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! 

Marxism, Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap

Many people will instinctively try to dismiss the notion of feminism being Marxism as some sort of red-herring related to tin-foil-hat "conspiracy" theories. However, a quick perusal of the quotes at the top of this blog ought to discredit that notion enough for a reasonable and rational man to inquire further into the subject.
.

.
I maintain that the Marxist connection to feminism is not "a red herring," but rather that all arguments except "feminism IS Marxism" would be the "red herring."

What Is Marxism and How Does It Work?

First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:

1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.

Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."

That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of humans that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his use of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.

Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.

2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.

3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of mass-psychology with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.

4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group. AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical parts out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values: 1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence, 2 - MOVING the subject to the next level, 3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs. (Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)

Let's Try This Out!
.
So, could you destroy something absolute like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.
.

.
It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood (N.O. M.A.A.M.) files their taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.

Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges are made up of segments. In fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."
.

.
The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange. The "truth is relative," remember? She tells me that it is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional.

As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. NO MA'AM doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what a BIGOT!

The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."

I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!

Connecting the Marxist Dots

Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx

Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."

Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."

"We shall destroy you from within!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.

Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement, which is critizing feminism: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116

Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary ideology:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

Read those quotes carefully, then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:

- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?

- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality (cough!), gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?" With the word "sex" there is only male and female.

- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?

- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?

- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.

- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry only a scant few years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family?" All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots. (Also, see my piece: A New Kind of Bigotry)

These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?

Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that gay-marriages are not equal, because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon." You will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.

Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.

Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that governmentt be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people.

The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!

No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Marxism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.

TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage is Fraud

.
NOTICE: This article has been updated and moved to The Masculine Principle. Please click here to read the new version or scroll down to continue reading in the old format.
.

***

[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?

Answer:

Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
.

I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?

Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.

Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.

When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:

Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.

The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.

In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.
.
So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.

(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).

This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.

This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.

This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”

For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”

You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.

And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
.
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.

She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.

Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.

So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.

Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.

Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.

Have a look around the room you are in.

Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.

Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).

Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.

Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.

So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?"

My answer is a resounding NO!

Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!

It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.

You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.

The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.

Yup.

But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.

The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!”

MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!

MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!

DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.

Have nothing to do with them.

Do not oppress them with marriage.

Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.

Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?

Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.

Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.

Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.

And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.

Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.

You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.

You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.

Give them as few tax dollars as possible.

Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:

.
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.

DON'T MARRY!!!

It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.
.
Read more on this subject in the following online book, The Case for Father Custody -- by Daniel Amneus
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Male and Female: Equal but Different

Males and females are polar opposites. They are as up is to down as night is to day. One thing that is common to all opposites is that by the very nature of being opposite, they must be equal. If they were not equal, it would be impossible for them to be opposite. In any given year, at any spot on earth, there are an exactly equal amount of daytime hours and nighttime hours. The same is true of males and females; they are polar opposites and therefore are equal. However, we are not talking about legal equality here, but rather the essence that makes “male” and “female” has equality unique unto itself.
.

.
In terms of intelligence, men and women are equal in that the average IQ of all males is equal to the average IQ of all females. There is a difference in how these equal intelligences are arrived at however.

Female intelligence is clustered around the mean far more than male intelligence. There is far less variation in female intelligence. To put it more simply, the female population’s intelligence tends to be concentrated in greater numbers around the average IQ of 100, while the male population has a greater range on both the high and low IQ scale. A far greater percentage of female IQ’s reside between 90 to 110 than males, while conversely, males inhabit the extremes of IQ between 70 to 130 in far greater percentage than females. The more you go to the extremes, the more it becomes virtually all male, in both high and low.

When one takes all of the IQ’s of the female population into account to find an average IQ, and then takes all of the IQ’s of the male population to find their average, the collective IQ’s of the two sexes are virtually identical, even though there are vast differences in their variability.
.

.
When one looks at “happiness,” we find the same thing as we find in intelligence.

Researchers have discovered that when they ask men to rate the periods of their lives where they feel satisfied or dissatisfied, they find that men have a major “spike” of dissatisfaction commonly known as Mid-Life Crisis.

When asking the females, what they find is that women do not have a major mid life crisis like men; however, they have several “mini” mid life crises that occur at various times in their cycle of life.

When the researchers total up all of the time in a male’s life to find his “average” happiness and compare it to the female’s average happiness throughout her life, what they find is that both males and females have almost the identical average amount of happiness in their respective lives. However, the male’s midlife crisis is far more intense than anything the typical female will ever experience – but, he only goes through it once.
.
.
If we look at sin, or good and evil, what would you expect to find except again the same phenomenon?
.
When a boy is bad it is very noticeable and often in the form of an outburst or some form of physical aggression. It is very hard to miss a male’s evil because its nature is overt and it occurs as a “spike.” Male aggression is stereotypically to hit, kick, shout or destroy something. The boy may go through long periods of “nothing” followed by a spike that is hard to ignore.
.
A girl, on the other hand, uses covert aggression. More commonly this is known as “Social Aggression” or “Relational Aggression” and it is stereotypically a female form of aggression. Its nature is to use gossip or social manipulation to hurt the targeted party, and this necessarily occurs over a longer period of time and is less visible than the male’s aggression.
.
What we end up seeing is that male aggression occurs as a noticeable spike that lasts only a short time while female aggression is less intense but lasts over a longer period of time. When we average out the two forms of aggression, we again will find that both male and female are equal, but different.
.
.
The essence of “maleness” is that things occur with infrequent but large “spikes” while the essence of “femaleness” is that things occur with more frequent but less identifiable “rhythms.” When one averages them out, men and women are equal yet they have gotten to their equal averages by different means.

Now, to the point of “equal but different,” it must also be noted that male and female sex drives are equal but different in the same manner as the above examples.

Jack Kammer, in his online book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? said it best, so I will steal his example:

Male sexuality is like a pushy door to door salesman; it picks one target and gets in your face so much that you simply cannot ignore it.

Female sexuality, however, is like annoying junk mail. It is everywhere and steadily drones on and on at everybody, whether they are the intended target or not.

While males may think about the sex act itself more than women, the equal opposite is that women think about being “sexy” to the same degree.
.
.
Males and females both have equal sex drives, but they work in different ways. Even physically, men and women are equally sexual.
Men have fewer but far more intense erogenous zones, while women have erogenous zones located all over their bodies. In fact, it is fair to say that a woman’s entire body is an erogenous zone that is dispersed with lowered sexual sensitivity but over a greater area, making it equal to the man’s. This is why women are so much more into “intimacy” and the mental aspects of sex. Her entire body is involved in having sex whereas only certain, but more intense, parts of the male’s body are.

In the end of it all, men and women both have equal desires to have sex and to be sexual creatures, although they are expressed in different ways. Women have their biological clocks and get “baby rabies” that demand of them to go out and get impregnated with the same intense irrationalness that men display when they are willing to do anything to copulate with a female, including the willingness to commit treason or sell out one’s own mother.

It is horribly inaccurate for one to say that only men want sex. It is far more accurate to say that both men and women want sex equally. In fact, the only imperatives of all living things is to: 1). Survive, so that one can: 2). Reproduce. All other things are in support of these two imperatives that are universal to all living things. Males and females both have an equal desire to do this. Sex is the core of existence itself.

We may think that we humans are smarter than animals, but when it comes to sexual instinct we are animals that follow the same mating patterns as most other species in the animal kingdom.

This has become even more evident since the sexual revolution arrived and women became free from pregnancy via the pill, and free from the social stigmas associated with being a “loose” woman.
One needs only to look at studies of sexually transmitted disease by gender to see that STD’s affect a far greater percentage of the female population than the male population. There is a reason for this: 80% of the females are sleeping with 20% of the males, and those males are the alpha males in society. Humans have reverted back to the mating instincts found in most of the animal kingdom where the alpha males breed most of the females, while the beta males breed with none.
.
.
Again, you can see that male sexuality and female sexuality are “equal yet opposite.”

This “equal-opposite” aspect of sexuality is essential in understanding patriarchy and why things were set up in certain ways, which I will attempt to describe and explain in my next post.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Further Reading:

.

Sex, Mathematics, And Political Correctness -- by Fred Reed

 Rats (Or, He Chases Her Until She Catches Him)

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

“‘Really, women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissictic.’ — it’s dominated by the yearnings of ‘self-love,’ by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still, on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. ‘When it comes to desire,’ she added, ‘women may be far less relational than men.’” -- Sex and Relationships, Bonobo Sex, and ‘Lady Boners’: Is Women’s Desire Really That Confusing? – by Vanessa Richmond
.

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

.

From Belfort Bax's 1913 piece The Fraud of Feminism pp.25-27

.

Now let us consider the whole of the differentiations of the mental character between man and woman in the light of a further generalisation which is sufficiently obvious in itself and which has been formulated with special clearness by the late Otto Weininger in his remarkable book,"Geschlecht und Charakter" (Sex and Character). I refer to the observations contained in Section II.,Chaps. 2 and 3.

.

The point has been, of course, previously noted, and the present writer, among others, has on various occasions called special attention to it. But its formulation and elaboration by Weininger is the most complete I know. The truth in question consists in the fact, undeniable to all those not rendered impervious to facts by preconceived dogma, that, as I have elsewhere put it, while man has a sex, woman is a sex. Let us hear Weininger on this point. "Woman is only sexual, man is also sexual. Alike in time and space this difference may be traced in man, parts of his body susceptible to sexual excitement are small in number and strictly localised. In woman sexuality is diffused over the whole body, every contact on whatever part excites her sexually."

.

Weininger points out that while the sexual element in man, owing to the physio-logical character of the sexual organs, may be at times more violent than that in woman, yet that it is spasmodic and occurs in crises separated by intervals of quiescence. In woman, on the otherhand, while less spasmodic, it is continuous. The sexual instinct with man being, as he styles it, "anappendix" and no more, he can raise himself mentally entirely outside of it. "He is conscious of it as of something which he possesses but which is not inseparate from the rest of his nature. He can view it objectively. With woman this is not the case; the sex element is part of her whole nature. Hence, it is not as with man, clearly recognisable in local manifestations, but subtly affects the whole life of the organism. For this reason the man is conscious of the sexual element within him as such, whereas the woman is unconscious of it as such. It is not for nothing that in common parlance woman is spoken of as 'the sex.' In this sexual differentiation of the whole life-nature of woman from man, deducible as it is from physiological andanatomical distinctions, lies the ground of those differentiations of function which culminate in the fact that while mankind in its intellectual moral and technical development is represented in the main by Man, Woman has continued to find her chief function in the direct procreation of the race." 
.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"The central organizing principle of primate social life is competition between females and especially female lineages... Females should be, if anything, more competitive than males, not less, although the manner in which females compete may be less direct, less boisterous, and hence, more difficult to measure" -- The Woman That Never Evolved -- by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
“Study debunks stereotype that men think about sex all day long”

[T]he research discredits the persistent stereotype that men think about sex every seven seconds, which would amount to more than 8,000 thoughts about sex in 16 waking hours. In the study, the median number of young men’s thought about sex stood at almost 19 times per day. Young women in the study reported a median of nearly 10 thoughts about sex per day.

As a group, the men also thought about food almost 18 times per day and sleep almost 11 times per day, compared to women’s median number of thoughts about eating and sleep, at nearly 15 times and about 8 1/2 times, respectively. – Medical Xpress

(*** Please note, even though I posted this to show how stupid this meme has become, one still has to realize the way feminist researchers came to this "once every X seconds" BS is by taking the amount of hours one spends in a day thinking about such things, then dividing it by the amount of seconds in a day, and coming up with every seven or fifteen, or whatever seconds, to make it seem like men are stunted rapists thinking about sex constantly. What they are really saying is that men thought about sex for 15 minutes, multiplied by X per day (maybe three times, or six times a day), which is not surprising, and then divided the total amount of those times into how many seconds are in each day. It is totally bogus propaganda which was used to fuel the rape industry. So men think about sex for 10 minutes at a time, 8 times a day, while women think about sex 7 times a day for 5 minutes. Does that really make men into walking hardons that are looking for easy rape victims?)

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

From Otto Weininger's Sex and Character, Male and Female Sexuality

"Contrary to the general opinion, there is no difference in the total sexual impulses of the sexes. However, if we examine the matter in respect to the two component forces into which Albert Moll analysed the impulse, we shall find that a difference does exist. These forces may be termed the "liberating" and the "uniting" impulses. The first appears in the form of the discomfort caused by the accumulation of ripe sexual cells; the second is the desire of the ripe individual for sexual completion. Both impulses are possessed by the male; in the female only the latter is present. The anatomy and the physiological processes of the sexes bear out the distinction.

In this connection it may be noted that only the most male youths are addicted to masturbation, and although it is often disputed, I believe that similar vices occur only among the maler of women, and are absent from the female nature.

I must now discuss the "uniting" impulse of women, for that plays the chief, if not the sole part in her sexuality. But it must not be supposed that this is greater in one sex than the other. Any such idea comes from a confusion between the desire for a thing and the stimulus towards the active part in securing what is desired. Throughout the animal and plant kingdom, the male reproductive cells are the motile, active agents, which move through space to seek out the passive female cells, and this physiological difference is sometimes confused with the actual wish for, or stimulus to, sexual union. And to add to the confusion, it happens, in the animal kingdom particularly, that the male, in addition to the directly sexual stimulus, has the instinct to pursue and bodily capture the female, whilst the latter has only the passive part to be taken possession of. These differences of habit must not be mistaken for real differences of desire.

It can be shown, moreover, that woman is sexually much more excitable (not more sensitive) physiologically than man.

The condition of sexual excitement is the supreme moment of a woman's life. The woman is devoted wholly to sexual matters, that is to say, to the spheres of begetting and of reproduction. Her relations to her husband and children complete her life, whereas the male is something more than sexual. In this respect, rather than in the relative strength of the sexual impulses, there is a real difference between the sexes. It is important to distinguish between the intensity with which sexual matters are pursued and the proportion of the total activities of life that are devoted to them and to their accessory cares. The greater absorption of the human female by the sphere of sexual activities is the most significant difference between the sexes.

The female, moreover, is completely occupied and content with sexual matters, whilst men are interested in much else, in war and sport, in social affairs and feasting, in philosophy and science, in business and politics, in religion and art. I do not mean to imply that this difference has always existed, as I do not think that important. As in the case of the Jewish question, it may be said that the Jews have their present character because it has been forced upon them, and that at one time they were different. It is now impossible to prove this, and we may leave it to those who believe in the modification by the environment to accept it. The historical evidence is equivocal on the point. In the question of women, we have to take people as they exist today. If, however, we happen to come on attributes that could not possibly have been grafted on them from without, we may believe that such have always been with them. Of contemporary women at least one thing is certain. Apart from an exception to be noted in chap. xii, it is certain that when the female occupies herself with matters outside the interests of sex, it is for the man that she loves or by whom she wishes to be loved. She takes no real interest in things themselves. It may happen that a real female learns Latin; if so, it is for some such purpose as to help her son who is at school. Desire for a subject and ability for it, interest in it, and the facility for acquiring it, are usually proportional. He who has slight muscles has no desire to wield an axe; those without the faculty for mathematics do not desire to study that subject. Talent seems to be rare and feeble in the real female (although possibly it is merely that the dominant sexuality prevents its development), with the result that woman has no power of forming the combinations which, although they do not actually make the individuality, certainly shape it.

Corresponding to true women, there are extremely female men who are to be found always in the apartments of the women, and who are interested in nothing but love and sexual matters. Such men, however, are not the Don Juans.

The female principle is, then, nothing more than sexuality; the male principle is sexual and something more. This difference is notable in the different way in which men and women enter the period of puberty. In the case of the male the onset of puberty is a crisis; he feels that something new and strange has come into his being, that something has been added to his powers and feelings independently of his will. The physiological stimulus to sexual activity appears to come from outside his being, to be independent of his will, and many men remember the disturbing event throughout their after lives. The woman, on the other hand, not only is not disturbed by the onset of puberty, but feels that her importance has been increased by it. The male, as a youth, has no longing for the onset of sexual maturity; the female, from the time when she is still quite a young girl, looks forward to that time as one from which everything is to be expected. Man's arrival at maturity is frequently accompanied by feelings of repulsion and disgust; the young female watches the development of her body at the approach of puberty with excitement and impatient delight. It seems as if the onset of puberty were a side path in the normal development of man, whereas in the case of woman it is the direct conclusion. There are few boys approaching puberty to whom the idea that they would marry (in the general sense, not a particular girl) would not appear ridiculous, whilst the smallest girl is almost invariably excited and interested in the question of her future marriage. For such reasons a woman assigns positive value only to her period of maturity in her own case and that of other women; in childhood, as in old age, she has no real relation to the world. The thought of her childhood is for her, later on, only the remembrance of her stupidity; she faces the approach of old age with dislike and abhorrence. The only real memories of her childhood are connected with sex, and these fade away in the intensely greater significance of her maturity. The passage of a woman from virginity is the great dividing point of her life, whilst the corresponding event in the case of a male has very little relation to the course of his life.

Woman is only sexual, man is partly sexual, and this difference reveals itself in various ways. The parts of the male body by stimulation of which sexuality is excited are limited in area, and are strongly localised, whilst in the case of the woman, they are diffused over her whole body, so that stimulation may take place almost from any part. When in the second chapter of Part I., I explained that sexuality is distributed over the whole body of both sexes, I did not mean that, therefore, the sense organs, through which the definite impulses are stimulated, were equally distributed. There are, certainly, areas of greater excitability, even in the case of the woman, but there is not, as in the man, a sharp division between the sexual areas and the body generally.

The morphological isolation of the sexual area from the rest of the body in the case of man, may be taken as symbolical of the relation of sex to his whole nature. Just as there is a contrast between the sexual and the sexless parts of a man's body, so there is a time-change in his sexuality. The female is always sexual, the male is sexual only intermittently. The sexual instinct is always active in woman (as to the apparent exceptions to this sexuality of women, I shall have to speak later on), whilst in man it is at rest from time to time. And thus it happens that the sexual impulse of the male is eruptive in character and so appears stronger. The real difference between the sexes is that in the male the desire is periodical, in the female continuous.

This exclusive and persisting sexuality of the female has important physical and psychical consequences. As the sexuality of the male is an adjunct to his life, it is possible for him to keep it in the physiological background, and out of his consciousness. And so a man can lay aside his sexuality and not have to reckon with it. A woman has not her sexuality limited to periods of time, nor to localised organs. And so it happens that a man can know about his sexuality, whilst a woman is unconscious of it and can in all good faith deny it, because she is nothing but sexuality, because she is sexuality itself.

It is impossible for women, because they are only sexual to recognise their sexuality, because recognition of anything requires duality. With man it is not only that he is not merely sexual, but anatomically and physiologically he can "detach" himself from it. That is why he has the power to enter into whatever sexual relations he desires; if he likes he can limit or increase such relations; he can refuse or assent to them. He can play the part of a Don Juan or a monk. He can assume which he will. To put it bluntly, man possesses sexual organs; her sexual organs possess woman.

We may, therefore, deduce from the previous arguments that man has the power of consciousness of his sexuality and so can act against it, whilst the woman appears to be without this power. This implies, moreover, that there is greater differentiation in man, as in him the sexual and the unsexual parts of his nature are sharply separated. The possibility or impossibility of being aware of a particular definite object is, however, hardly a part of the customary meaning of the word consciousness, which is generally used as implying that if a being is conscious he can be conscious of any object. This brings me to consider the nature of the female consciousness."

Sex Sells...

The following quote comes from Legends of the Fall, the movie which cemented Brad Pitt’s status as a sex symbol throughout our culture. Pitt’s character, Tristan Ludlow, had long flowing hair and looked wild. He was the untamed one in the family, so tough that nothing could hurt him; he and the grizzly once shared blood and now they were one spirit.

A woman would likely be wise to stay away from such a man, this character with a raw animal streak running through his soul… but yet, there is a soft side to him, a sliver of emotion that he hides, and reveals only to the women he loves.

Yes, the quintessential love interest…

The setting of the scene from which this quote comes is one in which Tristan (Pitt) is sitting outside talking with his younger brother Samuel (Henry Thomas), who is home from college with his fiancée Susannah (Julia Ormond). Samuel, a virgin, shyly inquires of his more experienced brother about the ways of sex and how to make sure he is “good at it,” because Susannah has said she does not want to wait for marriage…
.

Tristan: Samuel, God bless you. You are good at everything you do. I’m sure it’ll be the same with fucking.
Samuel: Tristan, really. We’re talking about my future wife.
Tristan: Oh, you’re not going to fuck her?
Samuel: No! I’m planning to “be” with her.
Tristan: I recommend fucking.
Samuel: You’re impossible!
Tristan: You brought it up!


My goodness, Tristan!

How could you talk about a woman in such a disrespectful way?

That is not how Nice Guys™ talk about women! Nice Guys™ know that women are delicate creatures whose sexuality must be respected. For her to lower herself to a man’s level and have sex with him indicates that a Nice Guy™ must worship her body, mind and spirit as the precious jewels which they so obviously are…

And how come women still find your character so sexy, Tristan? How can you suggest taking that nubile young woman and fucking her rather than “being” with her?

I wonder how many women in the theatre smirked when they heard that line… "I'd recommend fucking."?

What’s up with that?

And to the readers of this fine blog who thought those lines were humor directed at the males in the audience, I encourage you to unplug from the fematrix and realign your mind with notion that the above scene, including the raw language, was in the movie solely for the women, with the intention of creating a character which females desire.

Society would have us believe that it is the men in society that are sex obsessed. Men are the ones who cannot control themselves. But remember, in my last piece we discussed that men and women are polar opposites who are necessarily equal but different, and thus women’s sex drives are also equal to men’s, but different.
.
.
While men may think about the act of sex on a frequent basis, women equally think about being sexy to a similar degree. They actively put on make-up, do their hair, wear push up bras and revealing clothes, and they are continually concerned if their jeans make their ass look big (no, your big ass makes your ass look big). The obvious motive of “looking sexy” is to attract sexual attention. What did you think it was for?

Women’s natural sexual desire, however, is to have sex with a male who is dominant over them. They don’t want to sleep with a Nice Guy™ who respects them; there is no excitement in that. They want a man who takes control of them and fucks them. “Making love” is for suckers. Wimps “make love” and talk about “being” with the glorious creature known as woman. Women would rather be dominated and get fucked.

We men rarely talk about sex, however. Men behave completely opposite of women, who talk amongst themselves about the most intimate details of the sex act, from their partner’s physical attributes and performance to the daily ins and outs of their relationships. Men, on the other hand, rarely discuss the actual details of sex nor do men relate the turgid tale of the “mating dance” which got them into their sorry predicament with a woman in the first place.

But women never shy away from talking about sex. Men fail themselves miserably by allowing feminists to dominate all talk about sexual relations between humans.

Feminists, in their attempt to destroy civilization, have tried to take this natural sexual phenomenon of women being attracted to domination and twisted it into something which it is not. They have insinuated there is something evil about the natural sexual interactions between man and woman.

One wonders how many of my good readers have ever picked up a romance novel. Not many, I would guess, as this genre of literature is aimed solely at a female audience. Romance novels are to women what Penthouse magazine is to men: Pornography intent on titillating the natural sexuality that exists within.

And who is the stereotypical masculine love object in the romance novels that women read? Well, here’s a clue… he is not a Nice Guy™!
.
.
No indeed! There is usually a Nice Guy™ somewhere in the story line – he is the one who gets replaced by the dominant rogue who at first infuriates the main character with his callousness, while at the same time intriguing her.

The plot builds as does the sexual tension between the main character and the antagonist. He is a brute, an animal… uncontrollable. She is a lady and does not consort with the likes of him – and yet, something about his demeanor makes this man linger in her mind even when she is not in his presence… and that makes her angry at him. She becomes determined not to give in to the advances of this knave. She is a princess, after all.

The Harlequin climax arrives in a scene where the woman finds herself alone with this bull of a man. There is passion, electricity… he makes his move… she resists and pushes him away, but he is not willing to back down so easily. This beast’s sexual desire for our fair maiden roars as if it were an uncontrollable inferno. He grabs her roughly in his arms. She feels his raw strength as he pulls her into his muscular chest and lowers his mouth over hers.

“No,” she mumbles half-heartedly, “I mustn’t!”

Our rogue listens not, and continues ravaging our heroine with his lips when she feels his strong hand cup her breast, causing her nipple to harden beneath her thin blouse…

She can resist no more; her own animal desires begin to overcome her rationality. She gives in and lets this beast take her. Her clothing comes of quickly and roughly amidst the passionate kisses… she is no longer in control, the universe has overwhelmed her… she feels his hardness enter her, penetrating both her body and soul as their passion develops into a surreal experience that transcends life itself…

Yes, this is women's porn!
.

.
And in women’s porn, she gets dominated. In fact, by all legal standards of the modern day, women’s porn involves being sexually assaulted and then raped by a man who ends up completely owning her entire existence.

And women buy these books and read them for a sexual thrill – men don’t write this shit, nor do they buy it or read it.

This is the essence of female sexual seduction: He makes his move… she resists… he doesn’t take no for an answer… she resists some more… his animal desire for her prevents him from stopping… she says no again, but this time only half heartedly… he continues, and she finally gives in and submits, so overwhelmed is she with desire that things are completely out of her control.

She gets dominated by a man who is superior to her.

And notice that the dominate man is not “with” her.

Nope.

He fucks her.

Perhaps this is why the sexual fantasizing of being “forced” to have sex is so popular with women. Being “forced” to have sex is essentially rape, and yet numerous women actually masturbate to the fantasy of this crime.

Have you ever masturbated to the thought of your car getting stolen?

The eroticism of being dominated and “forced” is that it allows the submissive to do things they would not normally do – to come out of their shell, as it were. She may deny that she is the type of girl who will willingly do certain kinky things, but if she is being dominated and is told to do them then she can partake in these deep desires without having to blame herself for it – she was “forced” to do it, after all. (This is the essence of most BDSM, btw).

Another favourite fantasy among women is getting a good spanking from her man.
.

.
Yes, the amount of ladies that are turned on by the thought of being put over a man’s knee and having her bare bottom smacked is truly amazing. And… how dominant of the man and submissive of her.

All Pick Up Artists (PUA’s) know that women desire to be dominated – this is the PUA’s entire game. The techniques may vary, but essentially all successful PUA’s spend their time around a woman establishing dominance over her.

The PUA does not monkey around with “respecting” her and glorifying her with trite comments of her being a “strong woman.” That’s what Nice Guy’s™ do. The PUA lets a woman know pretty quickly that he wants sex from her. He is a lover, not a friend. He finds something to tease her about, putting her down in a fun way, to establish dominance. When they walk off the dance floor, he puts his hand on the small of her back so he can gently direct where she walks - taking control of her. He basically spends his entire “game” displaying that he is superior to her – be it physically, emotionally, cerebrally or whatever else. The PUA knows that if she views him as superior to her, he can have her panties around her ankles in no time.
.

.
In fact, the act of sex itself can be viewed as the ultimate act of dominance and submission between a man and a woman.

Think about it. What could be more submissive than to be a woman whose body is penetrated and humped madly until she is left full of a man’s semen, essentially leaving her “bred.”

The sex act itself is domination and submission, and while a man may find it erotic to look down and see the submissive woman he is screwing, the equal opposite is that she finds it erotic to look up at the dominant man who is screwing her. Notice that in the act of sex it is usually considered to be the man that is “doing” her, rather than the other way around.

This is the essence of hypergamy. Hypergamy is basically a desire for dominance from one’s mate.

Women are definitely hypergamous.

Don’t believe me?

Have a look at the next 10 couples you meet.

Who is taller, the male or the female? You will notice that females nearly universally date men that are taller than them. A 5’ 10” woman will be dating a 6’1” male. A 5’ 6” woman will date a 5’ 8” male. But it is pretty rare to find the 5’ 10” woman dating the 5’ 8” male.
.
.
Who makes more money, the male or the female? You will find nearly universally that the man makes more money than the female. Male lawyers date female secretaries. Male doctors date female nurses. Male factory workers date waitresses. This is nearly universal. What is hard to find is the female doctor dating the male nurse, or the female CEO dating the struggling male poet.

.
.
Who is more intelligent, the male or the female? It is pretty common even for females to admit that they must date men who are smarter than themselves.

Why do women nearly universally list confidence as a sexually attractive trait in a male? Because confident males are dominant males, that’s why. Confidence is derived from the power one possesses.

Females are naturally attracted to males that are dominant over them.

Feminists are furious at this natural phenomenon in much the same way they are furious that women are the natural bearers of children. From their anger against heterosexuality, they have attacked both men and women by trying to criminalize human sexual behaviour.

Feminists tell women that the kind of sex they naturally desire, the kind women themselves read and fantasize about it in Harlequin romance novels, is in fact rape:

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike… [T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” – Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” – Susan Griffith, Rape: The All-American Crime

Without the typically virulent feminist anger, the following concept could easily be described in an erotic way, suitable for a romance novel:

“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex, therefore, does so against her own will. , ‘even if she does not feel forced.’” – Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

Even the dominating act of a man filling a woman with his semen, the very act that causes life itself, is sought to be criminalized and degraded by feminists:

“Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence and the spray of semen…” – Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing By Radical Women of Color

How odd then that most women seem to downright prefer to have bareback sex. Why, it is as if they actually enjoy getting this terrifying semen inside their bodies!

Yes indeed. And when a woman actually has good, enjoyable sex – the kind that grips her body with a shuddering orgasm - this is apparently a bad thing according to feminists as well:

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” – Sheila Jeffrys

Perhaps she is eroticizing her own “oppression” because it is what naturally gets her rocks off. Why is it chic and cool to keep a vibrator in the nightstand, but “oppressive” and degrading to orgasm from the natural act of sex?

Men did not plant this idea in women’s head that they must be submissive. In fact, since most men are beta-male Nice Guys™ who talk and act respectfully to women while never getting laid by them, it is pretty obvious that it is not men who are responsible for this phenomenon of domination-submission that causes women to get turned on. Most Nice Guys™ believe the exact opposite – that if he glorifies and praises her, she will like him more. Wrong!

No, men did not “force” women into submission – women naturally desire men who are better than them. They want men who are taller than them, who are smarter than them, who are richer than them. Women sexually desire men who are more powerful than them – and this power naturally exudes from a man who possesses it in the form of confidence.

Yes, hypergamy.

This does not mean that all men make more money than women, nor that all men are smarter or more powerful than women… it just means that a woman does not find men who have failed to surpass her own power to be sexually attractive to her. A 5’10” woman is obviously taller than a 5’8” man, but the odds are that she is not sleeping with short stuff. She is most likely sleeping with the 6’1” man that lives next door to him while the short man is likely dating a woman even shorter than himself.

Dominance has an equal opposite: Submission.

In my next post, I will attempt to explain how hypergamy existed in the past, and how it has been manipulated in the present as a weapon against men, women and civilization.

Previous Index Next 

MGTOW

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It is almost a tertiary sexual character of the male, and certainly it acts on the female as such, that she expects from him the interpretation and illumination of her thoughts. It is from this reason that so many girls say that they could only marry, or, at least, only love a man who was cleverer than themselves; that they would be repelled by a man who said that all they thought was right, and did not know better than they did. In short, the woman makes it a criterion of manliness that the man should be superior to herself mentally, that she should be influenced and dominated by the man; and this in itself is enough to ridicule all ideas of sexual equality." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Male and Female Characteristics