Who Stole Our Culture? -- by William S. Lind
Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.
Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?
It didn't just "happen." In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation's history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.
What happened, in short, is that America's traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as "political correctness" or "multi-culturalism." It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America's elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.
To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of "political correctness."
Early Marxist Theory
Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn't happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country's enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.
After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism's goal right at the beginning, has never changed.
A New Strategy
Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a "long march through the institutions" – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That "long march through the institutions" is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the "Prison Notebooks," were rediscovered.
Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" he instituted what he called "cultural terrorism." One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country's traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.
Far from rallying to Lukacs' "cultural terrorism," the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a "Marxist Study Week" in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs' cultural perspective on Marxism.
The Frankfurt School
Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the "Institute for Marxism." But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the "Institute for Social Research." Soon known simply as the "Frankfurt School," the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question "Who stole our culture?" is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.
At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs' pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer's most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.
Advances in Cultural Marxism
With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure," which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.
Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.
Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. "Liberating" everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism's main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.
Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.
The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.
New Developments
Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.
Critical Theory
To serve its purpose of "negating" Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called ”Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the "studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.
Studies in Prejudice
The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as "prejudice" in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno's immensely influential book, "The Authoritarian Personality," published in 1950. They invented a bogus "F-scale" that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is "fascist."
Domination
The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors," while other groups were defined as "victims." Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
Through Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of all values." What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist." That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions.)
Media and Entertainment
Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought "commodified" culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin's view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism's most powerful weapon.
The Growth of Marxism in the United States
After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.
But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book "Eros and Civilization" used the Frankfurt School's crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only "liberate non-procreative eros" through "polymorphous perversity," we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. "Eros and Civilization" became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School's intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance," they mean Marcuse's "liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity," they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).
The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous "guru," he injected the Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, Marcuse and the few other people "in the know" did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.
A Counter-Strategy
Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?
We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.
There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.
Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms' products. If Brave New World's motto is "Think globally, act locally," ours should be "Think locally, act locally."
Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a "long march through the institutions." Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the "inevitable forces of history" were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Civil Unions and Shared Parenting
The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!
But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.
Have you ever asked yourself “why”?
A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
"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
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at the urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being that feminists entire raison d'être is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct” and therefore women are discriminated against because the testicularly challenged are treated differently (while born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way, and thus should not be discriminated against. The two arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter the family unit and society into something completely new. Roosevelt, meet Stalin, yo new fwiend and ally!
Something very important in order to transform marriage then, is to make sure that the new models that come out are still called marriage. It would be much harder to transform the meaning of marriage with “civil unions,” if civil unions were not also called marriage.
How will they transform marriage and society this way? Well, in Canada we legalized Gay Marriage back in 2005, and by 2006 (and using the justification of gay marriage now being normalized), Gay's shoved their agenda into our schools and by 2007 a court in Ontario had already declared two married lesbians and one sperm donating father to all three be equal legal parents of the same child. Obviously, the dialectical path towards polygamy is set wide open by this ruling... does anyone else see how they are able to purposefully "transform" society in this way?
(***2013 Update: In March 2013, British Columbia's new Family Act went into effect. This law forces defacto marriage upon all common-law couples after two years. Further, the act allows for five parent "families." A sperm donor, an egg donor, a surrogate, and two homosexuals who adopt the child, can all be equal parents of the same child.)
(***Another 2013 Update: So the Slope Was Slippery After All)
That’s why Gay Rights Activists are so adamant about it being called marriage. If it were called “civil unions” the Marxist plan to alter society dialectically falls flat on its face. Everything will stall at the civil union level, and once society accepts the term “civil union” and identifies it with Gay People, it will become monumentally difficult for them to further alter society with this plan, or to be able to “rename” civil unions as marriage later on. Much of Marxist dialectical movement is based upon the general public’s perception of an issue, rather than the reality of it. Either they get it right in the beginning, or there is not much point in carrying on.
Now, let’s examine for a moment the feminist goals for transforming marriage and the nuclear family. You’ll fast see it’s not just “Patriarchy” that they are against, but also they’re furious as hell at Mother Nature for giving them ovaries! Even nature victimizes women, and this also must change!
"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 Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"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
"[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
"...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
"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981
"[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)
"[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
"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
Not only do feminists want to destroy patriarchy, they also want to destroy motherhood, something very dear and precious to most females, and likely something they will not give up voluntarily.
There is a hierarchy to the way that “humanity” works. Many men are discovering certain elements of it through what is commonly known as “game,” but essentially, the “hierarchy of humanity” works like this:
Man --> Woman --> Children
And this is a strong inclination within humans as well. Students of game will understand that women do not want to be sexual with men who they do not deem superior to them, and will reject all men they deem inferior. The woman desires the hierarchy, and men fulfill women’s desire within it. Never ever forget, however, that to rule is to serve. And this is what most men did with their hierarchal powers – see The Titanic. Men did not use their powers to harm their “wards,” but rather used it to protect them, and often sacrificed directly towards this hierarchy to their own detriment. Parents (ie. mothers) do the same with their children – while parents have the enormous capability to bring harm or to exploit their children, 99% of parents do not do this… and it is not because of the law that parents are altruistic towards children (The US Supreme Court even ruled that parents naturally act in their children's best interests, both in 1979 and in 2000.) – in the same way, it is not because of law, or even social mores, that men treat women the way they do. They do it because it comes from somewhere deep within humanity.
It is very, very difficult to get men to turn on women. In the same way, it would be very difficult to get women to turn on children. The hierarchy just does not work that way. It is, however, monumentally easier to get women to turn on men. When you “transvalue” the hierarchy (place lower values higher up, and higher values lower down), working it against itself backwards works like a charm!
You can convince women to turn on men much easier than convincing men to turn on women. In the same manner, you can get children to turn on parents much easier than you can get parents to turn on their children. It’s just the way the world works.
Man < -- (pushed away by) Women -- > Children
.
That works, as we all well know. Feminists have successfully destroyed marriage and the sexes are repelling from each-other because the hierarchy is messed up. If you give women economic and legal power over their men, women will abuse it until it just becomes downright dangerous for a man to engage in this tortuous practice known as Marriage 2.0.
And, if you wanted to completely destroy parenthood, another stated goal of feminism? Why, just repeat the process that was done to destroy the bond between man and woman – namely, start giving the rights of the child more importance than the rights of the adults responsible for them.
Man < -- (pushed away by) Women < -- (pushed away by) Children
The same thing that happened to men and women regarding marriage will happen to parents and children if the powers that be are allowed to elevate the rights of the child to over-ride the rights of the parent.
How will you raise a child properly if sending them to their room becomes “psychological abuse,” or if with-holding their allowance is deemed “financial abuse” or if forcing them to eat their vegetables is considered some other sort of totalitarian abuse. (If I had a hammer, I’d smash vitamins!) Take note, Hillary Clinton fully believes that parents are not qualified to represent the best interests of their own children, and therefore the state ought to create a rambling bureaucracy of civil servants and lawyers to represents children independently of their parents.
This is the exact same system that divided men and women – pitting their interests against each other by dialectically manipulating the legal system. Men and women are in a parasitic type of relationship wherein the man gives of his surplus resources to the woman. Parents and children are in exactly the same type of scenario, and as has happened with men and women, when you allow the parasite to lead the host, all you end up doing is destroying is the host. Parents and children will work the same.
And I promise you, there does not have to be some grand conspiracy manipulating every law and specific aspect of what will happen next. Simply screwing up the hierarchy will suffice. When children have more authority than the parents responsible for them you will have already stuck a stick in the spokes by default. Destruction is now not only likely, but in general society it will be virtually guaranteed – just like placing the authority of women over and above the authority of the man responsible for protecting and providing for her has only led to abuse, not solutions.
”The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.” – Oscar Wilde
Children are even weaker than women! Placing the rights of the child over the rights of parents will lead to the same results – only worse! And, btw, since the destruction of marriage, who makes up the majority of parents nowadays? (Hint – They are among the testicularly challenged).
Now, often times ‘round here you will hear me refer to “The Dialectic,” and all of you know that this blog frequently refers to Marxism and how feminism is married to it. One thing however, that does not get mentioned too often here or elsewhere is that Marxism and the Dialectic does not work in a straight line. The general failure of us to realize this is why we keep getting our asses handed to us. We are playing checkers with people who are playing chess.
The way “it” works is like a zig-zag. The Marxist dialectic pushes radically to the left until a backlash builds up, and then the backlash is released in order to consolidate the gains to the left.
"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
So, the way it works is that radical leftism is introduced into society – much like how No-Fault-Divorce was introduced into our society. This was a radical move that completely re-organized society’s most fundamental building block – and take note that there was no massive public outcry demanding such a thing. Society didn’t even conceive of such a thing – marriage was simply “marriage”, the way it had always been.
However, No Fault Divorce was implemented anyway and we all know the results. In the past decades we have witnessed a plethora of problems arising because of this radical change. However, this change has now taken place long ago and the vast majority of the population does not remember, nor can even conceive, of a society where divorce was not the norm. Take note that this was not the case when No-Fault-Divorce arrived on the scene, but after a couple of generations being exposed to it, it is now considered so normal that it is hardly even conceivable to us to try and rid society of it – rather, now we simply want to alter it. (This is a classical brainwashing technique, btw - 1- "un-freeze" from current acceptance levels, 2 - Move the subject to a new level, 3 - "Re-Freeze" at the new level until the change has become normalized/accepted, 4 - Repeat the process until the proper amount of "movement" has taken place).
This is how it is done when you implement Marxism via gradualism – while Lenin did it fast and encouraged people to go along with him via threats of violence, gradualism does it by slowing things down so that people forget. If you study a little closer, you will discover that we have, indeed, spent the past forty years implementing the exact same types of social changes that Lenin did in his first four years of rule. The amount of time is the only difference. Lenin used violence within four years, and our system of Marxism is using forgetfulness/the generation gap over a longer period of time. The ultimate result is still the same, however.
So, back to the idea that “the backlash to the right consolidates the gains to the left.” What happens after a radical leftward change has occurred is of course a plethora of problems arising in society from said change. The people that are mostly affected by it are those that will push back against the radical leftism with, of course, a rightward/conservative political movement. What happens though is that the backlash movement is not one that attempts to dial back the cause but rather attempts are made to alter the results.
So, in the case of marriage in the modern day, the “backlash” is decidedly not pushing for an end to No Fault Divorce, nor are they pushing for a restoration of Full Father Custody (the way marriage was originally intended, and existed up until the 1860’s). What they are pushing for is “shared parenting.” A further aberration of the original concept of the family, and something that has never existed in history. But, the “backlash to the right” will solidify in the minds of the population that implementing No-Fault-Divorce was proper, although it needed to be tweaked a little to make it more “equal” and fair. The concept that children need two fulltime parents will also be demolished. The need for State Funded Daycare will be increased as now there will be two parents disadvantaged rather than one… and, as always, both parties will now be running to the government to beg and plead for the court to decide exactly the time, place, and even how a parent may interact with his or her own child (or, more accurately, the state's child).
Some freedom!
Wheras once parents would have run a pitchfork through any government personnel interfering with a citizen’s home-life, then covered him with oil and lit him on fire with torches in the town square, we now have both mothers and fathers running to the government to beg and plead for crumbs and scraps from the same table that the people once owned and both sides will think they are “winning” some precious equality, while being grateful to the government for providing them with something which was never the government’s in the first damn place.
This is the “totalitarian trap.” You cause as much problems and confusion in a certain area as you possibly can, and out of the confusion you will cause despair amongst the people who will then run to you and demand you “fix it,” which of course you will – but in a way that suits your purposes, not of the masses of plebes who are only there for your satisfaction anyways.
Ah yes, consolidate the gains… until the people have internalized the change, which they will if you allow a measure of backlash to appease them, and allow some time for the changes to internalize, and then begin radical movements to the left again.
One thing though, once the backlash accepts the watered-down consolation prize, they cannot easily push further because they have already been appeased! Once something like divorce has been “reorganized” to make it “more equal,” added on top of the fact that most of the population doesn’t even remember a time when divorce was not rampant in society, to take it further than the appeasement makes in nearly impossible.
Back to the beginning of this essay and the difference between “Civil Unions” and “Same Sex Marriage,” you can see why the Gay Rights community was so adamant about retaining the word “marriage” rather than using “Civil Union.” Using the word civil union would greatly hamper Gay Activists in their attempts to alter the meaning and structure of marriage – it had to retain the same name. If they would have gained under the name “civil union,” the effects upon “marriage” would have been negligible - and also, their ability to re-push the issue into society’s limelight would have been greatly diminished, because the general population would have already come to believe that Gays had been appeased, and wouldn’t want to tolerate their bullshit all over again.
It's kind of a one shot deal.
What will Shared Parenting do to the radical changes in the structure of the family over the past decades? Will it roll back the changes or will it continue to alter the structure of the family? Will it make divorce more or less acceptable in society? Will men be able to use it as a stepping stone to further their goals, or is it an assured permanent dead-end with minimal benefits?
How can feminists and the powers that be pursue their stated goals of removing motherhood from the experience of womanhood? They certainly won’t be able to use women to do it directly out of their own self interests… but could the coupling of children’s rights to the already diminished father’s rights be used to dialectically destroy whatever remains of parenthood, and pass all authority over to the state?
The only thing that supercedes the best interests of women in our society is the best interests of the child. I hope the shared parenting movement does not get made into useful idiots, promoting further destruction of the family while believing they are preserving it. I could easily see that women will be given "equal rights" in parenting as men, given that men have virtually no rights at all.
I understand why Gays insist on calling Same Sex Unions as Marriage - because they aren't nearly done with transforming it and they know what they are doing. On the otherhand, with Shared Parenting, "defenders" of the family and fatherhood are cutting themselves off at the knees - not understanding what they are doing - as they are not willing to dialectically reframe the debate in a way that does not dead-end themselves into the Marxist web.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Sunday, October 03, 2010
The Marxofeminist Paradise Known as Communist Cuba!
The following is an article written by a left wing Marxofembot back in 1998. It is just sitting out there plain as day that what fembots are agitating for (and writing into our legal systems) is Communism.
.
One wonders why these sick, radical fembots in North America aren't heading to Florida en masse to get their hands on a cheap "previously owned" raft with which to navigate a trip to Cuba and escape the awful institutionalized patriarchal oppression that they are always whining to us about.
.
One wonders why these sick, radical fembots in North America aren't heading to Florida en masse to get their hands on a cheap "previously owned" raft with which to navigate a trip to Cuba and escape the awful institutionalized patriarchal oppression that they are always whining to us about.
.
.
Look! Here's a good one! Climb aboard, fembots! Just keep heading south. Bon Voyage!
.
.
Feminism, Communism and Catholicism
.
By Lisa Macdonald, Green Left Weekly, #304, 4 February 1998
By Lisa Macdonald, Green Left Weekly, #304, 4 February 1998
.
The women of Cuba have reason to celebrate after the visit of Pope John Paul II two weeks ago.
The women of Cuba have reason to celebrate after the visit of Pope John Paul II two weeks ago.
.
The pope's call, on behalf of the majority of the world's capitalists, for the US to lift its economic blockade of Cuba, focused the world's media on the Cuban people's plight after 37 years of economic isolation, and their achievements despite that. John Paul's call adds significantly to the growing pressure on the US to lift the blockade.
The pope's call, on behalf of the majority of the world's capitalists, for the US to lift its economic blockade of Cuba, focused the world's media on the Cuban people's plight after 37 years of economic isolation, and their achievements despite that. John Paul's call adds significantly to the growing pressure on the US to lift the blockade.
.
The Cuban government knew that allowing the of the Catholic Church almost unlimited scope to spread his reactionary message on the family was a double-edged sword.
The Cuban government knew that allowing the of the Catholic Church almost unlimited scope to spread his reactionary message on the family was a double-edged sword.
.
John Paul's ultraconservative position on women's "God-given" role as obedient and faithful wives, self-sacrificing mothers and domestic slave labourers is the antithesis of what Cuban revolutionaries have fought for.
John Paul's ultraconservative position on women's "God-given" role as obedient and faithful wives, self-sacrificing mothers and domestic slave labourers is the antithesis of what Cuban revolutionaries have fought for.
.
Last year there were 41,227 divorces in Cuba (compared to 65,009 marriages). The pope's assertion in Santa Clara that divorce is evil and unnatural is not likely to change this pattern. The Family Code, which enshrines in law women's (and men's) unqualified right to divorce, to receive financial support from the father of their children and the state and to insist that their male partners do an equal share of domestic labour and child-care, was the product of years of profoundly democratic discussion involving the entire population.
Last year there were 41,227 divorces in Cuba (compared to 65,009 marriages). The pope's assertion in Santa Clara that divorce is evil and unnatural is not likely to change this pattern. The Family Code, which enshrines in law women's (and men's) unqualified right to divorce, to receive financial support from the father of their children and the state and to insist that their male partners do an equal share of domestic labour and child-care, was the product of years of profoundly democratic discussion involving the entire population.
.
The pope also railed against women's right to control their fertility. Abortion, he said, is an abominable crime which distorts the "true nature and dignity" of motherhood. All birth control methods, he said, "are not in accordance with human dignity".
The pope also railed against women's right to control their fertility. Abortion, he said, is an abominable crime which distorts the "true nature and dignity" of motherhood. All birth control methods, he said, "are not in accordance with human dignity".
.
Again, the pope's rantings must have had limited credibility among this particular audience since they directly contradict the experiences and aspirations of Cuban women. As one woman told a US journalist in Havana at the time: "He's entitled to his opinion".
Again, the pope's rantings must have had limited credibility among this particular audience since they directly contradict the experiences and aspirations of Cuban women. As one woman told a US journalist in Havana at the time: "He's entitled to his opinion".
.
Cuba has no official birth control policy, but abortion is legal and considered a right for all women, regardless of age, marital status or personal circumstances. It is a right which Cuban women fought hard for, against the legacy of centuries of imperialist colonisation and the domination of the Catholic Church before the revolution.
Cuba has no official birth control policy, but abortion is legal and considered a right for all women, regardless of age, marital status or personal circumstances. It is a right which Cuban women fought hard for, against the legacy of centuries of imperialist colonisation and the domination of the Catholic Church before the revolution.
.
The reproductive rights of women in Cuba contrast sharply with those in Cuba's "moral" condemner, the US. Whilst opinion polls throughout the 1990s revealed that at least 65% of people in the US agree that women should have the right to choose, 15 abortion clinics were bombed last year, and unrestricted access to abortion is not available in a single US state.
The reproductive rights of women in Cuba contrast sharply with those in Cuba's "moral" condemner, the US. Whilst opinion polls throughout the 1990s revealed that at least 65% of people in the US agree that women should have the right to choose, 15 abortion clinics were bombed last year, and unrestricted access to abortion is not available in a single US state.
.
During 1996 there were 83,000 abortions in Cuba and 140,276 births - an abortion rate of almost 60%. This compares to 31% in the US.
During 1996 there were 83,000 abortions in Cuba and 140,276 births - an abortion rate of almost 60%. This compares to 31% in the US.
.
For Cuban women living under the blockade, abortion is more often than not the only way to control their fertility. It is a "choice" they exercise within constraints which are beyond their and their government's control. As another woman in Cuba interviewed by US television pointed out, there would be many fewer abortions in Cuba if the blockade was lifted and Cubans had access to a range of contraceptive technologies.
For Cuban women living under the blockade, abortion is more often than not the only way to control their fertility. It is a "choice" they exercise within constraints which are beyond their and their government's control. As another woman in Cuba interviewed by US television pointed out, there would be many fewer abortions in Cuba if the blockade was lifted and Cubans had access to a range of contraceptive technologies.
.
What the pope did not mention in his efforts to undermine the huge advances in reproductive and personal freedom that Cuban women have won is that, alongside the high rates of abortion and divorce, Cuba has a high level of health care, welfare provision and education for children. As a famous sign in Havana says: "200 million children in the world sleep in the streets today. Not one of them is Cuban."
What the pope did not mention in his efforts to undermine the huge advances in reproductive and personal freedom that Cuban women have won is that, alongside the high rates of abortion and divorce, Cuba has a high level of health care, welfare provision and education for children. As a famous sign in Havana says: "200 million children in the world sleep in the streets today. Not one of them is Cuban."
.
Despite the immense difficulties it confronts as a result of the blockade, socialist Cuba has the lowest infant mortality rate among underdeveloped countries, and a rate that is lower than in the United States itself.
Despite the immense difficulties it confronts as a result of the blockade, socialist Cuba has the lowest infant mortality rate among underdeveloped countries, and a rate that is lower than in the United States itself.
.
It is because of such achievements, and because the revolution gave all Cuban women much more freedom, encouragement, resources and confidence to make their own decisions about how to live their lives that the pope's reactionary sermons will fall on largely unreceptive ears.
It is because of such achievements, and because the revolution gave all Cuban women much more freedom, encouragement, resources and confidence to make their own decisions about how to live their lives that the pope's reactionary sermons will fall on largely unreceptive ears.
.
The Cuban revolutionaries know this. They also know that the greatest threat to and limitation on Cuban women's freedom, is not, as "his holiness" tried to insist, "the substitution of God's infinite wisdom and power with an [communist] ideology", but the power of the US to starve Cuba of the resources it needs to progress towards the full liberation of women.
The Cuban revolutionaries know this. They also know that the greatest threat to and limitation on Cuban women's freedom, is not, as "his holiness" tried to insist, "the substitution of God's infinite wisdom and power with an [communist] ideology", but the power of the US to starve Cuba of the resources it needs to progress towards the full liberation of women.
.
--------------
.
Ooohh! It sounds like fembot paradise, doesn't it? Everything our Western World Fembots are trying to slam through already exists! Note the "propaganda of omission" so typical of fembot agitators where she states that "65% of people in the US agree that women should have the right to choose." Yet she fails to mention that 65% agree that in certain circumstances women should be allowed to abort, such as in cases of rape, incest, or imminent health dangers to the mother. If she would report how many people agree that abortion should be used as a simple birth control method, this "fact of 65%" would drop significantly into the minority of the population.
.
But, we know that propaganda by omission is commonly used by feminists and Marxists all the time (because they are one in the same), and that's why this highly biased author blames all of Cuba's problems on the USA, but omits mentioning that things explained in the following website might have more to do with Cuba's problems than anything else.
.
.
Anyway, I know this was an old article, but it is interesting to compare feminist goals to Communist countries because, when one does so, it becomes glaringly obvious what statements like these mean:
.
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." -- Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
.
"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
.
There you have it, fembots.
.
And let it be known that No Ma'am heartily encourages fembots to seek their Matriarchal Utopia in Cuba.
.
Stick out your thumb and hitch a ride to Florida.
.
Find a used raft and start paddling Southward.
.
Good Riddance!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
.
Model for the Future? Communist East Germany, Say Women -- W.F. Price/The Spearhead
.
.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Almighty, All Encompassing Power of the Pussy
Quote: “Lastly, we should never forget that it is men in high places, corridors of power, that have signed off on this sorry state of affairs. Judges, attorneys and legislators are mostly men, and it is they who we are up against, in collusion with NOW and that gang. ...”
While this is true it is not entirely accurate, and is in fact a tired old feminist saw that has been used against men for decades, if not for over a century. What this line of thinking fails to recognize is that those men are serving women – in exactly the same manner as every other biological, living, breathing entity on this third rock from the sun does. The way “life” works is that the male is the sexual servant of the female.
.
“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)
So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.
Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.
Think of it like the typical herd of animals. Of course there are males and females, but is the composition of the herd a fifty-fifty split between males and females? Absolutely not! The herd is mostly females, with a dominant bull screwing them all, and young sexually immature males making up the rest. When the young males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant bull for breeding rights within the herd. Either the young up and comer dethrones the bull and takes his place as the breeder, or the bull defends his postion successfully – but no matter the result, the loser leaves and lives on the fringe of the herd… and is constantly trying, or challenging, to try and get back in – in other words, the loser males (betas) are constantly trying to find acceptance back into the herd – they desire to be back in, to be part of the “society” that is virtually 100% female.
Women ARE society – while men are on the outskirts of it. Thus, men are independent because nature forces them to be, while women are collective herd creatures. (Society).
So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power and would be replaced by another that females felt was more suitable.
Philalethes has written a few posts about this that explain it rather well:
Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of
Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?
----------
Quote: "WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women? Men make civilization AND society. The only society that [women] make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge."
Indeed, and Philalethes makes quite a point of this too. One thing which he discusses is how women innately attempt to keep men as powerless as children – because women have 100% totalitarian control over children. When a man “becomes a man” he grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female.
It is when this happens that men begin to have usefulness to both society and thus, to women themselves. Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.
This is why so many societies try to “cut the apron strings” in one form or another. In our culture, children were to be educated by their fathers after the “tender years” had passed. Many cultures, even more or less matriarchal ones, have recognized the need to separate boys from the influence of women so that they may outgrow mother’s power and into men – a sphere that is higher than that of women in the hierarchy, thus making men that have “something women themselves cannot accomplish,” and therefore becoming both useful and attractive to women.
Thus all of the “rites of passage” that are found in cultures all around the world – mostly with the intention of severing boy’s ties to female power, and teaching him to cultivate his own power that surpasses it. It is this power – the power that surpasses the female, which you are trying to illustrate with your Atilla example – you are merely providing an example of exactly what I am talking about – he grew his power outside of the influence of women (women cannot teach men to be men, only to be children), and thus his sexual attractiveness also greatly increased. See above to Briffault’s Law in the post you are criticizing – Attila offered a benefit to women (power, prestige, social proofing etc. etc). The thugs you speak of are doing the same.
Btw, it is not neccessarily “bad-boys” that women are attracted to but rather men who are strong enough to grow out of the female reach of control. What women are attracted to are “hard guys” who won’t put up with female bullshit – indicating they are not under female power. The problem with us today is the only men left who are “hard guys” are the badboys and thugs who are decidedly anti-social. The rest of the men in our society never really grow out female totalitarianism, and thus women resent them as failures and don’t want to fuck them, or even give them nominal respect, for that matter.
I don’t really see how you are ranting against either myself or Philalethes, since both of us repeatedly state pretty much the identical things you are saying. I suppose pointing out the underlying factors and conditions of why women need males to grow into men is something men should not discuss because…???
It is not only Philalethes and me who argue this, btw.
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs" — Immanuel Kant
"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle
As Philalethes points out in other posts of his – think of men as a “big stick” to females – a tool. That is what men are to females – a big tool that she uses to do things she cannot do herself, or finds too distasteful to do herself. Women compete amongst eachother to have access to the biggest stick. However, if a male never grows out of female influence, he will never develop the traits neccessary to truly offer woman what she cannot do herself.
Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between “society” and “civilization.” Primitive hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago lived in a “society” even though there was no civilization yet founded on earth.
To say that female “society” creates things like Desperate Housewives is not accurate – a female “civilization” would create that (if all the other neccessary things to film a TV show magically fell from the sky). Society is merely a group of people living together. There is a society of primitive people in Papau New Guinea, but there is no real form of civilization to go along with it.
P.S. Here's a series of relevant articles from The Men’s Tribune.
The Atom
The Methods of Women
The Balance of Power
The Feminist Totalitarian State
------------
Quote: Thank you very much for your explanation, and I agree with what you said in it completely!
So I went back and read your comment [and it] seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.
I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused.
Are you saying that ... stuff stops being true when: “a man ‘becomes a man’ [and] grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female. . . . [because] Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.”
If so, then I think that the fact that this social power of women to control and limit males can be (and should be) overcome by boys as they become men (for the well-being of both men and women, and to satisfy women), should be emphasized (when you and Philalethes write about such things).
Yes, I agree.
This is a confusing concept but I believe it is very real none the less. It must be doubly so for women who are ruled by emotion/passion more so than men. Thus for a woman, even when she wins she loses. (While she tries to overpower the male through her wiles, she is ultimately dissatisfied with the types of males she successfully overpowers. Ah, hypergamy!) A life ruled by passion leads to short-term gratification but long-term suffering. Men are also ruled by passion but theirs is slightly more tempered by reason than women’s, which leads to one of the causes for Patriarchal societies placing the man in charge. (ie. It is “anti-animal”, just like so much of the rest of the universal moral code: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother etc. etc – all things that are “anti-nature” and thus represent man “rising up from being a beast of the field” through his own ability to consciously reason why he should resist behaving like an animal and rather choosing a better, more rational way).
The Proprietor of Pussy, the Vanquisher of Vicarious Vaginal Vagueness, aka Roissy himself, alludes to a similar train of thought in his Sixteen Commandments of Poon:
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
"Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore."
IV. Don’t play by her rules
"If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.".
XV. Maintain your state control
"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."
While men must grow out of the power of females in order to become useful, it is still the females who decide what is and what is not acceptable. Men and women are both halves of the same species, not as two entirely separate groups who have no effect upon the actions of another, although be it noted – the female affects the actions of the male to a far greater extent than the other way around.
“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001
Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.
“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002
One of the problems we have is that ”what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever-changing according to the social needs of the day. In days gone by, women decided they needed strong men who would stick around and protect and provide while at the same time leading the family – and that’s the kind of men that society produced, because that’s what females wanted. Today, women want weak, spineless poofs for provider husbands, and aggressive overt sexual displays from their sperm providing “alphas” and thus, that’s what we have.
If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females. (Women become more submissive relative to the safety of society – think of a man & woman living in a cave, hearing a bump outside – the man will be the one sent out to investigate and if she follows him it all, it will be behind him, peering over his shoulder & using him as a shield. The safer society is, the more confident she is to march out without her shield – the less she “needs a man”).
Another interesting concept Philalethes puts forth which is somewhat related is in regard to species of animals that only have females, of which there are a few species found on earth (ie. lizards):
In the same way, he asserts that the male’s biological purpose is to serve the female, in that these female-only species are incapable of evolving and therefore can only exist in a completely safe ecological niche where there is no competition with competing species that are male & female, because a female-only species does not have the ability to evolve without the male. As we often assert in the MRM, males have greater ability to adapt than females. A female-only species can only survive in a static and safe environment. As soon as elements of adversity are introduced, species with two sexes fast out-evolve single sex species and render them extinct. As is often said in the MRM, males will survive better because of our innate ability to adapt.
This plays into a few other concepts that are related in regard to “the essense” of male and female, something which I refer to as “spike” (male) vs. “rhythm” (female). I explained this general concept in this piece titled Male and Female: Equal But Different
Males “spike” and vary much more wildly than females do, who tend to cluster around the average, while men exist far more in the outliers – ie. IQ where males inhabit the outliers of both 70 and 130 IQ in far greater numbers/variability than females who are clustered more around the mean of 100IQ. This concept comes through as “male” or “female” in a plethora of instances between males and females.
Some believe that this is the genetic purpose of the XY vs XX – because it enables evolution. The missing leg that creates the “Y” is what makes men far more variable, whereas the extra leg that creates the female “X” is what holds these genetic mutations (the positive ones) in the human genetic code.
So, a fella like Einstein, for example, is a deviation from the norm because of his high IQ, and because his high IQ makes him stand out from the normal population in a positive light, more females will find him sexually attractive because of this mutating trait, and thus more women will choose to bump uglies with him and those positive mutations will get locked into the human code via the female's genes, not the male's. Many such “mutations” are passed through the female, not the male, even though some of them may only affect males themselves (such as colour blindness).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a superb comment by Rollo Tomassi (comment #33) that encompasses the theme of this concept so perfectly, that I simply had to reproduce it as an add-on to this already lengthy piece:
Simon, the Matrix has you.
.
Men, such as yourself, accept as normal expectations of themselves as men is uniquely defined by a feminine imperative. What I think eludes most men (even self-aware Alphas) is that our most deeply internalized expectations and desires, and how we go about actualizing them, are primarily rooted in what best serves the feminine imperative. What we perceive as “doing the right thing” is almost universally reinforcing of feminine primacy.
For example, I took issue with Kay Hymowitz here, who’s shit you’re essentially parroting.
Her frustration with these so called “boy-men” wasn’t over a concern for men needing to improve themselves, but rather a disappointment that they were deliberately shirking their responsibilities to the female imperative – essentially “manning-up” and providing for a wife and family. I even confronted her on this on a live Q&A chat she held. Her answers were a testament to female solipsism. While any and every woman should be empowered to “have it all” – career, family, husband, etc. and be equally respected to choose any or none of the above, men in the Matrix of the feminine imperative, to even be called men, must be facilitators of her choices. Men, in her terms, must want to better themselves in order to satisfy a global female centric reality. So solipsistic is the female imperative that it’s a totally alien experience for women to propose that perhaps we should respect men’s choice not to participate in it. We’re expected to respect, even champion, a woman who breaks out of the mold of traditional gender expectations, but not men. That man must be shamed and ridiculed as ‘shallow’, selfish and immature BECAUSE he wont acquiesce to that feminine reality. The feminine imperative has built such a complex social structure for men to participate in that it cannot risk them becoming self-aware. Men in this Matrix must be conditioned from birth to normalize what is best for the feminine. Even at the expense of his own life.
So while you may be correct in your assessment that men should in fact be more apt to better themselves, your ultimate purpose of appeasing the feminine for your own benefit is gravely flawed.
-------------
Comment #90 -- by Rollo Tomassi
The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.
Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.
The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.
ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.
Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.” -- Esther Villar, The Manipulated Man
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
If I Only Had a V -- by Angry Harry
Five Stars ***** Woman (An Exposition for the Advanced Mind) -- by David Quinn
While this is true it is not entirely accurate, and is in fact a tired old feminist saw that has been used against men for decades, if not for over a century. What this line of thinking fails to recognize is that those men are serving women – in exactly the same manner as every other biological, living, breathing entity on this third rock from the sun does. The way “life” works is that the male is the sexual servant of the female.
.
“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)
So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.
Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.
Think of it like the typical herd of animals. Of course there are males and females, but is the composition of the herd a fifty-fifty split between males and females? Absolutely not! The herd is mostly females, with a dominant bull screwing them all, and young sexually immature males making up the rest. When the young males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant bull for breeding rights within the herd. Either the young up and comer dethrones the bull and takes his place as the breeder, or the bull defends his postion successfully – but no matter the result, the loser leaves and lives on the fringe of the herd… and is constantly trying, or challenging, to try and get back in – in other words, the loser males (betas) are constantly trying to find acceptance back into the herd – they desire to be back in, to be part of the “society” that is virtually 100% female.
Women ARE society – while men are on the outskirts of it. Thus, men are independent because nature forces them to be, while women are collective herd creatures. (Society).
So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power and would be replaced by another that females felt was more suitable.
Philalethes has written a few posts about this that explain it rather well:
Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of
Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?
----------
Quote: "WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women? Men make civilization AND society. The only society that [women] make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge."
Indeed, and Philalethes makes quite a point of this too. One thing which he discusses is how women innately attempt to keep men as powerless as children – because women have 100% totalitarian control over children. When a man “becomes a man” he grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female.
It is when this happens that men begin to have usefulness to both society and thus, to women themselves. Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.
This is why so many societies try to “cut the apron strings” in one form or another. In our culture, children were to be educated by their fathers after the “tender years” had passed. Many cultures, even more or less matriarchal ones, have recognized the need to separate boys from the influence of women so that they may outgrow mother’s power and into men – a sphere that is higher than that of women in the hierarchy, thus making men that have “something women themselves cannot accomplish,” and therefore becoming both useful and attractive to women.
Thus all of the “rites of passage” that are found in cultures all around the world – mostly with the intention of severing boy’s ties to female power, and teaching him to cultivate his own power that surpasses it. It is this power – the power that surpasses the female, which you are trying to illustrate with your Atilla example – you are merely providing an example of exactly what I am talking about – he grew his power outside of the influence of women (women cannot teach men to be men, only to be children), and thus his sexual attractiveness also greatly increased. See above to Briffault’s Law in the post you are criticizing – Attila offered a benefit to women (power, prestige, social proofing etc. etc). The thugs you speak of are doing the same.
Btw, it is not neccessarily “bad-boys” that women are attracted to but rather men who are strong enough to grow out of the female reach of control. What women are attracted to are “hard guys” who won’t put up with female bullshit – indicating they are not under female power. The problem with us today is the only men left who are “hard guys” are the badboys and thugs who are decidedly anti-social. The rest of the men in our society never really grow out female totalitarianism, and thus women resent them as failures and don’t want to fuck them, or even give them nominal respect, for that matter.
I don’t really see how you are ranting against either myself or Philalethes, since both of us repeatedly state pretty much the identical things you are saying. I suppose pointing out the underlying factors and conditions of why women need males to grow into men is something men should not discuss because…???
It is not only Philalethes and me who argue this, btw.
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs" — Immanuel Kant
"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle
As Philalethes points out in other posts of his – think of men as a “big stick” to females – a tool. That is what men are to females – a big tool that she uses to do things she cannot do herself, or finds too distasteful to do herself. Women compete amongst eachother to have access to the biggest stick. However, if a male never grows out of female influence, he will never develop the traits neccessary to truly offer woman what she cannot do herself.
Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between “society” and “civilization.” Primitive hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago lived in a “society” even though there was no civilization yet founded on earth.
To say that female “society” creates things like Desperate Housewives is not accurate – a female “civilization” would create that (if all the other neccessary things to film a TV show magically fell from the sky). Society is merely a group of people living together. There is a society of primitive people in Papau New Guinea, but there is no real form of civilization to go along with it.
P.S. Here's a series of relevant articles from The Men’s Tribune.
The Atom
The Methods of Women
The Balance of Power
The Feminist Totalitarian State
------------
Quote: Thank you very much for your explanation, and I agree with what you said in it completely!
So I went back and read your comment [and it] seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.
I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused.
Are you saying that ... stuff stops being true when: “a man ‘becomes a man’ [and] grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female. . . . [because] Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.”
If so, then I think that the fact that this social power of women to control and limit males can be (and should be) overcome by boys as they become men (for the well-being of both men and women, and to satisfy women), should be emphasized (when you and Philalethes write about such things).
Yes, I agree.
This is a confusing concept but I believe it is very real none the less. It must be doubly so for women who are ruled by emotion/passion more so than men. Thus for a woman, even when she wins she loses. (While she tries to overpower the male through her wiles, she is ultimately dissatisfied with the types of males she successfully overpowers. Ah, hypergamy!) A life ruled by passion leads to short-term gratification but long-term suffering. Men are also ruled by passion but theirs is slightly more tempered by reason than women’s, which leads to one of the causes for Patriarchal societies placing the man in charge. (ie. It is “anti-animal”, just like so much of the rest of the universal moral code: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother etc. etc – all things that are “anti-nature” and thus represent man “rising up from being a beast of the field” through his own ability to consciously reason why he should resist behaving like an animal and rather choosing a better, more rational way).
The Proprietor of Pussy, the Vanquisher of Vicarious Vaginal Vagueness, aka Roissy himself, alludes to a similar train of thought in his Sixteen Commandments of Poon:
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
"Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore."
IV. Don’t play by her rules
"If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.".
XV. Maintain your state control
"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."
While men must grow out of the power of females in order to become useful, it is still the females who decide what is and what is not acceptable. Men and women are both halves of the same species, not as two entirely separate groups who have no effect upon the actions of another, although be it noted – the female affects the actions of the male to a far greater extent than the other way around.
“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001
Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.
“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002
One of the problems we have is that ”what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever-changing according to the social needs of the day. In days gone by, women decided they needed strong men who would stick around and protect and provide while at the same time leading the family – and that’s the kind of men that society produced, because that’s what females wanted. Today, women want weak, spineless poofs for provider husbands, and aggressive overt sexual displays from their sperm providing “alphas” and thus, that’s what we have.
If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females. (Women become more submissive relative to the safety of society – think of a man & woman living in a cave, hearing a bump outside – the man will be the one sent out to investigate and if she follows him it all, it will be behind him, peering over his shoulder & using him as a shield. The safer society is, the more confident she is to march out without her shield – the less she “needs a man”).
Another interesting concept Philalethes puts forth which is somewhat related is in regard to species of animals that only have females, of which there are a few species found on earth (ie. lizards):
In the same way, he asserts that the male’s biological purpose is to serve the female, in that these female-only species are incapable of evolving and therefore can only exist in a completely safe ecological niche where there is no competition with competing species that are male & female, because a female-only species does not have the ability to evolve without the male. As we often assert in the MRM, males have greater ability to adapt than females. A female-only species can only survive in a static and safe environment. As soon as elements of adversity are introduced, species with two sexes fast out-evolve single sex species and render them extinct. As is often said in the MRM, males will survive better because of our innate ability to adapt.
This plays into a few other concepts that are related in regard to “the essense” of male and female, something which I refer to as “spike” (male) vs. “rhythm” (female). I explained this general concept in this piece titled Male and Female: Equal But Different
Males “spike” and vary much more wildly than females do, who tend to cluster around the average, while men exist far more in the outliers – ie. IQ where males inhabit the outliers of both 70 and 130 IQ in far greater numbers/variability than females who are clustered more around the mean of 100IQ. This concept comes through as “male” or “female” in a plethora of instances between males and females.
Some believe that this is the genetic purpose of the XY vs XX – because it enables evolution. The missing leg that creates the “Y” is what makes men far more variable, whereas the extra leg that creates the female “X” is what holds these genetic mutations (the positive ones) in the human genetic code.
So, a fella like Einstein, for example, is a deviation from the norm because of his high IQ, and because his high IQ makes him stand out from the normal population in a positive light, more females will find him sexually attractive because of this mutating trait, and thus more women will choose to bump uglies with him and those positive mutations will get locked into the human code via the female's genes, not the male's. Many such “mutations” are passed through the female, not the male, even though some of them may only affect males themselves (such as colour blindness).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a superb comment by Rollo Tomassi (comment #33) that encompasses the theme of this concept so perfectly, that I simply had to reproduce it as an add-on to this already lengthy piece:
Simon, the Matrix has you.
.
Men, such as yourself, accept as normal expectations of themselves as men is uniquely defined by a feminine imperative. What I think eludes most men (even self-aware Alphas) is that our most deeply internalized expectations and desires, and how we go about actualizing them, are primarily rooted in what best serves the feminine imperative. What we perceive as “doing the right thing” is almost universally reinforcing of feminine primacy.
For example, I took issue with Kay Hymowitz here, who’s shit you’re essentially parroting.
Her frustration with these so called “boy-men” wasn’t over a concern for men needing to improve themselves, but rather a disappointment that they were deliberately shirking their responsibilities to the female imperative – essentially “manning-up” and providing for a wife and family. I even confronted her on this on a live Q&A chat she held. Her answers were a testament to female solipsism. While any and every woman should be empowered to “have it all” – career, family, husband, etc. and be equally respected to choose any or none of the above, men in the Matrix of the feminine imperative, to even be called men, must be facilitators of her choices. Men, in her terms, must want to better themselves in order to satisfy a global female centric reality. So solipsistic is the female imperative that it’s a totally alien experience for women to propose that perhaps we should respect men’s choice not to participate in it. We’re expected to respect, even champion, a woman who breaks out of the mold of traditional gender expectations, but not men. That man must be shamed and ridiculed as ‘shallow’, selfish and immature BECAUSE he wont acquiesce to that feminine reality. The feminine imperative has built such a complex social structure for men to participate in that it cannot risk them becoming self-aware. Men in this Matrix must be conditioned from birth to normalize what is best for the feminine. Even at the expense of his own life.
So while you may be correct in your assessment that men should in fact be more apt to better themselves, your ultimate purpose of appeasing the feminine for your own benefit is gravely flawed.
-------------
Comment #90 -- by Rollo Tomassi
The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.
Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.
The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.
ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.
Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.” -- Esther Villar, The Manipulated Man
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
If I Only Had a V -- by Angry Harry
Five Stars ***** Woman (An Exposition for the Advanced Mind) -- by David Quinn
Monday, September 27, 2010
When Shit Gets Sold as Soap...
Yes, it'll get you squeaky clean and make you smell good too!
.
Have you ever noticed how much of feminism could be classified as a form of projection? Collective projection, to be more accurate. Virtually every accusation that the feminist movement levels against men could easily be seen as women projecting their own behaviours onto others (men), and this is why, I believe, that women are so prone to believe that men are doing all of these evil things to them - because they can identify with such behaviour inside of themselves.
.
First, let's look at the whole false notion of the super-sized "boy's club-cabal" floating around out there, occasionally refered to as The Patriarchy.
.
. As pretty much every man with an ounce of common sense and observational abilities will declare, there just is no freakin' Patriarchy anywhere to be found out there.
.
Men do not give other men special treatment because they are men. In fact, most men will readily attest that it's a dog eat dog world and we're all wearing Milk Bone underwear. Have a look at some of the completely ludicrous accusations that have been leveled against men - like the wild notion that men get better deals when they buy cars because they have testicles between their legs. What freakin' nonsense! As any man reading this will readily attest to, nowhere in our economic system will another man give me money, or choose to make less profit on me because I belong to the male sex.
.
I have never experienced the far reaching benefits of the Patriarchy, nor have I ever experienced any boy's club that tries to discriminate against, or exclude women from anything - well, not since I was 8 years old and tried to keep girls out of my tree fort.
.
I have never worked at a place where the men secretly conspired to give eachother advantages over female co-workers... but I have experienced working at places where myself and my male co-workers have caught several women conspiring in secrecy to make sure that women outperformed their male co-workers. It happened when I was working in a high-pressure commission sales environment. It was a fair sized staff, 12 in sales (11 men, 1 woman), 3 in management (2 men, 1 woman), and 3 receptionists (all women). Now, don't go thinking it was discriminatory that there were 11 men and only 1 woman on the sales staff. The general manager tried and tried to increase the ratio of women on his staff, and hired several women while I was there, but the women he hired just kept quitting, some in tears, because they couldn't cope with the high pressure of commission sales.
.
What was discovered by myself and my male co-workers, however, was that the three receptionists were sending double the amount of first-time customers & phone calls to the lone saleswoman, and the female manager was turning over double the amount of clients to the saleswoman as she was to the men.
.
When it was brought to the attention of the General Manager, by 11 pissed off employees, he called the only 5 females that worked at the place into a meeting and after some intense grilling, the women finally admitted that they were purposefully sending more business to the woman than the men, because they wanted to make sure that a woman was the top saleperson. And not only that, but they had discussed, in secret, how they were going to go about doing it! And let's make this clear, every single woman that worked at that outfit was in on this secret conspiracy. Gee... sounds an awful lot like that far-fetched notion of patriarchy that women keep accusing men of... except the patriarchy-boy's club is the wrong gender, because what was really going on there was a matriarchal girl's club, which designed itself to discriminate based on gender.
.
.
So, I maintain that women believe in so many of these far flung notions about men because women know that women themselves do these things and therefore they rationalize that if they were men, they would discriminate against women in the same way.
.
There is no secret patriarchy - but there is a secret matriarchy.
.
Now, of course, I just gave out one example, which by no means proves the existence of the secret girl's club. But here's a simple test you can do yourself which will strongly indicate that women, perhaps because of their herd mentality (as in, protect the herd first), do belong to a matriarchal conspiracy and are wilfully complicit in denying that such a thing exists. It just takes a little awareness, and a few separate conversations with the same woman.
.
First, what you have to do, is play on a woman's most favourite subject: Her own victimhood. This is the only way to get women to turn on other women. Ask her a question about how nasty her female classmates in highschool were capable of being and she will go into a tirade about how manipulative and bitchy girls can be - or ask her if she prefers to work with men or women. Women always tell you that they like working with men, because their female co-workers are constantly stabbing eachother in the back and bring so much politics into the work place. This is about the only time that a woman will turn on the herd, when you start questioning her about how mean the the herd treats her. But make note of how easily you can get her to admit that she knows women can be mean, nasty, manipulative creatures - and file that away for future conversations.
.
Sometime, in the near future, you strike up another conversation with the same woman, and try to bring up a discussion of how a woman might possibly be aggressively manipulative against men by leveling false accusations of sexual harassment against a man, or how a wife might be psychologically abusive with manipulations against her husband... and watch the very same woman who recently told you how mean and nasty she knows women can be, suddenly clam up about how women might be doing some very mean things to men - if she doesn't blow up in your face with righteous indignation for saying what she herself had recently admitted to, except applying it to men rather than her own victimization by bitchy women. She will automatically go into "protect the herd/Matriarchy mode" and deny everything about women's sometime awful behaviour.
.
But now you know she knows, and you will no longer believe that she "doesn't get it." Rather, the only conclusion left is that she gets it - and she gets it well - but that protecting the Matriarchy is far more important to her than justice or honesty. One might even refer to such behaviour as amoral.
.
There is no Patriarchy, but women readily believe that it should exist somewhere, because it is a projection of what they know about being part of the "Girl's Club - the Sisterhood!" And after decades of women (and men) searching for the Loch Ness Patriarchy, the only conclusion that the fembots can come up with to explain why they can't expose it is because it is "institutionalized." Yes indeed, the Patriarchy is civilization itself. Hmmm.
.
One can really see the lunacy of the whole "Patriarchy" argument when one looks at Social/Relational Aggression, which is stereotypically described as female aggression. Of course, one is hard pressed to find studies about this form of aggression in terms of female on male aggression, but it is ever present when one looks for women being victims, of other females. Then suddenly it is a serious issue, also known as girl bullying, which specifically uses forms of mental manipulations via secret gossiping, character assasinations and ostracizing, and mostly by convincing others to conspire against the victim along with the main aggressor.
.
Bullying Styles
.
"Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
. There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
.
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)."
.
.
Is it a stretch to take this beyond childhood female on female bullying and say that women also aggress against men in the same manner?
.
"Patriarchy" is pure projection of what women know about "the Sisterhood." They believe the Patriarchy exists because they know the Sisterhood exists.
.
So...
.
How far does this collective projection go? .
.
What about the feminist claims that because men make up the majority of politicians & judges, our legal system has been tainted to prefer men's concerns over women's. Yet of course, we all know this isn't true. Male politicians have passed an obscene amount of laws pandering specifically to women's concerns and there is no politician alive that has ever been elected to office by campaigning for issues specifically benefiting men. Yet, when one looks at the female politicians, it is easy to see that this false accusation against men is nothing more than projection of what females do when they get into office or powerful positions - the vast majority use their power to specifically benefit their own gender. The accusations that men are doing the same to women is so obviously false that it can be nothing but projection of what women know they would do if they had "men's power." And they have proved it by doing so.
.How about the false accusation that men regard women as objects, as chattel, as a means of production? Hmmm... I don't know, but women obviously regard men as a work animal which women use to provide for food, clothing, shelter and luxuries for herself and her children. And women believe that her husband's labour is her property. This is why she sues her ex-husband for it after divorce. Who is treating who like a yoked farm animal, like chattel?
.
Hmmm... if women were running the world, there would be no more war? Well, since women got the vote around 90 years ago, the world has embarked on the most violent, most war filled century in the history of mankind - all during a time when women did/do run the world, because they hold 53% of the vote, and therefore they controlled those who started said wars and destruction.
.
Yup, even on the internet, we now hear things about how bad, bad men are "cyber-stalking" women and threatening violence and rape against feminists who blog man hatred on the web. Lol! Holy Projection, Batwoman! Is there one single anti-feminist on the internet who has not, over the past few years, been subjected to relentless threats of violence from cyberstalking feminists and mangina's who believe that anyone speaking out in opposition of them is fully deserving of any and all vile threats that can possibly be conjured up? Please!
.
In almost every single accusation that feminists throw at men, one can find projection of their own horrible behaviour onto the behaviour of men. And they get away with it because women in general can readily identify with these kinds of behaviour. Projection!
.
This is not new. These ideas about women's behaviour and moral character have been around for a long time. From the Bible to Aristotle, from Kant to Schopenhauer... and as "misogynistic" as feminists keep claiming that these people are, thus the reasoning for censoring the thousands of years of "Gender Studies" that existed before feminism, no-one has been better at proving correct these previous notions about male and female characteristics than the feminists who hate them the most, and the mainstream women who are complicit in letting them get away with it.
.
Man, this is some great soap!
.
.
Previous Index Next
Collective Projection
Zenpriest #53 - Feminism Really is All About Projection
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Related: Collective Projection
Zenpriest #53 - Feminism Really is All About Projection
Friday, September 24, 2010
Women Shrug Off The Tattoo Taboo
Ain't she purdy? Whoa, hold me back! I need to get me some 'o that... about as much as I need to stick my fingers in a blender.
Lol! Control over your bodies in the form of getting a tattoo? Holy Gender Studies, Batman! I would have thought control over your body would have been, like, being toilet trained - or perhaps possessing the mobility of a biped.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Other people's tattoos are like other people's children: Only you can see how bad they are." -- Comic Claudia Cogan
“It is acceptable,” says Marta Vicente, a Kansas University assistant professor of women’s studies who researches women’s body image. “But I think it’s still risqué. If tattoos were piercing your ears as a woman, it would not be the same. But it’s like piercing your ears as a man — it’s accepted, but it’s still shocking or being different.”
.
Lol! Who woulda thunk it? Imagine, a professor of women's studies giving the green light to young, impressionable women on how to make themselves completely undesireable to men. It's not quite the same as getting your ear pierced either. Ask a guy who had his ear pierced back in the 80's & 90's why he no longer has an earing... and after you stop howling at the sight of red shame rise from beneath his collar and clear up his face to the roots of his hair, you will hear him mumble something about it being just a stupid fad - and he was a stupid kid. Then he will quickly change the subject. Just like a guy will do when some young, giggling, tattooed skank asks an older guy if he ever had a mullet - somehow thinking her "fad" is different. Lol! It is different! He went and got a hair cut! What are you gonna do, marked one?
“I think sometimes the attraction is freedom of choice,” Bishop says. “There are a lot of women who, if you ask why they wanted a tattoo, they say their boyfriend or husband told them they couldn’t have a tattoo or piercing. They’ll say, ‘I just got my divorce, and I can do what I want.’ It’s an act of freedom or independence.”
Ah yes, chick logic. Since it is pretty well known that many people choose mates in the serial "monogamy" game who have similar personalities... yes, it certainly does make sense to recognize that those who found you attractive previously in life - some enough to commit their life to you - would have found you repugnant with a tattoo, so now let's go and make ourselves repugnant to spite him! Of course, the future men who I'm attracted to (who also don't like tattoos), will just have to accept that I'm a strong woman and applaud it. I am a woman, I am strong, I am morally superior, therefore I mutilate my body to spite my ex.
Vicente, the women’s studies professor, says tattoos are the latest trend in women having control over their bodies.
“Women have always had a much closer relationship with their own bodies, as well as a problematic relationship,” she says. “Men do not have that same relationship with their own bodies.”
In modern culture, with pressures about body image everywhere, Vicente says women need to feel like they’re in control of their own bodies.
“In this world of media bombardment, the need to have control over one’s body, for women, is very important,” she says. “Tattoos are something that are maybe seen as something that women choose to have, a form of empowerment.”
Lol! Control over your bodies in the form of getting a tattoo? Holy Gender Studies, Batman! I would have thought control over your body would have been, like, being toilet trained - or perhaps possessing the mobility of a biped.
I call bullshit. It has nothing to do with "control" or "empowerment." It has to do with this:
"She recalls a 12-student graduate studies seminar last semester, when a student presented a paper on female empowerment as it related to tattoos. After the presentation, 11 of the 12 women revealed they had tattoos."
A picture is worth a thousand words. Need we discuss the real reason behind women getting tattoos any further? (Hint: It is not empowerment.)
"Somehow — and Vicente isn’t sure exactly how — tattoos went from being something sailors got when they were at war, to something women find as sexy. In fact, 42 percent of women in the Harris poll said having the tattoo made them feel sexy, compared with 25 percent of men."
Now, there's something not new. Women trying to decide for men what is sexy about women. One wonders what women would say if men pulled the reverse. And why do you want to feel sexy? I thought all the fembots in gender studies hated that the world views them as sexual objects? Why do chase after making yourself feel like one then?
“My parents aren’t into them,” she says, “but my nieces think they’re very cool. My grandma is, like, horrified of them. She didn’t even want to hear the story.”
Go figure, I'll bet her parents and grandmother don't consider themselves feminists either. Granny must be wondering what the hell making yourself "ugly in a sexy way" has to do with the whole empowerment thing, along with the saner XY bearing sex. But as long as she feels justified that they are cool because her nieces think so. Maybe they should advise her on her stock portfolio too. Though, what do you expect after the way young girls are raised in a feminized world, getting read "I've Got Two Mommies - (with 40 tattoos)" from daycare onwards, while running around wearing a T-shirt saying "Boys are stupid - throw rocks at them."
“And maybe most importantly, these days everybody knows you can have a tattoo removed. It’s not the lifetime commitment it once was.”
Yeah, more dizzy logic here. It is very expensive to get a tattoo removed, so I hope you starting socking $100/mo into a separate account for the laser treatments. The decent guys who could afford to pay for you having them removed aren't attracted to you anymore, remember? It's bikers and thugs who you'll be dating now. And no man should have to pay for your stupid mistakes, so make sure to start up that bank account - and don't go spending it on shoes you don't need just because there is a 10% off sale. The whole "tattoo removal argument" is kind of a scam anyway, because even with expensive lasers, the tattoos never fully go away and the skin never returns to normal. Imagine what that big tramp stamp above your ass will look like when it's "removed." But who needs a real dose of reality when the herd beckons you to act?
Remember, there's not a man around who finds a woman to be repulsive because she does not have a tattoo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Also read: Bonecrker #19 – Tattoos and Piercings
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Other people's tattoos are like other people's children: Only you can see how bad they are." -- Comic Claudia Cogan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
