Dear Harry,

Sitting here on the porch, out in Canada, drinking cold beer on a
warm July night and reading your website, as I often do...getting a little
tipsy now, as I often do (Hey, I'm Canadian!).

Great Work!

I was reading your piece titled "Are You a Computer Simulation" and
was intrigued as I often contemplate such inane concepts myself!

I also read elsewhere on your blog how you found reading on the
internet to be a form of relaxation much better than the TV etc, something
which I wholeheartedly agree with and find myself doing with virtually
all of my free time now. TV is background noise for me now and I rarely
can even tell you what it is I currently have the channel tuned to...

Anyway, in regard to your article, and while I know this is somewhat
off topic, it reminded me of a website that I came across perhaps a
year ago that entirely enthralled me with its insights. I thought that if
you enjoyed reading on the web so much that your intellectual mind
might particularly enjoy spending a few days ensconsed in this mind blowing
theory as I did.

http://www.atlan.org/

I know this website concentrates on the lost continent of Atlantis,
which may to some seem frivolous, but what grabbed me the most was the
concept/connections made between all major religions and the implication
that something "bigger" is going on here!

Anyway, thought I would make you aware... If you are up for some
penetrative literature that boggles the mind, which you seem to enjoy as
much as I do!

R

(A little bit of fun, anyways. This website still sticks in my mind after a year! I want to grab onto a religious scholar and discuss the "Nephilim" described in Genisis 6! I have also concluded on my own that perhaps the "fall" of society was due to the excesses of feminist neandertals and cro-magnons! LOL!)

.............

OK, still drinking beer on the porch here...

Here is a concept that has going on in my mind for quite some time now.

What if... What if there was a society that preceded us...

What if... What if we were placed on Earth by aliens...

What if... As you claim, that humankind only has a 50% chance of surviving the next 100 years?

If our human society were to virtually be wiped out... there would be some survivors, yes or no? SOME would survive! Even if they were people who lived in biologically contained "shelters?" There are these people out there!

So... technology would be destroyed, morals would be destroyed etc etc. Eventually all knowledge of the previous existence would be destroyed, for how would we document such existence without elecricity and knowing that paper would disentegrate in the thousands of years that it would take for technology to recuperate?

What would you leave in its place? If YOU were the last person of "our" time, teaching the new generation? Think Mad Max.

I would leave religion.

Why does all religion have such similarities? Why all the fall from paradise? Why all the hope to return to it? WHY DO ALL RELIGIONS PORTRAY WOMEN AS SHOULD BE MANDATORILY SUBSERVIENT TO MEN?

If you, Angry Harry, were the last man on earth from the times of old, and had to leave instructions on how to form society... how would you dictate the societal structures between men and women, knowing what you know today about the power dynamics inherent between the genders?

..................


Hi R

Sorry for the delay, but my missus has not been well recently, and she has just had a lump removed from her breast. We are going to find out next week whether or not the cancer is likely to have spread, in which case its radiotherapy and chemotherapy for a while.

I have been scanning the internet for all sorts of information and I think that the prognosis is very good indeed - so, at the moment, I am very optimistic. And I think that it has been caught VERY early. But she is very uptight about it all at the moment.

My email address at, ....

angryharryspost@yahoo.com

... should work; or, ...

harrysnews@gmail.com

I shall definitely pop along to the Atlantis website and have a good look.

Your point about all major religions reckoning that men should dominate over their women is very interesting, and I have recently been discovering that many MRAs seem to be waking up to the same conclusion - viz; that if women are given too much power, then societal chaos seems to arise.

And while I am beginning to believe that this is most probably the case, I suspect that one of the main reasons that all these religions managed to come up with this idea - and maintain it - is because men quite approved of it! And I reckon that many women were more than happy for the men to take responsibility that went along with the power.

But you are quite right when you suggest that if I had to leave some small legacy - some 'gender' advice - for future generations of a thousand years hence, then the notion that men should be dominant over their women would, indeed, seem to be an extremely important part of that advice and, as you imply, perhaps the **most** important part!

I have never quite thought deeply enough about gender matters in this way before, but I think that you are on to something. And I even think that it might be the case that this notion - that men should be dominant over their women - could be a very attractive rallying call; with considerable power to change the society in which we live - for the better.

I am going to post this up on Karl's forum - if that's OK - and test the waters!

Thanks R - much appreciated.

Harry

Now this is something I've wondered about too. I recall when I first really started comprehending the consquences of 'feminism', one of the analogies I drew in my mind's eye was that of feminism being akin to a religious cult. A cult that allowed female dominance in virtually all forms (i.e. political, educational, media, legal, etc.) and teachings. As I pondered this concept it also occured to me, having come from a C-of-E background, mixed with a spout of Jehovah's Witnesses and even discussions with Mormons it occured to me that each of them (plus others I'd not tangled with but had heard/knew of) had all said the same thing: "Man is in charge". Now I don't consider myself a superior being in any manner, but on the otherhand there HAS to be a reason for this. Comparing the consequences of society's that live by the "man in charge" system seems to have done well while feminism, or more aptly named "female dominance", seems to being going down the pan somewhat rapidly. Very rapidly. Thousands of years under "Man in charge" systems vs a few decades of "female dominance" and you only have to look at the TV or read the papers to see the destruction & incompitance we live under on a daily basis.


BTW, AH, My best wishes to your wife. I genuinely hope her situation has been dealt swiftly with. I'm in a similar position as my mother has similar in her lung & liver, despite having recovered once from it already. My fingers are crossed for all.

You dudes are scaring me. I think you're right. But it seems to me that restoring the balance is going to necessarily involve violence. And what is that going to mean to those of us women who are anti-feminist? We look just like the enemy.

Feminists have relied on violence to get their points across. In a thread not so long ago, I asked for a pointer to an occasion that made the news in England whereby feminists used a bomb at a TV station. This was going back to the very early 80s.
Men (at a general level) are not innately violent. I genuinely doubt it will be a violent resolve. I certainly hope it isn't.

I hope you're right. I'm not as optimistic. Haven't you ever been so mad you've seen red? Or heard of a mob tearing up a city?

I just keep thinking of the French Revolution, ya know? We ARE talking revolution of a kind here.

Thank you, guys. That does make me feel a little more secure. Just watch your backs. Because when it happens, you may be surprised. Women won't hesitate to turn on you. Maybe even some you didn't expect it from.

Been there more than enough times to see truth in your words.

Good God -Billy!That is truly awful.
My brother had friend whose mother suceeded in stabbing him.
He suffered with mental illness but managed to get get a job - guess what happened in the job?
An entitlement princess arrived and started to try to dictate how he should be doing things she was new - he had been there for 2-3 years.
He told her where to go.She then sent her bruiser of a boy friend round to his house to physically threaten him..he survived stood up to the thug .

Someone else hassled him later I cant remember the details he had to leave the job..as far as I know he is in care.IT makes me angry the way all this is brushed under the carpet.
What you said previously about loner men and anger really interested me because given so much provocation and an environment that encourages such provocation I am surprised more men dont go ballistic.
Like you I find it impossible to trust women now.
With me it was non stop insults injustice in every area esp. work. even though I meet some women who seem fine too many times I have heard them take the feminist party line.This to me is a red light so I then Take a sharp turn away...Anyway Billy you are in my thoughts and prayers.

This is why we must never be afraid of putting aside our chivalrous feelings.

The more and more that I start to look at things through this lens of "religion had a real purpose in denying women equal power with men", the more I start to think that that denying women equal power was the better way to acheive real equality.

Richard wrote a short piece on his blog called "The Battle of the Remote", and it summed up the very concept that I have been jostling in my mind:

---

http://richardsmidlifecrisis.blogspo...me-across.html

The battle of the remote

"In every home across the land a battle is raging- the battle of the remote control. This battle is the sex war in miniature.

I read an article a little while ago complaining that men hold the remote control more than the women they live with. We were all supposed to conclude from this that men were selfish pigs but I do not think it proves this at all.

When a woman holds the remote she will chose something that only she enjoys- Desperate Housewives for instance. When a man holds the remote on the other hand he will choose something both parties enjoy. This is a microcosm of the ways in which men and women use power. Patriarchy has always venerated women in art and in other ways. These societies may have defined women but they also believed that they were working for the benefit of women.

What do we see under feminism?

Do we see men venerated and valued in the way that women always have been in the past? No.

Men are degraded- but so are women in a different way. Feminism degrades both sexes in different ways- it degrades men by claiming they are beasts but it also degrades women by imposing victim hood upon them.

This is rather as if a woman had gained control of the remote control and was insisting on watching programmes that neither enjoyed!

Whenever men get power they will generally use it for the benefit of women- in large matters and in small. This is what gives patriarchy its moral legitimacy.

Men must continue to hold the remote control and continue to choose programmes for the benefit of both parties. Our right to rule will end at the first sign of selfishness. It is possible that some time in the future women will be able to exercise power in the same responsible way that men do now but I personally doubt it. Men evolved the ability to consider the needs of women because women would not have survived otherwise. Women evolved the ability to consider the needs of children for exactly the same reason- but women never evolved the desire to protect men.

Why? Because men have never needed protection.

We therefore see that men have a moral right to rule- and our very DNA makes it necessary.

Humanity faces a choice. When men hold the power there will be some sort of equality between the sexes but when women hold the power men will be reduced to slavery.

It is amazing how much you can learn from a remote control."

---

Yeah, so there! Now pass me that damn remote!!!

But seriously, Richard makes a good point here. Men do this as almost a natural behaviour. Think about how many men go out and buy the wifey a brand new mini-van when they get married so that her and the kids will be safe and have reliable transportation. Just one more example, but most men will know how a man can fret over providing this for his loved ones in such situations, as well as a good house etc. etc.. However, have you ever heard of a wife dragging her husband down to the dealership, after putting in months of overtime, so that SHE can park his ass in a brand new SUV because SHE is concerned about his safety? No? How come? If anything, the thing you will hear, if she is concerned about his safety, is how she is concerned how HER and the kids will get by if anything happened to the husband. That is not true concern for him, rather it is camoulflaged self-concern.

After reading some of the good old fashioned misogynists like Freud, Schopenhauer, Weininger et. al. (Here is a good website to surf through this stuff, btw http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/index.html and especially this PDF, titled "Woman, All It Is Unwise To Know About Her" that I have now read a few times http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/woman.pdf)

There is one thing that men could, and should, easily conclude. If human beings are related to animals, then our primary objective is to 1. SURVIVE and 2. REPRODUCE. This is the primary objective of all living things on earth, isn't it?

Now, how is it that a woman survives and reproduces? Well, have a look around the world. In all of the world and in all of humanity, women survive by getting others to love her! It is her motivation for all things. A man who loves a woman will take care of her and share his resources in order to ensure her survival. Children who love their mother will take care of her in her old age (thus, from what I can understand, some of the philosophies regarding the mother-son dynamic, for who is the most logical replacement for a provider to a woman in old age, after her husband has passed on?). This also could explain a woman's seemingly endless supply of "male friends" who are "just friends", when all of us men know those "friends" would nail her at the sound of her falling panties. A woman can get comfort and assurance from knowing that in a pinch, any of these guys will take over the "providing" that she needs.

Basically, a woman's survival strategy is to have other people desire her so much that they will provide for her all the necessities in life. This was true in the past "patriarchal" age and it is also true in the modern "feminist" age. Today as well, women are lobbying the government and the public to believe that they do no wrong and are constant victims who should be cherished, valued and provided for - even if it is a bit unfair. There is no concern for men in the feminist age except that men remain duped into believing that women are superior creatures that men should be willing to sacrifice money, freedoms and sanity for.

Given this light, I can see why virtually all religions have taken physical power away from women.

If men generally choose what is best for men, women and children, then out of his 1 vote of conceren, 33% of it goes to men/33% to women/33% to children.

When women are given a vote equal to men, her nature may likely dictate her 1 vote of concern be 50% to women/50% to children.

So, as the math progresses. 1 man and 1 woman vote. Out of the two votes, look at how the "concerns" end up tallying out in society

Concern for Men = 16.7%
Concern for Women = 41.7%
Concern for Children = 41.7%

I believe this is human nature. I believe this is a characteristic of women. I believe this is why religions have not given women the physical power of men in politics - because keeping that power from women is the only way to counteract the overwhelming sexual power that she is 100% of control of. Giving power to women that was traditionally a man's, while doing nothing to restrict her sexual power, will always lead to a horrible imbalance in society and inevitably lead to abuses, and then to the outright death of society as the genders run like the wind from eachother and the birthrate falls to unsustainable levels.

If I'm still alive after Hitlery becomes President and destroys society either with the bomb or her real secret weapon of mass destruction: her lack of morals... well, if I crawl out of a hole like a cockroach after the death of society, I certainly will spend my time writing (there will be no internet anymore) a religion to pass down to the future generations of survivors. In this religion I create, I will definately have 11 Commandments. The 11th Commandment will be: DON'T LET HER VOTE!

Many of my own ideas are contained in your excellently written post. It's clear that the balance of power is completely lost. But just as in the case of economic communism, sexual communism will only die out very slowly. These liberated females are not going to admit they're wrong, even if many of them can clearly see the reforms are not delivering what was promised. They will do the same as the other communists did: blame others and lay on more pressure. It's going to collapse sooner or later, but I may not see it happen.

Rob your point is self-refuting, to say men have a concern for women and then to say, "Don't let her vote." You rightly criticize the view that women can do no wrong but then you imply that men never do wrong. But men are frequently selfish, not always benevolent. When in power they often become corrupt and willing to sell out their fellow citizens and even to have many killed for personal gain. Feminism which claims that women=good and men=bad is not credible. Neither is "men's rights" activism which claim men=good and women=bad. The pathology is the same.

That's not what he says at all. He's talking about instinct. He didn't use the word good or bad. That men have a protective instinct that's not reciprocated in the same manner, affects the balance of power. That's why she shouldn't have been made independent of him. She was already sufficiently protected. Of course, as I said before, it's not realistic.

Personally I think the relationship between man and woman is doomed. The more technology advances, the more they will find ways to live independently of each other. Considering the enormous hatred that is growing between them, they will have little choice but to separate for good.

bola, I doubt that women have some power by way of instincts which men lack. I will agree that by natural selection a man would have an instinctive urge to protect his female relatives, but that would be balanced by the female's instinctive urge to nurture her male relatives. However, a lot of human behavior is due to training, so those urges to protect/nurture may be encouraged or squashed.

I don't feel that male-female relations are doomed yet, and I don't percieve a growing hatred between them either. Technology can make us able to live independently, but we still have these love potions in our brains tying us together, no matter what. There are certainly some things to be concerned about with the breakdown of the family, but I am still optimistic that people can turn around. You see, I witnessed my parents go through three divorces by the time I was eighteen. I made a decision not to live my own life like that and not do that to my own kids. God permitting, my child(ren) will only have one set of parents who live together always. That's why I don't think we are doomed yet, because more people will say "enough is enough."

His argument is, that women only tend to protect the children and not so much the male, and this explains the peculiar, incompassionate, selfish behavior of women today. I think he has a point.

You don't ???

O, but that's where you're wrong. People who use hard drugs for instance have hardly any sex drive or social life. The developments in virtual reality and chemicals that affect the brain etc will surely bring completely new possibilities.

Even today a very large number of men and women are permanently single, let alone when technology makes it even more comfortable for them to stay alone.

I admit that men and women will still seek each others company for a long time to come, but considering the hostile, condescending attitude of many modern women and the high divorce rate, I think it's inevitable that eventually they will each go their own way.