Friday, April 27, 2012

A Leading Philosophy Rather Than A Leader

Lots of men are anxiously waiting around for some great leader to arise and lead others in their fight for rights. And, lots of men have now waited for decades for "Spartacus" to appear.

But he never will.

There are a variety of reasons for this, of which I will not go into great detail here, but let's just say that there are aspects of the male psyche which make such a scenario highly unlikely.   

A philosophy, however, with contributors to it – men could follow that! A philosophy based upon Truth (with a capital T) could be a unifier. All people like to adhere to “Truth.” And between Christians and non-Christians, there is no conflict in “seeking Truth.” Seculars value “Truth.” And, in the Bible, whenever God refers to himself it is usually in a riddle:

- “I am who I am”
- “I am the beginning and the end/the Alpha and the Omega”
- “I am THE TRUTH!”

Every riddle God gives in the Bible to his “identity” is also synonymous with “Absolute Truth.”

“God” is Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth existed before we were here, and it will exist after we are gone. The Absolute Truth just “is” – It is what it is – (I am who I am) – the Absolute Truth doesn’t need to explain nor justify – it just IS. The Absolute Truth exists on a different plane than we do – whether we figure out the true nature of Absolute Truth or not, does not in anyway refute the existence of said Truth.

If there is one principle to unify us, it must be Absolute Truth. It is something both seculars and Christians can agree are of the utmost importance in seeking. A unifying principle, based upon seeking Truth.

The idea of a “leading philosophy” rather than a human-leader has enormous advantages. One must keep in mind the “two pictures” (small and big) of everyday life (fighting for our immediate rights and quality of life) vs. the philosophy of life/guiding principles upon which the justification for our demands lie.

You can’t really have one without the other. That’s why we have to go back to guiding principles. I like the “pyramid of Truth” idea of John Locke/Founding Fathers:

1 – God’s Law/Absolute Truth
2 – Natural Law/Apparent/Objective Truth
3 – Civil Law/Relative/Subjective Truth
It works like one of those Russian matryoshka dolls, where the one fits inside of the other, in order to contain the wild malleability of the human mind (we can justify anything if we really want to, ie. Relative Truth – Jail is full of innocent people). If a Civil Law/Relative Truth contradicts a Natural Law/Apparent Truth, then the Civil Law/Relative Truth is a false one, and so forth. In this way, the “lower truths” are contained by the “higher truths,” and thus we are provided with a philosophical framework that anchors us to reality.

Now, some things that were true yesterday are no longer true today. Changes to medicine and technology can indeed change what is True. (200 years ago, I would have said it is absolutely true that man does not have the ability to fly, let alone propel himself faster than the speed of sound… but today, the Truth is different – the Truth evolved). Also, sometimes things we assumed were true (earth is flat) are also illustrated to have been false. We need something “higher” than apparent truth.

Absolute Truth is purity. It controls all other truths. It is without fault. It is never wrong. It is enduring, it never changes. It couldn’t give a rip if we understand it or not. It is eternal, and it exists on an entirely different plane than us, and often, our understanding. That we thought the earth was flat had no affect on the physics that ruled the earth and the solar system. On that level, our understanding is irrelevant. Absolute Truth trumps all, no matter what we conjure up in our brains.

I think, after a while of studying this whole malaise we are in, eventually one gets exposed to the changing “philosophies” of mankind – such as how a change of thinking about fraternity and equality arose out of the French Revolution and this led to a philosophical change in the way society in general viewed reality. It is often pointed out that this philosophical change is what led to the birth of Marxism and feminism (Relative Truth Uber Alles).

Therefore, if one stands back and looks at the “big picture,” I think that there has to be an underlying philosophy that has to win out over the other. We need a new philosophy. We need a new change in philosophical thought. A new “Age of Reason;” a new “Renaissance of Thought;” we need to philosophically defeat the ideology which has gripped our society to our detriment.

And dammit, why the hell shouldn’t it be us that sparks its creation?

I am pleased to see more and more men starting to put the pieces together and understand how civilization works as a “machine,” that there is cause and effect; that certain things need to be in place in order for other things to occur. I think many men are beginning to understand that there are some unpleasant Truths (and pretty lies), but the unpleasant Truth rules over the pretty lies. This in itself is a turn back to the Absolute Truth. Lying/Ideology doesn’t change the way the world actually is. When confronted with a higher truth, lower truths must be adjusted to accommodate it.

A way to think of building a philosophy is to think of something like the Martial Arts. There really isn’t a “leader,” but there is a “right way” and a “wrong way,” even though sometimes there are variations upon “the right way.” And, the Martial Arts acknowledges certain Truths (both physical and philosophical), and puts them together into a discipline, or a framework, that over-all creates something very powerful and useful.

We should forget about a “leader” and rather look for “leading principles,” of which it is of the utmost importance that Absolute Truth be the base of it all. Our ultimate goal should be to seek Absolute Truth, for it trumps all else. (Even ***gasp*** equality is trumped!)

Once we have philosophical principles, then we can “build.”

I like building stuff, don’t you?

We should build ourselves a philosophical ladder, so men can get themselves out of this sewer. Just like we understand how “marriage puts sex to work” by harnessing the sex drive of men and attaching it to children through women, if we look at the mechanics of these things and understand the Truths of them, we can identify the base elements of what keeps that machine running and cut off the unnecessary riff-raff.

We have to have philosophical principles underlying us, otherwise “right and wrong” will be forever malleable – and that is just continuing to live in the wicked grip of Feminism and Marxism. No thanks!

Many things can be integrated into such a “philosophical machine.”

For example: Many things in the Bible can be shown to have a mechanical purpose – like how its laws and morals have resulted in a “civilization creator” by the way it structures society. These are truths that exist both within, and outside of the religion itself. There is quite an easy over-lap here.

I also suspect that Buddhist thought might be able to integrate in, for it also seeks Truth, and just as how we can recognize the Christian model for creating civilization, I believe there are certain Truths that can be illustrated through Buddhism’s disciplines which do the same. An example of what I mean is how both religions offer a path to personal peace through either meditation or prayer, and further, how both meditation and prayer can be explained psychologically/scientifically without the aspect of religion in it. All three of these things are about mentally acknowledging the limit of being able to control everything about you, and submitting to a higher power so you don’t go cuckoo. In no way does acknowledging these “mecahnical truths” discredit the idea of God, but it doesn’t demand you believe in God either. And, it also allows that both Buddhists and Biblical Wisdom tap into the Absolute Mechanical Truths that make up the Universe.

In this way, the Truth has not been compromised, nor the religious beliefs of Buddhists, Christians, Seculars, or even Jedi Knights such as myself. Christians, Buddhists and Seculars can all three hold black-belts in the same martial art without compromising their religious beliefs, can’t they?

Anyway, this line of thought comes because I’ve been dialing it back, and dialing it back aaaaaand dialing it back to see at what point there is a common-denominator where all of us can co-operate together on something. When I realized that even as internet writers who use words as weapons, we cannot even convince 15 or 30 writers to make an agreement to start introducing simple words and phrases within their articles, so that over time we may start to manipulate the English language to our advantage in the same way that others have done in the recent past (like when the name of husband or wife was changed to the uni-sexual "partner" to allow for the integration of the gay marriage debate into society)… Lol! Well, that is something pretty simple, I think. But… it is just not achievable… in that way. So, until such a simple thing can be accomplished, all construction on the Tower of Babel should cease and desist!

This is why I keep thinking that perhaps the only thing we can truly “build” is a “philosophy” to pass on to other men – and since men won’t co-operate on a damn thing, any philosophy has to start on a personal basis. It has to serve the individual on a personal level first. It can build itself further from there if it so chooses, I don’t know. But I have come to the conclusion that the only thing we can “build” is a philosophy to help ourselves first to navigate this world.

For example – There is a maxim that seems to run all the way from the personal/micro-level, right to the macro-level, which is that promiscuity leads to clashing with the law. The more sexually “loose” you are, directly increases the amount of exposure to the steel fist of the law.

I wish I had kept it, but I once seen a comparison between “sexual freedom” vs. “all other freedom.” And it was quite amazing. If one practices sexual restraint, hosts of other freedoms become possible. However, the more sexual, the more laws are needed to keep things going. Highly sexual people vastly expose themselves to risks of totalitarianism, and all the way to the top, a highly sexual society necessarily becomes totalitarian to survive.(Divorce Laws, Child-support, Welfare, etc.)

However, if you limit your exposure to these dangers, even on a personal level, our society still provides a pretty good and “free” place to live in. Government can’t come after you for child support if you have no kids. (Sex). And on it goes – Alimony, TRO bullshit, DV Charges, VAWA/IMBRA… on and on it goes… but the one thing that is a constant – they all ultimately derive from sex. Limit your exposure, and all of those things are not really much of a problem for you.

It seems like a “truism” to me – a “principle.” That doesn’t mean a philosophy based upon that truism has to demand 100% sexual restraint – but it could demand that one acknowledges the Truth of it, and therefore is not blind to it, and thus becomes responsible for his own actions. (Which is surviving in this world, rather than just being tossed about by it).

I suspect that this is the only thing we will truly be able to “build.” Philosophies to help guide men through life with truisms such as these, but they have to start on the personal level first – to provide that benefit to each man directly at the outset. Maybe after that, the “collective consciousness” of like-minded men will slowly retake the culture.

“MGTOW – Taking the Personal Out of The Political”

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........


Further Reading:

MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way

Western Culture’s Inability to Pass Feminism’s Shit Tests

Friday, April 20, 2012

On Generalizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generalizations are absolutely necessary in order to learn anything.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........

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

Mathieu of Boulogne (1295) on NAWALT

From “The Lamentations of Matheolus”

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

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


Belfort Bax on NAWALT

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

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

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

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

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

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


Further Reading:

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

Bonecrcker #151 – The Woman Who Is The Exception Phenomena

Friday, April 13, 2012

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

"What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." -- The Communist Manifesto
Marriage 1.0 versus the Tender Years Doctrine

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

This is exactly what the Declaration of Sentiments does as well. Here is how Elizabeth Cady Stanton starts off her list: "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." Do you see the similarity to Karl Marx's statement above from the Communist Manifesto? It is simply untrue and there are hosts of factors she is ignoring. In fact, it is so ridiculously wrong that one doesn't even know if it ought to be refuted. It's like saying the sun exists at the bottom of the ocean. But truth is not the point. The point is to present an anti-thesis to the thesis so that dialectical manipulation can begin. 
There are 16 points made after this statement. They all are either false statements, in that they don't take into account a vast amount of other factors (it's only relatively true) or they are simply false statements altogether. For example. Points one to four are about the vote and that men had prevented women from voting on the foundation of the society they live in. But 99.99% of men didn't have anymore say in it than women (Only 55 delegates were present at the Constitutional Convention) - yet all men are to blame. In point four she declares that the elective franchise is the first right of a citizen. Yet that is blatantly untrue. Men did not yet even have universal suffrage in 1848, and 'the right to vote" is guaranteed nowhere. (Landless white men did not receive suffrage until 1856 while non-white men received suffrage by 1870). Your rights are supposed to be guaranteed despite how the majority votes, remember? And the US Founding Fathers mentioned "democracy" nowhere when they created a republic (rule by law, not by sentimental voting). Every point in the Declaration of Sentiments is built on such wobbly logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax - $185 - and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife pays or the law is changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton.
After they dialectically changed the property laws, splitting husband from wife, they still didn't remove the responsibilities from the husband. Can you imagine it? Your wife inherits a $5 million estate that requires $50,000/year in taxes. You make only $45,000/yr, and when your wife refuses to pay the taxes, you go to jail for tax-evasion on her behalf. You have no way out. You have no right to take the funds out of her estate to cover the expenses. The oppression of women, you say? It kind of makes sense why all property was put into the husband's name, wouldn't you agree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

If one believed that men and women were the same, one might project the female behaviours of today in modern family court as how men abused such rights in the past. However, this is not the case. Men's greater love for women than women have for men made it that the vast majority of men never tried to remove their wives from the children. However, after presumed custody was shifted from father to mother by around the 1870's, divorce rates began rising... and kept rising right up until the present day.
There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

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

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

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

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

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

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

…. \_/...........

Friday, April 06, 2012

"The Misandry Bubble" Burst a Decade Ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can thank the lesbians who have dominated “wimmins’s studdees” programs turning out thousands of what Christina Hoff-Sommers calls “hate-intoxicated little zealots” and creating a climate that Daphne Patai calls “Heterophobia.” You can thank the millions of female teachers who have led the “War on Boys” and when they couldn’t stamp out the masculinity in boys, decided to dope them with dangerous drugs in order to turn them into compliant zombies." -- Zenpriest #49 - Let Women Win the Battle of the Sexes
All of these things peaked during the 1990's, not during the 2000's. In the 2000's we were simply dealing with the aftermath of the hateful policies which were justified by the anti-male biases of the 1990's. Sure, the VAWA was renewed in the 2000's, but it was originally created in the 1990's, in response to the Super Bowl Sunday Hoax.

"Bubbles can only be seen in hindsight."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conversely, a bull-market began in commodities back in 1999 and 2000. It was dismissed by all but the most fringe of contrarian investors. Gold, after all, was a barbaric relic, and the tech-boom was going to revolutionize everything about the marketplace. Everyone from governments to hedge-funds to small individual investors dumped their barbaric relics. When gold almost doubled in value, the naysayer's still had the public opinion in their pocket. One of the biggest jokes amongst gold investors today is this video that the anti-gold crowd circulated and laughed about, their point being that since gold had reached $500.00/oz, its run was over and the "gold bubble" was going to burst.
Today, it makes for great giggles to still hear the same people calling gold at $1600.00/oz as a bubble. The fact is, many "savvy investors" completely missed the bull-run in gold & commodities, and they are still convincing themselves to keep missing it. Sure sure, the gold "bubble" will burst one day and end in tears. However, that bubble will not burst until everyone, even the long-term critics, change their attitudes and pile into gold and commodities with reckless abandon.

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

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

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

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

Culture Leads Laws; Laws Don't Lead Culture

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

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

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

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

They're About Done with Feminism, Anyway

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

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

The answer I received?

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

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

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

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

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

I think not!

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

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

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

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
Women's Studies 101A

Sex in the 90's -- by Rollo Tomassi

Feminism Peaked in the 1990's - The Spearhead

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........