Archive for May 2013

The “Misandry Bubble” Burst a Decade Ago

May 29, 2013

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

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

It’s Not Marxism Because…

May 27, 2013

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

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

Another common argument goes like this:

“Russian women aren’t raving feminists like American women, therefore, Marxism and feminism aren’t related.”

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

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

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

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

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

From The Marxist Prescription for Women’s Liberation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From When Family Dissolution Becomes the Law of the Land:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, when and why did it change?

From “Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray” — Statement of Bill Woods to the Committee on Ways and Means:

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

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

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

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

“The Women’s Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought.” — Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

.
Further Reading: 
.
.
.
.

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

May 23, 2013

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

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

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

Dialectical Arguments

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Long March Through the Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It takes a village…” — Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

And isn’t that what they wanted all along?

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

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

“Destroy the family, you destroy the country.” — V.I. Lenin

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right,Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

Related: 

On Red Herrings and the Totalitarian Trap

May 22, 2013

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

.
I maintain that the communist connection to feminism is not “a red herring,” but rather that all arguments except “feminism IS communism” would be the “red herring.”

What Is Marxism and How Does It Work?

First of all, let’s find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read. (I really cannot praise that article enough. One could spend years and years reading horribly dry Marxist literature, and then further years deciphering it in an attempt to understand it… or one could spend 20 minutes reading Phil Wort’s article and learn more than enough about the general philosophy to have an intelligent conversation with the former.)

It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

.

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

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

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

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

Connecting the Marxist Dots

Think this is a joke? Just another “Red Herring?” Let’s put it all together.

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

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

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

“We shall destroy you from within!” Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!

Previous Index Next 
 

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

Women’s Studies 101A, Winter Semester

May 6, 2013

In this class, we will see how women have been sheep who have bought into the Marxist anti-society philosophy hook, line and sinker. Naively, women have believed that feminism was about women’s rights and giving them greater equality. Shamefully, feminism hid this vile filth from society by manipulating academia, media & government.
.
“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.” — Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State
.

“Destroy the family and you destroy society.” V.I. Lenin
.

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

.

. “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” — Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537

.

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

.

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

. “Women, like men, should not have to bear children… The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed.” — Alison Jagger – Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

.


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

.

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

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

.

. “It takes a village to raise a child.” — Hillary Clinton

.

. “Mmmm…Roasted Useful Idiot for Dinner!”Rob Fedders, No Ma’am Blog, 2007
.
Question: What are permanently unmarried women, whose illegitimate children have been taken from them to be raised by the state, good for anyway?
.
Answer: Work. Pay Taxes. Go Home. Feed Cats. Repeat until death.

Previous Index Next

………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

—————————————————————————–

Related:

Feminists are Cat Lovers

The Encyclopedia Marxo-feminist

Age is a Social Construct

May 3, 2013

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of “age” struggles.

I believe in championing the cause of child suffrage. In this day of “equality” it is an outrage that children don’t have equal rights with adults. I believe in equality and all human beings are equal, therefore children should have equal rights.

Age is nothing more than a social construct, designed by adults, to enable the adult oppression of children which has been present for thousands of years. What is age, after all? What does 10 years old mean? It means the earth has circled the sun 10 times; it means the earth has spun around on its axis between 3,652 to 3,653 times. That the earth circles the sun, or that there is existence of night and day, is of zero consequence to personal development and has nothing to do with a human’s ability to reason.

Therefore, it is obvious that age is a social construct, created and perpetuated by adults, to enable the oppression of the young since the beginning of time. These talks about the young not possessing the same capacaties as adults are corrupt. That adults state the young are amoral is an idea born of ageism, and such ideas must be driven from society.

Equality for the young! Give the young equal rights and privileges under the law, including the vote.

Don’t you believe in equality? How can you believe in equality if you regard the young as second class citizens to adults? You ageist pig! Adults have been oppressing the young with violence (spanking) and they believe it is their “right” to punish the young at their whim.

To adults, the young are property to be owned. Just as chattel, adults see in the young nothing more than a means of production (chores). Adults believe the young exist solely for the furthering of adult pleasure. The young are forced to wash dishes so the adults can relax and revel in their percieved superiority over others; they are forced to mow lawns under the heat of the sun while adults sip iced tea spiked with gin.

Adulthood is based on violence, power and domination. The young are dominated by their parents’ leering eyes and their authoritarian voices. We live in an adult culture and adulthood must be abolished!

If the young had the vote, there would be no war. The young wouldn’t allow it!

[Fast Forward to the year 2020]

Hurray! The young have been granted full equality under the law! Let us embrace this new modernized society which reveres the dignity of the young and regards them to be fully “equal” with adults, who had been oppressing them for thousands of years!

[Fast Forward to the year 2070AD]

Andy Dorquin (8 years old), world renowned professor of Young and Ageism Studies at Harvard University releases another of many recent studies illustrating that although the young have had the vote for 50 years, there is still much left to do before the full equality of the young will be realized.

It is obvious that there is institutionalized oppression of the young for we can see that the young only earn $0.15 on the dollar to that of adults, and the young are vastly under-represented in both CEO positions and Political Offices. The only way to counter this is to pass Affirmative Action laws which counter “institutionalized adult privilege.”

[Fast Forward to the year 2071AD]

Politicians throughout the Western World pass “No Fault Youth Emancipation Laws” even though, strangely, there is no massive outcry from the general public for such a reformation of family law. Youth emancipations from their parents instantly rise 500%, and because of the coupling of the afore mentioned law with the principle of “the best interests of the child,” parents are legally obliged to financially support their emancipated progeny who they now never even see. In most cases, parents are ejected from their own home because the court will rule that it is in the best interest of the child to have their own house.

To ensure that adults don’t become dead-beat parents, the government creates Youth Maintenance Offices to extract monies from parents. The Youth Maintenance Office is granted the legal power to garnishee wages, imprison the rotten dead-beat parents, and suspend driver’s licenses and passports to give it some teeth.

[Fast Forward to the year 2073AD]

The Supreme Court rules in the landmark case: Row vs. Waid, that youth have the unilateral right to choose to euthanize their parents at any time in their parents’ natural life. The ruling is based on the notion that it is unjust for an adult parent to spend their progeny’s inheritance, which rightfully belongs to the next generation.

My parents, my choice!

[Fast Forward to the decade of 2080-89]

The youthist movement, in an effort to eradicate institutionalized adulthood, begins to Newspeak the English Language. Even the words “year” and “day” are viewed as oppressively ageist, so they are renamed “Solar Revolution” and “Terrestrial Revolution” respectively.

Many radicals within the yoothist movement begin to refer to themselves as “yunge” rather than young; “yooth” rather than youth. Often, the yunge are seen sporting t-shirts with a slogan reading: “This is What a Yooth Looks Like.”

Some adults begin to realize that things are going horribly wrong with civilization and begin to try to reason with the yunge. Since yooth now have equal rights even within the parents’ own home, yooth have begun demanding that the only food to be served in the house should be chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 365 Terrestrial Revolutions a Solar Revolution. Parents, believing the propaganda hype that the yunge are “equal,” think they can reason with them by explaining that chocolate cake can be great, but too much will make them fat and unhealthy, thereby leading to a worse life for all of them. Most yooth respond with yelling and shrieking accusations of “ageism.” Some yooth, however, take heed and agree to eat one brussel sprout with their usual helpings of chocolate cake. The parents are pleased that they have made at least some progress and have a renewed hope for the future… until they watch with horror as the yooth pulls out a bottle of chocolate syrup and smothers the brussel sprout with it.

“What?” The yooth snarls at the parents, “I’m eating the damn sprout.” The parents are shocked by the yooth’s eyes, which betray a contempt for them that extends into the soul itself.

[Fast Forward to Solar Revolution 2094AD]

The Violence Against Youth Act (VAYA) is passed in an attempt to curb the institutionalized Adult Violence against Youth which is rampant throughout society.

Scolding becomes recognized as abuse and yooth are granted the ability to file restraining orders against their parents if they fear that they might get scolded.

Refusal to raise a yooth’s allowance becomes deemed “financial abuse,” a form of psychological abuse.

[Fast Forward to Solar Revolution 2107AD]

To date, over 40 Million parents have been euthanized at the hands of the yunge.

Approximately 1 in 2 yooth are emancipated from their parents and although the courts force parents to financially support the yunge after emancipation, a large portion of the emancipated yooth are living in abject poverty inside of filthy, unsanitary, government provided box-apartments.

Cities and rural communities alike are teaming with crime.

Adults fear even talking to children because VAYA laws have been twisted and distorted to such a degree that even normal speach can land an adult in prison if the yunge decides to be in a vindictive mood.

Western Civilization has stagnated and is no longer economically viable because of Affirmative Action laws designed to get rid of the $0.15 Wage Gap, and adults often are choosing careers in manual farm labor so they don’t have to work beside the yunge who gravitate to the more pleasant intellectual of jobs, which would be better served by adults. In places where the yunge are present in large numbers, there is a direct increase in the number of “yooth harassment” charges resulting from anything which a yunge person finds dissaggreable. Sometimes “yooth harassment” charges are leveled against an adult, whose life gets shattered, just out of a yooth’s desire for attention. Adults don’t know how to behave around the yunge at all anymore and many adults have chosen reproductive sterilization as the answer, to counter their growing fears of having the little monsters even more in their life than they already are.

Some yooth are beginning to realize that things are getting worse, rather than better. These are usually the ones that are on the brink of adulthood themselves. Occassionally you will hear one of them acknowledge that it is time for an “Adult Rights Movement,” but they almost always follow it up with: “As long as it doesn’t take away from Yooth Rights.”

A philosophy has recently arisen called AGTOW (Adults Going Their Own Way), consisting of adults who choose to be ethical sociopaths, turning their backs on the cultural decay which is present at every turn, from the workplace to the media, from the government to the churches, from the yooth run schools that don’t teach anything to even the hostility of the yunge to them as they walk down the street. If this is a better society, they can all rot with it…

———————————————————————–

[Rewind to the year 2007 and the present situation society is facing]

Now, of course, I don’t mean to say that women actually are children. They exist somewhere in between – and most notable, they “get things” from others in the same way children do. (By getting attention and appearing as victims). But when I talk about the amorality and dissimulation found within women, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that there are some serious moral challenges which women naturally face. Even look at the difference in the MRM where the men are constantly running around scolding eachother to ‘not say that’ about women. That is men adhering to their sense of justice and morality and they are quite concerned about “fighting fair.” Note that the feminist movement was never afflicted with this, because women in general didn’t really care about how badly the feminists were trashing their own husbands, sons, fathers and brothers.

But what on God’s Green Earth makes people think that men and women are the same in all things? In their mentality, in their needs, wants and abilities?

Psychological differences between the Sexes ARE NOT a social construct. (The word “Gender,” however, is a Feminist Construct).

I do not believe it was a mere coincidence that the Suffragette Movement was born at virtually the same moment as the birth of Marxism. (Yes, I know there was “talk” before that, just as there was Socialist-Transcendentalism decades before Marxism).

Have a look at what Marx says:

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

He says he is going to take the philosophies of the day, up to the 19th Century, and use them to manipulate the world according to his designs, with the goal of changing society into something never seen before – to defeat God and Nature.

What century were people like Schopenhauer from? You know, the ones who openly philosophized about female dissimulation and amorality?

Who heavily influenced Marx with his philosophies about the Dialectic? Why, it was Hegel! And what did Hegel believe about women?

“… 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

It is also interesting to note that Hegel believed that the origin of the Universe was God – the Absolute Spirit. Yet, what did the evil rot-bag bastard, Karl Marx say?

“My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” — Karl Marx

One can spend countless hours sifting through the writings of the philosophers and what they believed about women. In virtually every case you will see a commonly acknowledged theme of women’s challenges with “justice” and “morality.” And, I mean you can go way back!

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

It is only in the past few decades that these views have been eradicated from our consciousness. Why is that? Look at what is going on around us! The “old philosophers” beliefs seem to hold much more truth and value in them than what spews out of the mouths of the modern gender-idiots in Cloud Cuckoo-land. Society is not better because of feminist inspired amorality and dissimulation.

Isn’t it amazing how the leftist brownshirts will screech and holler anyone down who notices any difference between men and women, yet at the same time they also screech down anyone who questions the Theory of Evolution?

If you are someone who regards Evolution as “fact,” you would also have to acknowledge that men and women’s behavioural instincts would have “evolved” to help them survive. What Schopenhauer says about women having the “tool of dissimulation” to counter the physical supremacy of males makes perfectly good sense from an evolutionary perspective.

How can “gender” be a “social construct” when the same feminists who are shoving that nonsense down our throats are also smugly telling us that testosterone makes men more violent, or that women are superior multi-taskers and communicators?

“Gender” is a feminist construct – nothing more. One that has been dreamed up to enable the manipulations of women’s worst natural traits in order to transform society and bring about the Marxist Utopia of “Equality.” In a way, I feel sorry for women that they have been manipulated by these evil people to become what we now know as the “modern woman.” They knew that men would never turn on women, therefore, they used women’s natural weaknesses to turn women on men. Women will never turn on children either, but it is possible to turn children on women. What do you think is the purpose of attaching the “Rights of the Child” to the UN’s CEDAW Agreement? It is to begin to create a situation such as described above.

The Plot goes as follows:

Men (cares for) –> Woman (cares for) –> Children
.
Step #1: Use feminism to manipulate what was known about women to create this:
.
Men (pushed away by) < — Women — > Children
.
Step #2: Use children’s rights (and divorced parents rights) to manipulate children to create this:
.
Men (pushed away by) < — Women (pushed away by) < — Children
.
They had to start with women. It would not have worked in any other way.
.
“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

Tell me again that you are an Egalitarian. Please describe equality to me. Are children equal to adults? Should they have equal rights?

Bears and Foxes both get their food from the same forest, but go about it in vastly different ways. Now try and make the fox get his food in the same way as the bear. Good luck!

The sooner that the MRM gets their head around that notion, the better.

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

When Shit Gets Sold as Soap…

May 1, 2013


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.

.

http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/bet01229.htm

.

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, &amp; 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).”
.

Please note: Styles of aggression more salient to girls typically involve conspiring with others to hurt someone, kind of like, um, a cabal, a girl’s club, the Sisterhood… and notice how female styled aggression always revolves around plausible deniability. “Who me? I didn’t do anything!”
.
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 horriblebehaviour 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 great soap! 
.

.

Previous Index Next 

………………..
..oooO………..
..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..
………….Oooo..
………….(….)…
…………..)../….
……….(_/……
………………..

Related: 

Collective Projection 

Zenpriest #53 – Feminism Really is All About Projection