Sunday, October 14, 2012

Symantec (SYMC - NASDAQ) Downgraded to "Sell"

Symantec, the producer of Norton AntiVirus, has recently broken out of its longtime downward trend of lower highs and lower lows, a pattern it has repeated since it's all-time high of the low $30's which was reached all the way back in the end of 2004. Since then, Symantec has achieved the stock price of $24 only twice, once in early 2005 and now again in March of 2013. It's time to take profits from this dead horse of a company before the euphoria wears off and it plunges back into the basement, where it seems much more comfortable existing.
.
.
When looking at the five year chart, it is easy to see that Symantec has consistently had an average valuation of around $16, on a chart that is far too erratic between its highs and lows to reliably declare it has been "basing" and is ready for a major break-out. Today, Symantec is trading at a 50% premium to this average of its five year trading range, and smart investors might want to consider taking profits before it plummets and disappoints investors once more, as it has shown a repeated tendency to do.
.
.
Furthermore, it appears that Symantec has been experiencing somewhat of a public relations problem recently, as it has forayed into the non-profit-generating business of dictating political correctness to the lesser plebes - their customers, even going so far as to start declaring certain websites as "hate sites" and banning access to them. Now, you might think that by "hate" we are talking about Nazis and skinheads, but we are not. We are talking about people who make up slightly less than half the world's population: Men. At last count, there were some 58 websites censored by Norton AntiVirus concerning men's issues ranging from divorce and custody laws to domestic violence to prostate cancer to discussing the relentless government funded drive by professional feminists to demonize and marginalize men in our society.

They don't, however, classify any feminist sites as "hate" even though many of them actually do call for physical violence, or even death, towards males. Perhaps it is simply because the works of feminists like the following are still taught in academia that they feel these sorts of things are not hate, while the act of opposing them is:

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female 

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)

Keep in mind, these are women who have made fortunes either through their books or through their bloated tenured incomes at universities all across Western Civilization. (If you would like to read more of them, click here.) However, the good men of the world who stand up to this sort of lunacy, for no pay, are labelled as "haters." I have read one (unconfirmed) report that the word "anti-feminist" is classified as "hate." Go figure!

But, regardless of whether you support feminists' hatred of men ("For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men." -- Wendy Dennis), or whether you support men's right to speak out against this ideology without being labelled a "hate site," the problem with a company like Symantec's political correctness goes much, much deeper than simply defaming men and their websites on the internet like a typical cyber-bully would. Oh no, dear investor. It gets much, much worse! These kinds of politically correct policies cost you money!

Take, for example, a company such as Wal-Mart, which was recently in a high profiled court case where it was alleged there was systemic discrimination against women in their organization. They nearly won in front of the Supreme Court too, except it was thrown back to some lower courts, I believe because they couldn't prove discrimination was "systemic" but rather only individual.

What you, as an investor, should be doing in these cases is "reading between the lines," because when the Mainstream Media and companies like Symantec toe the politically correct line, they blatantly hinder you from becoming informed of the Truth and making your decisions accordingly. 

With Wal-Mart, the women were complaining that it wasn't fair that, since they were women, they could not work 70hrs a week like the men, nor could they move to undesirable locations like Anchorage, AK for five years in order to advance their careers as the men were able to, because as women, they also had children and other family to take care of. Well, this may be so, or it may not be. Quite frankly, I don't really care because as an investor, my goal is to make money with my investments, not to promote a social agenda. After I make money with my investments, I will take my profits and decide to whom my charitable dollars will be directed, as it should be. As an investor, I want the companies I own to concentrate on making money. That is their sole purpose on this earth. If the CEO wants to give his own money to the Tuktoyaktuk Polar Bear and Walrus reserve, that is his business.

But, it is companies such as Symantec who try to silence people through the label of "hate" so that you don't get all the facts. It is bad enough when the Mainstream Media believes that covering the Wal-Mart story in an unbiased manner means interviewing a feminist from the East Coast and another feminist from the West Coast, but when companies like Symantec try to squelch the noise from "hateful" people opposing such blatant biased reporting, you might never hear a headline like this:

"Court Rules that Wal-Mart Must Replace Top-Notch Management With Mediocre Employees. Longterm Outlook for Stock Valuations Appears Grim!"

I mean, after all, if you are going to take people who work 70hrs a week and replace them with people who only work 40hrs a week, you can pretty much count on management being 57% as effective as before, and you would unload that company from your portfolio in a big hurry. So... why doesn't this kind of stuff get debated more in the public sphere? It's because of the kind of politically correct censorship Symantec (as well as others) use without a second thought.
.
.
But it gets even worse, because companies like Symantec, despite their politically correct posturing, don't even actually practice what they preach. For example, at the Symantec website, under Corporate Responsibility, they have a program called "Science Buddies":

"Science Buddies is dedicated to helping girls develop and maintain an interest in STEM learning.  In fact, 55% of Science Buddies' student-users are girls.  Science Buddies' project ideas and activities help girls to innovate, imagine, build, tinker, solve problems, and make things.

In addition, our organization helps to publicize and promote events and initiatives that encourage young female scientists and engineers, such as Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day, to our audience of 15 million teachers, students, and parents."

(What they do for the 45% that are boys, I have no idea. I guess they just don't matter as much.)

Yet, when one wanders over to their Management Team, you can see that only 2 out of 16 executives are women, and of their Board of Directors, you will find that only 1 out of 8 are female, or, a mere 12.5% of high level employees are women. Hey... wait a minute here... don't women make up over 50% of the population?
.
Oh! The Misogyny of the Old Boys Club at Symantec!
.
They are quite clearly, according to every feminist on the planet, part of a Patriarchal Culture that discriminates against women! I would like to see those in power at Symantec explain how they have not done so without engaging in the sort of misogynistic "hate" they so quickly label others with - others from their own customer base!
.
.
Now, they may claim the reason they are promoting the "Science Buddies" program for girls is to get more women into those positions in the future, which assumes that in the past girls did want to have these jobs but there were some big, evil men hiding behind the door who wouldn't let them in. Right? It couldn't be that women aren't attracted to the STEM subjects to the same degree as men, could it? I mean, if girls already make up over 60% of all college degrees, the only reason they don't make it in the STEM subjects must be because of the hateful people who ought to have their websites labelled and defamed! STEM subjects are the only area of academia that is not completely dominated by females. I mean, really now. Is it so bad that boys excel in one area, while leaving the rest to girls' own choices, of which STEM subjects don't appear to be high priority?  But they are right, just as in our school system, if you want more girls to succeed, the best way is to direct all resources towards girls and none towards boys. I mean, how unfair that boys could be allowed to dominate in one single field besides ditch-digging and other various jobs women wouldn't touch with a barge pole - you know, the ones that result in over 90% of workplace injuries and deaths landing on the backs of men. I don't hear the feminists, nor Symantec, advocating for Title IX participation in that area of the labour force, do you?

But, what does the management of Symantec and other large companies such as The Royal Bank of Canada, or Bell Media, actually think is going to happen to them in the future? Referring back to our failed lawsuit against Wal-Mart example, suppose that the goal at Symantec is to have those female employees who only put in 57% of the effort become represented in equal proportion to the men in executive and board positions... then just where, exactly, are those men supposed to go? The men who would work 70hrs a week would be fools to keep working like that if women could work only 40hrs a week and achieve the same promotions and pay. So, where, exactly, are all these displaced men supposed to go? Obviously, women only want to work in "nice conditions." They are screeching for corporate and government support only to make themselves represented in larger numbers in "nice" jobs such as doctor, lawyer, teacher, or anything else with prestige, an air-conditioned office, and plenty of other girls to gab and gossip with. They certainly aren't clamoring for jobs as garbage collectors or farm labourers, are they?

So, while Symantec and other corporations try to show the world how "socially responsible" they are in this "equal" nation we live in, what they are actually doing is bringing back an aristocratic class structure to society - something that America has gladly shed from European history. After all, if women only go for the cush jobs, and they get aided to the tune of billions by smug corporations trying to appear politically correct, and further enforced into those positions by the law - such as is the case in Norway where 40% of corporate boards must be female... then it is only simple math to see that women will dominate all of the good, high-paying jobs (often without merit), while the men will be far over-represented in all of the crappy jobs that women simply won't do. Talk about bringing social and class stratification back into society! Women: Upper Class Merchants and Nobles. Men: Lower Class Peasants and Scum.

And this doesn't even get into the troubles that hypergamy brings into the equation. Women "marry up," but rarely downward in social status - thus nurses marry doctors, secretaries marry lawyers, factory labourers marry waitresses... but very, very rarely does a female doctor (or executive at Symantec) marry a garbage collector or one of those "icky" auto mechanics. Way to destroy marriage, and the stable society that marriage creates, you socially responsible people at Symantec! What do you think happens to a country when there are large amounts of men, unattached to families, and with no good job prospects? Ever heard of the Middle East or the Arab Spring? Do you understand why, in those above feminist quotes, they want the number of men reduced to 10%?

Perhaps its best for Symantec to leave their moralizing out of the workplace where it not only affects their performance, but also their market value - and thus, their investor's profits. Make your investors money, like you are supposed to, and let your investors decide what to moralize about or be charitable towards.

What Symantec ought to do is hire a guy like the CEO of Cypress, T.J. Rodgers, who in 1996 responded to a nun about the immorality of political correctness in corporations. It's well worth the read - especially for those who work at Symantec.   

Disclaimer: The author of this article is not a professional investment adviser and the above information is not for trading purposes, but for entertainment only. Do your own due diligence and trade at your own risk. 


Is Symantec Anti-American?

Symantec and Censorship 

"According to this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, Chief Operating Officer of Symantec, John Schwarz, was quoted as “calling for laws to make it a criminal offense to share information and tools online which could be used by malicious hackers and virus writers”. If this is the official stance from Symantec, then I must say I am convinced John Schwarz is smoking crack. Our country has a history of censorship blunders and what I call “censorship legislation” that has mucked up our legal system long enough and crippled the responsible citizens with little-to-no effect on actual crime. What’s even scarier is that a VP from Symantec was recently named the Dept. of Homeland Defense’s Cybersecurity director, putting friends of Symantec in high places where this legislation could actually become a reality. This short article will take a look at the negative effects of the censorship legislation backed by the COO of Symantec and also a couple of recent examples of “censorship legislation” … and what little effect it has had on criminals, while having a substantial effect on responsible citizens. I can only draw one of two conclusions about Mr. Schwarz based on this stance. In my opinion, he is either completely ignorant of the effects of this type of legislation, or he is an avid supporter of weakening American infrastructure, American jobs, and the US Constitution."

---

Symantec's Censorship of the Gun Debate

"Regardless of one's stance on this issue, it is intellectually dishonest to filter sites interpreting the Second Amendment as an individual right or those discussing the advantages and disadvantages of gun control policies, on the grounds that it might avoid future school shootings, or just as absurdly, that these sites in any way encourage kids to 'hose down' schools. Such associations are logical fallacies."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One little mistake -- like failing to sign the certificate when you push out a patch for your antivirus product -- and all of a sudden you're a malware-producing, censoring spam bot. That's how it seemed for Symantec when an error spun wildly out of control.

...Symantec began deleting posts on the forum, and users began accusing it of censoring free speech and coming up with conspiracy theories.

Censorship? What censorship, asks Mark Parker, senior product manager at antivirus vendor Marshal8e6. "You are told these forums are moderated when you sign up for them," he told TechNewsWorld.

... Symantec began deleting posts in the Norton Users Forum because they were abusing the forum's terms of service, Symantec staff member Dave Cole said. "Within the first hour there were 600 new posts on this subject alone," he said.

---

Symantec/Norton Censorship 

It appears that Symantec/Norton is up to their old tricks again

Censoring any person be it a paying customer or not, that asks them a direct viable question on their forums relating to one of their most recent blunders, the release of their Update V.16.5.0.134 & V.16.5.0.135.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Symantec Supports Chinese Web Censorship

Summary: Symantec's Norton AntiVirus product has blacklisted a piece of software which enables users in China to access websites which are blocked by order of the government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lol! Now here's a real hate-site!

Why Do People HATE Symantec?

"They flagged my website as dangerous and try to persuade me to buy their worthless products in exchange for whitelisting."

"It has crap antivirus software. It does more harm than good. Lot of False positives. Something called SONAR is a joke. Keep away from this software"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Problems with Norton Internet Security?
.

Problems with Norton Internet Security?

Pinched from Angry Harry 
.
Problems with Norton Internet Security? 
.
.
It must have been about 13 years ago when I first underwent the horrors that Norton Internet Security inflicted upon me.

It crashed my computer endlessly, slowed it down to a snail's pace - with the hard drive whirring away for minutes at a time - and my download speeds on the internet were continually abysmal.
.
This went on for about three months.

At the time, I had no idea that Norton Internet Security was the source of all my woes.

I thought that it was either my browser or one of my programs that was messing things up or, worse, that my computer was infected with some awful virus.

These problems went on for weeks.

Then I came across someone writing in a forum about how his computer had gradually ground to a halt over a period of weeks and that his anti-virus software - Norton Internet Security - was the culprit.

I decided to follow his advice and uninstall Norton Internet Security and, like magic, my computer was completely transformed. It was back to its whizzing self.

I was so traumatised by the whole ordeal - constantly losing data and losing, literally, days' worth of time and effort, that I did not install any anti-virus software for about three years! - until I got a new computer.
.
And despite the fact that I surfed the internet for many hours every week, not once did I have any problems caused by viruses or malware.

With my new computer, I installed a product called Zone Alarm, which worked really well.

I seem to remember that it cost about $20 per year, and I never had any problems with it.

About three years later, I stumbled across a product called AVG which had very good reviews. And it was free!

So I gave it a try, and I have been using it without problems ever since.

Well, it seems that Norton Internet Security is still causing terrible problems to users judging by the thousands of horror stories that seem to be all over the internet, and so my advice is to avoid it like the plague.

Here are some recent examples of comments from all over the place, ...

I upgraded to 2013 on a machine where 2012 had some problems hoping that the new version would have fixed them but actually I think I am having even more problems...

...

DON'T WASTE UR TIME OR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I have had norton for 2 years now and purchased the 2013 NIS. It keeps freezing my computer which I never had a problem with. It just stopped working had to uninstall and reinstall. It messed up my dvd drive everytime I uninstalled it I had to run fix it to get it back

...

After installing it I decided to run a full scan. While it was running I had to run an errand. When I got back, I went to check the scan and it didn't even scan 9,000 items, and the scanner was just "hanging there." Not doing nothing. So, I went to stop the scan, and it wouldn't close. It just kept hanging. I tried closing the whole Norton screen by right clicking on the task bar to shut it down, but still it wouldn't.

...
 
I can't put up with the lack of help and customer support anymore.

...

Please be aware that I hate Norton with a passion, and am taking the time to worn unsuspecting people. Symantec who makes Norton is a greedy company that Doesn't care about their consumers.

...

Speaking to the amiable back office people in India and I discovered the data was lost permanently with no chance of ever recovering it

...

After a total of five hours of trying, I gave up and installed the cable company's free software (a version of McAfee); it installed and worked fine.

...

I will NEVER purchase another Norton product. I installed NIS 2013 shortly after upgrading to Windows 8. NIS 2013 simply doesn't work with Windows 8. I started having problems downloading emails, then problems installing program/app updates.

...

...

In conclusion, save yourself a lot of grief, time, and money and go with another competitor's product.

...

Actual viruses are less harmful to your computer than this garbage.

...

1) Norton disconnected my WIFI connection treating it as a threat. I no longer have WIFI and can't re-establish it without removing NIS, which I am doing. 
.
2) It inactivated my Canon camera software stored on my computer's hard drive. 
.
3) It affected another driver, which one I am not sure...I am now receiving Windows messages asking me if Windows should try to restore a disabled driver. 
.
4) It has significantly slowed down the loading of Websites.

5) When I try to run a full scan using NIS, it stalls for at least a minute before the actual scan begins. 
.
6) My computer comes to a stand still or becomes sluggish when NIS is running some updates. ...
.
Stay away from NIS 2013; it is buggy and therefore Norton is trying to unload it from their inventory by selling it for $25. It's totally invasive to your computer system.
,
...

Horrible!!! Removed itself for no reason and crashed both computers! 

... 

DO NOT BUY ANY NORTON PRODUCT. NORTON SUCKED A DECADE AGO, AND HASNT CHANGED.
...

NIS 2013 nearly ruined my windows 7 laptop.
...

It slowed my computer WAY down - actually it froze many apps. I could not use my Google Chrome with it, and ended up "uninstalling" it after 2 days .
...

Couldn't get it to work on my laptop. When you loaded it on the internert wouldnt work. When you removed norton the internet worked!. Just downloaded microsoft security for free and everythings fine now.
...

As soon as i installed it, Norton anti virus 2012 slowed down my computer and internet so much that it was a total joke... then the kick in the teeth came when i uninstalled Norton and for some reason the uninstall removed all device drivers and crippled my PC!!!!!!! SAVE YOURSELF DAYS OF TROUBLE by NOT buying this total joke of a so called software.... more like MALWARE!!!!
...

The worst problem of all is that it takes an inordinate amount of time to reach a useable desktop.
...

Upggrading to 2013 just lost all but six of my logins out of 90 and a bunch of confidential notes. I cannot believe how amateurish the algorithm must be to allow such a thing to happen. The upgrade does not make a safety backup and so the failed migration has in effect cost me an incalculable loss of confidential data. AVOID IT at all costs and get another brand
.
...
.
What was Symantec thinking by releasing this piece of garbage??
.
...
.
How to Uninstall Norton Internet Security
.
Type "Uninstalling Norton Internet Security" into Google and you will see thousands of Norton users wanting to uninstall Norton Internet Security in order to protect their computers and their sanity.
.
Indeed, the product is so bad that some companies out there are actually offering a service to help users with their problems with Norton Internet Security.
.
Here, for example, you can get help with Norton Internet Security for £109 per year! ...
.
..
Link
.
Unbelievable, isn't it?
.
Take my advice. If you want proper protection for your computer, go for AVG or Kapersky.
.
You will likely save yourself a mountain of headaches and hours and hours of frustration.
.
It's bad enough when you buy a product that just doesn't work properly, and so you have to send it back.
.
But when a product actually messes up your computer and/or destroys mountains of your data and documents, then I think that you should be entitled to compensation; not only for your loss, but also for your time.
.
Indeed, if you bought any other product that caused you such damage, you would, indeed, be entitled to some compensation.
.
So why should we allow companies like Symantec to avoid their liability for causing significant losses to their customers?
.
Finally, not everyone has problems with Norton Internet Security, but a very large percentage - about 20% - appear to have terrible problems with it - problems which gradually get worse as the months go by.
.
So my advice is to uninstall it if it is pre-installed on your new machine as a trial version, and go for some better product.
.
Indeed, the only reason that Norton Internet Security is often pre-installed on new machines is because computer manufacturers get good money from Norton for doing this.
.
So, be warned!

On Women Pursuing Their Dreams and Aspirations

.
.   THE MASCULINE PRINCIPLE   .NOTICE: This article has been updated and moved to The Masculine Principle. Please click here to read the new version or scroll down to continue reading in the old format.
.

***




A FEMALE WRITES: "As long as mothers and/or wives don’t allow their careers to consume their lives and interfere with their God-given duties, then I don’t see a problem. Women have their own aspirations and dreams as well just like men (and no I don’t believe that the only reason people have careers is to make money)."
.
I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their dreams and aspirations.

Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.

One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community (who doesn’t, by the way?), as well as needing "flex-time" in order to meet the needs of their families. Women will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.

Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.

But look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).
.
.
A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!

And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?

Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets, to boot!

And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work full-time jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances, while their kids are raised by strangers-for-pay.

Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.

---

QUOTE #2, A MAN: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.

Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.

If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."

No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves or their own sex.

Also, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was often done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.

But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of society – including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door. Also, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.

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

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Truth, Truth, Truth... What is The Truth?

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 peg 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 totalitarian governments):

“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 the 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 in 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 eyes… 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 time-frame, “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 truth.

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

Perhaps it will be that we convince ourselves that refraining from sexual monogamy is silly - that this religion thingy 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 weren’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 necessary 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, 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 – which 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). But how you can you pin an objective truth to anything unless there is an Absolute to pin it to?

By the way, I have sometimes philosophized if an 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” which 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 surprise us and show us 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).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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


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

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Rising Up from Being Beasts of the Field

.

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." Animals have emotions. Ever separate a cow from its calf? Ever seen a dog wag its tail when it sees its owner?

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

MGTOW
....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Men, Religion, and Morality


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 Jedi Knights, 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, and is just one example amongst dozens of mysteries regarding the ancients' knowledge.

The religion debate is interesting, because it is about Absolute Truth 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
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................

Friday, September 14, 2012

The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth

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 significant!).

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

"...while I was still searching but not finding - I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." -- Ecclesiastes 7:28

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
.

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

Friday, September 07, 2012

Feminine-ism: The "Nicest" Ideology in the World

“Feminine-ism” is a manifestation of the “feminine spirit” or, the “feminine principle.” Often we refer to “the totalitarianism of women,” and really what it is is the feminine principle which is trying to impose niceness on us. This is the underlying evil of the feminine principle. Women have no concept of cause and effect, but they do want everyone to be nice and they are willing to use totalitarianism to force it upon you.

“Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. … Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as ‘macho,’ a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. … Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women.” -- Fred Reed

Look at the Temperance Movement that arose at the exact same time as women’s political power starting coming into our culture. Ah, Prohibition! Some men (and even a few women, gasp!) are lousy with hooch, and some families are negatively affected by it. Therefore the government should pass totalitarian laws forcing everyone to be nice and sober all the time. Of course, this led to the rise of wonderful citizens such as the mass-murdering Al Capone and his mirror image, the thugs with guns that enforced the laws at women’s insistence. But as always, everything women do is indirect so when their totalitarian actions caused a massive disaster, women easily side-stepped the blame and said, “See! It is the evil men who are the criminals, and it's the violent thugs with guns that leave other men bleeding in the gutters. Oh my, we are such victims now, we can hardly walk the streets! Pass more laws to make everyone nicer!" It's a dangerous spiral that “seems nice” on the surface, but quickly turns into an ugly totalitarian monster where the only “safe” and “nice” thing to do is sit at home and watch the ceiling fan go round and round – until, that is, women start talking about how it would be “nice” for the environment if we only have electricity for 3hrs a day, and so they pester and badger men to impose more laws upon society to make everyone “nice” in that regard too.

There are no limits to how much “niceness” women will impose upon others. The one thing women have actually invented is a quite remarkable perpetual motion machine which creates laws imposing niceness forever and ever.

Women view us as little boys and they want us to play nice. If we don’t play nice for them, they have lost control… because men don’t play nice at women’s insistence. Men might play nice for their own reasons, but never at a women’s insistence. Boys succumb to mother's power but men realize the true nature of women and that the “unfair sex” can’t keep two thoughts straight in their head past the next glittering trinket that distracts them, completely clearing their heads of whatever thoughts someone falsely deduced were actually in there to begin with. Women have power over little boys – watch a woman looking over her brood and how she gets them to “play nice.” She exercises her power over them to impose “nice” on them, and if they aren’t nice… “Wait till your father gets home!” – More indirect social aggression, with the intention of imposing “nice” on people – through the force of others.

The males of Western Culture are suffering from a form of arrested development because of the overwhelming feminization of our society. Women don’t think they should let males grow out of boyhood (where women are in 100% control of them) and into men because women have zero control over a man. And despite their protests to the contrary, they get extremely aroused when in the presence of a man - someone they can’t control because he has risen above her petty bullshit in the same way that an adult rises above the pettiness of a child.

Look at everything that feminine-ism has imposed upon society:

- No more grades in school, because failing is not “nice.”
- No more keeping score in schoolyard soccer games, because losing isn’t “nice.”
- No more boys playing with finger-guns, because that is not “nice.”
- No more women having to raise their bastard spawn alone, because it isn’t “nice” of men to make her pay for her mistakes, erm, right to choose, like a real adult.
- No offensive language in the workplace since that isn’t “nice” either.
- No boss demanding she work a full day for her pay, rather than “flex-timing” at his expense – because it would be “nice” for him to think of the children, rather than keeping his business afloat (and providing jobs for others).
- No men hitting on them that they don’t like, because they don’t find it a “nice” experience.
- Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice.

Eventually, everything which is not forbidden will be mandatory. That is the end result of feminine-ism.

Hmmph! No more Mr. Nice-Guy! It's what both society, and women, desperately need. 

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

Further Reading:

Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?

The War Against Men – by David Shackleton

Thursday, August 30, 2012

What's In a Name? Civil Unions and Shared Parenting

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

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

Have you ever asked yourself “why”?

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

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

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

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

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

There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at the urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being that feminists entire raison d'ĂȘtre 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?

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.” -- Hitlery 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) Woman --> 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) Woman <-- (pushed away by) Children. . This will work in the same way that men and women have been separated. Mainly, men are avoiding women because women’s rights have made women into monstrous tyrants, while leaving men with little recourse to deal with the situation except to avoid women entirely. There simply is no way that a man can marry a woman and trust that she won’t screw him over, or that he can trust that the court has any inclination to preserve justice in the situation, and so, men are wisely opting out from a rigged game.

And 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 both organisms. 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 give 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.

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