Whirlwind

A Royal Accelerating Whirlwind

In as much as it may be a sunny day, and the pleasure expected by such good fortune can go awry, we expect a good outcome. Violent weather however can suggest a threat of calamity, harsh winds heavy rain a falling tree can spell doom. In fact how many of us have seen a falling tree in harsh weather? Likely very few given the fact that urban living really doesn’t include very many old standing tree’s, which would be the most vulnerable in such weather. The notions of pleasure and doom that we attach to weather are aeon’s old and less applicable today, yet they survive. We truly seem to know very little when it comes to the information that feeds our intuitions, where it comes from and how it’s composed.

Having read the piece submitted by Cyclotron Majesty, I immediately realized the thickness of context and that many reading it would struggle with the sense of it, much more than they desired. I myself enjoyed the piece but I also happen to enjoy arcane literature, with a bit of a fixation. This is the kind of stuff that deconstructs the psyche and can inform you of the structure of your intuition. The introduction to this can be very challenging and confusing simply because we are not invested in thinking about what we are thinking about and why. For the most part the information we deal with is stratified and prioritized from autonomic reflex to conscious response. Much like the description provided by the Merovingian in the Matrix, there is a cause and effect that takes place in which he himself states “I drank too much wine and therefore must have a piss”.

Cause and effect is a basic tenet of critical thinking and leads to contemplating dualities such as, in and out, on and off, positive and negative, masculine and feminine. However there is a different kind of dualism that is active and influencing that we tend not to think about which is parallelism. To give an example of this, consider the relevance of two different things made similar artificially. Imagine you’re sitting in a classroom, studying a subject and the bell rings for you to go to your next class. The duration of that class will usually be something around 40 – 60 minutes. You do this 5 or 6 times a day. You do this so frequently for so long that you become unaware of your response to the regimented structure of time. Now you’re at home, you flip on your TV and sit to watch. The shows you are watching are structured in one hour slots, which is the best way to hold your attention and make you available to advertisers. This is particularly effective because you have been trained for years to adhere to one hour of attention and loyalty. But of course we are unaware that we are being trained to consume in the context of materialism, we thought that we were getting a much needed education.

Because so much of what we know or believe we know is encrypted in a form of parallelism, we don’t question the value of the insight that is reflex consciousness. We are even less likely to understand how we are being directed, since touching on this kind of process can leave a person feeling somewhat barren of self-awareness. It suggests we are a simple response mechanism, unaware of the constructs of consciousness. Language itself is a parallelism in that a comparison is commonly used to come close to what we mean but cannot put into words as a direct experience. We borrow characteristics and reassemble them in hopes of making our point. Much like the illustration of a woman, some will see a young woman and some will see a hag! For those interested, which may be few, I have given a link to some lighter reading on the issue by Alan Watts and his book titled “THE BOOK On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are”. It’s a comfortable read and thought provoking.

As described in Cyclotron’s piece (mat)erialism is an expression of the feminine, as a hedge against chaos it is the insurance policy of choice. To consider that (mat)erialism, what you own, forms a caste or stratified social significance or hierarchy of social standing and influence, challenges the notion of a subjecting or what we commonly understand as oppressing  patriarchy. Since each level of prosperity, or social influence or materialism oppresses the level below it, we are actually oppressed by a feminine construct of material privilege organized within a patriarchy. What feminism seeks to achieve is not the destruction of a patriarchy and its hierarchy but the control and ownership of the patriarchy to mete out its own purposes.  It is not that a patriarchy is evil, but more so that it is incredibly effective. It is the structure, force and expression of a patriarchy that feminism attempts to own. You cannot destroy patriarchy, but through the use and application of parallelism you can redefine it, usurp it and own it.

In considering materialism, it does speak to the latent “boogey man” of the feminine. Which I believe is worth being aware of. It’s not hard to look around and see that much of what we do today is based on fear and we as a society are just begging to be protected. The war on terrorism has to be the biggest hoax ever but remains as excellent cover for bureaucratic corruption. Many policies of feminist governance are based on “boogey man” perceptions. Pre-emptive laws such as zero tolerance and primary aggressor policies are fear based “boogey man” policies. These are not policies based on egalitarian principles of equality these laws are designed specifically to serve a privileged group. In fact these laws that also include additional powers of search, seizure and arrest can only be implemented in the presence of female vulnerability. Without the presence of a woman, there is no primary aggressor, equally in a school of boys there is no zero tolerance. Governance in and of itself is designed to preempt vulnerability. The masculine however is an unrestrained “potential” that exploits vulnerability.

It is with this kind of parallelism that familiar lines we are comfortable to follow slowly take us into unexpected and for many unwanted territory. As we designate feminism the religion of victimization and oppression, we justify a level of governance with the ability to remove all of our rights as an autonomous and individual citizen. We unleash a state sanctioned violence on our citizens and particularly our male citizens that overwhelm the very nature of their personal securities. Evidence be dammed is the answer to probable cause. Accusation to support probable cause is now leveled by the state they need only produce a woman and her presence to justify the accusation on her behalf.

To those who see the puppeteer’s hand animating the puppets gestures, they are aware that the puppet is feminism. To many self-proclaimed feminist women it is becoming apparent that their cause has been hijacked. Some suggest that it is now directed by much more radical individuals. It may escape their desire to see more clearly that feminism has always been the puppet of larger masculine forces. That without the presence of fear based ideologies these masculine forces lacked the ability to justify a solution that would lead to such encroaching governance. These men have used feminism as a state imposed religion. They have assigned original sin to the male as the de facto perpetrator making feminism a takeout religion that will be delivered right to your home. You must become a born again man and once you integrate feminism into your deified worship you can replace the “m” in man with an “f” and become a feminist fan.

What strikes me as interesting is the number of government ministries required to weave our civilization together and justify our tithing and taxation. The Greeks may well have expressed the same kind of ministerial governance in the number of Gods and temples available. Literature suggests that there was no direct taxation of the people, but rather a system that required payments to the temple. In parallel terms, why do we choose a single method of governance, why do we give government a monopoly on taxation, power and corruption? It seems to me that government would be most effective on a local level, why do we give the federal government any power at all beyond national security. What’s wrong with a city state like Athens or Sparta or Detroit?

About J Galt

John is a father, writer, social commentator and mentor to young men. He is a regular contributor to A Voice for men focusing mainly on gender politics and pervasive social illusions.

View All Posts
  • Pankaj

    Slightly more readable than CM’s article, but still is creating “reality” out of nothing. I love the interspersing of reality with the “reality” to make it more palatable, the bringing in of pavlovian responses/conditioning in round about way.. but still, there is no there there.

    • keith

      I think that is what we are doing, create reality out of nothing. 10 years ago the dialogue in the mens movement was very contained. So much time has been spent deconstructing our social awareness and our personal grievances to reconstruct a consensus that appears on these pages and on “AVFM” radio, all out of nothing. There became here. IMO

  • Jonathan Mann

    If you want to see the people who will be dominating the world soon spin your globe over to the other side of the planet and look at a country called China. City states don’t last very long in contrast to strong united countries with federal governments that are capable of enforcing their own laws (even if those laws are bad). What we need is a feminist-free super state that can fund MRAs fighting the good fight in all of their respective countries.

    • keith

      I put forward the idea that much like the MRM, where we attempt to imagine something better for ourselves, we can also imagine a better method of governance. Especially when “those laws are bad”.

    • B.R. Merrick

      How will this super state “fund MRAs”? From whom would you like to steal, and against what sorts of people will you build this super state?

    • John A

      China is much more decentralized than you would believe. Since the early Zhou, except for brief periods, it has been run by regional warlords paying tribute to a hegemon or hegemons.

      The back in the fifties and sixties the Chinese Communist Government stole all the private assets in the country. Now they are giving and selling the assets back into private ownership. They have more wealth than you can imagine.

      • keith

        You may have noticed over the past ten years a huge market appear in North America of “Chinese Antiques” vast storehouses were opened in China that allowed the release of this furniture. They acquired this furniture during the period when Mao was relocating people onto the farms, this was the period when some 30 million Chinese died. Now we have them here at a discount!! Auschwitz antiques anyone?

  • AntZ

    The incestuous relationship between government abuse and feminism only intereste me in sofar as it can be changed. I do not think that it can. They must both be defeated by force of ideas and technologies that exclude them.

  • Stu

    Or defeated by force. The government use force to impose their ideas on us. They dictate the rules you have to follow to engage them in battle, and only allow methods that ensure you lose. Certain individuals may have victories but gradually all the loope holes are closed. The path you have to trod in order to have a relative peaceful life is narrowed down and everyone is hearded towards that path.

    This is why I think MGTOW on their own will not work. If enough men go their own way, and can’t be roped into state control via feminism though marriages, defacto relationships, feminisation of all the institutions that you have to engage to have a successful life will get you. This is real number of the beast stuff. If you want to finish uni, get a degree, you’ll have to suck up to feminism. If you want to keep your job, you’ll have to suck up to feminism. Eventually you won’t be able to buy or sell anything, unless your sucking up to feminism. You wont get social security or an old age pension if you haven’t been sucking up to feminism.

    MGTOW used to just have to avoid marriage to avoid most of the feminist trap. Then defacto relationships were made into marriage. Now in Australia, if you have an ongoing relationship with a woman over a period of 2 years or more, and that doesn’t have to include sex, then you can be deemed a domestic relationship and she has you by the balls. Even a woman you just bring home for a one night stand from the nightclub has all the power and all the rights of a wife, to throw you out of your house and take it over, under dometic violence laws. False rape allegations are an easy way that women can strip men of their assetts without ever having to have spent any time in an intimate relationship with them.

    As men step back, the line moves forward, and so it goes. As men start totally ignoring women, becoming celebrate, and never letting a woman in their homes, or even talking to one outside of what is absolutely required, at work and such, the laws will be tightened to allow the roping in of even those guys. Men who don’t marry, or have intimate relationships are profiled as possible terrorists, serial killers, pedophiles, and once these people are seen by the general public as pathetic weirdos and dangerous loose cannons moving around in society looking for children to rape and kill, it’s easy to enact laws against them.

    Going your own way will only work for so long. If you want to retain the right to go your own way, you have to be more then passive resistance. You have to engage in active resistance, or war. If you can’t do anything yourself, you can help those that can. Funding is a good one lol

    In the end I think either our civilisation is going to have to go through something resembling all out collapse, or total all out war, or massive natural disaster like ab asteriod collision or massively rising sea levels or something to get rid of feminism. The alternative to any of those things is that men go to war against feminism. But the beast isn’t going to go peacefully, or be talked down from it’s position. You can’t change the nature of the beast, you can only kill it.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      I have alwats-since I first discovered the concept- seen MGTOW as a means to some as yet unknown end. Not an end to itself.

    • Introspectre

      I see MGTOW as withdrawing from the indoctrination of main stream society and the biologically derived agenda’s of both women and the elite man to maintain clarity and relative sanity. It does not, imo, mean giving up the fight for social justice.

      If your being oppressed, throwing in the proverbial towel simply dooms you.

      • Introspectre

        Damn that should have been, “If you’re being oppressed,”, and my grammar and spelling used to be so good two!;-]

        • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

          LOL good enough Intro, I got you. And agree.

  • Stu

    I’ve been sitting here for 10 mins starting at the drawing of the old hag at the top of this post. I’ve been trying to see the young spunk that I know is there, because I’ve seen this pic many years ago, and I used to be able to see both the women in it if I looked at it long enough. Actually the first time I seen it, I saw the young woman first, and had to stare at it to see the old hag. Now all I can see is the old hag, and I can’t get the young woman to appear.

    Maybe as I’ve become more twisted and bitter with each bitch I’ve encountered and had to deal with in life, I’ve become totally unable to be deceived by ugly women, maybe I can’t see the attractive woman because there is no such thing, it’s just the ugly woman’s deception, and my brain can’t fall for it anymore. lol

    Maybe the old hag in the picture represents the true ugliness of the feminine, and the young attractive woman represents the deception and manipulative way of the feminine.

    So, who can see the young woman in that pic?

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      I see the young one well enough…first in fact. But once I saw the old hag it became hard to see…the beauty…

    • keith

      I was shown this picture by my english teacher when I was in grade 8, she was startled that I saw them both. What is curious, is the young woman is looking away from you the hag is not. The young woman looks rich somehow and the hag doesn’t.

  • Stu

    That’s the first step Introspectre. First your spelling and grammer go, then you start running around with guns killing feminists and manginas. lol

    • Introspectre

      Lol!

      Oh great, now I appear to think that web abbreviations constitute sentences.

  • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

    Feminism would never have survived in it’s inception without patriarchy. And that’s not even a DEFENSE for patriarchy.

  • B.R. Merrick

    To give an example of this, consider the relevance of two different things made similar artificially. Imagine you’re sitting in a classroom, studying a subject and the bell rings for you to go to your next class. The duration of that class will usually be something around 40 – 60 minutes. You do this 5 or 6 times a day. You do this so frequently for so long that you become unaware of your response to the regimented structure of time. Now you’re at home, you flip on your TV and sit to watch. The shows you are watching are structured in one hour slots, which is the best way to hold your attention and make you available to advertisers. This is particularly effective because you have been trained for years to adhere to one hour of attention and loyalty. But of course we are unaware that we are being trained to consume in the context of materialism, we thought that we were getting a much needed education.

    That right there should be in bold, man. Beautiful.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      Yes, it should be

    • keith

      To give an example of this, consider the relevance of two different things made similar artificially. Imagine your 6, your at home watching TV and every 4.5 minutes your attention is interrupted by a message designed to turn your curiosity into your appetite by invoking a glandular response. Now your at school and every 8 minutes your not interrupted but your glands still fire off. The teacher notices that every few minutes your anticipating something and are restless. She recognizes immediately that you are in desperate need of drugs to control your glandular response.

      Beautiful……….or disturbing?

      It becomes disturbing when you start to time the intervals of “achievement” and point scoring while watching a child play a video game only to discover that it is similar to the interval between TV commercials.

  • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

    Allright, at the risk of sounding like I think I know what I am talking about…

    Feminism I have said, was incepted and created by allowance of and protection by patriarchy. If you think about it, that was only brought about one way: By men with guns. Yeah sure, self-styled philosophers I have known will tell me I am not looking at it with enough depth. To recognize the power of rhetoric and people gifted with sliver tongues, the pen is mightier than the blah blah…no. Men with guns stepped in and gave the femnists power. I know this to be true because those same men could have squashed it by the same means. But the patriarchal government allowed feminism and backed it up only because they must have SEEN something in it for them. It benefitted the “alphas” in some way. What was it?

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      LOL-well, that really was a question.

    • http://www.cyclotronmajesty.net Cyclotron Majesty

      The alphas are not alphas… The alphas are betas, and the betas are alphas. MGTOWs are true Alphas. They don’t need anyone. (I suspect most if not all men are MGTOWs in older times) Betas are the Joe Biden’s and all the politically correct domesticated men of business and their weak pretentious egos. They like feminism because it is designed to destroy the power of the alpha, and therefore put them (betas) in alpha position (so they can get laid). Feminism is this in itself and for itself as well, as the female take the lead and the male is secondary – this I think is the fatal flaw of feminism to the betas. But then they take up goddess worship and yadda yadda, trying to make due with their situation. But we know from Biden’s life growing up that the betas have never respected themselves and cannot therefore live a peaceful life of happiness. Their only hope is to listen to us and assume their proper position. But that would require humility… something which betas are fundamentally against.

  • keith

    @ ZoOs
    the men with guns are called cops!

    Does feminism really exist, or is it patriarchy cross-dressing?

    What does it take from you and give to them?

    Your bang on………notice the woman in the red dress!

  • Collins

    @Stu: “Going your own way will only work for so long. If you want to retain the right to go your own way, you have to [do] more then passive resistance. You have to engage in active resistance, or war.”

    Exactly how would we go to war? Who would constitute the 2 sides? MRAs vs. white knights, perhaps? In all wars throughout history, nearly all combatants have been men. Where would the battles be fought? What weapons would we use? What battle tactics would we need to master? Unless we can answer all those questions, the war will be over before it even starts.

  • elvis

    Folks, women and girls are just the mules who carry the agitation propaganda into the public sphere.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    I didn’t find CM’s post to be very readable. I thought there was some good stuff in there, but it wasn’t clearly articulated and poorly substantiated.

    I have no qualms about addressing prevalent stereotypes, but it is completely different to re-define an entire gender by a prevalent stereotype. If men were not motivated by materialism then we would still be living in caves.

    New ideas will not enter the public consciousness unless they appeal to some part of our life experiences. For me, the re-definition of femininity was eerily reminiscent to feminist’s re-definition of masculinity. I’m not opposed to using all varieties of tactics, but I think the more successful tactics are based on facts and logic.

    Machiavelli postulated that any religion is a tool of control and a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens he ruled. Any religion will suffice and feminism is replacing traditional religions.

  • keith

    @ Denis

    “If men were not motivated by materialism then we would still be living in caves.”

    Are you sure men are motivated by materialism, and not maternalism? Who receives the materialism. Do you hunt food to address a hunger or are you out for the exercise and fresh air.

    Are you sure feminism is motivated to destroy patriarchy or usurp it?
    Are you sure feminism isn’t a mask worn by alpha males and alpha females?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVgInLlYF-0&feature=related

    Enjoy there’s two parts, the series is incredible. Season two episode eight, right at the beginning, Octavian Caesar is literally describing the implementation of political feminism in ancient Rome. As he defines women’s virtuous nature and how he intends to reward those virtue’s by implementing laws against men. All for the treasury of course. (if you can find it, it’s worth watching)

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      The fact that men have been responsible for women throughout history does not automatically imply that men’s only motivation is to provide for women. Men are also motivated by their own hunger and desires. So, I’m uncertain that men are motivated by maternalism only and until I see some good evidence that is consistent throughout history and my own personal experiences, I will remain uncertain.

      I think that feminism is a tool of the elite and those elite are motivated by materialism. Patriarchy is a loaded word, but feminist’s opposition to patriarchy is motivated by the desire for state socialism.

      • keith

        One line out of the movie “the red house”

        We will be equal, when we are all equal as victims.

  • Stu

    How do we go to war. Lots of ways, but merely going your own way and doing nothing else is only covering your own arse temporarily. Thats all I’m saying. Doing something on the attack side is better then doing nothing. Paul is fighting a war, his weapons are this site, his radio show, his intelligence, etc.

    My weapons so far have been, verbally apposing feminist crap where I find it as much as practical, my poxy posts on sites like this, and my many donations to fund MRA projects.

    What I’m talking about here is the fact that feminism isn’t going to go away, or be lessened merely by opting out of activities or lifestyles that leave you more vulnerable to it. It will keep advancing until you are fucked no matter how you try and live your life. So what I’m saying is, withdraw as much of your service to women as possible, but also do something to promote mens rights or hurt feminism in some way. It’s not going away by itself.

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      It will be lessened Stu. Not go away perhaps. But lessened. Mark me on that.

    • keith

      I agree with you Stu, in addition I would add, I’m not sure we see the whole beast yet, and understand it. I think it’s good to keep tearing away at it, it gives us smaller and more concise insight into effectiveness. It’s like a pole dancer that hasn’t removed everything yet. Theodore Labadie once commented that men coming here were noticeably developing skills, that are visible in their posts. We have more writers now, which reminds me, where’s yours? Some of your comments should be full articles!

  • Stu

    Some of my comments should be full articles?? Were you talking to me lol

    I write, if you can call it that, mostly from experience, from things I know from living them, and in very basic language. You guys that right those articles at the top of the topics, phew, some of them go so deep, I have read them a few times and try and translate into yobboese to interpret them lol.

    I’d suggest that some of my comments have some things in common with the topic articles, the length of some of them is really long lol. Anybody that’s ever got an email from me knows that I have a bad habit of writing long, and saying little lol. I touch type, so I can rip out the pages pretty quick. Also have a bad habit of not proof reading anything I write until after I post lol. I have to pull out the dictionary to understand some of the writers here, well, I would, if I wasn’t so lazy lol And when I do get it, sometimes it makes my brain hurt lol

    But I’ll read more, and try to improve, then maybe I will.

    Now Keith tells me he wasn’t talking about me lol

    Anyway, plenty or room for guys that don’t have the skills or education to write great pieces. In fact, that’s the majority, and we certainly aren’t going to win without Joe average on our side, a lot of them at least. I’ve heard some guys say, they can’t write, can’t speak, not articulate enough, lacking knowledge etc, like it excludes them from doing something to fight feminism. Every guy out there that knows what feminism is really about can help. The way I see it, A Voice For Men is just that. I can’t write like Paul, can’t speak like Paul, so he’s my voice, he’s all of us guys voices that don’t have one, for whatever reason.

    There are lots of guys out there, young guys, that can’t put together a paragraph, who’s spelling makes me look good. And that situation is going to get worse and worse as the education sector favors girls more and more, and I’d even go as far as saying that boys are even discouraged from learning, delibrately I mean. I don’t even think its a case of their eductional needs being overlooked anymore, I think it’s delibrately denying them education, delibrately trying to make them leave school, drop out. I think the current generation of guys has to crush feminism, or the future generations of men won’t have the ability to combat it any other way except by violence.

  • POD

    I’m with Stu here, the ONLY way to fight feminism is with violence. Peaceful means won’t work, else we’d have reasoned it out with the Nazis, and I’m afraid the signs of short end of the education stick already prominent. The ratio percent split of female:male graduates is now around 60:40, and it’s getting worse over the years as institutes try to get more women, the cost of education keeps rising and excuses to exclude/excommunicate boys increases.

    MGTOW is a Gandhian philosophy – that doesn’t really work so well once the enemy adapts. You won’t hurt them, only ignore them ? They make it harder and harder to ignore them – they’ll come up with man-tax, forced alimony even on men who never married, forced child support for someone else’s kids. The government will do anything to transfer the financial burden parasitic women impose on government. And guess who’s the most productive , yet defenceless class to pass the burden on to ? Yep, men. Women have a violent government machinery to use against men, there is no way they won’t use it all the way they can. Fighting back violently is the only recourse, but one that must be organized and not one-off outbursts by driven-to-the-wall men.

    PS : does anyone know the real/internet whereabouts of Zenpriest , Ragnar, Meikyp, Darren Blacksmith and other old-timer MRAs ?

    • http://none Sir Oliver of Zeta

      If ever there was a post that did not help much…

      Unless it is to defend ourselves, it is violence that will not work. And by the way, Ghandi….successfully got all the English rule OUT of India.

      • POD

        You’re way off. Gandhi’s philosophy was a dead end one. The British left India out of the pressure of WW2 that ravaged the kingdom. It has nothing to do with his movement, however popular he might have been.

  • Collins

    @POD: “I’m with Stu here, the ONLY way to fight feminism is with violence.”

    And how exactly would we do that? That’s what I asked Stu earlier. To paraphrase Dr. M.L. King Jr, a violent revolution can be successful only if: 1. a majority of the people are sympathetic to the cause of the rebels; & 2. the old regime has lost the loyalty of its armed forces. As it stands now, a majority of people in Western countries would not be sympathetic to our cause if we were to use violence; they would focus on the violence itself, not the grievances that produced it. And said Western countries’ militaries & police forces are still loyal to the system we’re fighting. That’s why I warned that the war would be over before it even started.

    • POD

      More than 5 years ago, perhaps closer to 10 , Zenpriest started the MGTOW movement AFAIK. We have Glenn Sacks and F4J making their words and peaceful actions felt. How far have we progressed ? The law still screws men over in divorce and child custody . The media still portrays women are innocent victims (unless it’s a women mutilating her sleeping husband/boyfriend’s genitalia, in which case it’s the subject of a million jokes ), men as evil monsters who’d love nothing more but to oppress women. Where’s the progress – in the real world , where society and law rule with an iron fist ? Sure, they got “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” t-shirts out of stores, but did they get young men back in universities? Did they revert parasitic alimony laws ? Did they punish false rape accusers ?

      You think an enemy like that is persuaded by kindness, by fairness , by conflict avoidance rules ? They have so much to gain in continuing their treacherous designs, the prize is too juicy to lose.

      Our biggest and toughest enemy is not women, they are brainless men who won’t stand for manhood, but will trample it instead at the altar of feminazism. There is no easy way to turn them over to the right side, I admit. There is no sympathy for our cause, also admitted. But against an enemy who can hurt and bleed us with impunity, sitting still and talking them out of it isn’t a fruitful strategy. The deeper the parasite nests, the bloodier the battle to freedom becomes. I foresee no progress without more and more Marc Lepines and George Sodinis. However common this becomes, the military will not shoot the very people they are supposed to defend, this is not an external war, it’s more of a civil war. Police and FBI yes, military , no.

      Women will not change until they feel the heat of the hate they have brought upon us directed back to them.

  • fmz

    “creat(ing) reality out of nothing”

    This is a very wise existential truth.

    Now and ZEN.

  • http://www.cyclotronmajesty.net Cyclotron Majesty

    Responses to Keith’s article:

    “why do we give the federal government any power at all beyond national security. What’s wrong with a city state like Athens or Sparta or Detroit?”

    Apparently I’ve recently learned. The Federal government is not supposed to actually be any bigger than the state or local government.


    “You must become a born again man and once you integrate feminism into your deified worship you can replace the “m” in man with an “f” and become a feminist fan.”

    HAHA.


    “The masculine however is an unrestrained “potential” that exploits vulnerability.” The masculine does not exploit vulnerability. I would suggest that is the power of the weak. The masculine is often confused with the power of the weak. The power of the weak is the “false masculine”.


    “Language itself is a parallelism in that a comparison is commonly used to come close to what we mean but cannot put into words as a direct experience. We borrow characteristics and reassemble them in hopes of making our point.”

    Language is a technology, and needs to be pushed and tinkered with in order to advance it. Text on the page must lift off the page and become alive. It’s tricky.


    “It may escape their desire to see more clearly that feminism has always been the puppet of larger masculine forces. That without the presence of fear based ideologies these masculine forces lacked the ability to justify a solution that would lead to such encroaching governance. These men have used feminism as a state imposed religion.”

    I’m not so sure about this. While I think male gendered individuals probably exploit feminism to their own ends, it’s not a masculine force. Again this is the false masculine, “power of the weak” which is the mechanism of the beta males, of rebelling women, and of the animal consciousness. Like I mentioned in the reply to Sir Oliver of Zeta, the betas are not betas the alphas are not alphas. I think we live in a situation where the tables are mostly turned to the advantage of the betas. Thus they seem like they are alphas.


    “To give an example of this, consider the relevance of two different things made similar artificially. Imagine you’re sitting in a classroom, studying a subject and the bell rings for you to go to your next class. The duration of that class will usually be something around 40 – 60 minutes. You do this 5 or 6 times a day. You do this so frequently for so long that you become unaware of your response to the regimented structure of time. Now you’re at home, you flip on your TV and sit to watch. The shows you are watching are structured in one hour slots, which is the best way to hold your attention and make you available to advertisers. This is particularly effective because you have been trained for years to adhere to one hour of attention and loyalty. But of course we are unaware that we are being trained to consume in the context of materialism, we thought that we were getting a much needed education.”

    Yes… this is a feminization… habituation, domestication, standardization. These mechanisms of hegemony which tell you what to think, to say, to believe, and how to turn your mind off so that it’s so full of it you can’t even use it anymore. True teachers do not preach dogmas, they give you tools with which to use your mind and tell you that if you don’t use it you will loose everything. This is how education used to be, this is how the world used to be. Until the betas took control – who knows exactly when…. Maybe it was gunpowder that did it…

  • http://www.cyclotronmajesty.net Cyclotron Majesty

    Just wanted to say I went over this and revised it a bit for greater clarity. Some sentences were somewhat difficult to decipher, and there were some grammar fixes. You can find it over at my blog:

    http://www.cyclotronmajesty.net/Cyclotron_Majestys_site/The_Majestic_Blah/Entries/2010/5/26_The_Matrix.html

    • http://www.cyclotronmajesty.net Cyclotron Majesty

      By “this” I mean my Matrix entry.