being treated with kid gloves.
“Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one.”
.
But, Lizzie Borden was not punished. Scores of people rushed to her defense and she was acquitted. There was no investigation afterwards.
When was the last time a woman was executed in the USA anyway? How many men have been executed since then? And they’re just figuring out that men and women aren’t treated equally before the law?
Why wasn’t Genene Jones fried? She was a mass baby killer. She’s getting out of jail in another 8 years. She should have swung from a rope, and then gotten fried. Better yet, she should have been hung from an electrified rope!
Belfort Bax, writing in1908’s The Legal Subjection of Men and in 1913’s The Fraud of Feminism wrote extensively of the phenomenon of women being treated more leniently than men by the courts… so much that, well, I just don’t even know where to begin. You can find examples of all sorts. From society demanding that innocent fathers also be charged when a woman alone commits infanticide… to 14 year old boys being charged for sex crimes when engaging in the deed with 16 year old girls who were the sexual aggressors… to demands that men who hire prostitutes ought to be charged equally as the prostitute herself…
Kinda makes you think that academics who claim to be “studying” this stuff while putting out their palms and asking to be paid for it… well… their integrity certainly ought to be scrutinized, or at the very least, the integrity of their “superior” degrees.
Of course, one could always just do a head count of how many men are imprisoned in the country and then do the same for women… of course, there are not equal numbers – mainly because women sin less. Isn’t that right Mr. & Ms. Equality, Ph D.? You could probably just google it.
Women have been performing the same types of crimes for a long, long, looooong time already as well.
Genesis 39 is the story about how Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife for malicious purposes.
Judges 4:21 describes the “Mary Winkler’s” of old – killing men in their sleep:
“But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died.”
There is nothing new under the sun – we have only wilfully thrown away all of the old knowledge about the sexes – and we did it all to make the ladies happy.
It’s time to stop listening to these charlatans and toss slackademia into the sea where it belongs. The Social Sciences in particular ought to get an extra ass-kicking.
It’s time to start telling people who demand a “peer-reviewed study” to “prove” something, to shove it up their ass. Is that where the Absolute Truth originates? From a panel of idiots giving another idiot the thumbs up?
Sure, there are some uses for slackademia. Toilet paper has some uses too.
But, it’s time to tell the Ph D’s and other slackademics to shut up and sit at the back of the bus – they’ve done more than enough damage already.
It’s not something that has spun out of control in women, but moreover, it’s that society has thrown away the previous knowledge of how the sexes worked and somehow, idiotically, now believes that men and women can be treated equally under the law.
It is impossible to treat men and women equally under the law.
That’s why society used to treat men and women differently. Men respond more to being controlled by the law, but women respond to socialization and shaming – to fashion, as it were.
The Marxists who were behind the Women’s Movement from the beginning knew this too. See what one of the most esteemed forerunners of Marxism thought of the subject?
“…Women may have happy ideas, taste and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated – who knows how? – G.F. Hegel
In other words, women form their ideas and opinions from fashion and socialization, rather than by universal principles and logic.
While men are controlled by the law, women are controlled by socialization and shaming. And since women don’t much care what we men think, such socialized and shaming control must come from other women. And that’s usually how it was done – the older ladies clucked and shamed the younger ones, and shunned the women who behaved outrageously. (They do just the opposite today, and their socialization encourages bad behaviour).
This does not mean that women are only good for cooking and birthing babies… although, given our below replacement level birthrates, a few babies might not be a bad idea. And yes, a good meal once in a while would be nice too.
But no matter how much that is given to lobby groups to “change the law,” it still won’t matter.
There are fundamental differences in how we operate. Trying to control women by the same factors that are used to control men is completely fruitless. One might as well try to keep a flock of geese in a field by use of a cattle fence. It ain’t gonna work. Men and women must be treated differently.
Far more effective than funding lobby groups to bully the government to pass more laws would be for men to start brainstorming on how to motivate women to start “shaming the sense into eachother.”
As Karl Marx himself noted, women are society – they lead, since men are the sexual servants of the female. Too bad they lead by a sense of fashion and sisterhood, rather than by the logic of universality and the rule of law.
“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
(Keep in mind that Marx’s idea of “social progress” is the destruction of Western Civilization)
Aristotle explains this in the The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women as well.
“But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.” – Aristotle
Don’t expect any help from the ladies though. For as Aristotle further points out:
“…the influence of the Lacedaemonion women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.” – Aristotle
Is this not what we see all around us as well? There are obvious things wrong, and every time a man tries to point out the obvious, the women all gather around him and throw every damn monkey wrench at him as possible. Making sense does not matter to the ladies… but throwing monkey wrenches at the men does matter.
That our children inherit a safe, stable and prosperous society is truly the utmost “best interests of the child” that there is… but, point out the factors that are destroying us… nope, here come the ladies and their senseless monkey wrenches.
They obviously feel that bitching at men and confusing everything what men say is the main purpose of their lives. Otherwise they would smarten the hell up and recognize that they are also part of society and thus, are also part of the problem – and the solution. They refuse to do that. The ladies love to dissimulate.
“SPARTA!” Fedrz cries.
.
The professional victim/dissimulator, that showed up to argue about senseless crap over at Dr. Helen’s is a good example of the type of “help” we can expect from the ladies as our civilization begins to crumble about us.
There was a reason why things were the way they were in the past.
No, women don’t necessarily need to be in the kitchen. Who ever said that, except for the monkey-wrench-throwing women themselves?
Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.
If society refuses to acknowledge these things about the way the sexes interact with eachother, then no amount of laws being changed, or studies being done, will ever help – not one single bit!
These academics “discovering” such things while accepting payment for it are discovering jack-shit. It has all already been discovered and socially censored into oblivion under the politically incorrect charge of “misogyny.”
“Why were things in the past so misogynist?” That is the question that our ill-esteemed academics ought to be studying. The blanket reason for “why” has been “the evil patriarchy,” when it is obvious all around us that the old guys were right, while the “new intellectuals” of slackademia are spineless idiots.
Remember the first reason God gave when he cursed Adam and kicked him out of Paradise:
Genesis 3:17
(17) To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘you must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Friday, November 05, 2010
Women and Children
Briffault's Law: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. -- Robert Briffault
.
It has always been this way, and it always will be. Women's ability to empathize with men is similar to a child's ability to empathize with adults. This not to say that women have the intelligence of a child, because that is not what I am saying - just simply that the ability to empathize can be compared to a child's ability to empathize with adults. A child loves its parents, but the child will always be more selfish than the parent. In the same way, a woman can love a man, but her concern will always be more selfish than the man's.
The great social engineers that are committing treason against their own people have recognized this well, and this is why they attacked the relationship between men and women first. The next step is to attack the relationship between women and children, which has a similar working system to that between men and women. This is how the human race works:
.
Men --> Women --> Children (--> Puppies)
.
This is what has happened:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women --> Children
.
This is what is starting to happen, and will continue to happen in the future:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women <-- (pushed away by) Children.
.
And then our social engineers will have done what they aimed to do all the way from the 2nd wave feminists right back to Frederick Engels - destroy the family. Once the family is destroyed, individual humans become quite malleable, and then the social engineers can go about creating Marx's Utopia.
.
Ain't you excited?
.
Women will never feel the compassion for men that men will feel for women. The problem is that men are too stupid to realize that women aren't like men, don't think like men, don't have the same desires as men, and have no desire to try to emulate any of the above. Man perceives woman as he would like her to be, not as she truly is. It's the same way that a woman always perceives her children to be superior and inherently good, even when they aren't. She perceives her chldren as she wishes they were, not as they actually are. Nature gave us some blinders. We have been hoodwinked into thinking men and women are the same. "Gender is a social construct," remember? It's complete hogwash. Women manipulate men in the same that children manipulate women. There is nothing evil or sinister about it, it is just the natural order of things. We are, after all, still of the animal kingdom, and we see all kinds of such manipulations throughout nature and we certainly don't call that "unfair."
.
Also, I don't think that the men in the Middle East have little regard for women. Perhaps the stupid worker drone men do, because they have been indoctrinated to believe so (in much the same silly way that we have been indoctrinated to believe that the ridiculous notion that the sexes are equal in all things). In fact, once one begins to study a little bit of human nature, it becomes obvious that cultures in the Middle East have an enormous fear of women's sexuality and their ability to use it to malign men and society. Kinda similar to how adults have to put their foot down and over-ride a child's desires and not allow themselves to be manipulated by a child's whining and crying as they do everything to get their way. If one lets a child get everything they want, tomorrow they will expect more. The same goes for women. Women are never going to stop demanding men do more and more for them, while offering men less and less in return. Perhaps the Middle East goes too far, and perhaps we don't go far enough.
.
One has to only look at the evolution of the bikini to see that women tend to push, and push, and push until it appears there are no limits at all. Throughout history, civilizations have descended into decadence shortly before their collapse, and then things reset again from a much more misogynist point of view. (That's the facts, as ugly as they sound). It would be a huge leap forward if the human race could sit down and discuss these things fearlessly and rationally, and seek a suitable solution that serves us all (without the help of Slackademia, thank you very much - they have done 90% of the damage, and it's time for these hosers to sit at the back of the bus for a few centuries). Sadly, such notions of rationally discussing things are about as fruitless as discussing with a 5 year old the value of good nutrition, then setting him free in the grocery store and seriously expecting him to bring back Bran Flakes cereal instead of Coco Puffs. Nature rules us, we don't rule it. At best, we can temper it and harness it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Related:
.
Bonecrcker #4 – Immature or Evil?
.
Bonecrcker #98 – Are Women Children or Adults?
.
Letter to His Son – by Lord Chesterfield, 1748
.
It has always been this way, and it always will be. Women's ability to empathize with men is similar to a child's ability to empathize with adults. This not to say that women have the intelligence of a child, because that is not what I am saying - just simply that the ability to empathize can be compared to a child's ability to empathize with adults. A child loves its parents, but the child will always be more selfish than the parent. In the same way, a woman can love a man, but her concern will always be more selfish than the man's.
The great social engineers that are committing treason against their own people have recognized this well, and this is why they attacked the relationship between men and women first. The next step is to attack the relationship between women and children, which has a similar working system to that between men and women. This is how the human race works:
.
Men --> Women --> Children (--> Puppies)
.
This is what has happened:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women --> Children
.
This is what is starting to happen, and will continue to happen in the future:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women <-- (pushed away by) Children.
.
And then our social engineers will have done what they aimed to do all the way from the 2nd wave feminists right back to Frederick Engels - destroy the family. Once the family is destroyed, individual humans become quite malleable, and then the social engineers can go about creating Marx's Utopia.
.
Ain't you excited?
.
Women will never feel the compassion for men that men will feel for women. The problem is that men are too stupid to realize that women aren't like men, don't think like men, don't have the same desires as men, and have no desire to try to emulate any of the above. Man perceives woman as he would like her to be, not as she truly is. It's the same way that a woman always perceives her children to be superior and inherently good, even when they aren't. She perceives her chldren as she wishes they were, not as they actually are. Nature gave us some blinders. We have been hoodwinked into thinking men and women are the same. "Gender is a social construct," remember? It's complete hogwash. Women manipulate men in the same that children manipulate women. There is nothing evil or sinister about it, it is just the natural order of things. We are, after all, still of the animal kingdom, and we see all kinds of such manipulations throughout nature and we certainly don't call that "unfair."
.
Also, I don't think that the men in the Middle East have little regard for women. Perhaps the stupid worker drone men do, because they have been indoctrinated to believe so (in much the same silly way that we have been indoctrinated to believe that the ridiculous notion that the sexes are equal in all things). In fact, once one begins to study a little bit of human nature, it becomes obvious that cultures in the Middle East have an enormous fear of women's sexuality and their ability to use it to malign men and society. Kinda similar to how adults have to put their foot down and over-ride a child's desires and not allow themselves to be manipulated by a child's whining and crying as they do everything to get their way. If one lets a child get everything they want, tomorrow they will expect more. The same goes for women. Women are never going to stop demanding men do more and more for them, while offering men less and less in return. Perhaps the Middle East goes too far, and perhaps we don't go far enough.
.
One has to only look at the evolution of the bikini to see that women tend to push, and push, and push until it appears there are no limits at all. Throughout history, civilizations have descended into decadence shortly before their collapse, and then things reset again from a much more misogynist point of view. (That's the facts, as ugly as they sound). It would be a huge leap forward if the human race could sit down and discuss these things fearlessly and rationally, and seek a suitable solution that serves us all (without the help of Slackademia, thank you very much - they have done 90% of the damage, and it's time for these hosers to sit at the back of the bus for a few centuries). Sadly, such notions of rationally discussing things are about as fruitless as discussing with a 5 year old the value of good nutrition, then setting him free in the grocery store and seriously expecting him to bring back Bran Flakes cereal instead of Coco Puffs. Nature rules us, we don't rule it. At best, we can temper it and harness it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Related:
.
Bonecrcker #4 – Immature or Evil?
.
Bonecrcker #98 – Are Women Children or Adults?
.
Letter to His Son – by Lord Chesterfield, 1748
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
In the Beginning...
No-one really knows how it was in the beginning. We have only speculation and theories. The Truth will likely never be known. Whether we find the Truth or not, has very little bearing on the nature of that Truth itself, for it exists unto itself. It exists completely separate from whether we discover it, or whether we even have the capabilities to find it, and so on.
Absolute Truth exists. It does not need us. We serve it, not the other way around. The Absolute Truth is the beginning and the end. It is never changing. It is what it is. It was here before us, and it will be here after us.
Was there evolution? Was there creation? Was the Genesis story of the Bible a mix of evolution and creation? There are obvious relationships between the stories of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) and the religions, stories, myths and legends found in cultures outside of Judeo-Christianity. Gilgamesh is one such example. There is little doubt that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah in Genesis 6 are talking of the exact same event – “the Flood”, and some guy floating around with a boat full of animals. The found transcripts of the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the supposed Pentateuch author, Moses (circa 1300BC), by several centuries and it’s believed that stories of Gilgamesh himself predated the writings of him quite significantly, through the oral tradition and so on. There was a real world wide flood too. 12,000 years ago, the Pleistocene Ice age ended, the glaciers melted and ran into the oceans, causing them to rise significantly (some 400ft, I believe). All of those continental shelves… well; they were not underwater during the Pleistocene. In fact, whatever humans there were probably lived on those shelves, as they were nearest to the ocean, where humans choose to live in the largest numbers even today.
I’ve heard of many interesting theories about those days. One that’s intriguing is that since both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon existed on earth for a period together, that perhaps Homo-Sapiens are the hybrid result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbreeding. Some speculate that this may have been the original sin. Or maybe not. We will never know, but there is an answer – an absolute one that is the Truth – and it doesn’t need nor even care whether we figure it out – it exists on a completely separate plane than us.
But, whether Evolution or Creationism; whether Neanderthals bumped uglies with Cro-Magnons; whether merely evolutionary psychology, or alien technology enhancing us with some strands of superior DNA, there is something about the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the fall of mankind which deals directly with the Absolute Truth and its counterpart, the Relative Truth.
Absolute Truth exists. It does not need us. We serve it, not the other way around. The Absolute Truth is the beginning and the end. It is never changing. It is what it is. It was here before us, and it will be here after us.
Was there evolution? Was there creation? Was the Genesis story of the Bible a mix of evolution and creation? There are obvious relationships between the stories of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) and the religions, stories, myths and legends found in cultures outside of Judeo-Christianity. Gilgamesh is one such example. There is little doubt that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah in Genesis 6 are talking of the exact same event – “the Flood”, and some guy floating around with a boat full of animals. The found transcripts of the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the supposed Pentateuch author, Moses (circa 1300BC), by several centuries and it’s believed that stories of Gilgamesh himself predated the writings of him quite significantly, through the oral tradition and so on. There was a real world wide flood too. 12,000 years ago, the Pleistocene Ice age ended, the glaciers melted and ran into the oceans, causing them to rise significantly (some 400ft, I believe). All of those continental shelves… well; they were not underwater during the Pleistocene. In fact, whatever humans there were probably lived on those shelves, as they were nearest to the ocean, where humans choose to live in the largest numbers even today.
I’ve heard of many interesting theories about those days. One that’s intriguing is that since both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon existed on earth for a period together, that perhaps Homo-Sapiens are the hybrid result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbreeding. Some speculate that this may have been the original sin. Or maybe not. We will never know, but there is an answer – an absolute one that is the Truth – and it doesn’t need nor even care whether we figure it out – it exists on a completely separate plane than us.
But, whether Evolution or Creationism; whether Neanderthals bumped uglies with Cro-Magnons; whether merely evolutionary psychology, or alien technology enhancing us with some strands of superior DNA, there is something about the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the fall of mankind which deals directly with the Absolute Truth and its counterpart, the Relative Truth.
Genesis 3 (New International Version)
The Fall of Man
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “
4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Footnotes:
a Genesis 3:15 Or seed
b Genesis 3:15 Or strike
c Genesis 3:20 Or The man
d Genesis 3:20 Eve probably means living .
e Genesis 3:24 Or placed in front
The Absolute Truth is God, of course. He is the beginning and the end. He always was and he always will be. He is who He is and does not exist in relation to our plane of existence, but rather, separately from it.
Who then, is the Relative Truth?
Could it be… could it be… Satan?
.
Is “the original sin” the act of allowing our brains to place the Relative Truth before the Absolute Truth?
.
Is this not how Eve was tempted by Satan? Did Satan really lie to Eve, or did he take the Absolute Truth and merely manipulate it? Did he not create Relative Truths to convince Eve to do that which went against the Absolute Truth? His first question, was a sneaky trick question (Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?) And after that, he did not lie, he manipulated the Truth. Did they surely die (no, not right then, and they were offered a chance at eternal life). Did they become like God and know good & evil? Yes… and what did Eve do? She used her mind to justify that certain truths about the fruit were more important in order to enable her to over-ride the Absolute Truth. (It was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desireable for gaining knowledge).
Is this when man “evolved” out of being a mere animal? Is this when man became man? Our brain is our biggest tool – but, it can also be self-destructive. Our brain is “our tool.” It is to man what the ability to fly is to birds, what fins and gills are to fish. It is “our tool of survival.” Is our superior brain the result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons shacking up for the winter in the same cave? Man became “man” when his brain either evolved, or was granted, the ability of reason and the free will to choose. That’s what makes us different than animals. We have a brain which can choose. Animals do not. Animals only do what is in their nature and therefore when animals kill or steal, they are not sinning. They have no free will and are merely following their natures.
A distinct characteristic of Judeo-Christianity is that it is monotheistic.
If Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic, and God is the Absolute Truth, then monotheism is also the belief in one truth.
Well, that is perhaps a little simplistic, isn’t it? Of course sometimes there is more than merely “one truth.” There are both Absolute Truths and there are Relative Truths which exist all around us.
“Thou shall not kill”
That is Absolutely True – we should not kill.
But, should you kill if failing to do so will result in your own death? Should you kill to protect your family from danger? Is it justifiable to kill when fighting evil forces in a war? Ahhh… the Relative Truth! Bugger, there it comes!
And this is the power of our brains, isn’t it? It’s the power to ask these questions. That really is the essence of our “tool” called the human brain.
But the brain also has some defects.
One defect is the ability to take the truth, and manipulate it into what we wish to be true for our own purposes.
Take Al Capone. A mass murderer, who felt he was unjustly imprisoned because he was such a humanitarian during the Great Depression by creating soup kitchens and using his accumulated wealth in various ways to give aid to the impoverished people around him. He really did help the poor. Al Capone used the Relative Truth to justify why he repeatedly broke one of the basic laws of humanity – murder. His evil actions were justified because of the good which resulted. Well, justified to himself anyway. Jail is full of innocent people.
Our brains need to be tempered by something bigger than ourselves, in order to maximize the brain’s ability while minimizing its own destructiveness.
The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth. It must be that the Absolute Truth is of more importance than the Relative Truth.
And, I suspect, we’ll soon be recieving a smack up the back of the head for disobeying a fundamental law, which is: The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth.
Who then, is the Relative Truth?
Could it be… could it be… Satan?
.
Is “the original sin” the act of allowing our brains to place the Relative Truth before the Absolute Truth?
.
Is this not how Eve was tempted by Satan? Did Satan really lie to Eve, or did he take the Absolute Truth and merely manipulate it? Did he not create Relative Truths to convince Eve to do that which went against the Absolute Truth? His first question, was a sneaky trick question (Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?) And after that, he did not lie, he manipulated the Truth. Did they surely die (no, not right then, and they were offered a chance at eternal life). Did they become like God and know good & evil? Yes… and what did Eve do? She used her mind to justify that certain truths about the fruit were more important in order to enable her to over-ride the Absolute Truth. (It was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desireable for gaining knowledge).
Is this when man “evolved” out of being a mere animal? Is this when man became man? Our brain is our biggest tool – but, it can also be self-destructive. Our brain is “our tool.” It is to man what the ability to fly is to birds, what fins and gills are to fish. It is “our tool of survival.” Is our superior brain the result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons shacking up for the winter in the same cave? Man became “man” when his brain either evolved, or was granted, the ability of reason and the free will to choose. That’s what makes us different than animals. We have a brain which can choose. Animals do not. Animals only do what is in their nature and therefore when animals kill or steal, they are not sinning. They have no free will and are merely following their natures.
A distinct characteristic of Judeo-Christianity is that it is monotheistic.
If Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic, and God is the Absolute Truth, then monotheism is also the belief in one truth.
Well, that is perhaps a little simplistic, isn’t it? Of course sometimes there is more than merely “one truth.” There are both Absolute Truths and there are Relative Truths which exist all around us.
“Thou shall not kill”
That is Absolutely True – we should not kill.
But, should you kill if failing to do so will result in your own death? Should you kill to protect your family from danger? Is it justifiable to kill when fighting evil forces in a war? Ahhh… the Relative Truth! Bugger, there it comes!
And this is the power of our brains, isn’t it? It’s the power to ask these questions. That really is the essence of our “tool” called the human brain.
But the brain also has some defects.
One defect is the ability to take the truth, and manipulate it into what we wish to be true for our own purposes.
Take Al Capone. A mass murderer, who felt he was unjustly imprisoned because he was such a humanitarian during the Great Depression by creating soup kitchens and using his accumulated wealth in various ways to give aid to the impoverished people around him. He really did help the poor. Al Capone used the Relative Truth to justify why he repeatedly broke one of the basic laws of humanity – murder. His evil actions were justified because of the good which resulted. Well, justified to himself anyway. Jail is full of innocent people.
Our brains need to be tempered by something bigger than ourselves, in order to maximize the brain’s ability while minimizing its own destructiveness.
The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth. It must be that the Absolute Truth is of more importance than the Relative Truth.
Exodus 20 (New International Version – UK)
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 You shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
That serves as the “temper” for our brains. Of course the Relative Truth exists, but when our brains become destructive to ourselves and to society, is when we convince ourselves of that a Relative Truth has become higher in importance than the Absolute Truth.
Our “relative truths” must work within the laws of “absolute truth.”
Our brains might allow the manipulation of the truth to eventually figure out how to fly… but, in order to fly, we must stay within the bounds of certain absolute laws, like gravity.
Another factor which comes from the monotheism of the Bible is that in order for a society to be cohesive, the people must all subscribe to one version of the truth.
Have you ever been on an internet discussion forum? Particularly, one advocating for a social cause? If you have, you’ll know what I mean about how they operate. It’s a jumbled mess. People argue and argue, because everyone subscribes to different truths. There is no “one truth” to subscribe to which unifies all of the commenters to one underlying belief. It results in confusion. Most often the conversation either devolves into nothingness for the sake of getting along, or it blows into bits as the various “truths” compete against eachother. The direction of “the cause” rarely moves forward, but rather neuters itself through disagreement or outright kills itself.
The same goes with societies and cultures. Before Judeo-Christianity, you will find that many of the cultures worshipped many gods. There were fertility gods, war gods, or whatever. And often, the people of those cultures became followers of one god more than another, resulting in the various factions competing against eachother – often to the point of violence.
It matters not to me all those who attempt to discredit the Bible by illustrating relations to paganism or similarities to other religions. I know of much it, and I am truly, deeply fascinated by it. However, possibly the most defining feature of Judeo-Christianity is that it subscribes to the belief in monotheism. One God. One Truth. The Absolute Truth. Is this what has propelled Judeo-Christianity into becoming the most successful of them all? I believe that it is.
The Bible is a blue-print for society. It shows us how a society ought to be formed. It takes away certain Relative Truth arguments which would be destructive, and instead promotes productiveness. The Bible is the Book of Life because it promotes those ideals which cause a civilization to grow, prosper and flourish. Religions/cultures which cannot/do not promote this are ways of death.
The US Founding Fathers subscribed to these ideas as well, based upon the ideals of John Locke. They placed their laws on three levels:
1 – God’s Law
2 – Natural Law
3 – Civil Law
They believed that the lower levels of law must correspond within the rules of the higher ones. The lower laws must work within the bounds of the higher ones. At the top is the Absolute Truth.
The US Founding Fathers used both Deductive Reason (search for Absolutes) and Inductive Reason (Relatives). But they placed them properly upon the ladder of importance.
This notion was challenged when Hegel, in the 19th Century, came up with the Hegelian Dialectic.
What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
The inductive reasoning of the Hegelian Dialectic “dethroned” the authority of God as Absolute Truth.
The Hegelian Dialectic allows for the argument of 1 + 1 = 3, or 5, or 105… the truth is relative.
Since “the truth is relative,” who is to say that your idea of truth is any more true than my idea of truth?
It takes away the monotheism of our Judeo-Christian civilization because it places the Relative Truth at the highest level. (In fact, at all levels).
There was a time when our oldest institutions, such as Harvard University, were mandated to be “keepers of the Truth.” They have now evolved, through the Hegelian Dialect, into becoming “changers of the Truth.”
This thought-disease that caused Adam and Eve to be ejected from Paradise is now the ruling thought process in all our educational institutions, our governments & laws, our families, and even our churches. Destruction is beginning to happen. We are separating as a people. The US Founding Fathers based their new system upon the authority of the Bible, and said that “liberty” is based upon the individual willingness to place personal morality on oneself – morality based upon the Bible. In that way, we all follow the same general path and still work together as a unit, and the more we place it upon ourselves to follow the morality illustrated in the Bible, the less need will there be for the government to pass laws against the people to maintain/control unity.
We have rejected Absolute Truth in favour of the Relative Truth.
We are becoming divided as both a civilization and as a people. The foundational building block of our society, the nuclear family, is destructing. Crime is increasing as are psychological problems and suicide. We are not reproducing enough to maintain ourselves as a population – through both unwillingness to do so, and by contracting swaths of sexually transmitted diseases which are directly and alarmingly affecting our infertility rates. Soddom and Gomorrah are truly making a comeback as our civilization is self-destructing, and in but a few more generations, we will become so insignificant that we too will be “wiped from the face of the earth.”
Our “relative truths” must work within the laws of “absolute truth.”
Our brains might allow the manipulation of the truth to eventually figure out how to fly… but, in order to fly, we must stay within the bounds of certain absolute laws, like gravity.
Another factor which comes from the monotheism of the Bible is that in order for a society to be cohesive, the people must all subscribe to one version of the truth.
Have you ever been on an internet discussion forum? Particularly, one advocating for a social cause? If you have, you’ll know what I mean about how they operate. It’s a jumbled mess. People argue and argue, because everyone subscribes to different truths. There is no “one truth” to subscribe to which unifies all of the commenters to one underlying belief. It results in confusion. Most often the conversation either devolves into nothingness for the sake of getting along, or it blows into bits as the various “truths” compete against eachother. The direction of “the cause” rarely moves forward, but rather neuters itself through disagreement or outright kills itself.
The same goes with societies and cultures. Before Judeo-Christianity, you will find that many of the cultures worshipped many gods. There were fertility gods, war gods, or whatever. And often, the people of those cultures became followers of one god more than another, resulting in the various factions competing against eachother – often to the point of violence.
It matters not to me all those who attempt to discredit the Bible by illustrating relations to paganism or similarities to other religions. I know of much it, and I am truly, deeply fascinated by it. However, possibly the most defining feature of Judeo-Christianity is that it subscribes to the belief in monotheism. One God. One Truth. The Absolute Truth. Is this what has propelled Judeo-Christianity into becoming the most successful of them all? I believe that it is.
The Bible is a blue-print for society. It shows us how a society ought to be formed. It takes away certain Relative Truth arguments which would be destructive, and instead promotes productiveness. The Bible is the Book of Life because it promotes those ideals which cause a civilization to grow, prosper and flourish. Religions/cultures which cannot/do not promote this are ways of death.
The US Founding Fathers subscribed to these ideas as well, based upon the ideals of John Locke. They placed their laws on three levels:
1 – God’s Law
2 – Natural Law
3 – Civil Law
They believed that the lower levels of law must correspond within the rules of the higher ones. The lower laws must work within the bounds of the higher ones. At the top is the Absolute Truth.
The US Founding Fathers used both Deductive Reason (search for Absolutes) and Inductive Reason (Relatives). But they placed them properly upon the ladder of importance.
This notion was challenged when Hegel, in the 19th Century, came up with the Hegelian Dialectic.
What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
The inductive reasoning of the Hegelian Dialectic “dethroned” the authority of God as Absolute Truth.
The Hegelian Dialectic allows for the argument of 1 + 1 = 3, or 5, or 105… the truth is relative.
Since “the truth is relative,” who is to say that your idea of truth is any more true than my idea of truth?
It takes away the monotheism of our Judeo-Christian civilization because it places the Relative Truth at the highest level. (In fact, at all levels).
There was a time when our oldest institutions, such as Harvard University, were mandated to be “keepers of the Truth.” They have now evolved, through the Hegelian Dialect, into becoming “changers of the Truth.”
This thought-disease that caused Adam and Eve to be ejected from Paradise is now the ruling thought process in all our educational institutions, our governments & laws, our families, and even our churches. Destruction is beginning to happen. We are separating as a people. The US Founding Fathers based their new system upon the authority of the Bible, and said that “liberty” is based upon the individual willingness to place personal morality on oneself – morality based upon the Bible. In that way, we all follow the same general path and still work together as a unit, and the more we place it upon ourselves to follow the morality illustrated in the Bible, the less need will there be for the government to pass laws against the people to maintain/control unity.
We have rejected Absolute Truth in favour of the Relative Truth.
We are becoming divided as both a civilization and as a people. The foundational building block of our society, the nuclear family, is destructing. Crime is increasing as are psychological problems and suicide. We are not reproducing enough to maintain ourselves as a population – through both unwillingness to do so, and by contracting swaths of sexually transmitted diseases which are directly and alarmingly affecting our infertility rates. Soddom and Gomorrah are truly making a comeback as our civilization is self-destructing, and in but a few more generations, we will become so insignificant that we too will be “wiped from the face of the earth.”
But, no matter what they say, the Absolute Truth still does exist. Whether we can prove it or not, there actually is an answer to questions like “how did the universe get created?” or “where do we come from?”
And, I suspect, we’ll soon be recieving a smack up the back of the head for disobeying a fundamental law, which is: The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth.
To fail to heed such a timeless principle means to walk the Road of Death.
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading:
.
.
.
.
.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Women's Studies 101A, Winter Semester
In this class, we will see how women have been sheep who have bought into the Marxist anti-society philosophy hook, line and sinker. Naively, women have believed that feminism was about women's rights and giving them greater equality. Shamefully, feminism hid this vile filth from society by manipulating academia, media & government.
.
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State
.
"Destroy the family and you destroy society." -- V.I. Lenin
.
. "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
.
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State
.
"Destroy the family and you destroy society." -- V.I. Lenin
.
. "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
.
. "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
.
. "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
. "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
.
. "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
. "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
.
. "Women, like men, should not have to bear children... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
.
. "If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
. "Women, like men, should not have to bear children... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
. "If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
.
. "The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation... [This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
.
. "The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation... [This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
.
. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
.
. "It takes a village to raise a child." -- Hillary Clinton
. "It takes a village to raise a child." -- Hillary Clinton
.
. "Mmmm...Roasted Useful Idiot for Dinner!" -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2007
.
Question: What are permanently unmarried women, whose illegitimate children have been taken from them to be raised by the state, good for anyway?
.
Answer: Work. Pay Taxes. Go Home. Feed Cats. Repeat until death.
Previous Index Next
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Feminists are Cat Lovers
The Encyclopedia Marxo-feminist
.
Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives -- by Mallory Millet (Sister of famed feminist, Kate Millet)
.
. "Mmmm...Roasted Useful Idiot for Dinner!" -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2007
.
Question: What are permanently unmarried women, whose illegitimate children have been taken from them to be raised by the state, good for anyway?
.
Answer: Work. Pay Taxes. Go Home. Feed Cats. Repeat until death.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Feminists are Cat Lovers
The Encyclopedia Marxo-feminist
.
Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives -- by Mallory Millet (Sister of famed feminist, Kate Millet)
.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
A Sexist Commenter Sets Me Straight
Straight out of Gender Stooges 101A, this fembot gives me an education! How many errors can you spot in the following drivel?
---
Anonymous Said:
"Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars. Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims. War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets. Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision. This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits. Women and their children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilian victims. I'm glad that feminism gives women some leverage against violent male insanity. This is why we NEED feminism."
.
---
.
Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars.
Yes indeed. Certainly all of those bridges and buildings that were brought to rubble were rebuilt by the female workforce. Btw, those "violent men who participated in wars" were told that if they didn't get violent and participate, they would face the certain death of a firing squad. Rushing headlong into a volley of enemy bullets gave them a better chance of survival.
Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims.
Of course, men didn't have to deal with war's aftermath, because they all retired to their drawing rooms for a cigar and a port while the female workforce went about rebuilding those bridges. I'm searching for the "twofold" explanation, but I can't see it. Ah, don't worry, Princess, mathematics is an institution set up by men, for the benefit of men. We didn't ever expect you to understand one plus one, and especially not to benefit from it.
War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets.
Oh, war is the institution by and for men. That explains the white feather campaign during World War One, where women shamed men into joining the war by giving them a white feather to indicate they thought the man was a coward for not killing and maiming other men. Of course, once these men joined up with the army, their commanding officer's first order was to seek out women and children and shoot them dead. This makes sense, because the women and children were unarmed and couldn't shoot back. It was much safer to specialize in woman and children killing while in the army. Yup, the 101st Women and Children Killers Brigade was the unit where my grandpa served.
Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision.
Yes indeed. Men working to provide food and shelter for their wives and children was in the primary interest of the man... of course, without all of those mouths to feed, the man would have suffered and died. Lol! Patriarchy is set up for the benefit of women and children, you dope, not the other way around. Patriarchy was set up to force men to be slave workers for their families, who could not survive on their own. Or maybe it was no problem at all for an 8 month pregnant woman with 3 toddlers in tow to plow the field with oxen and plant the corn?
War is in the best interest of men? How so? Because it is cheaper to buy shoes after one of your legs has been blown off? Because the rent is cheaper 6 feet under? Because men love having bullets zinging all around them rather than sitting on the front porch with a cold beer, back at their homes, while watching the womenfolk plough the fields?
And, actually, war is more of a female decision than a male one. Back in the days of the suffragettes, their common cry was, "If women had the vote, there would be no more wars." Well, women now have the vote, and demographically there are more women than men, so women also have the majority of votes (they also vote more)... and who continually votes in the leaders who send men to their deaths in needless wars? Why, the majority of voters, that's who! In fact, after 9/11, women were in as much support of going to war as men... the difference is, though, that the men who supported it also knew, deep down, that they might be called upon to get shot at on the front-lines while the women who supported it knew, deep down, that at the very worst, they would only be called upon to do the safer "auxilliary work" to make up for the shortfall of labour caused by the men who were dying for the extreme benefits of, well, dying.
This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits.
Holy sexism, batshit insane girl! But I accept your insanity because women generally blame men for everything and take no responsiblities for themselves. One thing where men and women are not equal is the realm of sin, apparently. Women good, men bad. Lol! Women are quite violent, and are responsible for the majority of child abuse. They also instigate and perpetrate an equal amount of DV against their partners. But, what is really amazing, is how DV between lesbian couples skyrockets through the roof, higher than in any other demographic on earth. But, don't worry, I am sure you lesbo fembots will soon figure out a way to blame men for female on female violence too.
Men are generally competitive, while women are not? You go, grrrrl! Women are in complete competition with men on every level of society, thanks to psychotic feminism, and they revel in it like children in a playground. Women are even trying to be better men than men are. Who is calling who competitive, you sexist piglet.
Power hungry? Feminism is all about grabbing power and making it female only. Lol! Hey, have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton? Now there is one power hungry gringa, eh? She also threatened to obliterate Iran during her campaign... but, of course, only after the Pentagon would develop a bomb that could only kill the worthless men, while leaving the women and children completely unharmed. Surely Hillary didn't mean she would blow all the little Iranian women and children to bits along with the men. A woman would never be capable of such horrific things. Hillary must be a man in drag.
Obsessive need to control? Lol! You have obviously never been married to a woman, nor dated one, nor even spoken to one.
Btw, the most sexist notion that exists in our society is that only one gender is capable of sexism. .
Women and children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilians.
First off, are women children? If they are not, then why do women keep saying "women and children?" Does this not imply that women are on the same level as children? How about women start standing up and as women alone, rather than insinuating they are deserving of the unearned sympathy that is usually afforded only to children who don't know any better.
This is a silly ploy used all the time to get extra sympathy for women, where none is deserved.
For example: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were women and children," could also just as easily (and accurately) be said as: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were men and children."
But, I guess only men want to be thought of as adults. Fine, we shall treat women like children if they keep insisting they are children.
Now, as to your ludicrous claim that women and children have died in greater numbers as victims of war than men ever have... I am just speechless that women come in models as incredibly stupid as you! Do you even think before your lips start flapping?
Yes indeed, all of those white crosses at Normandy are for the men who were victims of war... but, there is a field three times larger than that just down the lane where all the women and children are buried... but, because women and children are completely worthless to men, they were buried in mass, unmarked graves.
How fucking stupid can you get?
This is what happens when "feminist math" rules the day.
You, madam, are the very reason that society was likely so misogynist in the past. With logic like yours, mixed in with the rampant and angry sexism typical of most women, allowing people like you to have any involvement in running a society most likely was so poisonous to said society, that the concept was just abolished.
I hope that if the need ever arises again for men to take up arms to defend their nation, they all remember the ungrateful little bitches like this douchebag commenter, and go fishing instead. Let these strong powerful women defend themselves, because quite frankly, I wouldn't risk one hair on my head to defend such ignorant, malicious and spiteful bitches, nor the society that condones this sickening hatred of men.
Society needs feminism about as much as it needs the opinions of dopes like this woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." -- Hillary Clinton
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that women are lazy, but they are always ready to do harm. An evil woman just gets worse, becoming even more evil and wicked. It would take far too long for me to tell you everything about them, so for brevity's sake I shan't. Woman is not wise in this respect, for in her eagerness to do harm she only brings about her own ruin. According to the law, as I understand it, woman is not rational, nor does her love reside deep in her heart, but is there on her gaze for everyone to see. She entrusts her honour openly to her eyes, yet they can't help but fail to protect it, since folly animates her gaze. With all her words, her chatter, and her talk, she could break a heart of glass; all her actions are stupid and foolish. Woman can do no good, indeed, goodness is destroyed and obliterated by her. Many a war is begun by women and many a murder committed throughout the world; castles are burned and ransacked and the poor made destitute. As every man and woman knows, there isn't one war in a thousand that isn't started by a woman and by her sowing of discord. She is the mother of all calamities; all evil and all madness stem from her. Her sting is more venomous than a snake's; there isn't anyone who has anything to do with her who doesn't live to regret it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Bonecrker #12 – The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century
Man Superior to Woman - Chapter Four
---
Anonymous Said:
"Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars. Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims. War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets. Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision. This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits. Women and their children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilian victims. I'm glad that feminism gives women some leverage against violent male insanity. This is why we NEED feminism."
.
---
.
Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars.
Yes indeed. Certainly all of those bridges and buildings that were brought to rubble were rebuilt by the female workforce. Btw, those "violent men who participated in wars" were told that if they didn't get violent and participate, they would face the certain death of a firing squad. Rushing headlong into a volley of enemy bullets gave them a better chance of survival.
Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims.
Of course, men didn't have to deal with war's aftermath, because they all retired to their drawing rooms for a cigar and a port while the female workforce went about rebuilding those bridges. I'm searching for the "twofold" explanation, but I can't see it. Ah, don't worry, Princess, mathematics is an institution set up by men, for the benefit of men. We didn't ever expect you to understand one plus one, and especially not to benefit from it.
War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets.
Oh, war is the institution by and for men. That explains the white feather campaign during World War One, where women shamed men into joining the war by giving them a white feather to indicate they thought the man was a coward for not killing and maiming other men. Of course, once these men joined up with the army, their commanding officer's first order was to seek out women and children and shoot them dead. This makes sense, because the women and children were unarmed and couldn't shoot back. It was much safer to specialize in woman and children killing while in the army. Yup, the 101st Women and Children Killers Brigade was the unit where my grandpa served.
Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision.
Yes indeed. Men working to provide food and shelter for their wives and children was in the primary interest of the man... of course, without all of those mouths to feed, the man would have suffered and died. Lol! Patriarchy is set up for the benefit of women and children, you dope, not the other way around. Patriarchy was set up to force men to be slave workers for their families, who could not survive on their own. Or maybe it was no problem at all for an 8 month pregnant woman with 3 toddlers in tow to plow the field with oxen and plant the corn?
War is in the best interest of men? How so? Because it is cheaper to buy shoes after one of your legs has been blown off? Because the rent is cheaper 6 feet under? Because men love having bullets zinging all around them rather than sitting on the front porch with a cold beer, back at their homes, while watching the womenfolk plough the fields?
And, actually, war is more of a female decision than a male one. Back in the days of the suffragettes, their common cry was, "If women had the vote, there would be no more wars." Well, women now have the vote, and demographically there are more women than men, so women also have the majority of votes (they also vote more)... and who continually votes in the leaders who send men to their deaths in needless wars? Why, the majority of voters, that's who! In fact, after 9/11, women were in as much support of going to war as men... the difference is, though, that the men who supported it also knew, deep down, that they might be called upon to get shot at on the front-lines while the women who supported it knew, deep down, that at the very worst, they would only be called upon to do the safer "auxilliary work" to make up for the shortfall of labour caused by the men who were dying for the extreme benefits of, well, dying.
This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits.
Holy sexism, batshit insane girl! But I accept your insanity because women generally blame men for everything and take no responsiblities for themselves. One thing where men and women are not equal is the realm of sin, apparently. Women good, men bad. Lol! Women are quite violent, and are responsible for the majority of child abuse. They also instigate and perpetrate an equal amount of DV against their partners. But, what is really amazing, is how DV between lesbian couples skyrockets through the roof, higher than in any other demographic on earth. But, don't worry, I am sure you lesbo fembots will soon figure out a way to blame men for female on female violence too.
Men are generally competitive, while women are not? You go, grrrrl! Women are in complete competition with men on every level of society, thanks to psychotic feminism, and they revel in it like children in a playground. Women are even trying to be better men than men are. Who is calling who competitive, you sexist piglet.
Power hungry? Feminism is all about grabbing power and making it female only. Lol! Hey, have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton? Now there is one power hungry gringa, eh? She also threatened to obliterate Iran during her campaign... but, of course, only after the Pentagon would develop a bomb that could only kill the worthless men, while leaving the women and children completely unharmed. Surely Hillary didn't mean she would blow all the little Iranian women and children to bits along with the men. A woman would never be capable of such horrific things. Hillary must be a man in drag.
Obsessive need to control? Lol! You have obviously never been married to a woman, nor dated one, nor even spoken to one.
Btw, the most sexist notion that exists in our society is that only one gender is capable of sexism. .
Women and children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilians.
First off, are women children? If they are not, then why do women keep saying "women and children?" Does this not imply that women are on the same level as children? How about women start standing up and as women alone, rather than insinuating they are deserving of the unearned sympathy that is usually afforded only to children who don't know any better.
This is a silly ploy used all the time to get extra sympathy for women, where none is deserved.
For example: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were women and children," could also just as easily (and accurately) be said as: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were men and children."
But, I guess only men want to be thought of as adults. Fine, we shall treat women like children if they keep insisting they are children.
Now, as to your ludicrous claim that women and children have died in greater numbers as victims of war than men ever have... I am just speechless that women come in models as incredibly stupid as you! Do you even think before your lips start flapping?
Yes indeed, all of those white crosses at Normandy are for the men who were victims of war... but, there is a field three times larger than that just down the lane where all the women and children are buried... but, because women and children are completely worthless to men, they were buried in mass, unmarked graves.
How fucking stupid can you get?
This is what happens when "feminist math" rules the day.
You, madam, are the very reason that society was likely so misogynist in the past. With logic like yours, mixed in with the rampant and angry sexism typical of most women, allowing people like you to have any involvement in running a society most likely was so poisonous to said society, that the concept was just abolished.
I hope that if the need ever arises again for men to take up arms to defend their nation, they all remember the ungrateful little bitches like this douchebag commenter, and go fishing instead. Let these strong powerful women defend themselves, because quite frankly, I wouldn't risk one hair on my head to defend such ignorant, malicious and spiteful bitches, nor the society that condones this sickening hatred of men.
Society needs feminism about as much as it needs the opinions of dopes like this woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." -- Hillary Clinton
.
.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that women are lazy, but they are always ready to do harm. An evil woman just gets worse, becoming even more evil and wicked. It would take far too long for me to tell you everything about them, so for brevity's sake I shan't. Woman is not wise in this respect, for in her eagerness to do harm she only brings about her own ruin. According to the law, as I understand it, woman is not rational, nor does her love reside deep in her heart, but is there on her gaze for everyone to see. She entrusts her honour openly to her eyes, yet they can't help but fail to protect it, since folly animates her gaze. With all her words, her chatter, and her talk, she could break a heart of glass; all her actions are stupid and foolish. Woman can do no good, indeed, goodness is destroyed and obliterated by her. Many a war is begun by women and many a murder committed throughout the world; castles are burned and ransacked and the poor made destitute. As every man and woman knows, there isn't one war in a thousand that isn't started by a woman and by her sowing of discord. She is the mother of all calamities; all evil and all madness stem from her. Her sting is more venomous than a snake's; there isn't anyone who has anything to do with her who doesn't live to regret it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Bonecrker #12 – The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century
Man Superior to Woman - Chapter Four
Thursday, October 21, 2010
A Warning for America from South Africa
http://www.manews.org/0105sawarning.html
(Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)
People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).
Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.
America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.
Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.
But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.
That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.
Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."
Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.
The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.
Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.
It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.
White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.
We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.
The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."
Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.
From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.
A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.
In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.
What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?
Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.
In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.
In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.
What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?
Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.
Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.
In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.
When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.
Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.
What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.
Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.
Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.
To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.
Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.
And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will. They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well. They know what to do.
Do you?
(This article first appeared in the August 2000 edition of Middle American News. It is reprinted here in response to numerous requests.)
(Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)
People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).
Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.
America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.
Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.
But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.
That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.
Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."
Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.
The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.
Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.
It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.
White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.
We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.
The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."
Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.
From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.
A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.
In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.
What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?
Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.
In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.
In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.
What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?
Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.
Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.
In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.
When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.
Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.
What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.
Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.
Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.
To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.
Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.
And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will. They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well. They know what to do.
Do you?
(This article first appeared in the August 2000 edition of Middle American News. It is reprinted here in response to numerous requests.)
Monday, October 18, 2010
A Woman's Right to Choose
"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?"
.
Answer:
I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.
Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.
That is fourteen choices a woman has regarding her "right to choose."
A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.
And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”
This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.
But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.
I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.
What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.
Feminists are quite aware that most uninformed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.
When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.
What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay. Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.
But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”
In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman sold her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as payment for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman's property.
In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.
But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?
So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.
Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”
So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joyriding.
Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.
But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.
Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.
Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.
Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:
Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.
Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.
Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it!
You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.
But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?"
Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.
Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.
But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?
It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!
And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.
What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.
If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.
But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.
So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.
And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).
But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.
So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?
If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility. (Although, the corrupt courts have been changing this too, and the move is on to make anonymous sperm donors financially liable for her offspring as well.)
A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.
Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?
“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.
“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.
“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.
Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?
Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they are toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?
Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”
It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.
What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more about this subject on Angry Harry’s site:
Friday, October 15, 2010
How To End Domestic Abuse
"[Do you believe women have the right] to be free from domestic abuse?"
By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:
Answer:
Yes!
In fact, I think that we should strive to put an end to all forms of domestic abuse, and I don’t think we should rest until domestic abuse is completely eradicated from our society.
I also think that domestic abuse should be removed from society not only in the terms of male on female violence, but also in regard to female on male violence.
I’ll bet you think that I’m going to start quoting statistics illustrating that females are just as violent as males, don’t you?
Come on, admit it!
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think that’s the best way to end domestic abuse.
I believe the best way to “end” domestic abuse is to simply abolish the term “domestic abuse” from our language, from our mindset, and definitely from our courts.
I’m serious. Out of all the feminists who cry out to “end domestic violence,” to all the holier than thou academics who study domestic abuse in an effort to “solve it,” to the plethora of politicians who pledge to pass more laws to “prevent it,” and yes, even to the multitudes of MRA’s who demand to be “included as victims of it,” have you ever heard of such a sound plan as mine?
I am the only one with a sure fired, guaranteed formula to actually end all forms of domestic violence!
Why, oh why am I paid so little?
Why do we have the term “domestic abuse” in the first place?
Weren’t there already laws in place that protected us from violence before the feminists thought up the term “domestic violence?”
Living together in the same house does not somehow free one from impartial judgment by the law of the land. At least, I can’t find the law which says that it does, or ever did.
Were there laws on the books that granted “spousal immunity” in regard to general assault and battery laws?
Could you legally murder your spouse before the term “domestic abuse” was concocted, or did homicide laws protect people regardless of their marital status?
If someone were to, say, threaten to "pound something into my thick skull," can I not go to the proper authorities, report it, and ask for ask for a restraining order regardless of whether the person is in my immediate family or not?
Wasn’t all of this covered already before the term “domestic abuse” became a household word at the behest of the feminists’ socially redefining academic and legal juggernauts?
We can end “domestic abuse” completely by simply getting rid of the term itself and going back to allowing the law to protect us in the way it used to.
Abracadabra!
Poof!
Gone!
I’ll send the government my bill.
And by golly, YES, I will accept that tenured position at the University of British Columbia!
Does anything better illustrate how sick we have become as a society than the phenomenon that we can no longer comprehend how to function without begging the government to impose more laws upon us?
Not only do we ask for less freedom, but we demand that problems be completely solved by passing more and more laws until every last aspect of the problem is gone.
Imagine a lobby group was formed to “end speeding” and they pledge to keep fighting until every last speeder is removed from the roads.
It starts off small, perhaps with a policy of “zero tolerance” for being even one mph over the limit and increasing the fines by 50% to hurt people in their jeans.
But, some people are still speeding.
What to do, what to do?
Well, let’s give speeders points on their driver’s license which will increase their insurance premiums!
“Zooooooommmmm!!!” The sound reverberates in a rubber-necker’s ears.
“There out to be a law!” he exclaims, “Doooooo something!”
So, we pass a law that anyone caught speeding will have their car impounded for 6 months.
But still, someone will speed, somewhere.
I think you can see where this is going. In the end, there is absolutely no possible way to remove every last speeder from the road… except, that is, to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car, period. That is the only possible end to the equation.
And so it is. Transportation by automobile benefits mankind to an enormous degree, but there are certain negatives we must accept that go along with the positives. If we want easy, fast mobility and cheap transportation of goods, we must also accept there will be a certain amount negatives that are unavoidable.
There will be speeders, there will be accidents, and there will be injuries and deaths.
And we must accept that there will be these negatives or we will not receive the positives.
This concept is all around us in nature. Mankind must not be as smart as he thought if he can’t see what is all around him.
People who say they will not rest until the problem is completely solved are preaching totalitarianism and should be made to spend an afternoon in the stocks; letting some tomatoes smarten them up a few IQ points.
The world will never be perfect.
Only Marxists preach that they can create Heaven on Earth. And they preach it will be achieved by slavery to a totalitarian state.
Marxists are evil idiots.
Many feminists and academics are unabashed Marxists.
Have a look at how the Abuse Industry works with our children.
Instead of asking a hard working farmer and his wife of 40 years how they successfully raised eight law-abiding, successful children, we ask someone completely different for “expert” advice.
Who do we ask?
We ask an angry 45 year old lesbian with a Ph D in Whatchamacallit, who herself comes from a broken home. She has one 3 year old child which was spawned by Thomas the Turkey Baster.
These kinds of people are our “experts.”
And, what do our “experts” recommend?
Parents should not be allowed to decide how to discipline their own children! Some parents have “over-disciplined” their children, and therefore no parent should be allowed to discipline their child with spanking.
That parents have successfully raised their children with the aid of physical discipline for thousands of years now becomes irrelevant to our academic gods. Times are different now. Yes, fine individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were spanked as children, but children were born with leather asses back in those days. Children born today are different from them. Can’t you tell? They now have three arms and green skin!
“Parents have been wrong for thousands of years," cries our Sapphic guru, “and some parents have abused spanking to the point where it is physically abusive, therefore NO parents should be allowed to do it!”
It is much better to let a child learn that playing in traffic is dangerous by sitting the five year old down and explaining it to him. If discipline is needed, a “time out” is recommended, and ultimately, children need to figure out and learn these things on their own anyway. That Mack truck has a natural lesson it will teach your child, so what the hell do you parents think you are doing, giving your child a smack on his bottom? You Cretins!
You see, our “intellectuals” have manipulated our legal systems with a belief that it is better to have all children raised at 50% capacity, rather than to have 95% of children raised at 100% capacity, with the remaining 5% raised at 25%.
They believe they can prevent this:
By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:
Our lesbian lecturer will tell us that this is for “the greater good,” but it becomes obvious that she is not an expert in mathematics.
You see, 100% of the population at 50% capacity equals 50%.
But (95% of the population at 100%) plus (5% of the population at 25%) equals 96.25%.
A population operating at 96.25% capacity is greater than one operating at 50%.
Who’s telling who about “the greater good?”
Everywhere you look in nature you will find this formula.
It’s time for us to recognize that laws can also be repealed!
We already had legal mechanisms protecting us from violence. We didn’t need to have a whole further myriad of never ending laws bringing the whole herd down to 50% capacity.
And we certainly don’t need to lobby to be included within them, feeding the Utopian beast even more.
End the Abuse Industry NOW!
It’s the only sure fired way to rid the world of Domestic Abuse.
"Heaven on Earth" is a nice fairytale theory. But in practice it becomes a Living Hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
