The scene: A police car drives down a busy main street during the early Monday morning rush. The officer driving deliberately maintains a speed 10 mph below the posted speed limit. He knows nobody will pass him, and indeed, nobody does.
The drivers who would otherwise press 10 to 15 mph faster than the posted speed limit are constrained by their fear of the police officer’s power of authority. The man wearing his police uniform, driving his police car and exerting his power to slow the drivers around him takes his authority from the consensus of those other drivers. Everybody seeing the uniform, the badge, the police cruiser buys into the idea that this man is a figure of authority, and with this consensus, the illusion is made real. Later, this police officer will park his police cruiser, change into his civilian clothes and drive his own car to wherever he lives. There, he will eat his dinner just like each of his neighbors. He will take off his shoes just like each of his neighbors.
He will take off his clothes, and climb, naked into his shower, just like each of his neighbors. His body will metabolize the food he ate, and in the morning he brush his teeth, depilate, and defecate just like each of the other human beings living in the houses adjacent to his. When the city this man lives in raises his property taxes by $ 1000 per year, he will pay, just like each of his neighbours. Like them, he has subscribed to the consensus in which everybody agrees that “the city” has the authority and power to exact tribute from each person living under the city’s “authority”.
How is it that anyone, or any group of people in civil society have “power” to regulate, restrict the actions of, or to extract a portion of the income of other members of that civil society? It would be easy to imagine this is through force, the threat of penalty or violence or arrest. The real reason is that “authority” exists only by consensus.
During a theatrical magic performance, members of the audience don’t really believe the magician’s assistant is in actual danger of being sawn in half. They understand that the woman being cut in half is an illusion. So with this understanding, does the magician’s audience resent their deception by the magician? Of course not, a member of magician’s audience participates in their own deception by willfully suspending their disbelief. An unspoken consensus between the performer and the audience is established in which everybody present agrees that the magician “really can” cut his assistant in half.
The audience, through mutual consensus confers the illusion of power and authority on the magician. Aside from the willing consensus of the magician’s audience, he employs a continuous routine of misdirection, disinformation and manipulation on his audience. Like the magician’s atmosphere, proselytism and disinformation form a major component of the engineered consensus which maintains an accepted status quo in civil society.
At no point does a competent magician stop in the middle of his routine and break the illusion of his “power”. The magician’s intimation of his own authority and power must be maintained throughout the performance without letup. The performer who breaks the audience’s perception of that power will not be popular.
For the same reason, the “information” fed to the public must be continuous, to prop up the accepted public consensus of political and social reality. Just as a magician cannot break character midway through his act and keep his audience, political and social mythology which civil society accepts as “real” relies on the non-interrupted program of public narrative.
Myth: International finance is mysterious, complicated, and difficult to understand.
Almost every single television “news” station runs across the bottom of your TV screen a constant scrolling ticker filled with cryptic, complicated and intimidating financial market indexes and statistics during their “news” broadcast. Clearly, the information conveyed by these scrolling tickers is important, urgent, and deeply complicated.
These stations also bring in “experts” to “explain” the vagaries of the economic scene to us, the poor benighted viewers. These financial experts will intimidate us with a somewhat comprehensible description. The implication is of the viewer’s lack of background understanding of the complex and important fundamentals. This is all misdirection and bullshit. Reality: International finance works like this:
The Central Bank (Federal Reserve) creates imaginary money by typing a large number into a computer.
The Central Bank (Federal Reserve) loans that imaginary money, at interest to your government, and to your banks.
Your government spends the money, and makes it into “real” money by forcing you to pay it back through taxation on your labor.
Your bank helps in the game of shifting that debt onto you by loaning some to you and increasing the interest rate of your repayment.
Everything else in finance is slight-of-hand to distract you.
Myth: A collection of disenfranchised fanatical Moslems are a credible threat to the largest military superpower in the world.
Reality: Politicians and news readers selling this story are counting on the audience never examining this absurd premise, and counting on members of the public to swallow whole the “boogeyman” of terrorism.
Myth: There is a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.
Myth: You as an individual lack real power in civil society.
Myth: You as an individual are incapable of understanding the real world without the parental guidance of government or external authority.
There are a lot more of these subtle falsehoods, but listing and individually debunking them all is not the point of this article. Some of these lies are thousands of years old.
The lie of personal powerlessness is a re-framing of the biblical admonition to surrender control of your life to the self-appointed intermediaries to “god”; the church.
The myth of your personal inability to comprehend the big complicated world is a retelling of the biblical edict to surrender your personal accountability to an imaginary supernatural redeemer-figure.
These false “truths” are parts of the droning, hypnotizing message which permeates modern media-saturated western culture. As a mythology which underlies almost all content fed to the public through television and movies, the message is impossible to avoid. Understanding that a droning message permeates all of corporate created media gives one a tool to distinguish manufactured “truth” from observable reality.
The present culture of public deception promoted and maintained through corporate-controlled media is very real, and has it’s recent origin in the neo-conservative philosophy of Leo Strauss.
Strauss was a political philosopher who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including University of Chicago. Among Strauss’s students were the architects of the neo-conservatism which has dominated and defined the agenda of the democratic and the republican parties of the past several decades.
Strauss saw the use of deception in politics as a necessity. While outwardly professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical; divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. Unlike philosophical elitists such as Plato, he was unconcerned with the moral character of these leaders.
“Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
Shadia Drury, Professor of political science at the University of Calgary described this philosophy as one which requires an environment of “perpetual deception” in which the people are indoctrinated to a manufactured mythology, of simplistic character appropriate to their meagre powers of comprehension.
According to Drury, Straussian philosophy requires: “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what’s good for them.”
In Straussian philosophy, the “elite” believe that there is no morality and the only natural right is that of the superior to rule over the inferior”
This philosophy of neo-conservatism also holds that: “While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy”
Strauss also believed that “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed . Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united and they can only be united against other people.”
A Straussian society then, requires a state of perpetual war.
Senator John McCain (a member of the council of Foreign Relations) was asked a question during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on January 3 2008
Q: “President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years..”
(McCain cut the questioner off to reply)
A: “Make it a hundred , we’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years, it’s fine by me”
It’s easy to dismiss McCain’s callous reply as the ranting of a man who’s gone completely bug-fuck crazy. Easy, until we realize that under a Straussian philosophy, a state of perpetual war is required to keep the dis-informed public under a social control.
Mr. McCain, only 100 years? Surely you can be more ambitious. McCain’s fellow Straussian; William Kristol is a co-founder of the Project the New American Century, but perhaps a longer view can be taken. Possibly even a Reich of a thousand years.
The list of Strauss’s students include:
Paul Wolfowitz
Donald Rumsfeld
William Kristol, founder of the Project for the New American Century
Abram Shulsky, former head of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans
Stephen Cambone, former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Richard Perle, former Defense Policy Board chairman.
Dick Cheney
Once we recognize this twisted philosophy, and that the followers of Strauss are the architects of modern neo-conservatism in both parties, as well as the CRF, the Project for a New American Century, it is easy to see that the apparent incompetence of the Bush administration is something entirely other than incompetence.
To describe Straussian philosophy, in such a way that it can be discussed without lengthy and repetitive explanations to the uninitiated, it requires a name or an adjective. Straussian philosophy is in every respect that matters, a philosophy of evil.
When individuals come to realize what is encompassed by the paradigm of political thought driving neo-conservative policy in America, a sea-change in public perception will occur. This is not just a possibility, the information is available, and people will find it, just as you have found this article.
Sea Change: Noun – a profound transformation.
Tags: Government Tyranny, Leo Strauss, Manuel Dexter, Miscellaneous, Social Control, War
125 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Stu:
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
You sure pegged the vast majority of our politicians as republicrats.
David Rockefeller proudly bragged that his family financed the feminist movement as a TOOL of introducing one-world Marxist govt, just as Marx himself described the necessity of using feminism and making the state the parent to usher in his communism.
Documentary film maker Aaron Russo and Alex Jones (Prison Planet) discuss David Rockefeller, Gloria, Steinem, and feminism.
‘Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society’
3-minute video
David Rockefeller and his family of gangsters and prostitutes are living off borrowed time. A global police state will do nothing but create more chaos and turmoil.
Just vote for “None of the Above” on YOUR ballot. Voting in any other way simply puts a new ASSHOLE in power. At least if you ruin your ballot they have to count it.
10,000,000 ruined ballots has to send some kind of message….
I’ll be voting Ron Paul as he’s the only honest candidate who isn’t bought and paid for by the establishment.
That’s it , I no longer dismiss the idea that Gloria Steinem was employed by the CIA. I now see it as fact. Or at least damn possible!
So now we cow-tow to Socialists/Marxist and wonder how they will destroy the world the way it is. You have to be joking right..
Take a good look at former Russia, Cuba etc. and tell me they are living the dream..
At least right now, I can succeed, in those countries you have no hope in hell..
This is just another one of those “Conspiracy theories” that blames ALL conservatives for all the wrong and “Socialists” for all the “right”..
There is a saying “Socialist when your young, but when you grow up you become a conservative”, you obviously have some growing up to do..
Give me a break..
What flavor is the kool-aid today?
You are an example of Vladimir Lenin’s “useful idiots”.
femi-chivalrists are useful idiots…
There is a saying “Socialist when your young, but when you grow up you become a conservative”, you obviously have some growing up to do..
I believe the saying you are referring too is stating that the young are socialists and the old are conservatives which is foolish as both would be best served the other way.
Re-read the article troll.
It very clearly states that both the left and right are currently fatally flawed with a philosophy of evil.
Yes, we like to delude ourselves into thinking republicans are conservative. Most of them are liberal and support the socialist rot just the same, reaching across the isle to cooperatively hold hands with fellow flaming fascists.
Compromising with lies and abuse still leaves us with… lies and abuse. Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, Newt Gingrich and many others support the anti-male crap agenda, the CFR and…
Smoke, mirrors and the slight of hand sure keep us thinking they are opposites though.
JtO is talking about socialists. Dems or Republicans, leftists or neo-cons, they’re all socialists. Libertarians, constitutionalists, and the like are the true conservatives.
So what is the answer. Can there ever be any such thing as human civilisation that is not controlled by arseholes. I’ve started to think, thought for while, that it may not be possible in a high tech civilisation for the individual to have any freedom. I have no doubt that the arseholes of 100 years ago or 200 years ago or 500 years ago were just as big of arseholes as now. But at least they couldn’t spy on you via satalite, put your dna on record. They are all the more poweful because of technology. And our access to that technology for our benefit, is entirely up to what they allow us to have. They will censor the net, and have done in many countries. They can and do look into your purchases. In the not to distant future, they will do away with money, and you will never again be able to make a purchase that is private, not even for a box of matches. This would be impossible without vast technology like we have now.
Feminists certainly don’t have the answer. Women in general would sell every last bit of freedom up the creek for one inch of extra safety. And that’s probably why the government loves female voters. Want to take away peoples right to own guns, appeal to the female voter and you’ll get the vote to make the new laws. Want the right to bust down peoples doors and search their homes without a warrent, appeal to the female voter and it’s a done deal. All you have to do is make women feel that they aren’t safe without these legal modifications, and they will vote them in every time.
So can we have a mens rights party that will protect individual rights and freedom…..probably not while we have democracy. So what about a monarchy, a dictatorship, or maybe a democracy with limits on who can vote. Maybe we will only let people vote that have IQs over 100, and have completed a 2 year full time courses on individual rights, etc. Maybe that would work.
But it seems to me that no matter what, arseholes are going to run things. Shit floats to the top everywhere. So, what I suggest is that since arseholes are going to run things, then men should concern themselves with making as many of those arseholes our arseholes. Fuck every other issue at every level. Mens rights is the gauge I use to decide the net worth of any politician. Screw the economy, health care, war, everything else, all our problems, as men, will be less when we have as many MRAs in the government as possible……i don’t even care if they are competent politicians…….if they can block feminist advances they are doing ME, and MINE, more good than all the economic super heros combined.
” and you will never again be able to make a purchase that is private, not even for a box of matches.”
Which will be a shame, because it will be then that I’ll really want one. And a bottle of gasoline..
“Women in general would sell every last bit of freedom up the creek for one inch of extra safety.”
This is why even the internet, including MRA sites will soon be censored. We most definitely are already on a government watch list. Women want protection more than freedom. And women have the lion’s share of politcal clout, no doubt. That is why women use heavy shaming language and yell “You are just a conspiracy theorist wacko!” to any man who speaks of government problems. They will not tolerate any man talking about their big daddy — the government. And as far as women are concerned, the bigger and more powerful their big daddy is, the better. Even if their big daddy obliterates the liberties of men in the process and infantilizes them to the point of bearing absolutely no responsibility for any of their own actions. As long as they have their big federal provider/protector machine, they are happy. The government knows this and keeps them in a steady state of fear with false propaganda, whereby playing into women’s hard-wired longing for protection and trashing of men.
During my first semester, I worked part-time at a middle-class hotel (Marriott). When women would come to check in, I would give them their key and they would absolutley go ape shit insane if their room was on the first floor. They not only expected me to have them a room on the second floor or higher, but they acted as if I was an incompetent fool with no concern for women for not doing so.
One beligerant but attractive professional woman, about 30, called the main office and demanded that it was the policy for any hotel, including ours, to place women on higher floors. It wasn’t our policy and she had no idea what she was talking about. I honestly had no clue what she was talking about, either. Then my manager pointed out that women are afraid of preditors and rapists breaking in through unlocked windows on the first floor.
Then it made sense to me. This was before I became an MRA and just assumed that there must be a lot of hotel rapes going on. I thought, “How terrible! I must start placing women on higher floors.” A week later, my manager made this an actual policy of our hotel, which terribly disrupted the flow of assigning rooms at such a busy hotel. The point is, she single-handedly changed the room assigning policy of a Marriott hotel by using her female victimhood power! Men with real complaints, not imagined ones, got a discount or free sports tickets, nothing more.
When MRA sights get into the lime-light and start to pose the mildest threat to women’s insanely unfair privalege in society, they will cry for their big daddy to protect them. The same thing that happened at that hotel will happen to us. It only takes a tiny minority of women to squeal and then we are fucked, just like the hotel. That is when we will begin to see the government attempt to shut MRA sites down as being hate mongering enemies of the state.
MRAs have it in perspective, unlike most people. Sure, we have economic problems, health care, energy, war, and other problems that need addressing. But right now the biggest problem of all is the erosion of men’s rights in this man-hating gynocracy. Most people are either too simple minded to even notice that this is happening, are in denial, or are silenced by the threat of being called misogynistic, whereby losing female approval.
Your last paragraph is perfect. I agree. But most politicians are competing with other politicians for the female vote. If they don’t trash men’s rights and empower women, we never hear of them because they do not make it far in politics. It is just totally fucked up.
“You are just a conspiracy theorist wacko!” to any man who speaks of government problems. They will not tolerate any man talking about their big daddy — the government. ”
So true! The most anxious, happiest slaves around, or at least they will be, dragging us and our children right down the Marxist hell-hole with them.
Don’t you just love how pure democracy (the gynocracy) destroys our Republic and the rights and liberty of all?
I don’t like democracy anymore than I like communism.
There are no safeguards built into democracy, it allows idiots the same amount of say as geniuses.n That is why we need a true libertarian society with as much autonomy for the idividual as is possible.
The real reason for the push to have women vote was that vote is more malleable. When women were marching for the right to vote there were still alot of men in the British Commonwealth that still did not have the right to vote.
Bell Ringer! If I had a big bell in my apartment, I would ring it loud and proud for that comment! Democracy is far too easily hijacked by pressure groups. Grass roots idealists somehow end up at the highest levels of public policy in democracy, then you have a silenced majority anyway.
And there’s the little nugget of wisdom.
A couple of things…
First of all, neither George W Bush nor his administration were clever enough to apply philosophical theory in pursuit of a political agenda. Nope, not at all. Politicians are generally not that smart. Rather, under the influence of his li’l buddy, Australia’s very own John Howard, GW Bush saw what was working on the other side of the globe, in a country that calls itself a democracy, but, paradoxically, a country which uniquely never had a bill of rights.
John Howard was silencing dissent a good five years before GW Bush cottoned onto the realization that “hey, we can do this too. We can get away with this.” And there is reason to conclude that the inspiration for the Iraq war came first from John Howard. Ah, those innovative Aussies. No need for bullshit political theory Down Under. Just do it. Aussies have been peddling silly nanny state laws to the global arena for decades, which everyone else willingly swallowed on the assumption that Aussies are such a fun-loving, relaxed folk that there could not possibly be anything sinister about seatbelt and helmet laws that are intended for everyone’s own good. But I guess it was about time for us to also show the world that, as relaxed and fun-loving as we are, we are also capable of wielding serious influence that inflicts real harm with real consequences. Hence the Iraq war. Ah, the delicious irony. It would seem that relaxed, egalitarian countries founded as penal colonies have a more intuitive, hands-on grasp with regards to the implementation of Straussian neocon politics. We are no longer limited to stupid seatbelt laws to paint us as ineffectual nannies. World stage, here we come! A New World Order as one giant penal colony… Awesome! Resistance is futile. There is no escape when your only escape is to another part of the penal colony. But I digress. Onto matters of more serious import.
One of the most pernicious myths of our time… indeed, the myth that outdoes them all in terms of the damage that it inflicts on society, is the genetic determinism upon which evolutionary psychology is founded. Much to the consternation of fellow freedom-fighters, I’ve mentioned before that I have serious issues with Evolutionary Psychology (EP). To put it bluntly, the fundamental premise upon which EP is founded – genetic determinism – is pure bunk. Having said that, though, EP has some redeeming aspects in that it represents the first serious attempt by our contemporary life sciences to integrate biology with culture. Indeed, it was the high priest of genetic determinism, Richard Dawkins himself, who introduced the concept of memetics to explain how ideas spread throughout culture.
But Dawkins is also the progenitor of the bad idea that we’ve come to know as the selfish gene. Memetics good, selfish gene bad. I suppose that only a person from a selfish culture would project onto the behaviour of genes the selfish priorities that he observes in the people around him. Or maybe he’s just a selfish sob himself and presumes that everything else around him is, too.
Hey, I just realized that my second point ties in neatly with my first point. Our fixation with genetic determinism fits in nicely with the Darwinian notion of nature red in tooth and claw, which in turn seems to tie in with the Straussian philosophy, absent of morality, where a political “elite” reigns supreme at the head of the pecking order. Now that is politics very much red in tooth and claw. Surely a global penal colony must be the most satisfying end point of a Straussian philosophy where supreme control extends its reach into all regions of the empire. Selfish science begets selfish politics. Mmmmm. It gives me a warm, cosy feeling inside. I can see it now… video cameras at every street corner, every intersection, every bedroom and even every bathroom. The global nanny state cares for everyone, and no-one is left out.
Apologies for this interruption to regular programming. I’m beginning to ramble, and I feel an article coming on. I’ll be back.
One need only look at who the founding fathers permitted to vote to see that this philosphy did not begin with Strauss. In fact it pre-dates
America, the British, spanish and French Empires, The romans, Greeks, and Egyptians. From the beginning of civilization, the strong (elite) have ruled over the weak (the masses). There has rarely been any real morality in their rule.
TDOM
The Straussian view is a modern partisan interpretation of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” These characteristics of rulers have been present throughout history.
Look at the parallels:
Strauss: “Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
Machiavelli: “Politics have no relation to morals.”…“He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command.”
Drury: … “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what’s good for them.”
Machiavelli: “Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.”..”It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.”
“A Straussian society then, requires a state of perpetual war.”
Machiavelli: “The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don’t just go away, they are only postponed to someone else’s advantage”…“There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
The “neo-conservative” label is imprecise.
Freaking sheeple!
no he is right and not the only one to draw Machiavelli-Strauss comparison.
I can tell that “Manuel Dexter” has been watching/listening to lots of Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, George Noory, and others like them that have also covered these things in great detail. I’ve watched and listened to them as well as their adversaries. At 40-some-odd years old now, it doesn’t matter to me whether there’s a Cabal that runs everything, or if there are arseholes in power that want to take my every last freedom, or if our cultures and infrastructure are going to come crashing down around us due to war or natural disaster — the fact is that I’ll be dead soon enough anyway whether it be by disease, war, strife, famine, or some random accident. I simply wish there was no need for A Voice for Men — Unfortunately, there is.
Like Frodo in The Lord of the Rings lamented: “I wish none of this had happened.” To which Gandalf replied: “So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”
I realize that my time here is limited and that I am likely not going to save the world — and I’m not going to try, because ultimately the world is self-correcting. But what I will do is: take care of myself, my family, and my friends. Beyond that, to put things in a Glenn Beck parlance, I’ll use E4 “education, enlightenment, empowerment, and entrepreneurship” to make things better for everyone where I can.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/01/04/glenn-announces-the-e4-solution/
http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/07/glenns-e4-solution-enlightenment-education-empowerment-entrepreneurship/
http://www.watchglennbeck.com/video/2011/march/glenn-beck-show-march-25-2011-history-of-the-federal-reserve/
Whatever you may think of Glenn Beck, remember: even a stopped clock is accurate twice per day.
or Glenn Beck has been watching Manuel Dexter?
The point McCain and Bush were making was that we’d possibly be “in” Iraq for an extended period of time, not “at war”. We have bases in Germany, Japan and Korea, we’re not “at war” with those countries but once were.
Why are we at (Obama sanctioned) war against the Libyan government right now?
To prevent a humanitarin crises in a city against a rebel people we don’t even know.
“Bush Derangement Syndrome” lingers on, now as a distraction from the “Annointed One’s” own policies, which by the way are EXACTLY the same as Bush/Cheney. Yet there seems to be no will to criticize him for ANYTHING among the HIS elite.
Praise The Almighty Lord Obama! Amen…
All Hail!
P.S. Oceannia is at war with Eastasia. Oceannia has always been at war with Eastasia. We are in Alliance with Euerasia.
P.P.S. We never said “global warming.” We have always said “climate change.” That’s happening now, because a couple of years ago there was some snow in Florida. So we’re just clarifying that.
Uhh, actually it did start out as “Global warming”, then changed to “Climate change: AFTER it was repeattedly shown that the earths temp. has dropped just as there was a predicted rise.
I live in an area with a decent growing season whose landscape is predominantly rolling hills formed by the movement of huge glaciers. And yes, Florida was snowed on even when I was a child although it was rare.
Clear-cut forests would be a larger impact on global weather patterns than personal vehicles. Easily mitigated by re-planting as forests are cut.
Now, fossil fuels are a pollutant and a finite resource. But, the reason for the clamour now is the elite are now in a position to take your money for “green” energy, not a pressing threat.
Long and short most people are only ever given enough information so that they can only come to one desired conclusion. And, the pathetic writer that pass for journalists aid in the deciet especially in the science and technology arena.
Remember you are in Libya to make omeone wealthier.
General Alexander could not get jack squat for help when Tutsi’s and Hutu’s were massacring eachother in the thousands. Their country was not of value to the elite. Yet the violence was far worse and more prolonged.
“The bloody history of Hutu and Tutsi conflict stained the 20th century, from the slaughter of 80,000 to 200,000 Hutus by the Tutsi army in Burundi in 1972 to the 1994 Rwanda genocide in which Hutu militias targeted Tutsis, resulting in a 100-day death toll between 800,000 and 1 million.”
http://worldnews.about.com/od/africa/f/tutsihutu.htm
Who ran the US, Canada, Australia, or the UK in 94? Who cares Mauel Dexter has thrown to light the OTHER golden rule. He who has the gold makes all the rules. And those with the gold have no money in Rwanda or Burundi that is being lost due to conflict. Diamond are bought cheaply BECAUSE of this conflict infact You can bet your last dollar they have an interest in Libya oil though. Idle oil derricks pump no money.
Man I need to switch keyboards, my apologies for teh messed up typing.
Alan Moore’s illustrated masterpiece “The Watchmen” had this same premise: that in order to forestall impending doom (in this case, global nuclear annihilation), an elite had to create a common enemy that would require the West and Soviet Russia to abandon hostilities.
So Adrian Veidt, self-made billionaire, developed a plan to create an alien invasion. The world united, under Veidt’s banner, of course. The last page of the graphic novel, however, had the Truth, via Rorshach’s journal, being opened.
I’m pretty sure that technology is one of our enemies. In fact, the more technology has progressed in my lifetime, the more I hate life. There is a limit to how much the government can intrude on your life without technology. Even your thoughts may not be private in the future. Ever heard people fantasizing about the future and how wonderful it will be when we have a zillion more gadgets and gizmos to do our chores and keep us entertained. It’s like putting a bird in a cage and saying it’s better off because it’s got its auto feeder and a mirror for company, and a bell to play with.
Technology does not create freedom, it takes it away. Freedom isn’t the ability for me to send my text around the world on the internet…….freedom is being able to be left alone.
I’m 48yo now. I’m 100% sure that I had far more freedom when I was 20yo. And I’m sure my father had more freedom when he was 20 then I had at 20. And I think the erosion of freedom has been made possible by technology. The governments desire to erode freedom has always been there, but it’s technology that makes it happen.
I hear a lot of people say that the internet gives us……MRAs a voice that can’t be silenced. It’s an illusion. They can shut down and criminalize our activities anytime they want to. And once they do that, saying you have the freedom to get on the net and spread the MRM word will be the same as pedophile saying they can get on the net and look at child porn……..yes they can…..if they can find any……and if they want to go to jail. Besides that, the whole reason that we are here, spending much time on the internet, instead of going fishing, or playing golf, is because the feminists have grown so powerful via the very technology that we have handed them.
We are here because technology is imprisoning us, not freeing us.
Technology, like guns, money, fire, and water, is neutral. Technology imprisons no one. Humans imprison other humans. It has always and will always be so.
I appreciate the author’s efforts but in the end, so what? We already knew this. Let’s focus on what we can do on a daily level, rather than zooming out and pondering the significance of global conspiracies on a macro-level.
Off topic.
With all the news of women being let off with a slap on the wrists for everything from organising drunken drug fueled orgies for their underage students, to planning and carrying out the murders of their husbands, I’m surprised to see this news article today.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8238320/toddler-drowned-while-mum-on-facebook
Also more good news on the anti misandry front. Julie Gillard, Australia’s first female PM, who rode to power in back room deals, stabbing Keven Rudd in the back and ousting him last year, and then narrowly clinging to power in the last election by buying the preferences of a couple of independants to scrape through with just enough seats to cling to power for her government, is already collapsing in popularity, the the disposed Keven Rudd now ahead of her in the popularity stakes. The Labor Parties polls have slumped to their lowest level in 15 years under her watch.
Ho Hum, if only women ruled the world everything would fine lol
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8238233/alp-at-15-yr-low-would-fall-in-landslide
“The lie of personal powerlessness is a re-framing of the biblical admonition to surrender control of your life to the self-appointed intermediaries to “god”; the church.”
god intermediaries are not self-appointed, neither is the true church (tho of course numerous frauds operate, especially in the west’s matriarchal “churches”)
“The myth of your personal inability to comprehend the big complicated world is a retelling of the biblical edict to surrender your personal accountability to an imaginary supernatural redeemer-figure.”
this is the second essay of yours i’ve read, and you have a cunning talent for conflating opposites: the demonic elements of planet fem (especially governmental elements) with god and his servants
you’re quite clever at it, mixing it in with obvious truths, but i won’t bother to refute it all, it’s v tiring (pearls, swine, etc)
the only men’s movements that have ever arisen on this planet, to counter the original alliance between collective female power and elite/tyrant males, have been organized and staffed (usually, to the death) by that very god and redeemer you so heartily mock, and/or by his associates
this version of the mrm will be no different; your propaganda, though subtle, is conterinsurgent . . . very much the memes the matriarchy wishes to continue and expand
the enemy of boys and men on this planet knows that no substantive threat to the matriarchy will take place absent god’s aid and interventions (which are ongoing)
hope they’re paying you well . . . or at least something! :O)
won’t be reading you again
ray
Yeah……..well there is a new God in town Ray…..his name is Paul
And by the way, your mother wears army boots.
No offense Izzey
I’m a Libetarian – In my world you work or you get nothing. Feminists would have no power in a libertarian society where you can’t complain and whine to get what you want.
Feminists want to suck money out of men. Whilst you pay half your money to your ex wives and then half of what’s left in tax to support single mothers and others who don’t have to be responsible for their decisions, you have nothing left, but they want YOU to be responsible for everyone else
ARGGHH!!!
I don’t think you have a clear understanding of Libertarian means. Now, don’t shoot the messenger, rathr take the opportunity to revise and understand the basic principles. For, I am not saying you are completely wrong.. you are not, but this interpretation is “where you can’t complain and whine to get what you want”
You can whine as much as you like and people are free to give you charity, but other than that, you go without.
I’m speaking in terms of relevant context. Able body people who don’t work get nothing.
I tried to be succinct without having to over explain the post.
A libertarian society would as an inherent structure give people more options to mitigate foreseeable problems in terms of insurances and risk assessed policy.
The relevant contextual meaning of my statement was that feminists couldn’t complain and suck money into their femisocialist quarters, because money and assets would be individually owned and only free donation would see them advance their fiscal viability.
…and we all know without socialist money sucking, feminism is NOT fiscally viable as a self supporting means of valid, competitive intrinsics.
There are several branches of libertarianism all slightly differentiated from the next, but the general theme is non-statism.
Agreed
So disabled men who did work and now can’t and made too little to collect savings should what, die?
The Libertarianism I’m acquainted with has more compassion than that. Your interpretation would benefit women much more than men because society will do anything to protect females from destitution so basically incapable women would be housed and protected but incapable men, (of which there are many more), would I guess be left to die in the streets.
If that interpretation ever comes to pass it won’t take sensible people very long to regret it.
Libertarianism is about responsibility for yourself and a responsibility to play a role in making your society enlightened and worth being a part of, making it so that no authoritarian body has reason to claim they can do it better.
Our friend here sounds like a Randian/Objectivist. He does not know that Ayn hated being called a libertarian, and correctly so because she was not one, nor is her philosophy.
Libertarianism (the principle not the party) means adherence to two principles –
1. Noninitiation of aggression,
2. Extending that non-aggression to whatever is recognized as justly owned by someone else.
“Our friend here sounds like a Randian/Objectivist. He does not know that Ayn hated being called a libertarian, and correctly so because she was not one, nor is her philosophy.”
Frankly, being that you had the candor to be frank with me, I fail to see how you deducted that I do not know the difference, being that I left my opening statement with a qualifying exactum.
I am well aware of objectivism and libetaranism and the differences therein.
However the non statist nature of primary libertarianism assumes that force is unwarranted, thusly private ownership and capitalist dynamics are logically the default position.
The socialists within libertarianism hold views contrary to the rights of individuals other than that on state owned assets.
Possession is the question, but you can subscribe to Randian dynamics without being a subscribed objectivist so to speak.
Simply:
In the absence of government force or inefficient, unproductive people – Higher self responsibility is a good.
In the case of men who have been rendered destitute by socialist removal of valid, earned wealth, restitution in the form of value redistribution would ensue.
Alimony would certainly not exist.
Child support would be rendered obsolete.
Custody would be split.
In cases where it wasn’t, the party with the responsibility, would be……..responsible.
Men who did work, but are now incapacitated would be appropriated a share of the left government owned assets as restitution, as state owned assets are reappropriated.
Of course there are those who can not as an absolute fend for themselves, there for they would require assistance stemming from the good of people.
So, in the presence of good people, we would voluntarily help those fallen brethren who need it, thus proving we are inherently good and solving the problem of disabled need.
I’m glad you said that because I’ve heard several libertarians advocating the abandonment of the disabled or incapable, (and I don’t mean those who strive to leech from others but genuinely disabled and damaged humans), and I don’t think they quite understand the damage a large underclass of desperate people could do to the non-initiation principle. Also, controlling that desperation with a large empowered police, force would just take us back in the wrong direction as large powerful police forces are stateist coercion machines and dangerous to the people.
I honestly believe that true freedom is only possible if it’s led by responsible as well as compassionate people who have made the concept of callous governance obsolete.
Yes, I think people outside of governmental oppression would be even more generous than they are now.
I would much rather donate my time/money/talent to helping the disabled/incapacitated than having tax money wrenched from my cold hard fist in order to pay single mothers and able bodied welfare scammers.
If humanity is good then we will as per the fact, look after the needy.
I don’t agree with abandoning the needy, I have faith in good people.
I don’t however agree with femisocialist views that base their entire argument for socialism around the few members of society that need help.
I also believe their are very few people in the western world who are not capable of some form of productivity, so businesses could with or without social pressure assist in helping those to help themselves.
Agreed.
http://www.wimp.com/apathyantidote/
^^^Semi-related. Essentially showing how it you give people a chance to, most are generally good and wish to create positive change. Yet, the socialist/big brother system we currently employee tries to prevent that.
It irritates me, too. I like working for my money. It frustrates me when I see “manginas” or “feminists” do almost nothing in their job but stand around and look pretty, text on their phones, or socialize. Yet, they feel they are entitled to earning the same amount and not having to work so hard for it. Are we ever going to get back to personal accountability?
*** Off Topic Post ***
Just a little bit of news for you from the UK today, It seems that the general behaviour of teenage girls is getting worse here in the UK.
According to the results of a poll published today:
Linky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13098844
Quoting: “A survey of teachers, heads and other school staff across the UK
found that 44% believed girls’ behaviour had worsened in the past two years.”
(I think we can safely assume the real figure is probably quite a bit higher.)
This compares with 43% for boys, says a survey of 859 members of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.”
Given that figure I’m guessing that approximately 850 of these respondents
were probably female and feminist supporters by default.
Of course the respondents were all school teachers and given that here in
the UK there are relatively few male teachers (thanks largely to abuse
scandals and false allegations), it was also funded by the taxpayer at the
behest of mangina idiot politicians so I don’t really think we can call this poll
an unbiased view.
As well as that, it goes without saying that they are at pains to point out
that boys are generally far more violent than girls:
Quoting: “Boys are more physically aggressive and usually to other pupils,
with girls it is more name calling, less fighting.”
Yeah right, tell that to the four female local school students I recently saw pummelling the living s**t of each other with hockey sticks at a bus stop
not far from my home.
(As far as I’m aware, at least two of them wound up in the local E.R. with
multiple fractures.)
If anything, women it seems to me are becoming just as if not more likely to
resort to random acts of senseless violence when annoyed than men are.
Seems like the same old trick to me, point out that female students are
rapidly decreasing in general quality whilst rabidly reminding everybody about
how terribly nasty and violent the males ones are.
I’d like to think that by now, most of those who post on this site can quite
plainly see through this trash.
So they tell us that there plainly are big problems in our classrooms these
days? You don’t say!…
Only question I’d ask these teachers is:
Did the widespread various news reports of students commiting suicide over rampant bullying or rabidly trying to kill each other give you a clue maybe?
I for one am definately not holding my breath over the UK’s mangina
and chivalrist filled government doing anything about it.
Facing facts, I’d have to say our schools are currently one step up the ladder
from being irredeemably FUBARED and teetering on the brink.
Arrgghhh I f&*&%in HATE that one! Again growing up when the U.S. had finally become the Feminized Soviet State(born in 71) , I saw women beat the hell out of each other TONS of times. Countless times. All the violent schools I went to it was usually girls pulling each other’s hair and scratching each otyher. And beating boys…and getting away with it. Hardly ever a suspension. Girls always got away with slapping a boy when he said something to piss ehr off, at the most a “problem solving session” at the principle’s office. Boys got suspended immediately for any fighting whatsoever.
“that boys are generally far more violent than girls:
Quoting: “Boys are more physically aggressive and usually to other pupils,
with girls it is more name calling, less fighting.”
Is what I was refering to.
Its a systemic problem which I’d like to think is obvious to most of here, the plainly false stereotyping of young boys as aggressive and violent whilst the sun apparently shines out of the girls butt-puckers.
Somewhat fortuitously here in Northern Ireland, a lot of schools still follow the single gender and full school uniform policies that I experienced while at school myself.
More than ever the schools are being run almost exclusively by women, this is not good for young boys who desperately need male role models more than ever to help them deal with the realities of living in a world that openly despises them.
Hell even when kids do well in exams here in the UK the news routinely carries reports slamming the tests for being too easy.
The kids these days don’t even try to do well, and given shit like this it easy to see why the boys especially see no reason to bother.
It’s like they cannot win no matter what they do, and nothings ever going to be good enough.
The other main problem is that discipline continues to decline uncontrollably, hardly surprising when these female teachers find the idea of gaining students trust and respect through the application of properly tailored teaching methods to be an alien concept.
You want proof? try looking back at your own school days and you’ll likely find that you didn’t do so well at the subjects where your teacher was a total douche or lacked the respect of the class.
Lets face it, female teachers are generally incapable of accepting that they are going about educating boys the wrong way, thus it is my view that they will continue to fail epically in commanding respect boys.
When a teacher lacks respect in the classroom, it shows plainly in the high levels of failure and general douchebaggery that always ensue.
I feel that in boys education, a little bit of common sense would see major improvements in morale, self-image and respect for others, it just infuriates me that they aren’t even trying to give these children a shot at a future.
“Myth: A collection of disenfranchised fanatical Moslems are a credible threat to the largest military superpower in the world.”
“Myth: You as an individual lack real power in civil society.”
These two contradict each other.
“Moslem” is spelled “Muslim”
I guess that a group of fanatic Muslims destroying the world trade center towers was just our imagination?
And – since those terrorists are individuals – it is a myth to say that they lack any real power?
“A collection of disenfranchised fanatical Moslems are a credible threat to the largest military superpower in the world.”
This is true. It might be confusing because people often assume that they, as Americans, are part of the largest superpower in the world. Fact is – that is not true, nor is the baseless sentiment that the largest superpower is protecting you.
Which is why terrorists could be a real threat to you! Just like they proved to be for the people in the twin towers. Its just that YOU are not included in the statement quoted above.
Well I don’t know what schools are like anywhere else, but here in OZ, the public schools are hotbeds of misandry. The girls, and I mean the girls, as in students, run them. They are little more then child minding centers, where there is no child minding. As far as I can see, they teach very little of any worth, and are just pumping bullshit into kids heads passed of as education. Politically correct to the point of rediculous. The teachers have totally lost control and I don’t feel sorry for them one bit. They are a large part of the problem, extreme leftist politically correct feminists and manginas, and they have got the system they have pushed for…..no discipline…..except for boys. It’s a breeding ground for ultra entitled princesses. Their answer for the most extreme level of bad behavior…..is to have a little talk the little princesses. Worst case scenario is to suspend…..(give them a holiday) for a few days.
the only assessments that really can’t be fudged or soft marked, is the end of VCE, which is high school graduation. And it’s a bit late them to find out someone can’t spell their own name lol
A couple of years ago, the government was going to introduce compulsory standardized assessements that were not going to be marked by the teachers. I’m not sure how is was going to work, but it was going to be annual. It would have highlighted how little students know, and how they were just being put up year after year all the way through school, with bullshit tests designed so anyone can pass, and it would have shown how fucked our teachers are.
Teachers around the country boycotted and schools sent letter to all parents saying to support their action not to have these test…..so they can keep pretending to do their jobs is the way I read it.
They got their way too. Cant have people finding out how pathetic the system is.
Absolutely true Stu!
The teachers in Oz schools are so clearly biased against male students that it is actually sickening to watch.
Almost every time I am near my kid’s school, the sexism makes my blood boil.
Boys are singled out and punished whilst the girls get away with bloody murder.
My son was marched in assembly with his male peers as the female deputy principle scolded the boys en masse because a handful of them actually stood up and complained that the girls were never punished for the same things they did wrong.
Sound familiar?
Sound like a segue into manhood as you learn that only boys are held responsible?
The worst part is a female student attacked a boy with a log in an episode of extreme violence, but rest assured, the girls in their entirety were not marched as an example.
This was on the very same day as if not to rub salt on the wounds.
Day after day these misandric cows teach that male bashing is the norm and that girls a sugar and spice and all things nice.
I have to reprogram my kids to see how wrong this is and how.
Then why are your children still in attendance?
Because all the schools are like this in OZ. They all have 95% female teachers who in turn are mostly left winger femisocialist man haters.
The number of 50+ aged spinsters is too high and men don’t want the job lest they have the finger pointed of accusation.
If I had a viable alternative I’d employ it, but rest assured, my kids are given a pretty hefty dose of bullshit filtering from dear old dad.
One of the things they were saying was that having these sorts of tests will result in low self esteem for the students that don’t do well in them lol
Yep, that’s all that counts…feelings.
Four years ago I would have listened politely to someone who said things like this article and author over tea, beer or as an guest at my dinner table. Afterwards he would be on my casually avoid list. Four years before that I would habe engaged him in argument.
I would no longer neglect this person. Rather than argue I may reply with expansive conjecture, but my point is: it is a bit over the top, no nefarious philosopher is required for leaders to be assholes and the presence of leaders who organize in their assholery doesn’t mean that the world is governed by mind controlling cabals.
You see a pattern (“red pill” anyone?) because there are patterns: leaders, assholes (a.k.a.: human beings), teachers, philosophers, students … those are real things which make real patterns.
Observe the ocean closely enough and there are patterns too. Currents, streams, mammal and fish migrations, high and low pressure zones, … and yet, no cabal of Neptune and Davey Jones, no matter how the numbers of sunk ships line up.
So- to the author : I disagree with your means of analysis, I find it to be less empirical and too teleological for my tastes- but we are not necessarily on different sides … somehow we are engaged around the world now in 4 wars (Pakistan counts as one). Whether I credit Strauss or Cabalist neocons with this is or not (and I assuredly do not) besides the point. Something is wrong with my democracy when it is running wars in four theaters of operation. Me: I think it mostly has to do with the fact that our power and decision structure in DC would rather spent 3 quarters of a trillion dollars per year on military than $50-100 billion just once converting the US to an energy infrastructure that uses replaceable batteries or fuel cells from natural gas and other viable, locally sourced energy alternatives.
But, big cookie- so as much as I disagree in diagnosis, I can agree in some outcome and reach across the isle, point is, so what?
Does any of this help MRM?
My answer: no.
Better question: is this even remotely relevant to MRM?
Surprise answer: yes.
It is relevant because I would still invite this author to dinner. Millions who have been run under by a legal system that gives equal rights to women but does not expect equal responsibility of them would, like me a few years ago, see enough here to get the message “move on”.
It doesn’t matter how strongly you believe a bogeyman is behind the weather: invoke bogeyman and you (rightfully) lose 3/4ths the potential audience. So, I do not as much question the author here as I do the editorial policy.
This is where your high-flying “logic” fails
“Something is wrong with my democracy “.. it was never yours, nor is it a democracy, never was and never will be.
“that our power and decision structure in DC would rather spent…”
Your power and decision structure is in DC? Mine is at the top of my body.. called a brain.
For a person eager to dismiss others, the finer details are lost on you. No wonder it is easy to cry “Conspiracy theorist”, even though there is no conspiracy theory behind it. These are facts that even the neo-conservative cabal will eagerly confirm, just ask Bill Kristol (who recently praised obama as a born-again-neocon) or Charles Krauthammer.
Sounds to me like you are the one living in fantasy island.
One more thing – Politeness often is a convenient cover for ignorance, cowardice and arrogance.
Ignorance of the subject matter
Cowardice not to debate it
Arrogance to assume validity of their untested, undebated superior knowledge.
Republicans are worse then Democrats.
Maybe, but it doesn’t really matter which are worse. Both are absolute enemies of men’s rights, and humanity in general.
That sums it up right there………………..a million thumbs up.
Yeah but but kind of a moot point from the looks of it, there isn’t very much
to choose between them as I see it.
They both openly hate men and they both leave a hell of a lot to be desired
if you ask me.
Brilliant. Exacting. Complete. Wonderful. An excellent article in every respect.
Its a good sign of success to see generally non-MRA-ish people talk about male bashing in school and university campuses.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/86063.html
Congratulations to all who have promoted the understanding! We are spreading the message (either that or the misandrists are doing that for us).