Archive for July 2013

Truth, Truth, Truth… What is The Truth?

July 31, 2013

.
“Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable…

Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth.” — George Orwell

QUOTE: “Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers/John Locke got the order wrong. The way that it is actually practiced is the only way that it can be done (since we are on the inside looking out):

1 – Natural Law = Objective Truth
2 – God’s Law = Absolute Truth
3 – Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth

This is the correct order because religion also uses the Scientific Method (Objective Truth), just not very well.

Yes, you are right – I have struggled with this before too, and this is why I say the need for Absolute Truth to be placed highest, may actually be important to human nature beyond even the scope of whether that truth is “true.”

I have come into this from the scope of what Karl Marx is “trying to do.”

Well, one thing Marx says he wants to do is to “Dethrone God and Destroy Capitalism.”

In other words – he wants to destroy the Absolute Truth.

How come? Because it prevents him from manipulating the subjective truth into overcoming the objective truth. (The world of Orwell’s 1984).

Humans have “the ability” to be blind to the “objective truth” because of how they allow their brains to process “subjective truth.” In other words, humans often get so confused with the subjective/relative truth that they manage to convince themselves that the objective truth does not matter… that’s why there has to be an Absolute Truth above the Objective Truth.

Take the way constitutions of free countries have constitutions pegging themselves to an Absolute Truth, whereas countries without freedom have no Absolute Truth, but only Subjective Truth – with the subjective truth creating objective truth.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…” — United States Declaration of Independence

versus the United Nations “constitution” (a knock off of all totalatiarian gov’t):

“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State… the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.” — Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The “reason” why Founding Fathers place “rights” in the hands of the Creator, is because what God gives, only God can take away… in other words, the tendency of mankind to trick himself with the subjective truth into not believing in the objective truth is completely curtailed by placing “rights” out of reach of mankind.

If we ever end up re-writing our constitutions to remove “God” from them, please, oh please, let me get my rights from Santa or the Easter Bunny, rather than the state and its subjective laws. I have much more faith that Santa won’t come like a thief in the night to take back my rights, than I do for the government refraining from curtailing my rights in the future – especially in a democracy.

Whether “God is real” matters not so much as that “God ‘pins’ down the Truth” so that we don’t convince ourselves that what is all about us is not true… the same way we have convinced ourselves of such nonsense as feminism has produced. As far as anyone “objectively” looking at the situation, they would declare we are nuts and should just open ours… and yet, what is happening in society? We are choosing to place the Subjective above the Objective.

And that is very dangerous!

Now, think about how looooooooooong it takes to create “civilization.” It does not happen overnight. We have been “following the Bible” for approximately 3,300 years. (The Pentateuch was written by Moses, and Moses is thought to be contemporary of 1300BC or so).

During that timeframe, “the Truth” has more or less stayed the same. Humans are prevented, by the existence of an unchanging absolute that trumps all others, from convincing themselves that the subjective truth is higher than the objective.

Sooner or later, humans will convince themselves to overlook some sort of “objective truth” in favour of the “subjective truth” and then “Absolute Truth” will wipe them from the face of the earth… just like Sodom & Gommorah.

Perhaps it will be that we convince ourselves that refraining from sexual monogamy is silly… that religion thing telling us not to hump like monkeys is just that – religious trappings. (Using the subjective truth to convince ourselves of what we wish to be true, rather than what is actually true). And so, everyone throws away their sexual restraint because they believe they are seeing objective truth, and perhaps 40 years later, STD’s start becoming so rampant throughout the population that the fertility rates begin to decline… or perhaps, the “unordering” of the male –> female –> child hierarchy, while it looks to be “objectively smart” in our heads, turns out to be something which repels men and women from eachother, and our birthrates decline below replacement… until we are wiped from the face of the earth.

“SMACK!” says the Absolute Truth.

Start over and don’t make that same mistake again!

How would a civilization manage to “stay on the right path” for thousands of years, while always having to battle this human tendency? I suspect that it could not, unless it somehow managed to contain this human tendency… and the best way to do that is to place an Absolute Truth above all others – for those things we know “we need to do” in order to sustain ourselves, but have a tendency to wish wasn’t true.

Whether that truth is real or not, is less significant in this purpose, than the need for Truth to exist.

I think it was Voltaire who quipped “If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent Him.” (Although, I don’t know if he was referring to my argument… but you get the point).

What Karl Marx believes he can do is change the world into a Utopia by manipulating truth.

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

He means he is going to take philosophy, and use it to manipulate reality in order that he might change the world. And this is what he does, by using the Relative Truth uber Alles which his predecessor Hegel identified with the Hegelian Dialectic.

1 – Relative Truth
2 – Relative Truth
3 – Relative Truth

(And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, this is the Feminine Principle, and it is also the “animal principle.” Animals live completely from moment to moment – everything is subjective to them – their instincts lead, not their reason).

Karl Marx believes, through use of evolution, that he can “bend the truth” and by “bending reality” he can “evolve mankind into a new form of human” – one that has never existed before.

He believes if he can manipulate reality, he can remove man’s greed and desire to put self first etc. etc. and then a completely new form of mankind will emerge, unencumbered by mankind’s worst traits, and therefore, he will have defeated God because he will have created Heaven on Earth. (Marx wants to make the Lion lie down with the Lamb).

One of the reasons why the Bible is so damaging to Marx’s plans is because it places Truth out of his reach and therefore Marx is severely handicapped in manipulating the truth for his own designs.

And, like I pointed out before, it appears that Marxism and Animal-ness are very closely related in how they process “Truth,” and in fact, Marxism is as old as the Garden of Eden itself.

So…, lol, I guess what I mean is, there are two roads here:

One can look at Truth for the purpose of “seeking Truth.”

and

There is also a human need for A truth to exist, in order to “temper” man’s mind, so that he doesn’t behave like a lemming and kill himself with his brain – that sometimes can create realities inside of our heads that don’t really exist (or will unwittingly kill us).

QUOTE: “As long as those above are supporting a specific Absolute Truth, those below (who are willing to accept truth that is independent of evidence) will be prevented from mucking things up, in a specific way.

But when those in charge wish to move in a different direction, all that they have to do is make a few minor modifications, like a farmer changing the fence lines…”

Yes, I know. This is why I quite often look at books like the Bible, and, realizing how incredibly wise it is in regard to understanding human nature, I have concluded that regardless of whether God exists or not, that book knows more about human nature than I, or anyone else around me does… so the Bible ought not to be dismissed lightly.

Also, keep in mind that this is how cultures “grow.”

They start off small, with perhaps a few hundred people hanging around on an internet forum… within a larger culture that perhaps might not even acknowledge they exist… but eventually, if their formula is correct, they will out-succeed the rest by following their form of “Truth” until they overtake the culture.

It appears that all cultures start out small, adhering to one form of truth (Cultural Hegemony), and because they have got “the right kind of formula in their truth” they grow and grow over time, until they overtake the culture.

That seems to be the way it works… rather than a small group of people convincing a large group of people of the error of their ways. Without “one truth” no Cultural Hegemony can occur, and thus, neither will civilization appear.

QUOTE: “For something to be an actual Absolute Truth, it would need to be pinned to objective reality, in order to be truly “out of reach of mankind” while being directly accessible to all.”

I think the exact same thing… sometimes I say, when we identify a Truth, we have to “pin it to the wall.” (So that some asshole doesn’t come along and try to alter it with subjective truth).

Lol! But how you can you pin any objective truth to anything, unless there is an absolute to pin it to?

Btw, I have sometimes philosophized it Absolute Truth can be created outside of the religious realm – with mathematics, for instance. Could mathematics be used as a replacement “pin”?

For example:

If we know that divorce/feminism causes ever falling birth rates… and yet we also know we need X number of babies to move forward… then the maximum tolerance of divorce that society can handle without destructing is X% of marriages ending in divorce.

Can that create a “morality” that humans can follow?

BUT, then you also start getting into the law of unintended consequences – as in, is it also then “morally proper” to say “this is the maximum amount of old people we can tolerate in society, while still sustaining ourselves… therefore…”

Scary business, when we think we are God.

The Bible knows a lot more than people give it credit for. I suspect it might still suprise us and show that it still knows more than we do… like how STD’s due to promiscuousness are causing our fertility rates to fall. (It is not just that we are choosing NOT to have children, but also, we are physically having more problems having them… in many cases due to STD’s).

Previous Index Next

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

.
——————————————————————————-

“People have always spoken of the absolutely necessary [absolutnotwendigen] being, and have taken pains, not so much to understand whether and how a thing of this kind can even be thought, but rather to prove its existence…. if by means of the word unconditioned I dismiss all the conditions that the understanding always requires in order to regard something as necessary, this does not come close to enabling me to understand whether I then still think something through a concept of an unconditionally necessary being, or perhaps think nothing at all through it.” — Immanuel Kant, Critic of Pure Reason
.
Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. … Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly “comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness,” somewhat completely in the form “the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?” as Hegel has expressed it.Friedrich Nietzche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks

——————————————————————————-

Further Reading:

The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth

Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field

The Feminization of Christianity

In the Beginning

The Male’s Ability to Reach the Truth

Totalitarianism and the Female Principle

Advertisements

Rising Up from Being Beasts of the Field

July 30, 2013

.

QUOTE: “I think that the closest that we can get to an absolute truth might be termed “objective truth,” which starts with an objective assessment of existence and leads to falsifiable conclusions. In a sense, one starts with axiom(s) and follows the logical consequences.”

Yes, but remember how the Founding Fathers/John Locke look at truth and “lock one into the other.”

1 – God’s Law = Absolute Truth
2 – Natural Law = Objective Truth
3 – Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth

I agree that the best “we” can know is the objective truth… but we must go higher and acknowledge the existence of this Absolute Truth – because sometimes the objective truth changes, with history or technology or what not, what is true today is not true always.

An example of this is found in Orwell’s book 1984. The storyline is essentially a struggle between the Relative Truth (or lies) surrounding the main character who believes in an External Truth.

And, aside from direct philosophical discussion about “finding Truth” – what I keep seeing is the necessity for Truth to exist. An external truth – one that can’t be changed – one we can’t deny. Whether there actually is Truth might not be as important as the human need to believe in Truth.

There has never really been a civilization that has ever existed that didn’t have some form of religion.

In order to “rise up from being a beast of the field” we need to grab onto a Truth – a never changing one.

In Angry Harry’s piece Men Are More Intelligent Than Women, he points out how the more you emote, the less you think… and which sex would one think, even by their own admission, is the “most emotional,” and which sex, by their own admission, “is more in touch with their emotions?”

Alright ladies, I’ll believe you.

But it is also clear that, the more you emote, the less you “think.” The more your emotions lead you, the less your reason leads you. “Passion” is all great and fine, until it becomes “murder in the heat of passion” or a bazillion other things resulting from a highly emotional state leading to a person “not thinking.”

Life by “passion” is the life of living by instinct which is the life of an animal.

Now, I am not a neurosurgeon either, but I have read of the “three brains.”

The first brain/lower brain/reptilian brain is the one that doesn’t “think.” This is the one where your fight or flight comes from and a whole host of other things that don’t involve “thinking.” It is also where our sexual instinct comes from.

“Mating behavior does NOT get mediated in the new brain, or the cortex. It happens in the brain-stem and spinal cord, the old or “reptile” brain.

In the days when such experiments were still allowed, you could open a cat’s skull and suck out all the cortex. Sexual and mating behavior was not affected at all, but social behavior was destroyed.”

The next brain is the mammalian brain, and this is the brain where emotions come from, or “our passions.”

The new brain, or cortex, is where we “think.”

So, in order to “rise up from being beasts of the field” we have to “think.”

As we get assaulted with things – violently or emotionally or in any number of ways – our brains “shut down.” The “thinking brain” will shut down in favour of the mammal brain, which will in turn, in emergency, shut down if it has to and run completely on instinct – fight or flight. There is no “thinking” or “emotion” in it. It just “happens.”

So, we have to keep “rising up” in order to find enlightenment.

And now, these highly emotional creatures with hairy triangles between their legs, what do they do to us? They get our emotions running all the time. All of the girls that wing their shaming insults around are trying to control men emotionally instead of rationally.

There were several posts near the end of The Elusive Wapiti’s totalitarian essay a while back where we were discussing Schopenhauer and Weininger’s observations on female manipulative behaviour, and how women have challenges with truth and a lack of moral character because, to women, their passions cause them to change the truth to be that which they want it to be right now. If it suits her to change the truth 20 minutes later, she will do it, even though it contradicts what she said earlier 100% – and she actually believes it, it appears!

The Feminine is constantly manipulating away from the truth with emotions.

If there is an external unchanging standard of truth to compare things to, men can much better pull themselves out of being led by their mammalian brain, and lead themselves by their “thinking” brain.

By the way. Guys like Weininger as well, he talks about the Male Principle/Condition and the Female Principle/Condition.

This is true – the Masculine and the Feminine is within each of us. Just like in the diagram of the Yin and Yang, there is a dot of the opposite within each half. What happens is that men have the Masculine Principle as their dominant characteristic while females are dominated by the Feminine Principle. No-one is “purely male” or “purely female.” This is why you get variability between the behaviours of individual men and women, but still can generalize behavioural characteristics that relate to each sex sepearately.

.
.
“Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you…”
.
Previous Index Next

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

Men, Religion, and Morality

July 29, 2013

The ever-diminishing role of Christianity in our society is pretty interesting, and of course, is tied into all of this stuff about Marxism. It’s a pretty difficult subject to discuss dispassionately, which is what is required, and is necessary for rational thought to move forward.

I’ve read that Harvard was originally mandated to be “Protectors of the Truth.” And at the time, they felt they could actually identify truth, because during that age, they used the Bible as an anchor of “Absolute Truth” to identify what was true and what was not.

When Hegel came out with “The Truth is Relative”, it set the whole system into the toilet because it got rid of the “anchor” of Absolute Truth. The concept of God is “black and white.” God’s word is “Truth.”

However, of course, we are able to recognize that truth often does change, or, truth often is relative.

And herein lies the entire problem, I think. Human nature, and the need to control it.

In many ways, I agree with Hegel & Marx that indeed, the Truth is Relative. But, from a position of what works for a civilization? Well… that must have elements of an Absolute Truth to it, or cultural hegemony will never arise, and civilization will never occur.

The human brain is enormously malleable, and it naturally tends to lean towards “Relative Truth.” We often use our brains to justify what we would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Jail is full of innocent people. Morality is forever malleable unless attached to an absolute truth.

From an anthropological sense, human beings naturally create religions. Every civilization that has ever existed has adhered to some form of religion. It seems to be a necessity for the human condition. And, look at how different morality can develop in different ways. Think about the typical movie scene of the virgin tied to a stone slab, about to be sacrificed to the Volcano God. The people that lived in such civilizations thought nothing immoral of such a situation, yet, when other civilizations encountered them, they were horrified by their “lack of morality.”

Morality can go in many different ways, and indicates that indeed, from a big perspective, “truth is relative.”

But even if it is, it is not a good thing for civilization to not have any absolutes. It’s for similar reasons that we have the Rule of Law and a Legal/Court system. You and I can argue and argue, and both of us will create a belief system for ourselves, justifying our position to ourselves, and creating a reality in each of our own minds – which will forever contradict the other’s view of reality. Therefore we must have a court system to decide, hopefully with impartiality, what is right and what is not. An absolute. Without it, things would never function.

A civilization needs a religion in the same way.

And all things considered, Christianity was not the worst one we could have wound up with. The way I look at it is, when everyone points out how hypocritical and evil it has been in the past… well, that is not Christianity per se, but rather, it is the nature of humans that is trying break free from the bounds that Christianity tried to place upon them. It doesn’t matter whether Christian or Marxist or Muslim or the Hoobie Joobie Mumbo Spirit, it is human nature to try and manipulate and force one’s will upon others. In that sense, Christianity has been not too bad, because it is firmly based in the concept of Absolute Truth and can be used to pull us back from the brink of La La Land when we get a little too insane. It is an anchor. I think the history of the West would have been a lot worse without the Bible than it was with it.

If you want to know why most Communist countries abolish Christianity, it’s because it is firmly rooted in the concept of “Absolute Truth” which is directly at odds with dialectical manipulation. The Bible zaps it into oblivion as the two cannot exist in the same philosophical space. The Bible is timeless… it doesn’t change with the times nor the political environment. How we interpret parts of it might alter with the times, but the book itself stays the same – and that generates certain “goalposts” that stay constant in our society throughout the ages. Things can only be manipulated so far before the Bible starts to constrain them.

It is for this reason as well that far-left politics is so adamant about Evolution. And again, one has to look at the Evolution debate a bit dispassionately.

Marx and Engels were extremely excited when Darwin came out with his theory because it was the “science” that supported their political philosophy – namely, that the Truth is Relative. Evolution indicates that the truth is forever changing. What was true yesterday, is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today, does not neccessarily have to be true tomorrow.

This was great for Marx because he is preaching the political philosophy that man’s condition can be “altered”, basically by use of force. One can therefore “force an evolutionary direction” upon mankind. Kinda like how an arborist prunes a tree to control how it grows and shapes itself.

Whether one believes in Evolution or not, this very important political aspect rarely gets mentioned in the debate, but it is core to the importance of a lot of philosophy about “truth.”

This is why the left gets angry so quickly whenever someone begins to discuss intelligent design. If intelligent design were to be proven, it would indicate a “plan,” which would indicate the existence of Absolute Truth… and the entire political philosophy of the left would fall to bits. They need evolution to be true for more reasons than what they claim… so does the Creationist side… the Intelligent Design side doesn’t, however, because it is much more dispassionate, in my humble opinion. It is unfair to lump Intelligent Design in with Creationism, and yet politically, that is often how it is dismissed.

Much of anthropology has been shattered by the insistence of adherence to this as well, and anyone trying to suggest that those “primitive” people from the past were perhaps a helluva lot smarter than we give them credit for is automatically drummed out of the discussion and called a loon. And yet, the ancient Sumerians had the knowledge to “weld” gemstones together, which is something we still can’t replicate today.

The religion debate is interesting, because it is about Absolute vs. Relative Truth.

If a society always tends to “create” a religion, would you rather have one based in Absolutes, or would you prefer one that is forever malleable?

It has elements that come down to the similar situation as, would you rather live under a government that was ruled by whim and emotion (Democracy), or would you rather live under the Rule of Law? (Republic)

Previous Index Next

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

The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth

July 28, 2013

I think there is something very fundamental about Absolute Truth over Relative Truth which is the very basic to the nature of humans… that which separates humans from animal living and allows us to rise up from being beasts of the field.

Of course, the “tool” which humans have been given by God or by Nature – our equivalent to which every animal has been give his specialty (elephants have tusks, giraffes have long necks) – is our ability to choose, and of course, along with the ability to choose necessarily comes the ability to question. And in order to go from question to choosing an answer, there is the necessity to rationalize. Virtually all of human power resides in this feature. These are things humans can do which no other animal can do. Everything else works on pure instincts.

But…

This power we have to choose is like all power – it has the potential to be dangerous as much as it has the potential to be beneficial. I think the concept of “power needing to be tempered” before it becomes something useful certainly makes sense. And so it is that our human mental abilities need to tempered, or perhaps a better phrase is “anchored to reality,” or else we humans also have the ability to “think” ourselves right off the rails and into la-la land. We humans kinda have a lemming feature built into us where we “think ourselves to death.”

In fact, this is the story of the Garden of Eden in a nutshell: It is a story of the battle of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth, and the danger of what happens by placing the Relative Truth higher in importance than the Absolute Truth. It is a story about humankind’s ability to bend the truth to over-ride reality… often with dire consequences.

.
.
There was only one rule in the Garden… DON’T EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow… and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpent’s assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:

– The serpent was right when he says “you will not surely die.” (He was right, they did not surely die… After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life – if they chose to follow God’s path).

– The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil.

And then Eve’s female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth.

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”

Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom… Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truth which she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed.

Ahem… could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the “original sin?”

Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the Manosphere: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her.

.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 RSV “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of relative-truth laden brain… but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point. But like a mangina eager to please, he said, “sure thing, Toots!” and swallowed ‘er down whole.

Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived.

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’… (Man’s Curse)

It’s pretty clear.

Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition… God expected Adam to “know better” than Eve… because Adam has the capability to know better.

Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God… is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in God’s image. Adam is copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam… Adam is “one step closer” to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is.

And, when regarding how male and female brains “work” in order to ascertain “truth,” this holds true – men and women “find truth” in different ways. G.W.F. Hegel describes the phenomenon in the following way:

“… 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

Women, because they are herd creatures by nature, find Truth by consensus among the herd. If the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 3, then it is right, because the herd says so. Tomorrow, if the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 1, then that will be right, because the herd says so. The herd is always right. This is why women are more attuned to fashion, which is forever changing, and it is the underlying cause of the phenomenon in Game known as “Social Proofing.” Women believe a man is sexually valuable because the rest of the women around her find him sexually valuable – not because of any particular iron clad attributes or principles mind you – but simply because all the other women believe a guy is hot, so will the next woman believe it as well. The herd’s consensus is what is right, and it is subject only to itself.

You can see this all through females’ nature, in that right down to even their genetic make-up, they huddle around the average/mean in far greater concentration than males, who exist outside the herd and exists in the outer extremes of averages. ie. There are more males than females with an IQ of 140, but there are also more males than females with an IQ below 70. The males are on “the outside of the herd” and the females ARE “the average,” or, they are all clustered around the average. (Heh, this even goes into female psychology, where far fewer females desire to truly stand out from the norm – in areas such as company CEO – than men do – and the differences are signficant!).

In this way, it will always be males, in the aggregate, that are better equipped to “find Absolute Truth.”

It will be the males who will, like an angry MGHOW, declare: “BULLSHIT! 1 + 1 = 2!!! I don’t care what you say, I don’t care if all you cows believe 1 + 1 = 2.5, I will refuse to comply with you because, dammit, 1 + 1 = 2!

In this way, it is important for the male principle to lead the female principle, because the male principle is closer to Absolute Truth than the female principle. The female principle is almost pure Relative Truth. Now, the male principle has relative truth in it too – lots of it! Look at all the manginas out there! Men desire to follow women’s Relative Truths because that is what we would do if we behave like animals, driven by our baser instincts. But man’s mind is better equipped to discover Absolute Truth than the female’s, and thus, having men/the male principle leading a society will lead to that society following much closer to Absolute Truth… a much safer place to exist than a world full of Relative Truth, where nothing stays real.

“Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you…”

Because you listened to your wife’s Relative Truths… you were cursed, Adam.

You should have held true to the Absolute Truth, and all would have been fine. Even after she had already bogged herself down with her Relative Truths, Adam should have been a MGHOW and stuck to his principles based upon Absolute Truth. All would have worked out fine for him.

.

.
 – It was Eve who seduced the man – in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path.  This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her – and she believes everything – perhaps also because the thought of being the man’s savior is so very satisfying to her.Woman/Man – from Kierkegaard’s Journals

Previous Index Next

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

Further Reading:

The Feminization of Christianity

Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field

Truth, Truth, Truth… What Is The Truth?

In the Beginning

MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way

July 27, 2013

QUOTE: “MGTOW was never anything but a tool.” – Ragnar

Actually there is one aspect of MGTOW that has not been utilized yet.

On philosophical level, MGTOW is the answer to the Marxist Dialectic. If ever one studies the dialectic and how it is used to manipulate, you will see the one constant recommendation for how to “stop” the dialectic: Step out of it.

That means that on a philosophical level, you must “step out of the cycle” and take a stand. To stop the dialectic you must stop rationalizing to the lowest common denominator, stand up straight and tall, and declare, “THIS is right, and THAT is wrong. I will not budge.”

On philosophical level, MGTOW is the “right way” to fight this.

QUOTE: “…many don’t regard MGTOW as philosophical at all. Long ago Zenpriest/Jadedguy wrote something like that in a discussion at the old board. The opposition then was that we need action now – no philosophy. Futhermore MGTOW has started a life of it’s own and who can speak against that? LOL! Make a stand we should – I absolutely agree.” — Ragnar

Yes, the philosophy stuff is not as flash as visions of planting a flag victoriously on Iwo Jima, and thus many men reject philosophy – however, just like the US Air Force doesn’t have much use for $100 million figher jets when your enemy isn’t fighting you in the air but on the street with low tech car bombs, so is this a different kind of warfare and it requires the proper tools to win the struggle.

In order to illustrate why making a stand is so important, one has to understand how the dialectic uses “consensus” to change the views and attitudes of the population. Here is a diagram I have which illustrates the general mechanics of the dialectic and how it can be used to alter the truth, or rather, to create new truths. Keep in mind that an important component of dialectical manipulation is thinking three steps ahead.

“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

So, dialectical thought manipulates the truth in the same way that a still picture is used, in multiple series, to make a motion-picture. In the same way, the dialectic makes “new truths” by pitting a “thesis” (truth) against an “anti-thesis” (anti-truth) – these two truths argue and argue and argue against eachother until they reach a consensus, or a compromise of the two. This compromise then becomes a synthesis, or a synthetic truth, which then becomes the new “truth,” (now you can repeat the whole process over again with a new argument) and like how still-pictures in a series creates a motion picture, a series of these new “synthesized truths” can lead to a completely altered sense of reality, and adhere to that reality’s “logical” conclusions.

This is why I always yammer on about the value of Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth does not compromise. It scoffs at “consensus.” It takes a stand – Absolute Truth is a male principle. Relative Truth, while also present in males, is a female principle. This is something illustrated even in the story of the Garden of Eden.

So, think about how the dialectic can work to alter truth and also, destroy things.

Imagine that you believe 1 + 1 = 2 (Thesis), and your opponent’s argument is 1 + 1 = 3 (Anti-thesis). The anti-thesis argument asks you to compromise to reach an agreement, a consensus, a synthesized truth somewhere in between 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3. In this case let’s say we reach consensus half way – so, now we have 1 + 1 = 2.5 (Synthesis/New Truth)

Well, for some things, you cannot compromise. Not one frickin’ millimeter.

1 + 1 = 2! No matter what you friggin’ say! No matter how many people in society say it is 2.5, I DON’T GIVE A SHIT, 1 + 1 = 2!

What good does 1 + 1 = 2.5 do for society, or even 1 + 1 = 2.1?

Once an Absolute Truth is identified, one must refuse to compromise it.

Marxism abolishes Absolute Truth. In a Marxist society everything is a Relative Truth. One thing you will hear many people who lived in Communist regimes claim they found to be the worst aspect of it all, were the lies! Everything becomes a lie, and there is no more truth.

Of course, one of the reasons why Communists abolish Christianity is because it competes with them for the allegiance of the masses, but another reason is because the Bible is firmly rooted in Absolute Truth, and it stops the dialectic dead in its tracks. God’s word is Black and White, and it does not compromise. Thus, it is very difficult to manipulate the dialectic when there is a standard of Absolute Truth to compare it to.

I sometimes suspect that this is why so many people in Communist countries were so willing to risk their lives to be Christians, and why when they got their hands on a Bible, they would take it out of its hiding place and go to read it again and again and again… sure, there is the Christianity/religious aspect to it, but also, it might possibly be the first time that person was exposed to Absolute Truth and they became addicted to it.

The Truth, the real truth, is addictive. Think about all of you guys who have been following along in the manosphere over the years… why do you hang around? Why do you keep coming back? I think it is because the manosphere is speaking the Truth and you find it addictive – infuriating for sure – but the Truth is very addictive.

Making a philosophical stand is of the utmost importance in defeating this whole gong-show.

Good thing for men that Absolute Truth is congruent with the Male Principle, as well as the willingness to sometimes stand on your principles, and refuse to compromise your position simply for the sake of going along with the crowd.

Would you rather be “right” according to the crowd, and thus use 1 + 1 = 2.5 in all of your worldly dealings, or would you choose to be willing to Go Your Own Way so you could live in a functional world where 1 + 1 = 2?

Previous Index Next

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

——————————————————————————

Further Reading:

A Leading Philosophy Rather Than a Leader

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

Civil Unions and Shared-Parenting

July 26, 2013

The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!

But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.

Have you ever asked yourself “why”?

A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” — Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

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

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

“[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new….Extending the right to marry to gay people — that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage — can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past.” — Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, “Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco’s Families,” The Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being that feminists entire raison d’être is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct” and therefore women are discriminated against because the testicularly challenged are treated differently (while born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way, and thus should not be discriminated against. The two arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter both the family unit and society into something completely new. Roosevelt, meet Stalin, yo new fwiend and ally!

Something very important in order to transform marriage then, is to make sure that the new models that come out are still called marriage. It would be much harder to transform the meaning of marriage with “civil unions,” if civil unions were not also called marriage.

How will they transform marriage and society this way? Well, in Canada we legalized Gay Marriage back in 2005, and by 2006 (and using the justification of gay marriage now being normalized), Gay’s shoved their agenda into our schools and by 2007 a court in Ontario had already declared two married lesbians and one sperm donating father to all three be equal legal parents of the same child. Obviously, the dialectical path towards polygamy is set wide open by this ruling… does anyone else see how they are able to purposefully “transform” society in this way?

(***2013 Update: In March 2013, British Columbia’s new Family Act went into effect. This law forces defacto marriage upon all common-law couples after two years. Further, the act allows for five parent “families.” A sperm donor, an egg donor, a surrogate, and two homosexuals who adopt the child, can all be equal parents of the same child.)

That’s why Gay Rights Activists are so adamant about it being called marriage. If it were called “civil unions” the Marxist plan to alter society dialectically falls flat on its face. Everything will stall at the civil union level, and once society accepts the term “civil union” and identifies it with Gay People, it will become monumentally difficult for them to further alter society with this plan, or to be able to “rename” civil unions as marriage later on. Much of Marxist dialectical movement is based upon the general public’s perception of an issue, rather than the reality of it. Either they get it right in the beginning, or there is not much point in carrying on.

Now, let’s examine for a moment the feminist goals for transforming marriage and the nuclear family. You’ll fast see it’s not just “Patriarchy” that they are against, but also they’re furious as hell at Mother Nature for giving them ovaries! Even nature victimizes women, and this also must change!

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

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

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

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

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that” — Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, “The Daily Illini,” April 25, 1981

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

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

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

”It takes a village.” — Hillary Clinton

Not only do feminists want to destroy patriarchy, they also want to destroy motherhood, something very dear and precious to most females, and likely something they will not give up voluntarily.

There is a hierarchy to the way that “humanity” works. Many men are discovering certain elements of it through what is commonly known as “game,” but essentially, the “hierarchy of humanity” works like this:

Man –> Woman –> Children

And this is a strong inclination within humans as well. Students of game will understand that women do not want to be sexual with men who they do not deem superior to them, and will reject all men they deem inferior. The woman desires the hierarchy, and men fulfill women’s desire within it. Never ever forget, however, that to rule is to serve. And this is what most men did with their hierarchal powers – see The Titanic. Men did not use their powers to harm their “wards,” but rather used it to protect them, and often sacrificed directly towards this hierarchy to their own detriment. Parents (ie. mothers) do the same with their children – while parents have the enormous capability to bring harm or to exploit their children, 99% of parents do not do this… and it is not because of the law that parents are altruistic towards children (The US Supreme Court even ruled that parents naturally act in their children’s best interests, both in 1979 and in 2000.) – in the same way, it is not because of law, or even social mores, that men treat women the way they do. They do it because it comes from somewhere deep within humanity.

It is very, very difficult to get men to turn on women. In the same way, it would be very difficult to get women to turn on children. The hierarchy just does not work that way. It is, however, monumentally easier to get women to turn on men. When you “transvalue” the hierarchy (place lower values higher up, and higher values lower down), working it against itself backwards works like a charm!

You can convince women to turn on men much easier than convincing men to turn on women. In the same manner, you can get children to turn on parents much easier than you can get parents to turn on their children. It’s just the way the world works.

Man < — (pushed away by) Women — > Children

That works, as we all well know. Feminists have successfully destroyed marriage and the sexes are repelling from each-other because the hierarchy is messed up. If you give women economic and legal power over their men, women will abuse it until it just becomes downright dangerous for a man to engage in this tortuous practice known as Marriage 2.0.

And, if you wanted to completely destroy parenthood, another stated goal of feminism? Why, just repeat the process that was done to destroy the bond between man and woman – namely, start giving the rights of the child more importance than the rights of the adults responsible for them.

Man < — (pushed away by) Women < — (pushed away by) Children

The same thing that happened to men and women regarding marriage will happen to parents and children if the powers that be are allowed to elevate the rights of the child to over-ride the rights of the parent.

How will you raise a child properly if sending them to their room becomes “psychological abuse,” or if with-holding their allowance is deemed “financial abuse” or if forcing them to eat their vegetables is considered some other sort of totalitarian abuse. (If I had a hammer, I’d smash vitamins!) Take note, Hillary Clinton fully believes that parents are not qualified to represent the best interests of their own children, and therefore the state ought to create a rambling bureaucracy of civil servants and lawyers to represents children independently of their parents.

This is the exact same system that divided men and women – pitting their interests against each other by dialectically manipulating the legal system. Men and women are in a parasitic type of relationship wherein the man gives of his surplus resources to the woman. Parents and children are in exactly the same type of scenario, and as has happened with men and women, when you allow the parasite to lead the host, all you end up doing is destroying is the host. Parents and children will work the same.

And I promise you, there does not have to be some grand conspiracy manipulating every law and specific aspect of what will happen next. Simply screwing up the hierarchy will suffice. When children have more authority than the parents responsible for them you will have already stuck a stick in the spokes by default. Destruction is now not only likely, but in general society it will be virtually guaranteed – just like placing the authority of women over and above the authority of the man responsible for protecting and providing for her has only led to abuse, not solutions.

”The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.” – Oscar Wilde

Children are even weaker than women! Placing the rights of the child over the rights of parents will lead to the same results – only worse! And, btw, since the destruction of marriage, who makes up the majority of parents nowadays? (Hint – They are among the testicularly challenged).

Now, often times ‘round here you will hear me refer to “The Dialectic,” and all of you know that this blog frequently refers to Marxism and how feminism is married to it. One thing however, that does not get mentioned too often here or elsewhere is that Marxism and the Dialectic does not work in a straight line. The general failure of us to realize this is why we keep getting our asses handed to us. We are playing checkers with people who are playing chess.

The way “it” works is like a zig-zag. The Marxist dialectic pushes radically to the left until a backlash builds up, and then the backlash is released in order to consolidate the gains to the left.

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

So, the way it works is that radical leftism is introduced into society – much like how No-Fault-Divorce was introduced into our society. This was a radical move that completely re-organized society’s most fundamental building block – and take note that there was no massive public outcry demanding such a thing. Society didn’t even conceive of such a thing – marriage was simply “marriage”, the way it had always been.

However, No Fault Divorce was implemented anyway and we all know the results. In the past decades we have witnessed a plethora of problems arising because of this radical change. However, this change has now taken place long ago, and the vast majority of the population does not remember, nor can even conceive, of a society where divorce was not the norm. Take note that this was not the case when No-Fault-Divorce arrived on the scene, but after a couple of generations being exposed to it, it is now considered so normal that it is hardly even conceivable to us to try and rid society of it – rather, now we simply want to alter it. (This is a classical brainwashing technique, btw – 1- “un-freeze” from current acceptance levels, 2 – Move the subject to a new level, 3 – “Re-Freeze” at the new level until the change has become normalized/accepted, 4 – Repeat the process until the proper amount of “movement” has taken place).

This is how it is done when you implement Marxism via gradualism – while Lenin did it fast and encouraged people to go along with him via threats of violence, gradualism does it by slowing things down so that people forget. If you study a little closer, you will discover that we have, indeed, spent the past forty years implementing the exact same types of social changes that Lenin did in his first four years of rule. The amount of time is the only difference. Lenin used violence within four years, and our system of Marxism is using forgetfulness/the generation gap over a longer period of time. The ultimate result is still the same, however.

So, back to the idea that “the backlash to the right consolidates the gains to the left.” What happens after a radical leftward change has occurred is of course a plethora of problems arising in society from said change. The people that are mostly affected by it are those that will push back against the radical leftism with, of course, a rightward/conservative political movement. What happens though is that the backlash movement is not one that attempts to dial back the cause but rather attempts are made to alter the results.

So, in the case of marriage in the modern day, the “backlash” is decidedly not pushing for an end to No Fault Divorce, nor are they pushing for a restoration of Full Father Custody (the way marriage was originally intended, and existed up until the 1860’s). What they are pushing for is “shared parenting.” A further aberration of the original concept of the family, and something that has never existed in history. But, the “backlash to the right” will solidify in the minds of the population that implementing No-Fault-Divorce was proper, although it needed to be tweaked a little to make it more “equal” and fair. The concept that children need two fulltime parents will also be demolished. The need for State Funded Daycare will be increased as now there will be two parents disadvantaged rather than one… and, as always, both parties will now be running to the government to beg and plead for the court to decide exactly the time, place, and even how a parent may interact with his own child (or, more accurately, her child).

Some freedom!

Wheras once parents would have run a pitchfork through any government personnel interfering with a citizen’s home-life, then covered him with oil and lit him on fire with torches in the town square, we now have both mothers and fathers running to the government to beg and plead for crumbs and scraps from the same table that the people once owned and both sides will think they are “winning” some precious equality, while being grateful to the government for providing them with something which was never the government’s in the first damn place.

This is the “totalitarian trap.” You cause as much problems and confusion in a certain area as you possibly can, and out of the confusion you will cause despair amongst the people who will then run to you and demand you “fix it,” which of course you will – but in a way that suits your purposes, not of the masses of plebes who are only there for your satisfaction anyways.

Ah yes, consolidate the gains… until the people have internalized the change, which they will if you allow a measure of backlash to appease them, and allow some time for the changes to internalize, and then begin radical movements to the left again.

One thing though, once the backlash accepts the watered-down consolation prize, they cannot easily push further because they have already been appeased! Once something like divorce has been “reorganized” to make it “more equal,” added on top of the fact that most of the population doesn’t even remember a time when divorce was not rampant in society, to take it further than the appeasement makes in nearly impossible.

Back to the beginning of this essay and the difference between “Civil Unions” and “Same Sex Marriage,” you can see why the Gay Rights community was so adamant about retaining the word “marriage” rather than using “Civil Union.” Using the word civil union would greatly hamper Gay Activists in their attempts to alter the meaning and structure of marriage – it had to retain the same name. If they would have gained under the name “civil union,” the effects upon “marriage” would have been negligible – and also, their ability to re-push the issue into society’s limelight would have been greatly diminished, because the general population would have already come to believe that Gays had been appeased, and wouldn’t want to tolerate their bullshit all over again.

It’s kind of a one shot deal.

What will Shared Parenting do to the radical changes in the structure of the family over the past decades? Will it roll back the changes or will it continue to alter the structure of the family? Will it make divorce more or less acceptable in society? Will men be able to use it as a stepping stone to further their goals, or is it an assured permanent dead-end with minimal benefits?

How can feminists and the powers that be pursue their stated goals of removing motherhood from the experience of womanhood? They certainly won’t be able to use women to do it directly out of their own self interests… but could the coupling of children’s rights to the already diminished father’s rights be used to dialectically destroy whatever remains of parenthood, and pass all authority over to the state?

The only thing that supercedes the best interests of women in our society is the best interests of the child. I hope the shared parenting movement does not get made into useful idiots, promoting further destruction of the family while believing they are preserving it. I could easily see that women will be given “equal rights” in parenting as men, given that men have virtually no rights at all.

I understand why Gays insist on calling Same Sex Unions as marriage – because they aren’t nearly done with transforming it and they know what they are doing. On the otherhand, with Shared Parenting, “defenders” of the family and fatherhood are cutting themselves off at the knees – not understanding what they are doing – as they are not willing to dialectically reframe the debate in a way that does not dead-end themselves into the Marxist web.

Previous Index Next

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

The Marxist Dialectic of The Family: Part II – Marriage 1.5 versus The Second Wave

July 25, 2013

Part I
.

.
Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970’s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic. As I pointed out in Part I of this series, this is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860’s and 1870’s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Year’s Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm, thus voiding one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place – which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society.

It’s not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates – it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century. Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970’s was not that difficult. Marilyn Monroe divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while Elizabeth Taylor had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was enacted there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to “find fault.” But let’s make no mistake, if a woman wanted a divorce she could get one. Of course, with “fault” divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual “fault” had occurred. There were many things which constituted “fault,” including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called “cruelty.”
The word cruelty was an undefined term that much resembles the word “abuse” today because almost anything could be construed as cruelty. An argument that made her cry could be deemed cruel. Not paying enough attention to her could be deemed cruel. Well, you get the idea. Just look at how many things today are classified as “abuse” which really wouldn’t be claimed as abuse anywhere else in society except in male-female relationships. Take that meaning of abuse and simply replace it with the word “cruelty” and you’ve pretty much got the spirit behind the system. Over years of having a relationship with someone else, it is pretty easy to find something that can be considered abuse or cruelty in one way or another. So, what happened in divorce cases before No-Fault Divorce was that a trial occurred to prove the husband was “cruel” and therefore, a divorce ought to be granted. This caused much dragging out of people’s dirty laundry and it was pretty much a joke. Belfort Bax referred to the “cruelty” argument for divorce as a complete sham over a century ago already, indicating that it was all about taking normal human interactions and having a lawyer twist things around to portray the husband as some heinous monster when the reality was far from it. No-Fault Divorce was really more about not making lawyers and judges into hypocrites for orchestrating such a charade and simply saying, “Give her the damn divorce already and let’s just get it over with.” Women have always gotten what they wanted from the courts when her adversary was a man. Dropping the need to prove “cruelty” simply streamlined the process and stopped making the courts look like such hypocrites.

“Prior to 1970, the law usually justified its wrecking of families on the grounds either of adultery or of “extreme cruelty.” The sexual revolution has now made adultery a right for women (“a woman’s sacred right to control her own body”); extreme cruelty was usually understood to be a legal fiction meaning no more than that one of the spouses, usually the wife, wanted out. The pretense that the husband was an extremely cruel man was in most cases sufficiently absurd that it embarrassed even judges and lawyers and it was felt necessary to “reform” divorce by perpetuating the same destruction of families under a new terminology. This is called No Fault divorce. There were label switchings. Divorce was renamed Dissolution of Marriage. The Plaintiff was renamed the Petitioner. The Defendant was renamed the Respondent. Alimony was renamed Spousal Support (the ex-wife was no longer a spouse, but calling her one “justifies” taking the man’s money). The real core of the change is that it was no longer necessary to “prove” extreme cruelty to inflict upon the husband a more severe penalty than is imposed on most low-income black male felons.” – Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p.215

As you can see, while the introduction of No-Fault Divorce certainly helped to fuel the divorce craze by streamlining the process, it was definitely not the sole cause of the break-down of the family… so, what other factors were involved?
.

.
One of those answers can be found in the present day, as our great altruistic feminist sisters attempt to “help” the women of the third world. There is a feminist propaganda advertisement that appears here in Canada on a regular basis which particularly irks me because of its blatant lying right off the bat. The feminist organization CARE put on the ad which starts off by saying something along the lines of “No-one can understand a woman’s life in the third world better than another woman anywhere in the world.” It’s such an obvious slap in the face to not only men in general, but also to bloody common-sense. They mean to tell us that a woman working at her NGO job and living in a high-rise condo in downtown Vancouver has a better ability to understand the life of an impoverished woman in the third world collecting and burning camel-dung over an open fire in her mud-hut better than her husband, sons and fellow countrymen do? It’s just bloody absurd on the face of it, so I once perused their site and here is what I found: “When a girl in the developing world receives seven years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children.” Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t particularly have a problem with girls receiving an education, but what I am pointing out is that feminists know that what they are doing is altering the conditions of the nuclear family by pushing women into the workforce where they will be directly competing with men. Of course, the same website claims that women put 90% of their income back into their families but makes no mention of the percentage of income the men put back into their families (Do the men spend 50% of their income at the local tavern and the other 50% wagering on cock-fighting in the alleyway?) Nor does it indicate what kind of families they are talking about. Do they mean husband-wife & children families, or are they discussing female & children families?

You only have to look at our recent economic crisis of 2008/09 to see what feminists consider “family.” While men lost their jobs in significantly larger numbers than women, when job recovery began to occur, feminists started complaining that men were getting re-hired in larger numbers than women. (Kinda makes sense, eh? If three times as many men lost jobs as women, a similar ratio of men ought to be re-hired during a recovery – except in femi-supremacist 50/50 land). Then, feminists tried to claim that men were receiving hiring preference because they had families to care for and complained because women had families they were providing for too! Yes indeed, but the difference is what kind of families we are talking about. A man providing for his family generally means that the man, his wife, and their children all get food put on the table whereas for the most part, when a woman provides for her family, they mean there is food on the table for the single/divorced mom and her children. There is no man being provided for in this equation. Women don’t care for men – they care for themselves and their children. A single mom “family” leaves the male out of the equation, where he starves on the street corner alone – it certainly does not lead to general economic improvement if the male gender is left to suffer in poverty separately from families. In the traditional nuclear family, men, women and children receive the benefits of the man’s labour but in the new single-mother “family,” only women and children receive benefits. The men just magically vanish to… who knows where?

The radical feminists of the Second Wave understood this as well:

“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
.
A significant factor in our culture which led to the destruction of the family was women entering the workforce en-masse in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Whereas Briffault’s Law was undermined by the Suffragettes transferring presumed Father-Custody into Mother-Custody with the Tender Years Doctrine in the 19th Century, Second Wave feminists undermined hypergamy by encouraging women to abandon their traditional roles and compete directly with men in the workplace. Previously, a woman’s standard of living significantly improved upon marriage as men were socially conditioned to work like mules to provide for their families. After the second wave arrived, women were encouraged to “have it all” and be both high-earning career chicks and brave single-mother-victims at the same time. Of course, there is nothing wrong with women aspiring to do something more than live up to traditional sex-roles, but overall in our culture, women have merely cooked the Golden Goose by insisting on pursuing their dreams and aspirations. Yes, they want a high-flying career so they have money, but they also want their work to be socially beneficial (who doesn’t?) and they also want their careers to be flexible enough to allow them plenty of time to spend with their families – not necessarily hers and her husband’s family. They had all of that in spades before Second Wave feminism appeared on the scene, but were convinced by feminists that it wasn’t good enough for them. Like greedy children, they had to have it all!

“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

“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
.

.
Second Wave feminism made no bones about their goals to destroy marriage, believing that true equality for women could not be achieved in the nuclear family. They pushed women into the workforce en-masse because they knew doing so would undermine one of the major reasons women entered into the institution of marriage in the first place – access to the husband’s paycheck along with the higher standard of living he provided. This massive entry of women into the workforce where they began directly competing with men for their traditional roles likely had far more to do with undermining marriage than the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws, which merely streamlined a trend that had been happening for a century already.

Also, the Second Wave did everything they could to destroy “the mating dance” between men and women. Men are the designated initiators in sexual relations. Women attract and men pursue. That’s just the way it is. However, just because men are the designated overt initiators does not mean that women are innocent little darlings, simply fending off multitudes of horny men at every corner. They are just as complicit in the mating dance as males.

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer”New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles’ bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization. (Note: This is similar to mating behaviour in other mammals, like rats).

Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women’s nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles’ bars, restaurants, and parties.

Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect.Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun”? Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University
.

.

.
Thus, the old saying, “He chases her until she catches him.” Kinda makes you wonder what the whole feminist campaign about “No Means No!” was about in the 1990’s, doesn’t it? Some studies have indicated that in a typical male-female sexual encounter, the woman will give off up to 150 rejections, either verbally, physically, with eye gestures, and so on, until finally saying “yes” to sexually accepting the man as a mate. Quite obviously, “no” only means no when a man says it. These types of campaigns were designed to drive to the sexes apart by monkeying with the basics of the mating dance – which women insist on perpetuating, no matter how much men get criminalized for doing what she desires in the process.

A similar thing has happened in the workplace where women once often found a husband. Today, after a plethora of sexual harassment laws being introduced into the workplace, anyone in a position of power could get into no end of trouble for trying to woo a woman who is subordinate to him – yet, women in the past often married their bosses. Remember, women are hypergamous and seek out men who are more powerful and wealthier than they are, thus, it is natural for a woman herself to be attracted to someone in a position of authority over her. But, since men are the designated initiators in the mating dance while women always hide behind plausible deniability, it is the male’s part of the dance that had to be outlawed in order to drive the sexes apart. When desiring women is outlawed, only outlaws will desire women.
.

.
The William Heatherington Spousal Rape Trial in the mid-1980’s was the final death-knell for any semblance of marriage resembling that which had existed for millenia before in our culture. Not only was this trial a complete mockery of justice but it undermined the very basis for marriage, which was a vehicle to contain human sexuality and channel it positively into something that benefited both families and society. This was the end of expecting that sexual relations were to be a part of marriage. If your wife – your lifelong mate – is no more of your expected sexual partner than a strange woman you have just met at the pub whom you have to woo and game into having “intimate relations”… then what is the point of setting up a legal framework such as marriage to contain two people’s sexuality into the institution in the first place? Keep in mind as well, like Daniel Amneus pointed out in the quote at the beginning of this article, the sexual revolution had also made adultery a “right” for women (her sacred right to control her own body). If there is no expectation of either sex for the husband, nor the expectation for sexual fidelity in marriage… then… um… what is the point of a marriage? It has been deconstructed into basically nothing at all.

The above points I have addressed in this post are but a brief synopsis of how feminism sought to undermine the institution of marriage and drive the sexes apart. There are, of course, dozens, if not hundreds of other examples that could be used, but that would also make this piece into a full dissertation rather than an article for a blog post. The points I am trying to get at here is that while No-Fault Divorce certainly had an effect on our cultural values towards marriage and family, it more or less simply streamlined a process that had been well underway for a century before. The real insidious aspects of Second Wave Feminism were more about undermining the basics of male-female attraction. Many men who are reading this are at least somewhat familiar with the principles of game and as you can see, much of what was going on was the deliberate undermining of men’s and women’s natural hetero-sexuality, making it as difficult as possible for them to get together and form unions the way they had done for centuries already in our culture and it ultimately left us with what we today call Marriage 2.0, a fraudulent contract that in no way resembles anything of marriage 1.0. Basically men who get blindsided into signing on the marital dotted line are left as virtual slaves to their wives, unattractive in any way to their spouse’s sexual desires, and without any benefit for themselves to look forward to but the peaceful slumber of death.
.
Previous Index Next

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