On Generalizations

I sometimes wonder where the argument “you can’t generalize” comes from.

Isn’t this the most idiotic idea in the world?

And it escapes from people’s lips without even a thought of what they are doing or saying.

Of course you can generalize. In fact, you must generalize. To fail to generalize is to demand that all things must only be regarded in terms of the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator doesn’t particularly lead to the highest pinnacles we can achieve, does it?

The “you can’t generalize” zealots don’t seem to have really thought things through very well. They are thinking one-dimensionally. A more complex, and more proper way of thinking is that “there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups.”

For example, saying something like “women have larger breasts than men” is a sweeping generalization. But, it is a true one – even though some women have smaller breasts than some men. In the collective group of “women” there will be some individual women who have small breasts, while in the collective group of “men” there will be some porky men sporting a set of man-boobs. But only an idiot would try to cherry pick a flat chested woman and stand her next to a man-boobed male and claim that this is in any way a reflection of human intellectualism, therefore, we should not say that “women have larger breasts than men” anymore. It is lunacy! The only thing we might be able to learn then is that “both men and women have nipples.” Wow! Stop everything right there! The Tower of Babel is already reaching into the heavens! What more could we possibly learn?

Generalizations are absolutely necessary in order to learn anything.

Of course, what one cannot do is take one individual and generalize that the entire group resembles that individual. Take Marc Lepine, for example. Feminists have been screeching for over two decades now that Marc Lepine is “proof” of the murderous hatred men harbour for women. Now that is pure lunacy. The actions of one man is in no way a reflection of the mentality of the 15,000,000 other men who live in Canada. That is a wrong generalization.

But, to say that men are taller or heavier than women? Yes, this is a proper generalization, because the majority of men are taller and heavier than the majority of women – even though in some individual cases, you will be able to see a taller or heavier woman than a man.

We generalize that “birds fly.” But oh my gosh! You can’t generalize like that! Don’t you know that Emus, Ostriches, Kiwis and Penguins don’t fly? This is such a lame argument, and it ought to be obvious even to the simplest of simpletons that any biologist worth his salt must necessarily generalize that “birds fly.” Look up, grasshopper… not down!

Many of the arguments that get put forward in regard to sensitive issues (like the War of the Sexes) automatically get dismissed with the intellectually retarded retort, “you can’t generalize like that.”

Nonsense.

In fact, no-one is going to figure out one damn thing about anything if they fail to generalize. Ignoring the similar actions/traits/situations in 80% of the  cases because 20% of the cases do not coincide… well… how is that gonna make you smarter? Huh?

The thing to keep in mind is that there are individual groups (ie. men and women), and there are individuals within those groups.

The way to learn something is to recognize that the trait of the group follows in “this” direction, even though there are individual exceptions which follow “that” direction.

It’s time to stop looking for the lowest common denominator.

Tell people who use the “generalizing argument” to shut the hell up. In general, those people don’t have two brain cells to rub together and aren’t worth listening to anyways.

There are individual groups, and there are individuals within those groups. 

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

 "Meanwhile, as long as there's one honest woman living at the temple atop Mount NAWALT in Tibet..." -- White Knight

Mathieu of Boulogne (1295) on NAWALT

From “The Lamentations of Matheolus”

Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one's general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, "Who could find a virtuous woman?" The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What's more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she's doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don't need to look for further proof. That's enough logical demonstration.

My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has - and there is ample evidence of this - deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed.

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

Belfort Bax on NAWALT

It seems not much has changed in a century, but this is a beautiful reply (Notice how he only responds to male feminists? Lol!):

The Fraud of Feminism - Belfort Bax, 1913 pp24-26

At the time of writing, the normal person who has no axe to grind in maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn't see it I can't prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts.

One often has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair play among women in general.

The afore said peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only dis-puted by those persons--to wit Feminists--to whose theoretical views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that indi-vidual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible--although, as I before said not perhaps very probable--that any given man's experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly bona fide.

The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist's denials. In this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is usually too biassed a witness in this particular question.

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

Further Reading:

Bonecrcker #71 – Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT)

Bonecrcker #151 – The Woman Who Is The Exception Phenomena

The Marxist Dialectic of the Family: Part I - Marriage 1.0 versus The Tender Years Doctrine

"What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." -- The Communist Manifesto
 .

 .

Marriage 1.0 versus the Tender Years Doctrine

The battle to change Marriage 1.0 starts with The Declaration of Sentiments in 1848. The Declaration of Sentiments is the "official start" of feminism as a movement. Two other things happened in this year. The first was that 1848 was the year of revolutions around Europe, where many nations in Europe succumbed to the ideologies of liberal reformers and politicians began to radically alter forms of government while technological progress had radically altered the lives of the working classes. Socialist thought was already heavy in the air and had been brewing for some time already. The second was Karl Marx' release of the revolutionary Communist Manifesto wherein it is important to note that he begins the dialectical manipulation in the first line. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Really? Is that true? Marx was declaring an anti-thesis to start a dialectical argument. (There is no way that the history of all society is the history of class struggles.)

This is exactly what the Declaration of Sentiments does as well. Here is how Elizabeth Cady Stanton starts off her list: "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." Do you see the similarity to Karl Marx's statement above from the Communist Manifesto? It is simply untrue and there are hosts of factors she is ignoring. In fact, it is so ridiculously wrong that one doesn't even know if it ought to be refuted. It's like saying the sun exists at the bottom of the ocean. But truth is not the point. The point is to present an anti-thesis to the thesis so that dialectical manipulation can begin. 

.

.

There are 16 points made after this statement. They all are either false statements, in that they don't take into account a vast amount of other factors (it's only relatively true) or they are simply false statements altogether. For example. Points one to four are about the vote and that men had prevented women from voting on the foundation of the society they live in. But 99.99% of men didn't have anymore say in it than women (Only 55 delegates were present at the Constitutional Convention) - yet all men are to blame. In point four she declares that the elective franchise is the first right of a citizen. Yet that is blatantly untrue. Men did not yet even have universal suffrage in 1848, and 'the right to vote" is guaranteed nowhere. (Landless white men did not receive suffrage until 1856 while non-white men received suffrage by 1870). Your rights are supposed to be guaranteed despite how the majority votes, remember? And the US Founding Fathers mentioned "democracy" nowhere when they created a republic (rule by law, not by sentimental voting). Every point in the Declaration of Sentiments is built on such wobbly logic.

As far as undermining marriage goes, this is addressed by points five to eight: 

5 - He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

6 - He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

7 - He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

8 - He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.

Point five is obviously not so much a point in itself, but rather a lead-in to explain her anti-thesis for the next three points.

Point six is claimed to be an abuse which men have perpetrated against women, yet the laws she is talking about were designed specifically for women's benefit in the marriage contract. It was not possible for spouses to own property independently from eachother. As soon as a marriage occured, all titles went into the husband's name. It was arranged this way because women hypergamously tend to marry men with more resources than they have. The vast majority of women "move up" when they marry. Very, very, very few women move down when they choose a long term mate, even today. What this law really did was combine the male's greater financial wealth (in 99% of cases) with that of the lesser wealth of almost all women who got married. You see, if women are allowed to keep property titles outside of marriage, then so would the men be allowed as well. And if that were the case, the majority of wives would not be able to fully benefit from their husband's productivity and wealth creation. It's a blatant lie to describe this as an act of tyranny and oppression against women. However, it does start the dialectic, and it does end up that these laws are scrapped - leading to the undermining of marriage considered as "one flesh."

Point seven can hardly be made into a case for the oppression of women at the hands of men. Let me get this straight. You breaking the law and me doing the time in jail for it is me oppressing you? Have a look at how this man oppressed his wife:

Sends Husband To Jail To Aid Suffrage Cause -- The Milwaukee Journal, Sept. 21, 1912

Mrs. Mark Wilks, whose husband is in jail because she refuses to pay her taxes, is credited with discovering a new and formidable weapon for the suffragettes. The suffragettes are generally women of property and they will follow Mrs. Wilkes example immediately, it is said.

The plan will work only in cases of husbands whose wives have independent incomes. Nor will it work in cases where the husbands pay taxes on their wives' incomes. Some husbands, like Wilks, haven't enough money to pay their wives taxes. Suffragette husbands who can pay are counted on to refuse to do so. Thus will a large portion of the Englishmen with suffragette wives be in jail shortly.

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax - $185 - and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife pays or the law is changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton.

.

.

After they dialectically changed the property laws, splitting husband from wife, they still didn't remove the responsibilities from the husband. Can you imagine it? Your wife inherits a $5 million estate that requires $50,000/year in taxes. You make only $45,000/yr, and when your wife refuses to pay the taxes, you go to jail for tax-evasion on her behalf. You have no way out. You have no right to take the funds out of her estate to cover the expenses. The oppression of women, you say? It kind of makes sense why all property was put into the husband's name, wouldn't you agree?

The eighth point is the one which undermines the ancient contract of marriage entirely. The ancient contract of marriage is not about romantic love. Those notions are relatively recent. No, it was an economic contract between a man and a woman, whereby the man trades his lifetime's work of generating "excess resources" - which he is far better suited to procure than women - for children that are his own. In other words, he would have 100% presumed custody of any children produced from the woman's sexuality for the duration of their time together. It was about the concept of property rights, or in this case, of custody rights. The products of his wife's sexuality (children) became "his" and the products of his life's work became "hers."

“I would die before I will give up the child to its father.” -- Susan B. Anthony, Quoted in Phyllis Chesler, Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 38.

Also, Elizabeth Cady Stanton claims this practice of father-custody was built on the presumption of the supremacy of man. This is another lie. The reason why ancient marriage was structured that way is because there is a hierarchy of how "love" works. It kind of goes like this:

Men love women --> Women love children --> Children love puppies.

Men's love for women is greater than women's love for men, just like parental love for children is greater than children's love for their parents. The Bible indicates this principle when it commands men to love their wives, but commands wives to honour their husbands in return, just as children are commanded to honour their parents, not love them.

When children are placed in the position of 100% presumed custody of the father, it strengthens the weakest bond in the family - that between father and children. Fatherhood mostly doesn't exist in the animal world, while motherhood is positively everywhere. By attaching fathers and children directly to one another, the mother now equates her children with the father. If she divorces the father, she knows she will lose access to her children. Therefore, in order to maintain her love with her children she must also maintain her love with their father.

If one believed that men and women were the same, one might project the female behaviours of today in modern family court as how men abused such rights in the past. However, this is not the case. Men's greater love for women than women have for men made it that the vast majority of men never tried to remove their wives from the children. However, after presumed custody was shifted from father to mother by around the 1870's, divorce rates began rising... and kept rising right up until the present day.
.

.

There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce" -- James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.

The ultimate problem of marriage and divorce today stems from the dialectical arguments the suffragettes introduced a century and a half ago, wherein they undermined the ancient contract of marriage which had held marriages strong and divorce rates low constantly throughout the West's long history. This was far more significant than anything the second wave feminists did with no-fault divorce.

How did the suffragettes dialectically change custody? Well, it didn't happen all at once, but rather in small incremental "concessions" made by society to appease the shrieks of the suffragettes. Eventually it developed into the Tender Years Doctrine. This is the beginning of the "Best Interests of the Child Doctrine," (something which is purely relative, whereas custody laws are exact and absolute) and we have been dealing with it ever since. The (British) Custody of Infants Act of 1839 already gave judges some power to over-ride a father's custody rights in certain instances, particularly in establishing mother-custody for children under seven years old. By 1873, Parliament extended the age of mother-custody to sixteen years, effectively undermining father-custody altogether. (In some states, the age was thirteen). This is known as the Tender Years Doctrine, and although it was first established in Britain, it spread around the world fast as the British Empire was at its peak in the late 19th Century. The Tender Years Doctrine was similarly used in the USA as a principle in the courts to establish the arguments of parental custody.

Because the rest of the points of the Declaration of Sentiments are not directly addressing the points I am making in this article (they are about property tax, the workplace, education and religion/morality), I will not go into an in depth explanation of them here except briefly to point out that consistently these arguments are fabrications or half-truths that are not so much meant to be truthful, but rather to start dialectal manipulations.

***note*** There is a long stretch of time between the suffragettes and "second wave feminism." Many people consider them to be entirely different movements. However I can assure you that  from a Marxist perspective, they are both after the same dialectical goals. (This applies to other areas of society as well, such the vote and the effects of universal suffrage on the mechanics of our governmental structures.) Keep in mind that the suffragette movement "peaked" after World War One and on into the Roaring Twenties - a time of plenty when it was easy for society to afford feminist ideology. When the Great Depression came, followed directly by the Second World War, the West went through extreme hardship and it was women themselves who openly opposed feminism. For example: When jobs were scarce, it was basically women who shoo'd other women out of the workplace because it meant that a working woman had taken away a job from some other woman's husband, thereby harming women. After the extreme hardships of the 30's and 40's, we have only one generation which lands us squarely into the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, where feminism and Marxism picked itself up and kept on marching.

Part Two of The Marxist Dialectic of The Family: Marriage 1.5 versus The Second Wave, will be addressed at a later date. Be sure to tune in. I know you're all on the edge of your seats. Until then, keep your stick on the ice. 

Women’s Studies 101a

 

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

"The Misandry Bubble" Burst a Decade Ago

There is a much vaunted article floating around the internet called "The Misandry Bubble" which claims that the war against masculinity will "burst" in the year 2020. Until then, the author claims, everyone with a vested interest in maintaining a campaign against men will "double down" in their efforts to control and enslave them.

It's an interesting thought, but I disagree. And since the author is clearly using stock-market terminology, let's have a quick look at some other maxims regarding "bubbles."

"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

This would seem to be the case today, that the feminist juggernaut is still marching forward at full steam ahead. I mean, how could it not be? There are "End of Men" and "Woman's Nation" articles being published all the time. Every female failing somehow ultimately becomes the fault of a man, or men, somewhere, at some obscure point in history. Women dominate our universities and are cheering the displacement of men in the workplace, somehow believing that men's harm is women's gain.

A wise man that has been around the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) for over forty years once related how he thought that during the 1990's men would finally wake up to the toxic nature of feminism and what it is has done to the attitude of Western Women.

"I went through wave after wave of false hope. When MacKinnon and Dworkin, in conspiracy with the religious right and the John Ashcroft types, pushed through the Minneapolis and Indianapolis porn ordinances, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When the famous "1 in 4" faked research came out, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Fruity Faludi came out with her book, I thought that would be a wakeup call. When Lorena Bobbit mutilated her husband and was cheered by millions of women, I thought that would be a wakeup call..." -- Zenpriest #35 - How Was This Allowed to Happen?

"You can thank Oprah for peddling her message of female victimhood and male perfidy to millions of women who lapped it up - loving the hating of men. You can thank all the dozens of trailer-trash panderers - Sally Jesse, Maury, Phil, Geraldo, Jerry, and all the rest - for serving up their multiple daily servings of emotional road-kill which millions of women lapped up like flocks of emotional buzzards.

And, you can thank the millions of these so-called “nice, average, normal women” who just loved to bash men, complain endlessly about petty crap like toilet seats, cheered on Lorena Bobbit when she castrated her husband and played the “abuse excuse” card.

You can thank the lesbians who have dominated “wimmins’s studdees” programs turning out thousands of what Christina Hoff-Sommers calls “hate-intoxicated little zealots” and creating a climate that Daphne Patai calls “Heterophobia.” You can thank the millions of female teachers who have led the “War on Boys” and when they couldn’t stamp out the masculinity in boys, decided to dope them with dangerous drugs in order to turn them into compliant zombies." -- Zenpriest #49 - Let Women Win the Battle of the Sexes
.

.
All of these things peaked during the 1990's, not during the 2000's. In the 2000's we were simply dealing with the aftermath of the hateful policies which were justified by the anti-male biases of the 1990's. Sure, the VAWA was renewed in the 2000's, but it was originally created in the 1990's, in response to the Super Bowl Sunday Hoax.

"Bubbles can only be seen in hindsight."

It was during the 1990's that Oprah Winfrey and Jerry Springer types sky-rocketed into the spotlight - before them, in the 1980's, there was really only Donahue - and he was not nearly as ridiculous as those who came after him. Although he was no great triumph for humanity either, at least he also interviewed people like Ayn Rand who tore into feminism on his show. But it was during the 1990's that those who replaced Donahue went full tilt against all things male.

During what decade did all the women giggle amongst themselves about their "starter marriages?" In which decade did we start drugging our boys with ritalin on a truly massive scale? It was during the 1990's that we completely ripped apart our school system and re-arranged it in favour of girls. It was during the 1990's that we went whole-hog on gender in the workplace, being even prohibited by law from reasonably inquiring if a young woman of 20-something plans to have children in the future, and using this information to best allocate business resources. What decade was it that Catharine McKinnon managed to find sexual harassment behind every water-cooler?

Almost all of the really truly abusive policies feminism has graciously served up to us were the result of the extreme anti-male biases found back in the 1990's, not in the present day. Comparing today to the 1990's, the amount of new policies being erected by feminists is truly miniscule. Today, they are mostly just fighting to hang on to their ill-gotten gains which they achieved during the 1990's.

"The next bull market is always in a different area than the last one."

The maxim of "bubbles can only be seen in hindsight" similarly applies to the next bull market. Rarely do people identify the next bull market when it's in its early stages. It is the same psychology that drives both, but they drive in different directions.

For example, the majority of people didn't believe the tech bubble had burst back in 2000. When they seen Microsoft trading at 50% the value of the previous year, they rationalized it was screaming value and bought some "on sale," so secure were they in their belief of the value of such stocks. A year later they had lost money hand over fist, but still believed. And then they held on and still believed some more. A really good example I know well, because it was here in Canada, was a company called Nortel which was the Canadian tech-industry's darling and at one time the largest company (by market cap) in the country. If I recall correctly, it was trading at +$120.00/share in 2000. People bought back in at $60.00, thinking it had "corrected enough" and presented great value... by December 2002, Nortel hit an all-time low of $0.70. When the economy started picking up again around 2003 and 2004, Nortel zoomed back up to $7.00 and then $9.00, convincing people that "Nortel was back on track again and presented great value." People again piled in, and two or three years later, Nortel went broke and shareholders lost every last penny they had invested. That was some great value!

Conversely, a bull-market began in commodities back in 1999 and 2000. It was dismissed by all but the most fringe of contrarian investors. Gold, after all, was a barbaric relic, and the tech-boom was going to revolutionize everything about the marketplace. Everyone from governments to hedge-funds to small individual investors dumped their barbaric relics. When gold almost doubled in value, the naysayer's still had the public opinion in their pocket. One of the biggest jokes amongst gold investors today is this video that the anti-gold crowd circulated and laughed about, their point being that since gold had reached $500.00/oz, its run was over and the "gold bubble" was going to burst.
.

.
Today, it makes for great giggles to still hear the same people calling gold at $1600.00/oz as a bubble. The fact is, many "savvy investors" completely missed the bull-run in gold & commodities, and they are still convincing themselves to keep missing it. Sure sure, the gold "bubble" will burst one day and end in tears. However, that bubble will not burst until everyone, even the long-term critics, change their attitudes and pile into gold and commodities with reckless abandon.

You can only tell in hindsight when a bull market has started, just like you can only tell in hindsight when the bubble "burst." (This is why contrarian investors follow the idea of "get in early and get out early.")

The Feminist Bull Run is Over; The Anti-Feminist Bull Market is Already Underway

Today, we hear more anti-feminist rhetoric being bandied about than ever before - or at least since the sexual revolution uprooted every social more that once built our great civilization. The media no longer completely dismisses anti-feminist ideas, and even though they often still mock them, they are becoming more and more willing to entertain ideas opposing the hate-filled dogma of the past decades. Many ideas which were considered "fringe" only five or six years ago are now being reported on in various news sites.

Furthermore, the underlying culture is leading the way. If you go to articles like The Atlantic's "The End of Men," and read through the comments section, you will see waves of men showing up to tear the author, and the magazine, a "new one." This not only didn't occur in the 1990's at all, but even only five years ago the vast majority of news-sites, blogs and so forth, automatically deleted any comment that was not supportive of feminism. This is simply not true anymore. People are getting angry about feminism all throughout society today.

Culture Leads Laws; Laws Don't Lead Culture

The culture of the West changed before its laws did, as is always the case. The 60's, 70's and 80's tore up our culture root and branch, altering many of our previous generations social mores. It was after this culture had changed, during the 1990's, that anti-male laws really began to swing into action. The culture had changed and now laws had to be created to reflect the new culture. This is always the way it works.

And this is also the way the "Anti-Feminist Bull Market" is going to work.

More and more people are waking up to the fact that feminism has screwed us all gently with a wooden spoon. These people are angry at those who harmed them. Feminism has caused lots of harm to lots of people - including women themselves. The culture is already changing, and it will continue to change over the next several years until the fevered pitch of their demands over-shadows all other issues. It will be then, and only then, that the laws start to be changed to reflect the cultural values of the general population.

I strongly suspect that rather than the "Misandry Bubble bursting" by the year 2020, what will really be happening is the "Anti-Feminist Bull Market" will be well on its way and the culture will already be reflecting changing social mores. 

They're About Done with Feminism, Anyway

I remember when I first became attuned to the fact that feminism and Marxism were so closely related. I had already realized something was deeply wrong with the ideology, but just could never put my finger on it. At the time, I had volunteered to shovel some gravel for the MRM's newest branch called Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). This was back in 2006 and what I was doing was creating a website called the MGTOW Library, where I was trying to catalogue men's articles into some sort of useful, coherent fashion for others to draw upon. I was (and still am) very computer illiterate, so one of the founders of MGTOW named Zed, held my hand as I blew up the website over and over with my ignorance of all things computer related.

But something happened to me as I read all of those articles, especially those written by Carey Roberts back in 2004 and 2005 which so solidly argued the case that feminism is the mirror image of Leninist Russia. Suddenly the scales fell off and my eyes were opened. I couldn't believe that this was going on and furthermore, I became convinced that there must be some men out there who were trying to fight this Marxist scourge. I had been putting in a lot of effort, but eventually started to get ticked off. "Hey," I scolded Zed. "I have been working my butt off here, and dammit, I want to be let in to the inner circle. I mean, what the bloody hell is being done about this, and why do you guys keep me on the outside?"

The answer I received?

"Sorry, buddy, there's nobody here but myself and Larry (another fellow who was working to maintain MGTOW sites). There is no secret cabal. It's just us two mooks, and now you."

Well, of course, I felt rather foolish. But soon we were discussing the situation and what it all entailed. Then Zed said something which hit me right between the eyes. "The powers that be are about done with feminism anyway," he said. "Pretty much all of the goals which radical feminists were promoting in the past have come to fruition, or are very near to it."

And he's right, of course. There are a few loose ends to tie up, but most of the battle has already been fought and won (by them - lost by us). The family really has been altered. Divorce is now as common as life-long monogamy. It is normal for children to come from broken homes and not have a father in their lives. Government sponsored welfare and affirmative action have replaced the husband's role, destroying the demand for marriageable men, just as Roxanne Dunbar and Kate Millet predicted back in the 1970's.

Sure, individual feminists like Amanda Marcotte still ferverently believe the battle is not close to being won, but Marcotte is merely a useful idiot. The powers that be will toss her into the furnace with the rest of the rubbish the instant that her usefulness disappears.
.

.
So, what's next? What were the original goals of this Cultural Marxist plan? Well, in regard to the ladies, it was to achieve "true equality" by putting women back into the public work force, thereby destroying the entire concept of the family. In order to do this, women must be relieved of their biology as mothers, which is why V.I. Lenin instituted such things as no-fault divorce, easy abortion, community kitchens, sewing centers, housekeeping services, and state-run daycares. The goal of this, however, was not to "empower" women. That's just what was said. Quite frankly, if you want to argue that Lenin was altruistically helping women be all they could be, you would be sorely mistaken. The goal was to take children away from their parents and bring them under the control of the state, instead of parents. Families, say Marx, Engels, Lenin and Feminists, are the founding cornerstone of Capitalism, and therefore all discrimination and oppression ultimately stems from the family.

But, no matter how much women hate men today, and no matter how much money they make shuffling papers around mindlessly in their cubicles, do you think that women would ever willingly give up their own children?

I think not!

The way to remove children from their mothers, via Marxist techniques, would be to abandon the cause of women and take up the cause of men. It can easily be pointed out now that it is men who are not treated equally, and dialectically speaking, it is quite easy to see how disenfranchised fathers could be manipulated into thinking shared-parenting (or, marriage 3.0) is in everyone's best interests, and thereby empower the government to take custody of children away from mothers and place them in the custody of the State -  who will then decide a baby-sitting schedule for the sperm and egg donors. It is also not a stretch for oversight committees to be erected to ensure the "ongoing best interests of the child." Heck, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's thesis compared children in the family to the corruption Indians experienced on the reserve. That wingnut Marxist believes that the government should create a new bureaucracy to represent children separately from their parents. In other words, each child ought to have a legal-aid lawyer representing them, so that their parents don't abuse their power over them.

This is not something new, mind you. People have tried to separate parents and children before. The 2000 Supreme Court Case, Troxel et vir. v. Granville, upheld the "presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." This was also previously defended back in the 1979 Supreme Court Case, Parham v. J.R..Writing back in 1979 for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger declared that ever since Blackstone, who wrote in 1765,  the law "has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children."

The idea of government taking custody of children today, however, is much greater than in the past. As the Bull Market in Anti-Feminism develops, more and more fathers are going to demand the government grants shared-parenting, which is quite obviously the foundation for government taking custody of children. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to see courts appointing government representatives - an unelected bureaucracy - instead of parents, who will decide what is "in the best interests of the child?"
 
Just because a backlash is developing against feminism does not mean it is a good thing, nor that it can only benefit men and society. Many of the things the MRM are requesting is in line with feminism - DV shelters for men is one example, and would only serve to increase government power in the home, not decrease it.
 
I can't bear the thought of men being manipulated into becoming Useful Idiots who further feminist and Marxist goals. 
 
Can you?

"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's Studies 101A

Sex in the 90's -- by Rollo Tomassi

Feminism Peaked in the 1990's - The Spearhead

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Trans-valuation and Global Governance

QUOTE: “Feminism is a problem with a built-in cure: it kills itself.”

This is true. And perhaps the Amanda-Marcotte-feminists of the world are just Useful Idiots… but Hillary Clinton sure isn’t as dumb as Amanda Marcotte. Hillary Clinton exported feminism globally when she was First Lady, and now she’s back in the halls of power, promoting it globally again.

Marxists understand the inherent problem with their socialist ideologies. They know socialism weakens the state until it either gets conquered or gets absorbed by a superior competing system.

So, the only way to stop being overtaken by such societies, is to have only one society – so there is no competition. This way, they can run their global state at 50% capacity, or 30% capacity, or whatever, because it simply won’t matter. Who are we gonna compete with? The Martians? Once this is in place, the real social engineering can begin. Both Marxists and Feminists want to create a Utopia by evolving people into a new form of human – and using state force to do so.

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.” — Karl Marx

“[After Communism succeeds] …then, there will come a peace across the earth.” — Josef Stalin

This is why Marxist theory demands that once a global structure is in place above the level of the “state,” they will use socialism to collapse all the states around the world. (This was supposed to happen during WWI, but didn’t, thus the creation of Cultural Marxism). Once that happens, things will “pop up” to the next level, which will be a global government operating as a Communist dictatorship, with no individual states below them.

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” — V.I. Lenin

The world once looked like this (how we identify ourselves):

Individual –> Family –> Community –> Region/State/Province –> Nation –> World

If you destroy the family, the individual will “pop up” to identifying with the community, and if you destroy the community, they will “pop up” to their region and so on.

What they are after creating is a world that looks like this:

Individual –> World Government

One of the things they have been doing is called “trans-valuation.” (I believe the notion came from Neitzche as a way to discredit Christianity). What trans-valuation means is taking the “bottom” value and placing it on the top. You can see this done with homosexuality in our society, where the values of homosexuals (who have at best, neutral survival value to society) are placed above the values of heterosexuals who have positive survival value.

Feminism has done this in regards to men and women. The man should lead. The man has always led. The “hierarchy” works like this:

Men –> Women –> Children

Now, also, keep in mind that just because men are the “top” in the hierarchy, in terms of who is the most valuable humans, things work in the opposite direction. Children are preferred over women and women are preferred over men (we think it right for a mother to die saving a child, but not a child dying to save a mother).

What has happened with Marxist manipulations is we now have a society in which the hierarchy looks like this:

Women –> Men –> Children

The next step in transvalueing the family is to make it look like this:

Children –> Women –> Men

And how will this come about, you ask? All you have to do is give children more rights over their parents than their parents have over the children. This is exactly what feminism did with men and women, and the next step in destroying the family is putting children’s rights first. (Ahem! Hello shared-parenting advocates!) Don’t forget, it takes a village. Hillary Clinton’s thesis was on this very subject, where she compared children in families suffering abuses similar to the Indians living on the reserve. She claims that children’s rights are ignored in favour of parental rights. She recommends that a government bureaucracy ought to be created to ensure children’s rights separately from their parents.

And they are doing it globally, right now, with the United Nations’ CEDAW agreement. (Covenant to End Discrimination Against Women). The CEDAW has within it, the declared “Rights of the Child.” In it, you will find things like children having the “right” to choose their own religion and having the right to all forms of media/communication etc. etc.

The thing about these international treaties is they supercede national constitutions. If the CEDAW disagrees with the US Constitution, it is the CEDAW that wins. I believe there are only seven countries left in the world who have not signed it – the USA being the most notable hold-out, simply because Americans value their Constitution so much – with good reason.

Canada signed it several years back, and a few years ago, a father in Ontario got taken to court by his teenage daughter, funded by legal aid. The girl was using the internet in her bedroom to communicate with her friends and sneak out of the house in the middle of the night. The father found out and grounded her from the computer, taking it completely out of her room. Well, legal aid took the guy to court to show he had violated “The Rights of the Child” under the CEDAW Canada had signed, because by removing access to the computer, he had violated her right to freely use all forms of communication etc.

How can you run a family in such a way?

You can’t.

What are you going to do when you are a devout Catholic, but your 8 year old child comes home from a screwed-up school system that brainwashed him into becoming a Muslim or a Wiccan? Are you gonna drop him off at the church of Satan on your way to Mass? The CEDAW says you must.

Many shared-parenting advocates as well are talking about “the rights of the child.” It should make everyone stand up and take notice. What kind of rights are we talking about here?

Evolving Humankind with Social Brainwashing

“I agree with 98% of what you stated… However I believe you are mistaken as to how the Marxists want to force people to evolve to bring about a utopia. I believe Marxists/socialists simply identify large segments of society, the segments they believe will stand in the way of the revolutionary transformation of society into a perpetual dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the central committee which of course speaks for the proletariat) and they liquidate/massacre that segment.

Marxists identify those who have no place in their utopia and then go about the pursuit of their utopia by murdering those who don’t belong.” — Bryan

You are correct. But they aren’t evolving individuals, rather they are evolving humankind – society as a whole.

Think about it this way. If you are removing the “undesirables” from the population, you are evolving the society, and if it is the only society that exists on earth (Marxism invented the term "global governance"), then you are altering humankind by doing so. If you don’t want people in your society to have blond hair, the simplest way is just to kill all the blond haired people. As these people are removed from the gene pool, they will also be failing to pass on their blond genes to the next generations… do this for a few generations, and how much do you think the amount of the future populations will continue to be born blond?

Further, they also believe in social “evolving.” This is precisely what we have already been dealing with today. Homosexuals, for example, have long since claimed they could “cure” society of their homophobia by having mandatory school instruction on the subject, where they claim it will be possible to rid society of homophobia in merely one generation – by brainwashing it out of the kids in the classroom.

"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be Bolshevik forever." -- V.I. Lenin

"We must declare openly what is concealed, namely, the political function of the school...It is to construct communist society." -- V.I. Lenin

This is also happening in feminism. A few years back, someone sent a me a document from my province’s teacher’s association/union, where it was seriously being promoted as part of Grade Eight Social Studies, to have all the boys write an apology to all of the girls in the class, for their historical misogyny and abuses against women. This type of social conditioning, they claimed, would remove misogyny from society in a mere generation as well.

And it's true. It does work that way.

We have been socially “brainwashed” over the past couple of generations to have a new view of marriage and family as well. Everyone now comes from a divorced family, or has been divorced, or at least has a sibling or some other relative who is divorced. It is now something like 50% of children live in homes without a biological father present. It is normal now.

And the only people who really know what a society was like when marriage was still a semi-viable institution, are the Baby-Boomers and a few spatterings of the elderly who are older than them. Once the Baby Boomer generation dies off, will there be anyone left who remembers what such a society was like? There is still some talk today that No-Fault-Divorce was a really bad idea, comparing it to the time before it came in. But once those people are gone, who is gonna talk? Does anyone really talk about presumed-father-custody being undermined by the suffragettes anymore? 99.9% of people probably don’t even realize that for thousands of years, the bedrock of society was based on marriage involving presumed father custody rather than mother custody – nor that the divorce epidemic began with this change, and not with no-fault divorce. (The divorce rate rose from less than 2% before the 1870′s – which had held constant for thousands of years – to around one in seven by the 1920′s. That is about a 700% increase in divorce. Since then, divorce has risen only a modest 300% or so).

So, yes, Marxists often just simply killed those they didn’t like, but just because some of the Marxist states used such brutal tactics, does not necessarily mean it is an “ironclad” Marxist technique to use murder. It is more about the belief that it is possible for man to become god himself, and remake the world into heaven on earth.

By the way, an interesting side note about evolution. When Darwin came out with his thesis, Marx and Engels were extremely excited. Remember that Marx based his ideology on Hegel’s notion of “The Truth is Relative.” (There is no Absolute Truth). When Darwin came out with his book, they regarded it as the science that “proved” they were right. What evolution means in regard to “The Truth” is that because the world is always changing, what was true yesterday is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today is not necessarily the truth tomorrow.

At any rate, Marx and Engels wrote a letter to Darwin and asked him to affiliate his science with their political ideology.

Darwin declined the honour.

It's Not a Conspiracy Theory. It's Happening Right On the Tell-a-vision

For everyone who thinks that feminism will just die out and fade away, it may be so, but the structure they have built will stay long after they are gone.

Has no-one put two and two together yet what the implications of the ongoing global economic crisis might be?

For example. Back in 2008 & 2009, at the height of the disaster, all of the world leaders almost immediately started chirping about the need to create an international organization to make sure the global economy still functions. Hell, our ex-Prime Minister, the Right Dishonourable Paul Martin (who is hailed as an economic genius from his time as Finance Minister) went on a bloody tour across Canada trying to convince us that we had to give up some of our Canadian sovereignty in order to "make the world work!" I mean, my God! Is that not the definition of treason? All the world leaders were saying this.

It was complete bullshit. In fact, the reason why the world didn’t completely implode was because there was little affiliation from one nation to the next. Americans, for example, have seen their dollar’s purchasing power decline rapidly, whereas Canada & Australia’s dollar (while still declining) has held value far better. Therefore, should the United States really go belly up, git your money out of US dollars and into Canadian dollars pronto, so you still have some wealth left. This is what the Germans did when they experienced hyper-inflation. The smart ones simply dumped their marks and bought the British pound, thereby preserving their wealth.

It has only been since the most recent Euro-crisis that the world’s leaders have somewhat shut-up about this treasonous notion of handing over national monetary sovereignty to a newly created global organization. I mean, it’s kinda hard to make the case for such a thing while “Global Government-Lite” (The EU) is crashing and burning into the ground precisely because they are bound by the European monetary system. If the EU did not exist, only Greece and the other PIIGS would be screwed. But now, they all are. So, ask yourself, why do all the world leaders keep promoting the idea of creating a global currency, or at least, a global organization to handle the world’s monetary supply? It is suicide!

However, notice what else has happened in Europe. It all started with being an “economic union.” That is where it started. But in order to make the economic union work, things had to be standardized, and so in came the legislation to do so, like trying to force the Brits to accept the metric system… and then further legislation to make labour mobile, so that Suzie's Hairdressing School in Paris also meets the qualifications for working in Berlin… and then laws and bureaucracies ensuring standards of "equality of opportunity" and so on and so on. Once the basic frame-work was in place, they easily passed all kinds of laws and created all sorts of organizations to enforce them – well outside of economic policy and into social policy – and all of the Europeans suddenly discovered the EU was more important and powerful than their own governments.

So, as we watch the USA run up debt to levels that are simply unsustainable anywhere in the world except in Disneyland, we are also watching the EU do the same, and in order to keep propping up these, even countries like Canada and Australia are funnelling in billions of dollars of aid to keep the ponzi scheme going, deflating our own dollar’s purchasing power at the same time. At some point in the near future, this whole puppy is gonna explode. And there will be lots of demand for a new form of government to be created to “deal with it.” Of course, it is always global. And of course, it will only deal with money, not social policy… for now. (It just never works that way over time).

Once they have a structure in place that all are bound to, rather than volunteer to, they will simply start dialectically manipulating the global state from economic policy into social policy, the same way they did in the EU.

Like I said elsewhere about the CEDAW, much of the framework is already in place.

All they really need is a global structure everyone is bound to, and they will get their global government. They tried desperately to convince nations to give up some of their sovereignty to a global structure when the Global Warming Hoax came out, and when the shit hits the fan in our economies, they will try to do it again.

And once it’s done, it’s done. See Greece. They haven’t even got the option to leave the EU. There is no constitutional provision to leave the EU, and the only way they can create one, apparently, is to re-open the constitution and then 100% unanimously vote it in. Except, since Greece is still in the EU, they too have a vote, and why the hell would they vote for their own financial destruction? Lol! They are FUBAR in Europe, and the USA is in even worse shape than them.

The drumbeats for large global government gets louder and louder with each passing year. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s happening every day, right on the tell-a-vision.

The Ill-Ooh-Meh-Naughty, Mae's Sons, Zyanism, The Juice, The Rock Fellas and Roth's Child's Pet Lizard

What I always find so irritating about the Marxist debate is when someone, again, shows up talking about the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers, or thinks that showing the links between the Rockefellers & the Rothschilds somehow “proves” what’s going on.

“What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” – Anatoliy Golitsyn, KGB Defector to the USA

The fact is, it really doesn’t matter a whit if you can prove Karl Marx was related to the Rothschilds through one of their step-daughters marrying his great-great grandpa on his mother's side through adoption. If you can’t understand what Marx was trying do then what’s the point of connecting him to others to show who is bankrolling him? (And Gesh! Why go way out on a limb linking in obscure billionaire’s from the past? Hillary Clinton is standing right in front of everyone’s face).

Quite simply, it just doesn’t matter if it is a “conspiracy” or not. If you were standing in the Twin Towers on the morning of 9/11, would you really give a rat’s ass about “who” is behind it, or if the building is going to collapse by naturally occurring physics or via controlled demolition? I wouldn’t give a crap! I would want to get OUT either way!

“Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the “essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism.”

So, whether it is a “conspiracy theory” or not, look at it this way. Each of those “pillars” listed above has been undermined over the past decades.

Every.

Single.

One.

The whole point of the Frankfurt School identifying these cultural pillars, was to say that if these pillars were destroyed, the chaos that would ensue would collapse those cultures.

So, does it matter if it is a conspiracy or a “coincidence?”

Alright. I’ll agree with you. It’s just a coincidence, so there’s no need to be worried about the consequences of it. Just like, if you determined in your mind on the morning of 9/11, it wasn’t a conspiracy, so there’s nothing to worry about here! Back to your cubicle.

The coincidence theorists haven't really thought all of this through very well, I think. 

It's Not Marxism Because...

.
One of the most common arguments I see made against the notion that feminism and Marxism are one in the same goes something like this:

"Feminism and Marxism aren't related because Stalin's policy of xyz was certainly not feminist!" (or Mao's, or Pol Pot's or Gorbachev - take your pick).

Another common argument goes like this:

"Russian women aren't raving feminists like American women, therefore, Marxism and feminism aren't related."

Well, all these things may be true, but, one must also realize that Marxism is kinda like Christianity in that while it has a large over-riding ideology, there are many different denominations with varying beliefs. Marxism as well has many different types. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism was one such type, called Leninism, and when Stalin took over he interpreted Marxism in a different way - over-riding some of Lenin's beliefs - and thus becoming "Stalinism." Mao as well interpreted Marxism differently from Stalin, and this became known as "Maoism." So, just as it is false to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they don't have a Pope and never go to confession, so is it false to say that Marxism and feminism are unrelated because of reason XYZ during Boris Yeltsin' s vodka soaked tenure at the helm.

Mostly when people such as myself assert that Marxism and feminism are one in the same, it has a lot to do with the philosophies behind Marxism, such as the oppressor vs. victim class, the use of the Marxist dialectic to manipulate the population, the "end-goal" of Marxism & feminism being remarkably similar, and most of all it comes from Engels' own words (Marx made a few references to liberating women, but Engels really got into it).

Furthermore, after the Russian Revolution, Lenin (not Stalin or Kruschev) erected a near perfect feminist Utopia. (Stalin, in fact, removed many of Lenin's feminist policies because it was obvious how much it was harming the people and thus, the state).

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

A few years back, Carey Roberts wrote several articles on this very subject, and I would like to quote a few of them to illustrate why the Soviet Union under Lenin is often referred to as a feminist Utopia.

From The Marxist Prescription for Women's Liberation:

"In the 1840's, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.

This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: "What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production."

In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression: "The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.""

(Here are a few more quotes that follow with this Marxist-feminist theme)

"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (New York, International Publishers, 1942), p.58

"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]

"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx (Daughter of Karl), The Woman Question

From When Family Dissolution Becomes the Law of the Land:

"So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law."

But Lenin's dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.

First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties.

Not suprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history.

But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common theives or prostitutes.

In his recent book, "Perestroika," Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: "We have discovered that many of our problems -- in children's and young people's behaviour, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties.""

Here is a little more Marxist-feminism, from Lenin's March 8th, 1921 speech on International Working Women's Day:

"But you cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed. The working woman and the peasant woman are oppressed by capital, but over and above that, even in the most democratic of the bourgeois republics, they remain, firstly, deprived of some rights because the law does not give them equality with men; and secondly—and this is the main thing—they remain in household bondage", they continue to be “household slaves", for they are overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.

No party or revolution in the world has ever dreamed of striking so deep at the roots of the oppression and inequality of women as the Soviet, Bolshevik revolution is doing. Over here, in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law. The Soviet power has eliminated all there was of the especially disgusting, base and hypocritical inequality in the laws on marriage and the family and inequality in respect of children.

This is only the first step in the liberation of woman. But none of the bourgeois republics, including the most democratic, has dared to take oven this first step. The reason is awe of “sacrosanct private property.

The second and most important step is the abolition of the private ownership of land and the factories. This and this alone opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from “household bondage” through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialised domestic services."

It's not hard to see why the Soviet Union after the Revolution is so often referred to as a feminist paradise, eh?

So, when and why did it change?

From "Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray" -- Statement of Bill Woods to the Committee on Ways and Means:

"FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?

Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.

Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate..."

As one can plainly see from the evidence which I have put forth herein, feminism and Marxism are intricately linked. The fact that Stalin changed the Soviet Union's family policy after he took power in no way discredits that Lenin attempted to create a feminist Utopia after the Russian Revolution. He obviously based his feminist policies on Marx & Engels' ideas on the subject. Feminist goals are 100% aligned with the ideas put forth by V.I. Lenin, and thus ought to be more accurately described as Marxist-Leninist. Feminism is very much based upon Marxism.

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

.

Further Reading: 

.

The Ill-Ooh-Meh Naughty, Mae's Sons, Zyanism, The Juice, The Rock Fellas and Roth's Child's Pet Lizards 

.

It's Not a Conspiracy Theory... It's Happening Right on the Tell-a-Vision! 

.

Evolving Humankind with Social Brainwashing 

.

Trans-valuation and Global Governance  
.
Marxist Feminism's Ruined Lives -- by Mallory Millet (Sister of famed feminist, Kate Millet) 
.

What a Great Article about Cultural Marxism!

Very well done!

Accurate and well argued.

And thank God, no talk of the flippin' "Illuminati."

“What good is knowing all the names in the KGB… if you don’t understand what they do?” - Anatoliy Golitsyn, KGB Defector to the USA

The Dialectic, Useful Idiots and Consolodating the Gains to the Left

My last article, Marxism, Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap, argued the case that feminism and Marxism are one in the same. Or more accurately, feminism is one arm of the Cultural Marxist's war on Western Civilization's "cultural pillars." The main weapon used to fight this war is Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the "essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism."

How can mere criticism be used to collapse a culture, you ask? Well, we're not exactly talking about the kind of criticism typical of a nagging wife, but rather a purposeful and precise attack designed to alter the perceptions of "the truth." Therefore, Western Civilization could be made to sabotage itself in very destructive ways until there was such chaos that the people would willingly give up their freedoms and request a totalitarian government to stop the madness. Think of it this way; if during an actual physical war you could make all of your enemy's compasses read south when they are in reality headed east, you could create untold havoc for them without ever firing a shot.

This is the principle behind Karl Marx's statement, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." Marx wanted to create an entirely new human civilization based on his ideologies. In order for him to do that, he reasoned, the present civilization and social order must be destroyed. Since he was heavily influenced by G.F. Hegel, who philosophically came to the conclusion that "The Truth is Relative" (truth is always subject to change and never absolute), Marx was really saying, "I am going to use this concept of The Truth is Relative to destroy civilization for purposes of my own design." This is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology. It is conspiratal right down to its very core, and yet there is nothing "tin-foil-hat" about it. It's done right in the open... in fact, since it is attempting to change society's understanding of the truth, it is necessarily done in the open. What's the purpose of altering your enemy's compass if you then hide it so he can't use it?

Dialectical Arguments
 
To understand what Marxists are trying to do, one must first understand what Hegel did with the dialectic.The dialectic was not invented by Hegel and it is nothing new. It merely means opposing positions, or in other words, an argument. Traditional logic says that if Position A (1+1=2) is correct, then Position B (1+1=3) is incorrect. Pretty easy speazy, eh? In Hegelian terms, Position A is called the Thesis (position) and the opposing argument is called the Anti-Thesis (opposite position). Essentially what Hegel did was take the two and equalized them, claiming the truth was found in the Synthesis, which means the consensus or compromise, between the two. The Synthesis then becomes the new truth (Thesis), and the next Anti-Thesis is pitted against it creating yet another Synthesis (New Truth), and so on and so on, like a staircase.

Now, this is not an easy subject, nor is it easy to keep one's attention focused on it. But, a diagram of how it works is much easier to understand.

The staircase kind of works like precedents that are set in a court of law. A previous court case (argument) concluded in a certain way, thereby setting a precedent. That precedent is then often used in future court cases as an established truth upon which even further arguments are based. This staircase has been going on in regards to the Gender War as well, and looks something like this:

(You can substitute Affirmative Action for Man Tax, or any other host of discriminations against men based on the inequalities between the sexes generated by "The Truth is Relative.")

Now, keep in mind, that is merely what Hegel did. Marx then said to himself, "How can I use this Hegelian Dialectic thing-a-ma-jig to change the world?" What he concluded was that he ought to "stand Hegel on his head." Karl Marx starts by saying I want that Man-Tax to appear in society, now what arguments can I create which will lead to that conclusion?

In other words, once you declare that feminism IS Marxism, you are also declaring that on a philosophical level, it is indeed a top-down conspiracy. There is an intentional destination of Marxist arguments, whereas Hegel's version builds the truth "naturally" and in a more haphazard way.

You can also see the need for Marxists to think two, three, four or five steps ahead. In fact, I've read before that many Marxists who became national leaders, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc., rose to prominence in large part because of the status they generated by showing how well they could manipulate dialectical arguments. Here is what one famous Marxist had to say on the subject:

"Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion." -- Leon Trotsky

Where most people run amock is they are only thinking about one argument at a time, rather than in a series of them all linked with the intention of arriving at a pre-determined goal.

Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess

After the Russian Revolution, Lenin wrote that he would install a Marxist bureaucratic government without the support of dedicated Marxists. Only the inner elite of his circle would understand the political structure he was building, while others would be manipulated to forward his agenda by their natural vanity and ambition to gain favour so as to further their political careers. He called such people "Useful Idiots."

Furthermore, he understood that an angry pressure builds up (backlash) when manipulating mass-populations and this pressure needs a release valve. Lenin combined this knowledge within dialectical manipulation and allowed for controlled backlashes that, in fact, furthered his agenda even though it appeared to oppose his goals.

"It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin

This is kind of a difficult concept at first, because it doesn't make much sense on the surface. The shortest route between point A and point B is a straight line, and that is how most people think things work - and usually they are right, except when dealing with Marxists.

"Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forwardbackward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived" -- Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade

OK, so they go two steps forward and one step back. But what's the point of that?

Well, the point is that the backlash consolodates the gains! The general modus operandi is to push hard with radical leftism. Of course, radical leftward movements cause lots of social upheavel, such as how the radical move of No-Fault-Divorce has caused untold grief in our society for all parties involved. After time, enough people are angry and bitter about these policies which harmed them on a personal level that a backlash movement begins to develop.That backlash is then "released" to let off the steam, but the backlash is only allowed in ways that concentrate more power in the hands of the State.

These things don't happen fast, mind you, but take several years - often a generation. Lenin sped things up by using government force and direct violence, but Lenin was only one faction of Marxist theory, which is obviously called "Leninism." Another faction is called "Fabianism."

The Long March Through the Culture

Fabian Socialists adopted their name from the Roman general, Fabius, who battled and won against the infamous Hannibal with his elephants when he invaded Italy. Hannibal had a vastly superior army than Fabius but was far from his home and supplies, so Fabius organized a campaign of hit-and-run tactics against Hannibal's army. He harassed and confounded the enemy, wearing them down bit by bit over time until finally Hanibal capitulated and admitted defeat. Fabian Socialists adopted Fabius' strategy, veering away from Lenin's use of violence to speed things up. Instead, the Fabians used techniques involving time to alter perceptions of the truth.

In my last article, I wrote about how the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory utilizes brainwashing techniques to alter the population's perceptions of the truth. The basic plot is to unfreeze the subject from his current comfort level and move him to a different level, then freeze them at that next level until they have accepted their new paradigm as "normal." This technique was based on the practice of torture, but merely removed the physical parts of it while keeping the mental aspects intact. For example, prisoners of war often have described the mental aspect of weeks or months spent in isolation as more damaging to them then the actual physical tortures they endured. Alienation from the group is a very real threat to humans, as we are naturally social creatures. Political Correctness was first invented by Lenin (he called those opposing his views "Enemies of the State") and later it was used by Stalin to run his opponent Leon Trotsky out of Russia and into exile in Mexico, where he had a date with an ice-pick.

The technique of using time rather than violence is the only thing that changed with the Fabian's viewpoint on Marxism. They agreed with Lenin's goals, but only differed with him because he used violence to speed up the populace's willingness to accept his dictats.

Really, if you have a look at it all, what took Lenin four years to implement has taken the Fabians/Cultural Marxist 40 years to replicate. But the end result is pretty much consistent.

For example, a few years after the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin declared "International Women's Working Day" on March 8th, 1921. He bragged about how he had created the first system of equality and had liberated women from their chains. Lenin instituted no-fault divorce, easy abortions, state-run day-care centres, community kitchens, sewing centres, and other such things to alieviate women from their biological duties to children and family, and put them to work with the pick-axe and shovel. He claimed he had ended discrimination against women and had liberated them by doing such. It took him four years, by use of violence, to implement his policies.

In contrast, after forty years of second-wave feminism gradually eroding society, we have arrived at virtually the same place. We now have feminists screeching at the government to impose upon businesses such things as corporate run daycare centres and flex-time so that they may realize their true "equality." (Which can only be enabled by state totalitarianism). In the last few Canadian elections, state-run daycare has been a constant issue. It's only a matter of time before it becomes reality. Basically, everything which Lenin declared he had done to make women "equal" in 1921, is now being seriously debated in our own legislative assemblies in the present day, and no-one bats an eye about it.

Why is it like that? It's because of gradualism.

For example, the population was unfrozen in the 1970's when we introduced the radical concept of No-Fault-Divorce (which the population did not request). This has caused untold grief for millions of people, but after 40 years, and a generation or two of children raised in broken homes, no-one really questions the right to unilaterally force a divorce upon another party. We assume it is normal, even though it is a recent phenomenon that has only existed for around 40 years in Western Civilization's multiple-millenia existance.

What's happened is enough people in society have accepted the notion that divorce is not only normal, but it is a right. Most 40-somethings like me can only remember a distant time in their early existence when divorce wasn't the norm. A cultural paradigm has shifted, by use of gradualism and time. Now virtually everyone has 50% or more of their relationships ending in divorce, or was raised in a broken home to begin with. Divorce is so "normal" that no-one even questions its validity. The proper acceptance of new values, via brainwashing techniques, has been achieved. And now, the push is on for "shared-parenting" to alieviate the problems created by the divorce epidemic. Nobody is openly questioning if we should abolish No-Fault-Diivorce. No, not at all. All that is being said is that the system ought to be re-organized to make it more fair. Divorce is part of our culture now. The "acceptance" phase is now complete. It's time to move the family unit on to a further totalitarian idea that destroys the family, commonly known as Shared-Parenting, where the courts will decide every facet of people's children's lives, right down to the times they are allowed to see their parents. which religion they ought to subscribe to, and how far away their parents are physically allowed to live from them which removes their right to freely move about the country.

And of course, this is what Marxists and radical feminists (the same thing) have wanted all along.

"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179

"It takes a village..." -- Hillary Clinton

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

"The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254.

"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

Wow! Those gringas really don't like marriage and children!

But it's pretty easy to see what is happening. No-one in our current society is demanding of the government to end No-Fault-Divorce and restore things sanely to the way they were before. Instead, vast lobby groups of disenfranchised fathers are merely complaining that they should have "shared-parenting." In other words, since fathers are marginalized and don't often have sole custody of their children, they would rather that neither the father or mother had custody in favour of the court keeping said custody, and then dictating baby-sitting duties between the father and mother. If there is any dispute, the government will arbitrate it. If there is anything at all which is displeasing, the courts will handle it. If the father wants to take to the child to a Catholic church, while the mother is a dedicated Wiccan, it will be the courts who will paternalistically decide what is in the best interests of the child. Has the government then not effectively taken custody of the children?

And isn't that what they wanted all along?

The backlash to the right is used to consolodate the gains to the left. It's not a backlash to the way things were before. Rather, while the backlash movement thinks they are winning, in effect they are being mere useful idiots and only furthering along the Marxist and Feminist goals of removing children from their parents and placing them into government custody. After 20 or so years of this - long enough to allow society in general to accept the new normal, an abrubt turn will occur and radical leftward movements will again appear, further removing freedom.

And the marginalized fathers of today will no longer be able to complain about their situation... after all, they won! They got their shared-parenting... and all of the totalitarianism that comes along with it.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." -- V.I. Lenin

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Related: 

The Dialectic, or, Scholars are Stooopid!