As things continue in their downward spiral, it is painfully clear that our leadership in America is essentially non-existent. As History bears out, civilizations lack a political response to crises and other difficulties or issues that precede a collapse, a dissipation of a society. Social norms are twisted and perverted, like in this misandrist society. Our present society is certainly no exception to the danger of dissipation, and the time of collapse draws nearer.
The only issue to me is: how long will it take? I am convinced that this civilization is either at the point of no return or extremely close to that point. Perhaps if nothing is changed, if nothing is done, the next five years will be way past too late for salvation. But perhaps we have a final chance. Things will be painful from here on out, but perhaps this society could be pulled back from the cliff it is so dangerously close to leaping off of.
Leadership in America is now thoroughly a fantasy. Politics is now only about preserving power. And really, politics is the business of maintaining and/or creating problems. After all, if politicians didn't keep problems around, why would people keep voting them back in to "solve" those problems? (Not to mention people want a free lunch as well, which vote-hungry politicians are more than eager to provide for voters.)
As cynical as I am now about the lack of leadership in America, I do see one last great hope for this country. And the name of that hope is Ron Paul. He's had two unsuccessful attempts at the presidency and is despised by the media, but he is still here. And he represents the last hope for leadership in America.
If there is any hope of putting an end to the over-bearing Big Brother, and the feminist driven misandry of society, it is him. Feminism is all about big government at the expense of weakening men and families, and as a libertarian, Dr. Paul is opposed to all of this. I have not heard Dr. Paul speak of feminism, yet by nature his libertarian way of thought is opposed to it. He is opposed to big government, so by extension, the misandrist social policies of feminism are opposed to his libertarian philosophy as well.
However, I do not think Ron Paul has a real chance at the presidency. He sticks to his values of liberty and constitutionalism unabashedly and faces the other candidates - all statists (i.e., they believe we need big government, including the feminist/misandry complex) - unflinchingly. He is unashamed to profess positions based in constitutionality, non-aggression, ethics and morality. And this makes him down right heroic in that being such a man, he can be anywhere near politics. I think these values will mean that the system will never let him near the presidency. We can easily see how the media attempts to downplay or ignore Ron Paul. But those who agree with what he is saying are strong in their support. And come next year, the people can vote in another Big Brother lover like they've done in the past, or they can elect the one who will say that we've had enough of that, and that it is time for ethics and sanity.
I am certain that either Ron Paul will be our next President, or the other guy will be the last.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
The Three Camps
When it comes to mens' ideologies, there are three camps that I observe in society. Although it is certainly possible to divide mens' ideologies into many divisions and subdivisions and factions, I observe that there are really only three essential groups. I want to discuss these here, showing the essentials and bare forms of each one.
In no particular order:
1. MGTOW
Men Going Their Own Way, just as it implies, is men doing whatever they want. This can be anything from living a life of hedonism to just trying to live a peaceful life. This is a very individualistic camp, although this is not to say that there is not lots of camaraderie as well. But the core of MGTOW is going your own way, in other words, you make your own meaning. Within moments of looking into MGTOW, you are sure to see this acronym: AWALT. It means "All Women Are Like That" and is a core piece of the MGTOW movement. It is the belief that women are the same everywhere, and that feminism is less a cultural, societal, economic result than just simply what women are regardless of anything. The way that feminized Western women are is how all women are - if given the chance. This is the belief that all women are feminists at their cores, and therefore none can be trusted. Therefore, many MGTOWs avoid women as much as possible.
Within MGTOW, I see two splinters: those who view MGTOW as a solution, and those who view it as a tactic. In the former, the goal is to avoid all women period. In the latter, the goal is to avoid feminized Western women and perhaps escape the femisphere. The latter also tends to lead into the next camp I will discuss...
2. Traditionalists - They want a stable, peaceful society that relies on traditional family values and in which qualities such as trust, honesty, and loyalty are highly valued. Just as in MGTOW, there is the despising and hatred of feminism. Unlike many MGTOW, this group does want women. Specifically, the primary traditionalist goal is to find a traditional woman to have a family with. Obviously, here in the West (the femisphere, or feminist sphere of influence) this is extraordinarily difficult if not outright impossible in most areas. Therefore, many traditionalists often turn to foreign dating, searching for a wife outside the femisphere.
There is often a focus on creating a community as well. This is considered important for personal reasons of course, but also to sustain good values, being apart from corrupt modern culture. Traditionalists have the most difficult goals in many ways because the cultural rottenness is so widespread, so it is difficult often to find many traditionalists, much less have a traditional community without the intrusion of modern culture and feminism.
3. Manginas - Not really a camp in the sense that the others are. MGTOW and Traditionalism entail things like ideological solidarity and trust. This third "camp" has neither. Manginas (a portmanteau of "man" and vagina") are mainstream Western men, essentially. They are the ones who do not see anything wrong with society, particularly the relations between the sexes, and who are thoroughly brainwashed with and accepting of feminist thinking. There is no trust among them, nor is there any reason for it. Conversely, there is an emphasis on being cutthroat with each other in order to get women. The idea of "game" for getting women is a tool for manginas. The essence of game being a man changing himself for a woman, changing (or rather, pretending to change) who and what he is in order to have access to women. Another term for mangina is "white knight," a man who will rush to a woman's defense no matter what.
This camp does not see itself as a group, but it is mainstream and it has the greatest numbers. In other words, this is the group that is all about "business as usual" inside the feminist world.
In no particular order:
1. MGTOW
Men Going Their Own Way, just as it implies, is men doing whatever they want. This can be anything from living a life of hedonism to just trying to live a peaceful life. This is a very individualistic camp, although this is not to say that there is not lots of camaraderie as well. But the core of MGTOW is going your own way, in other words, you make your own meaning. Within moments of looking into MGTOW, you are sure to see this acronym: AWALT. It means "All Women Are Like That" and is a core piece of the MGTOW movement. It is the belief that women are the same everywhere, and that feminism is less a cultural, societal, economic result than just simply what women are regardless of anything. The way that feminized Western women are is how all women are - if given the chance. This is the belief that all women are feminists at their cores, and therefore none can be trusted. Therefore, many MGTOWs avoid women as much as possible.
Within MGTOW, I see two splinters: those who view MGTOW as a solution, and those who view it as a tactic. In the former, the goal is to avoid all women period. In the latter, the goal is to avoid feminized Western women and perhaps escape the femisphere. The latter also tends to lead into the next camp I will discuss...
2. Traditionalists - They want a stable, peaceful society that relies on traditional family values and in which qualities such as trust, honesty, and loyalty are highly valued. Just as in MGTOW, there is the despising and hatred of feminism. Unlike many MGTOW, this group does want women. Specifically, the primary traditionalist goal is to find a traditional woman to have a family with. Obviously, here in the West (the femisphere, or feminist sphere of influence) this is extraordinarily difficult if not outright impossible in most areas. Therefore, many traditionalists often turn to foreign dating, searching for a wife outside the femisphere.
There is often a focus on creating a community as well. This is considered important for personal reasons of course, but also to sustain good values, being apart from corrupt modern culture. Traditionalists have the most difficult goals in many ways because the cultural rottenness is so widespread, so it is difficult often to find many traditionalists, much less have a traditional community without the intrusion of modern culture and feminism.
3. Manginas - Not really a camp in the sense that the others are. MGTOW and Traditionalism entail things like ideological solidarity and trust. This third "camp" has neither. Manginas (a portmanteau of "man" and vagina") are mainstream Western men, essentially. They are the ones who do not see anything wrong with society, particularly the relations between the sexes, and who are thoroughly brainwashed with and accepting of feminist thinking. There is no trust among them, nor is there any reason for it. Conversely, there is an emphasis on being cutthroat with each other in order to get women. The idea of "game" for getting women is a tool for manginas. The essence of game being a man changing himself for a woman, changing (or rather, pretending to change) who and what he is in order to have access to women. Another term for mangina is "white knight," a man who will rush to a woman's defense no matter what.
This camp does not see itself as a group, but it is mainstream and it has the greatest numbers. In other words, this is the group that is all about "business as usual" inside the feminist world.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Why Men's Rights Will Always Be Intertwined with Size of the Government
it's obvious to anyone who doesn't live under a rock that the tree of liberty is greatly withered and probably on its death knell if something doesn't change soon. I speak of rights and liberties in general, but the rights of men are first and foremost always at stake, whereas women in America rely upon privilige primarily. (Obviously, they have rights as well, but women in a totalitarian state can "prosper" from big government,whereas men cannot.) I use the word privilege intentionally. I once looked up the etymology of the word, finding that privilige comes from Latin words meaning "private law." Thus I am saying that big government creates privilige, women being among the primary benefactors, at least in the modern world, although in past socieites as well. That is, privilige is inherently unjust, being applied most often by the State to only certain groups. It is one thing for an individual to apply preference to a friend or family or a certain religion or philosophy; it is quite another matter entirely for the government to apply preference for certain groups. This is leads to a decay of rights. For one group to gain privilige from the government, another must be robbed of...something. This typically includes liberties and money, among other important things.
(Thus the group with privilege now votes for those so called leaders who grant more privilege to them, hence big government is the result. I'll assume that most reading this take this as a foregone conclusion.)
Therefore, men's rights are inherently intertwined with the size of the government. A big government is not to men's benefit. A healthy masculine portion cannot exist in a society in which Big Brother is, well...big. A small government doesn't have the resources to do much harm. A big government has all the resources it needs to do great harm.
And how many rights do men have in this society? Many of those rights either do not exist or are small.
Consider a man's right to defend himself. As a man, do you feel confident in your right to defend yourself if someone broke into your home? Or would you fear such a scenario because you are much more afraid of Big Brother punishing you for defending yourself?
I recall the story of Rayon McIntosh. He was the man who defended himself after being attacked by two women. Fortunately, he was cleared by a grand jury, but many in the man-o-sphere doubted this would happen, and rightfully so. Do you think mainstream society and the legal system would have had such a problem with this case if two men had attacked McIntosh instead of two women? It wouldn't have been a story. This is an excellent example of female privilege in this society. In a free and fair society, the initiation of force is a immoral regardless of who initiates it. In a saner world, it would be the violation of the principle that would be considered horrible, not the violation of privilege. No doubt many would have expected McIntosh to just take a beating, perhaps even be willing to die so that female privilege was not violated. I suspect that the two women who assaulted him were so egregious in their attack that McIntosh was eventually cleared of wrongdoing.
The other absent right I wish to speak of is the absence of men's reproductive rights. There is a severe double standard. Men's sperm is essentially regarded as not their own. It is de facto property of women. Ask yourself this, if a woman raped a man, or in some other way forcibly took his sperm, and used it to impregnate herself, birthing a child in the process.....would the man have any recourse? Would he have to pay child support? These are of course retorical questions for most reading this. It is, again, female privilege...that permits this - privilege that originates in a large government.
Lack of reproductive rights and lack of rights to defend himself are the two most egregious examples that men have virtually no rights in this society. The size of the government is inextricably connected to men's rights (or lack thereof.) If you are concerned about men's rights, you of course need to recognize the source of the problem and not the synmptoms. Even if many more like Rayon McIntosh are cleared of wrongdoing when they exercise their inalienable, inborn rights, this would only alleviate the symptoms of the problem. The problem is the system that punishes men for exercising rights.
A big government will inevitably result in a lack of men's rights. These two are not only correlated, there is causation with the large government stripping rights away. Therefore, any men's rights issue will inevitably lead to a critical eye being cast towards the state.
(Thus the group with privilege now votes for those so called leaders who grant more privilege to them, hence big government is the result. I'll assume that most reading this take this as a foregone conclusion.)
Therefore, men's rights are inherently intertwined with the size of the government. A big government is not to men's benefit. A healthy masculine portion cannot exist in a society in which Big Brother is, well...big. A small government doesn't have the resources to do much harm. A big government has all the resources it needs to do great harm.
And how many rights do men have in this society? Many of those rights either do not exist or are small.
Consider a man's right to defend himself. As a man, do you feel confident in your right to defend yourself if someone broke into your home? Or would you fear such a scenario because you are much more afraid of Big Brother punishing you for defending yourself?
I recall the story of Rayon McIntosh. He was the man who defended himself after being attacked by two women. Fortunately, he was cleared by a grand jury, but many in the man-o-sphere doubted this would happen, and rightfully so. Do you think mainstream society and the legal system would have had such a problem with this case if two men had attacked McIntosh instead of two women? It wouldn't have been a story. This is an excellent example of female privilege in this society. In a free and fair society, the initiation of force is a immoral regardless of who initiates it. In a saner world, it would be the violation of the principle that would be considered horrible, not the violation of privilege. No doubt many would have expected McIntosh to just take a beating, perhaps even be willing to die so that female privilege was not violated. I suspect that the two women who assaulted him were so egregious in their attack that McIntosh was eventually cleared of wrongdoing.
The other absent right I wish to speak of is the absence of men's reproductive rights. There is a severe double standard. Men's sperm is essentially regarded as not their own. It is de facto property of women. Ask yourself this, if a woman raped a man, or in some other way forcibly took his sperm, and used it to impregnate herself, birthing a child in the process.....would the man have any recourse? Would he have to pay child support? These are of course retorical questions for most reading this. It is, again, female privilege...that permits this - privilege that originates in a large government.
Lack of reproductive rights and lack of rights to defend himself are the two most egregious examples that men have virtually no rights in this society. The size of the government is inextricably connected to men's rights (or lack thereof.) If you are concerned about men's rights, you of course need to recognize the source of the problem and not the synmptoms. Even if many more like Rayon McIntosh are cleared of wrongdoing when they exercise their inalienable, inborn rights, this would only alleviate the symptoms of the problem. The problem is the system that punishes men for exercising rights.
A big government will inevitably result in a lack of men's rights. These two are not only correlated, there is causation with the large government stripping rights away. Therefore, any men's rights issue will inevitably lead to a critical eye being cast towards the state.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The Coming Collapse of the Economy, Misandry, and Feminism
Civilizations have a period when they rise followed by a period when they collapse. This is true for ancient civilizations, but also true for the modern world. The height of a civilization is often considered in terms of its economy. This includes the value of its money, the amount of resources the civilization can produce and utilize, how much the civilization can trade, what it produces, and so on. Looking back to a civilization like the Roman Empire, it is easy to see a rise and fall. A bad economy precedes a fall. There is nothing coincidental about this. The modern day United States is currently going through what I think are the initial stages of collapse. Economic troubles have been with us for a while; I think they will be with us until the end of our civilization.
There are two aspects I want to focus on in this article: collapse from economic reasons and collapse from cultural reasons. The collapse of the economy, misandry, and feminism will be economic and cultural.
Something that has been in the news lately is the need for the U.S. government to cut spending. One of the biggest culprits for government spending is social programs, i.e., welfare and entitlement spending. Indeed, the government cannot continue borrowing and spending forever. One obvious idea is to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. Although I do not believe the debt can ever be paid off, cutting spending (and not increasing debt) would keep us afloat for a while. If not, collapse will hit faster. However, many people do not want spending for social programs to be cut. Even minor proposed cuts are frowned upon. The U.S. government borrows money (aka being in debt) and spends like crazy. And it has no desire to cut back on either of these things. One (horrible) solution is to print money more and more to keep things afloat. This will lead to inflation, meaning money is worth less. (And it already is worth less because it is not backed up by anything real, i.e., precious metals or resources.) This is currently being done. Eventually, the system will collapse from this, if this is continued. It doesn't work for a loaf of bread to cost a $1000.
And this is a good starting point because many of those social programs have to do with feminism. In other words, this is an economic "issue" because of something cultural. Part of the reason the U.S. will not cut spending and pay off debt is to maintain its social programs and policies. You can probably think of so many programs for women, brought about by feminist lobbying and policy-making. And welfare and other entitlements (much of which goes to single moms who have broken apart families.)
And it isn't a matter of not being able to cut; it is a matter of refusing to cut. Voters vote in politicians who will give them entitlements. So politicians don't want to cut because they would be voted out for someone who will keep granting entitlements. So the political aspect is part of the collapse too, which I will classify under cultural reasons.
The United States used to (before feminism) have a strong patriarchal society, strong family structure, and was a producer of useful goods and services, which made it a strong economy. Employment and opportunity abounded. Of course, much has changed over the last couple hundred or so years. The U.S. did become industrialized and this contributed to our current problems. This meant that we would eventually use up the resources of this land, that traditional society would breakdown, and that various social maladies would arise, like consumerism and isolation. Not to mention feminism, which greatly harmed the economy, as well as social mores and family structure. Before feminism, there were fewer entitlements. Families stayed together much more often. Divorce was not granted for bullshit reasons like it is now. So people were able to take care of each other much better. Women tended to stay home and care for the children and home. This helped the common man because there were more jobs to go around. After feminism, women had to work. They had no choice. Once enough women started to work, prices were raised because it was recognized that households were having two incomes. Once families were broken apart, more money and resources were required to keep up a "family." (Not to mention the legal system benefited tremendously with the breakdown of family structure.) So feminism added tons of strain to the economic system without any real benefit to the economy. Unless you are the government or a large company. Then you reap benefits by extracting more resources. And extract them from who? Ah! Men of course. Misandry, feminism, and the economy go together so well, don't they?
Our industry has largely left our land and moved overseas. The U.S. produces relatively few useful goods. It is largely a services economy (general services and financial.) The family structure has been made a joke: divorce rates and one-parent "families" (read: single mom led households) are ubiquitous. Ideas like strong marriages and fidelity have been ridiculed and largely done away with. Natural resources (primarily fossil fuels) have peaked in production, meaning that prices will rise and supply diminishes and demand rises. Unemployment is high and will climb. Most of the good things about America are either dead or dying.
All of these things happen together, and I think all of these inter-connected. Now, I do not think industrial civilization could be sustained forever. Resources on earth are finite, and the expansion and maintenance of it would require an infinte amount. That said, I think cultures can be sustained indefinitely. (After all, there were successful cultures long before industrialization - ones with strong family structure, values, etc.) However, the modern day U.S. is very weak socially. I think much of the blame for this belongs to feminism and misandry. Although I would class the U.S. as a successful culture at one time, I no longer think it is. As a result, it is committed to an unchangeable course which will culminate in collapse. It will be depleted of resources, of social values, of family structure, of wealth in general. And once the tipping point is reached, it will be too late. I think we are almost to that point.
It's entirely possible to prevent the coming collapse. It always has been. But the system (including but not limited to feminism, misandry, the legal system, government, greed, politics, and plain bad decision making) has made an economic salvation extremely difficult. We might as well say it is impossible now. If you are a man in Western society, why should you care to try to save or change anything? Society is clear that it wants to use you, and hates you for your gender. If you're one of the many young women, why would you want to change anything? You're benefitting! So there is no one, no group, no plan...to save us. The collapse is coming and society has resigned itself to letting the train speed over the cliff instead of trying to stop the train before it is too late.
There are two aspects I want to focus on in this article: collapse from economic reasons and collapse from cultural reasons. The collapse of the economy, misandry, and feminism will be economic and cultural.
Something that has been in the news lately is the need for the U.S. government to cut spending. One of the biggest culprits for government spending is social programs, i.e., welfare and entitlement spending. Indeed, the government cannot continue borrowing and spending forever. One obvious idea is to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. Although I do not believe the debt can ever be paid off, cutting spending (and not increasing debt) would keep us afloat for a while. If not, collapse will hit faster. However, many people do not want spending for social programs to be cut. Even minor proposed cuts are frowned upon. The U.S. government borrows money (aka being in debt) and spends like crazy. And it has no desire to cut back on either of these things. One (horrible) solution is to print money more and more to keep things afloat. This will lead to inflation, meaning money is worth less. (And it already is worth less because it is not backed up by anything real, i.e., precious metals or resources.) This is currently being done. Eventually, the system will collapse from this, if this is continued. It doesn't work for a loaf of bread to cost a $1000.
And this is a good starting point because many of those social programs have to do with feminism. In other words, this is an economic "issue" because of something cultural. Part of the reason the U.S. will not cut spending and pay off debt is to maintain its social programs and policies. You can probably think of so many programs for women, brought about by feminist lobbying and policy-making. And welfare and other entitlements (much of which goes to single moms who have broken apart families.)
And it isn't a matter of not being able to cut; it is a matter of refusing to cut. Voters vote in politicians who will give them entitlements. So politicians don't want to cut because they would be voted out for someone who will keep granting entitlements. So the political aspect is part of the collapse too, which I will classify under cultural reasons.
The United States used to (before feminism) have a strong patriarchal society, strong family structure, and was a producer of useful goods and services, which made it a strong economy. Employment and opportunity abounded. Of course, much has changed over the last couple hundred or so years. The U.S. did become industrialized and this contributed to our current problems. This meant that we would eventually use up the resources of this land, that traditional society would breakdown, and that various social maladies would arise, like consumerism and isolation. Not to mention feminism, which greatly harmed the economy, as well as social mores and family structure. Before feminism, there were fewer entitlements. Families stayed together much more often. Divorce was not granted for bullshit reasons like it is now. So people were able to take care of each other much better. Women tended to stay home and care for the children and home. This helped the common man because there were more jobs to go around. After feminism, women had to work. They had no choice. Once enough women started to work, prices were raised because it was recognized that households were having two incomes. Once families were broken apart, more money and resources were required to keep up a "family." (Not to mention the legal system benefited tremendously with the breakdown of family structure.) So feminism added tons of strain to the economic system without any real benefit to the economy. Unless you are the government or a large company. Then you reap benefits by extracting more resources. And extract them from who? Ah! Men of course. Misandry, feminism, and the economy go together so well, don't they?
Our industry has largely left our land and moved overseas. The U.S. produces relatively few useful goods. It is largely a services economy (general services and financial.) The family structure has been made a joke: divorce rates and one-parent "families" (read: single mom led households) are ubiquitous. Ideas like strong marriages and fidelity have been ridiculed and largely done away with. Natural resources (primarily fossil fuels) have peaked in production, meaning that prices will rise and supply diminishes and demand rises. Unemployment is high and will climb. Most of the good things about America are either dead or dying.
All of these things happen together, and I think all of these inter-connected. Now, I do not think industrial civilization could be sustained forever. Resources on earth are finite, and the expansion and maintenance of it would require an infinte amount. That said, I think cultures can be sustained indefinitely. (After all, there were successful cultures long before industrialization - ones with strong family structure, values, etc.) However, the modern day U.S. is very weak socially. I think much of the blame for this belongs to feminism and misandry. Although I would class the U.S. as a successful culture at one time, I no longer think it is. As a result, it is committed to an unchangeable course which will culminate in collapse. It will be depleted of resources, of social values, of family structure, of wealth in general. And once the tipping point is reached, it will be too late. I think we are almost to that point.
It's entirely possible to prevent the coming collapse. It always has been. But the system (including but not limited to feminism, misandry, the legal system, government, greed, politics, and plain bad decision making) has made an economic salvation extremely difficult. We might as well say it is impossible now. If you are a man in Western society, why should you care to try to save or change anything? Society is clear that it wants to use you, and hates you for your gender. If you're one of the many young women, why would you want to change anything? You're benefitting! So there is no one, no group, no plan...to save us. The collapse is coming and society has resigned itself to letting the train speed over the cliff instead of trying to stop the train before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)