Quote from pjanus

Society is broken and there appears to be no way to fix it. It may be that we will see a total collapse and have to start again, even from a third world position, who knows.

12 months ago I would have been deeply concerned at this, but strangely, I now feel detached. Try as I might I couldn't care less. Let's hope that we do not all have this sense of apathy and feeling of inevitability.

I think the problem we face is that many men (if left to their own devices)won't wake up to how bad things actually are until they too get fucked over in a divorce, falsely accused, lose access to their children, and so on. Many are dimly aware that women have gained the upperhand, but most lack knowledge of the feminist agenda and indulge women in their 'little jokes', failing to recognise that it's all deadly serious. Today's thread about the "What are men good for?" debate demonstrates this more than adequately.

One thing's for sure: if we don't try and persuade other men that their diet of feminist propaganda is killing them then the outcome will be inevitable.

Quote from Ted Bundy

I think the problem we face is that many men (if left to their own devices)won't wake up to how bad things actually are until they too get fucked over in a divorce, falsely accused, lose access to their children, and so on. Many are dimly aware that women have gained the upperhand, but most lack knowledge of the feminist agenda and indulge women in their 'little jokes', failing to recognise that it's all deadly serious. Today's thread about the "What are men good for?" debate demonstrates this more than adequately.

One thing's for sure: if we don't try and persuade other men that their diet of feminist propaganda is killing them then the outcome will be inevitable.

100% correct..

Spot on, Ted.

Mind if I call you Al? I liked Al, he was hilarious!

Quote from Drex

Those were the days eh?

Feminism has now decimated the working class..

In response to BT, I think that the big corporations are the real "votes that matter".. The state is in their pockets..

One K, One vote..

Thats how its looking!

Think of the power of, say, a big oil corporation or media concern to strike against a government it does not approve of..

Good post, Drex.

We have this corporate ethic now where the labor is as disposable as any other consumer goods. But at least we're not living in "The Jungle," so it could be- has been- worse. And that was before women had the vote. Feminism isn't quite an anti-panacea that we can blame all of our economic and political problems on. I can understand the reasoning behind limiting votes to those who have more at stake. But the trouble with that is that it may encourage "The Jungle" like conditions where it's survival of the fittest and the voiceless masses are at the mercy of the corporations and politicians. Oh, it's like that anyway? Right, it is. But at least under a democracy or democratic republic we still have something the pretends to give a voice to the masses. It isn't the best system possible but someone has yet to invent something better, imo. Restrict the vote to land owners, and who will protect the interests of those who are doing their labor and renting their properties? The unions, maybe, but I doubt they always have the best interests of the workers in mind either. Restrict the vote to families, and that might be a little more reasonable. Families should have some bonuses, but not so much that they burden single people. Maybe make a requirement that voters pass a test of literacy and knowledge of the issues?

Quote from Marx

Spot on, Ted.

Mind if I call you Al? I liked Al, he was hilarious!

Only if I can call you Betty...

Seriously though, Al is fine.

Actually, I have spent a lot of time studying the vote and the suffrage movement of late. Once one gets past all of the modern feminidiots harping about thousands of years of oppression, and actually gets into reading the newspaper columns and philosophers etc of the time who were opposed to women's suffrage, (which are all on the web, btw), one will see that it was not misogyny that caused opposition to women having the vote, but rather a deep fear/respect/acknowledgement of exactly how much power over men that women already wield without the vote. Much of the opposition was to the fact that women wanted all of the power and privilege of both sexes, while expecting men to retain only the that of one sex. The women back then didn't want "equality" either. They wanted more privilige.

Keep in mind as well, this stuff is all built on a melding of Marxism with Freudianism. As in, the working of male/female sexuality into the Marxist system.

Why do you think "Gender is a social construct" is so important to the Marxofeminists? Because once we openly acknowledge this bold face crock of shit lie, it begs the question, well... are men and women equally suited for all things? (Like Abstract Thought, Justice, Politics etc.) You can see that it is a crock of shit filled with Marxism because how can "Gender be a social construct" when the same shit for brains who say such nonsense will, 5 minutes later, blather on about how the female gender is superior at parenting, at multi-tasking, at communicating, is more moral, blah, blah, blah. They don't believe their bullshit either, but they need to keep "Gender is a social construct" around to take away more freedoms, because if gender IS NOT a social construct, why it would bring into the spotlight that women's "oppression" is a lie - AND END FEMINISM. Lol! If men and women have different wants and needs, then it IS NOT oppression that they respectively choose different things.

Lol! Even the Sexual Revolution proved this whole concept doesn't work. In many ways, the sexual revolution recognized the unfairness of the sex game, in that women were driving up the price of sex by with-holding it in exchange for men's favours and wealth. To make things truly equal, women should freely hump men without all of the rigamarole that is traditionally attached to it. The Sexual Revolution worked all fine and dandy when everyone was in College (and Daddy was footing the bill), but after the 60's asshats left College and got into the real world of crappy jobs, asshole bosses, and taxes, women found out pretty quick that it was better to start with-holding sex again, to gain them the good will of men trying to get some. The Sexual Revolution was over by the 70's because women entering the "real world" discovered it was much easier to get things by shaking the booty, than by giving the booty away for free. This was NOT men's fault. This was in women's nature - for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Yes. "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."

Or, in modern gender idiot speak:

"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, MAKE UNEQUAL TREATMENT NOT UNEQUAL AT ALL." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991

As for the vote, it is time we start to realize that even widespread man suffrage is a hindrance to free society. In fact, this is why the USA was set up as a REPUBLIC with a limited democracy. Marx says, "Democracy is the road to Socialism." Why is that? The fact is, the most important thing to maintaining a free society is to have immoveable goalposts which guarantee freedom - for eternity, such as the Bible or the US Constitution provide, and to have the principle that no-one is above the law.

The vote is bullshit. And it isn't even important to people anyway. Look at the amount of people, especially younger people, who don't even bother to vote. In Canada, only 77% of the people vote, and only 59% of those under 30 bother to vote. Yet these people will screech and holler that women were oppressed because they could not vote 100 years ago. Jeez, the double think is astounding, if the vote is that important, yet those who whine about it can't hardly bother to exercise said right.

I really wish more people would realize that all of this nonsense goes way back before the 1960's. The 1960's was just a reaction, or rather a carrying on, of what happened before the Great Depression and WWII - because in times of strife and danger, women attach their sorry asses to men pretty damn fast again. In the 1920's, only a decade after women got their "freedom" they were already getting out of hand and silly. The Depression cured them of that, as hunger tends to do. After WWII, it took only one generation again and women were getting all totalitarian on everyone's asses again. This, btw, VERY MUCH supports what most Socialists/Marxist Theorists say that it takes only one generation to alter a society. This was not something that came out of the 60's, this is something that came out of the Age of Enlightenment in the 1700's, consolodated itself into a bonafide movement in the mid 1800's, and came to fruition in the early 1900's. The parallels to Feminism and Marxism are not only uncanny in their philosophical similarities, but also in their chronological similarities. That Marx, and especially Engels, explicity stated that women had to be brought into their movement because it was with the manipulation of women's psychology that Socialism would be implemented into society, to me, says that more of us should stop studying the "symptoms of the 60's" and start paying more attention to the root causes of this disease, which started long before the 60's.

Feminism itself isn't even the problem. Feminism a just tool, a spearhead, which brings in the much bigger problem - Socialist Totalitarianism. (Though feminism is probably one of the major tools - along with Environmentalism, Multiculturalism, etc etc.) That all Marxist Dictators try to destroy the family FIRST, and then mind-fuck the people, should be raising the alarm bells loud and clear.

The whole "women's vote" argument being misogynist is a bunch of crap. The "vote" argument gives tremendous respect for women's nearly limitless power to influence males. Marxists knew this, and this is why the push for women's suffrage, to upset the balance of power between the sexes in favour of the more "Totalitarian by Nature" of the two, and to give the vote to the sex which is most succeptible to wild indoctrinations - such as why women consistently make up about 70% of the people that get suckered into Cults and such.

As for what to do about it? I don't know. But I do know that a ball will only remain stationary at either the top or the bottom of a hill. Picking the ball up and running it halfway up the hill and expecting it not to roll back down again is an exercise in futility.

Quote from myce

Good post, Drex.

We have this corporate ethic now where the labor is as disposable as any other consumer goods. But at least we're not living in "The Jungle," so it could be- has been- worse. And that was before women had the vote. Feminism isn't quite an anti-panacea that we can blame all of our economic and political problems on. I can understand the reasoning behind limiting votes to those who have more at stake. But the trouble with that is that it may encourage "The Jungle" like conditions where it's survival of the fittest and the voiceless masses are at the mercy of the corporations and politicians. Oh, it's like that anyway? Right, it is. But at least under a democracy or democratic republic we still have something the pretends to give a voice to the masses. It isn't the best system possible but someone has yet to invent something better, imo. Restrict the vote to land owners, and who will protect the interests of those who are doing their labor and renting their properties? The unions, maybe, but I doubt they always have the best interests of the workers in mind either. Restrict the vote to families, and that might be a little more reasonable. Families should have some bonuses, but not so much that they burden single people. Maybe make a requirement that voters pass a test of literacy and knowledge of the issues?

Aye, I have often thought that without a knowlegde of what is being discussed, the voters will have to base it on hairstyles and dress sense of the candidates.. (women?).. Churchill stated that "democracy is the worst form of government, bar the rest.."..

I have this elitist idea that there is a ruling class, a load of plebs, and a few in the middle..

The battle is forever between the ruling class and the middle classes..

No one really cares much about the majority of the proles, they get treated like a resource and there voting options are easily rigged for them..

"Vote for us and you can keep more money in your pocket.."

Or..

"Vote for us and we can give you more stuff that is good for you.. so you wont need much money.."

True story..

"Vote for us and we will make it very difficult for you to keep your family together, but we will give you loads of alcopops and holidays and lots of contraception options so you need never grow up.."

I doubt that the vote really matters though anymore.. Its not like the major parties vary that much anyway and the electorate have been so infantilised that even the middle classes are effectively living on government handouts so the state has bought/bribed 90% of the electorate..

Rob, as an experienced researcher of history - along with CD - could you perhaps post a few pertinent links to these old time articles? They could be well added under the 'facts & figures' forum.

Hi Karl,

I'd be glad to.

This site, "Misogyny Unlimitted" has loads of good stuff in it. http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/ - especially click the link "The Thinking Man's Minefield" and then "Woman, all it is unwise to know about her." The first third of is various quotes, but the last two thirds are selected works of Freud, Jung, Schopenhauer, Jesus, Buddha etc etc - all in relation to men and women.

And this site, "The Men's Tribute," is awesome! http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/home.htm

Scroll down the page to the reading list, where he has selected works all in chronological order - including many writings about women's suffrage, some have been scanned directly from newspapers etc. from the day.

Rob: Thanks, I found your earlier thread and argument with Myce quite persuasive.
"Misogyny Unlimited" gets a hearty thumbs-up from me, it was the place where I started really thinking 'outside the box' of political correctness etc.

Drex: This issue of corporate influence is very interesting. It's not unrelated to your references to 'natural elites', ie. oligarchy or plutocracy. The thing I hate about the current situation is the secrecy, the true power brokers seem to prefer working from the shadows (maybe they always did?).
The legal fiction that corporations are 'persons' is a hobby-horse for some, I'm not sure it makes much difference in the end.

Myce, I think Drex is right when he points out that the poor are always pawns, sometimes better off, sometimes worse. Certainly the lower classes in the West are better off than in the Third World, there we can see raw capitalism at its nastiest.

To quote a comment I recently made in one of my recent posts on my blog;

The sad thing is that as result of the way things have gone, is that a wedge has being driven between both men and women. No one talks to each other no more, people are more isolated than ever before.

To be honest, this whole gender war should have never happened but it did because the powers that be only see an opportunity for to exploit both groups and squeeze yet more $$$ from us. That's all it is to them, a money making racket! In the end, BOTH sides lose, while those in power laugh all the way to the bank!

The masses in general are indeed asleep and blindly follow trends and do what daddy media tells them to do and what is right.

Quite frankly, the way things are going at present... well.... humanity is kind of screwed! Its depressing to think of, of course but all I can do at present is hope that the meteorite that is going to blow us all to shit misses us! ( I don't mean a literal meteorite, of course )

Many thanks for the links Rob - hours of fascinating reading!

In the light of the current discussion, this one made me chuckle....

- Democracy is woman's greatest invention. Indeed, it even reflects her character: purposeless, irrational, subject to public opinion and passing fashions, rambling, confused, underhanded, scheming, in love with its own purity.