Key conceptual matters. Vital MRM reading.

**Percy** · 18th-May-2010

We have this section called 'Why we are Here', but no space for 'How we are here'. So I will make space in here.

We also had recently a bit of a kerfuffle over Tera raising the issue of extremism. A lot of strident denunciation - as usual - ensued, missing the point altogether.

HOW we go about dealing with the issues of misandry and the legal oppression of men, matters. HOW we see such issues and the players involved also matters.

Several times over the past few years here I have raised the issue of Intellectual Honesty. Somehow I think many people just do not grasp whet I am talking about. I do not have the patience or depth of Fidelbogen for taking people down the clear but intricate path of logical reaoning. I hope he can help us all out one day.

I doubt even the most unlettered MRA would be unable to point out the 'blindness' of Feminism and its insitence on maintaining and professing an Alternate Unreality. But what of ourselves? Do we permit ideoplogy to colour our views? Are we Honest?

Think on that.

Meanwhile here are two short 'ostensive' pieces.

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/

Monday, May 17, 2010

The dangers of ideology

Even a libertarian ideology can close minds to reality. A quintessentially conservative article by a libertarian below

I’ve been re-reading Temple Grandin’s wonderful book, Animals in Translation, and it has some important things to say about ideology and abstraction. For those of you who don’t know Grandin, she is the top designer of animal handling facilities in the world, a PhD with over one hundred published papers in both biology and psychology, and autistic. She attributes her success to being ‘detail-oriented’, and claims that most people cannot see the problems she sees because they are too ‘abstractified.’

Interestingly, she, much as the British Idealists did, relates abstraction to ideology, and complains that, rather than plainly seeing the situation with which they are asked to deal, many of the people she encounters substitute an abstract, ideological view of the situation, thereby falsifying reality, often with bad results.

She offers an example of a woman who owned a fair number of dogs. Some of the ‘pack’ she had created were naturally more dominant, and others more submissive. She was repeatedly advised that she had to accept this as a fact, since that is the way dogs are, and, for instance, always greet the more dominant dogs first when she came home. But, her mind captured by an ideology of equality, she refused to listen, with the outcome that the dominant dogs would attack the submissive ones for improperly taking ‘first dibs’ with the master, so that finally three of the dogs had to be put down.

Grandin discusses the constraints of biology upon animal nature at some length; in particular, she devotes many pages to how a simplified, abstract understanding of genetics can bring about radically undesirable results when applied. For example, the single-trait breeding of chickens, first for quick growth, then for lots of breast meat, and finally for the vitality not to collapse after growing so much meat so quickly, led to rapist/murderer roosters – the various traits being bred for did not exist in the simple isolation of an abstract genetic model, but interacted with the rest of chicken biology in unpredictable ways, so that the roosters produced by the three successive breeding efforts had often forgotten how to do the proper mating dance to seduce a hen, and wound up raping and killing the females when they wanted to mate.

How does this relate to ideology? Well, I have encountered people who contend that monogamy is ‘irrational,’ sexual possessiveness immoral, and that we ought to consciously work to eliminate these elements from human life. But Grandin notes that sexual possessiveness, across many species, seems to be strongly connected to taking great care for one’s offspring. The ideological conviction that such possessiveness is irrational ignores this basic biological fact; if this ideology ever holds full sway, the result after enough generations pass will be humans quite unlike ourselves, who have little interest in raising their children.

Whether the human race would survive that change I have no idea, but it certainly is not what the ideologues intend; instead, they are seeing these traits in abstraction, like elements in a model, where they can pluck out any element that offends them without otherwise affecting the whole.

The grip of ideology is usually broken only by the force of reality shattering it. I recall, in particular, two experiences that had that sort of impact on me. One, suggested by John Goes in a previous thread, came about during my second stay in Switzerland. During my first trip I had fallen in love with the country, and had to go back. Spending more time there on trip two, I thought I was in the most naturally orderly and civic-minded place I had ever been – and, I realized, if the Swiss ever adopted the open border policy I had advocated until then, that place would be gone in a decade.

Now, when I recently expressed some reservations about unrestricted immigration on a libertarian blog, I was immediately accused of being a ‘xenophobe.’ To anyone who knows I spent ten years playing in a reggae band, often finding myself to be the only native-born American in the club I was in, and who knows I am married to an immigrant, and so on, that accusation might seem unlikely. But consider the context that led me to change my mind – I was in a foreign country, enchanted by these foreigners culture, and was worried that too many people like me moving there might ruin things. That is a funny sort of xenophobia.

But to preserve an ideological view, such name-calling is necessary, to prevent reality from intruding. I imagine the woman mentioned above with the dog pack thought of those pointing out that she was acting recklessly as ‘dog elitists,’ who were in favor of ‘oppression’ of the timid dogs by the more aggressive ones.

My second major breaking in of reality had to do with public school teachers. After my kids begged me to let them attend our local public school, I found that ideology had created in my mind a bogeyman public employee and that, try as I might, I couldn’t force the real public employees I was dealing with to conform to this taxpayer-sucking parasite monster. The actual teachers and administrators I dealt with were dedicated to their jobs and were focused on helping kids, not on draining the public coffers to feather their own nests.

Now, a non-ideological approach to issues like the above need not be blind to existing problems or deaf to every case for reform. The public schools in the US certainly do have many problems, and it would be good to fix them. Immigration restrictions are not a panacea, and bring with them serious civil liberty and humanitarian concerns.

But to adopt a simplistic stance towards those situations based upon ‘principles’ that are in reality little more than slogans – “immigration control is xenophobic” or “the public schools are evil monopolies that brainwash our children” – is unlikely to produce improvement. Instead, the discussion of the problems is degraded, and the targets of the slogans usually wind up getting their backs up, closing their minds to even reasonable reforms.

Finally, let me assert once more that I don’t mean to be picking on libertarians here – some of my best friends are libertarians. But that happens to be the ideology to which I was committed, and, so, it is the easiest one for me to mine for examples. Indeed, everything I write here should be understood primarily as self-criticism, and only secondarily as directed at anyone else.

SOURCE

Blind ideology is dancing on the grave of reason

IN Britain, the benefits of diversity are apparently boundless. Now that the Pagan Police Association has received government recognition, police officers can take a string of pagan festivals as official holidays.

These include celebrating the festival of lactating sheep, and drinking mead and dancing naked to celebrate the harvest. In court, pagan officers will be allowed to pledge to tell the truth not before God but by what "they hold sacred", including, presumably, the Sun God or Kriss Kringle, the Germanic god of yule.

In Australia, as historian Keith Windschuttle has chronicled in his new book The Stolen Generations - volume three of his tireless evisceration of The Fabrication of Aboriginal History - the allegedly monstrous theft of 100,000 Aboriginal children by Australian officials just because they were Aboriginal never actually happened.

In the US, when a car bomb was planted recently in New York's Times Square by a man later revealed to be a Muslim trained in bomb-making in Pakistan's Waziristan region, there was an initial stampede to declare the attempted atrocity was unconnected to Islamic terrorism.

It was said to be most likely the work of a Tea Party member, right-wing militiaman or lone nut. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg even suggested the bomb could have been placed by "somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the healthcare bill or something".

What has Britain come to when its police officers are given leave to dance about naked? How can generations of Australians have been taught the egregious falsehood of the Stolen Generations as fact? And how many times have Tea Party members or people opposed to a piece of legislation tried to commit mass murder against their fellow Americans, compared with the number of recent attempts by Muslim terrorists?

Such intellectual perversity can be understood only in the context of a far wider and profound retreat from reason throughout the West.

Across a broad range of issues, the progressive intelligentsia appears to have junked the rules of evidence, objectivity and rationality in favour of fantasy, irrationality and upside-down thinking.

Take man-made global warming, for example.

The belief that the planet is on course for carbon Armageddon is now embedded in Western politics. Yet the evidence that the climate is warming to an unprecedented and catastrophic degree just isn't there. The seas are not rising, the ice is not shrinking, the polar bears are not vanishing, and there has been no significant climate warming since 1995.

Or take the Middle East. Israel is the victim of six decades of exterminatory aggression from the Arab and Muslim world. Yet it is Israel that is expected to make concessions to its attackers, who are said by the West to deserve a state of their own. Meanwhile, the US extends its hand of friendship to Iran, which is building a nuclear bomb to commit another Jewish genocide.

Closer to home, "minority rights" mean activities previously marginalised or considered transgressive are now privileged through "family lifestyle choice" or multiculturalism.

Dissenters from these creeds are socially and professionally ostracised. Academics are hounded as racists for upholding the true historic origins of Western civilisation. Scientists sceptical of man-made global warming find funding is withheld. And those sounding the alarm about the true scope of the Islamic jihad are demonised as warmongering neo-cons or part of a Jewish conspiracy.

Such irrationality, intolerance and, indeed, bigotry run counter to the cardinal tenets of a free society based on reason and the toleration of dissent.

This is because these dominant ideas are all rooted in ideologies: environmentalism, anti-racism, anti-Americanism, anti-imperialism, anti-Zionism, egalitarianism or scientism, the belief that scientific materialism alone explains everything.

Rather than going where the evidence leads, ideology wrenches the evidence to fit a prior idea. Not only is ideology inimical to reason, it sacrifices truth to power as it attacks those who try to uphold reality in the face of dogma.

This is because the progressive mindset believes it is synonymous with virtue itself. All opposition is therefore not just wrong but evil. Since progressives also believe anyone who opposes them is a right-winger, it follows that all dissent is right-wing and evil, and so must be shut down.

In other words, these are not propositions to be debated in a rational way but are seen as self-evident truths with the infallibility of religious dogma.

They also smack of the political totalitarianism of communism and fascism, as well as resembling, ironically, the fanatical doctrines of militant Islam. Curiously, they also display religious motifs of sin, guilt and salvation. Odder still, they all exhibit features of millenarianism: the religious belief in the perfectibility of life through the collective redemption of sin. Contemporary secular ideologies identify the sins committed by humanity - oppression of the people of developing nations, despoliation of nature, bigotry, poverty, war - and offer salvation by a return to righteousness.

Thus the greens believe they will save the planet. The leftists believe they will create the brotherhood of man. The anti-Zionists believe they will turn suicide bomb-belts into cucumber frames. The atheists believe they will create the Garden of Reason. And the Islamists believe they will create the kingdom of God on earth.

Dissenters are dismissed because they deny the unchallengeable truths of anti-imperialism, environmentalism and scientific materialism. The explanation for the frustration of Utopia must therefore lie in conspiracies by the neo-cons or the Jews, Big Oil or the creationists.

The result is not merely that the West has become irrational. By turning truth and lies, victim and aggressor, justice and injustice upside down, it cannot even recognise, let alone deal with, the threats being mounted to its own values and civilisation.

With ideology eroding the principles of rationality and freedom, truth and justice on which it rests, the West is failing to understand what it is that it cannot understand, and so cannot grasp the mortal danger in which it stands.

SOURCE

**shaazam** · 18th-May-2010

I don't follow ideologies but neither do I follow arrant bullstwang like platform of feminitism which is the position of cosseted wimyn living in the First World created by men for wimyn yet whining about lack of equality ( hegemony) that should be delivered to wimyn by the men they overtly despise and resent - read the "works" of Daly and Dworkin who hated men more than their own shit

**Kargan3033** · 18th-May-2010

Very intresting, Thanks for posting this Bro, it cretently is a lot to think about

**Percy** · 19th-May-2010

Here is a snippet from a recent article by an MRA.

I can understand the angst some people (inc me) feel over some issues, but what some people say can be used for or against all of us.

Flights of angst can detach us from logic entirely and even lead us to comdemning our allies or making us look like fools - as the PC crowd often do to themselves.

It’s time for men to be allowed to legally abort fatherhood during the same period of time a woman is allowed to do the same by visiting her local clinic.

It’s time for a man to have the unfettered social and legal backing to look at a woman whom he has just impregnated directly in the eye and say, “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,” and to stroll off whistling a tune, to enjoy less inconvenient relationships, without his wallet being any lighter or his conscious any heavier.

If you are waiting for a punch line or some well placed literary device to put this into a different perspective…don’t. There isn’t one coming, nor should there be.

In the spirit of calling abortion what it is, let us examine the motives behind the decision to get one with the same unblinking candor. Abortion, in most circumstances, is not a decision to avoid pregnancy, but to avoid motherhood. In fact, the term reproductive rights is a misnomer; a postmodern guise to cover the real issue. It isn’t “My body, my choice,” it’s “My lifestyle, my choice,” even if it means killing a baby because it gets in the way.

In many, many cases, it is about choosing personal freedom and a social life over life itself. But what the heck, it’s 2010 people, and grrls gots to have choices.

But with that in mind, you will have to excuse me if I yawn at any outrage over the idea of a man being given the same options, especially given that men have already been aborted from the decision making process. That suits a lot of people and any idea of changing things will anger some as well.

The traditional male, from atop his white stallion, will scoff at the very idea of men’s choice, of course. His indignation will be echoed by his twin sister, the gender feminist. Somewhere, in the midst of sorting out responsibilities, both will invoke the “your baby, you pay,” catch-all, one of many shared attitudes that make these ostensibly strange bedfellows more like two peas in a pod when all is said and done.

One can argue against such childish and selfish notions that it's “My body, my choice,” it’s “My lifestyle, my choice,” etc but NOT with a similarly childish tit for tat.

One can also recognise that 'straw men' like "The traditional male, from atop his white stallion, will scoff at the very idea of men’s choice, of course." and go on to equate the object of disdain as being in league with the Feminists, but the average ten-year old can see through such nonsense froms of arguement. Perhaps the author could have found space for accusing some MRAs who use better reasoning of being Pagans too. Manginas and apologists, feminist running dogs et all may be fair game, but not MRAs who hold cogent arguements that conflict with rabid lunacy.

We can do far better than this. But of course blind Ideological posturing such as this can backfire on the MRM.

The same ten year old can usually spot a 'Two wrongs don't make a right' when he sees it, and yes, 'your baby, your responsibility' is valid, not a 'catch-all' . Who else are we to pass that responsibility onto? The Gumnut? Zuberi? Appoint one man to be daddy to all babies?

The above passages could have been taken from 'Manhood 101' that Paul Elam is currently excoriating or be set alongside equally stupid remarks from the 'Therapist' website Paul went after a while ago - and let's be clear, such sites deserve taking apart - or one of the occasional extremist men's sites discussed elsewhere.

It isn't though.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/05/18/time-to-abort-fatherhood-at-will/

**John Dias** · 20th-May-2010

I have never understood why abandonment of fatherhood has been embraced by many in the MRM. A parent abandoning his or her offspring is utterly devastating the children, and ultimately his abandonment is devastating to the community at large. Fatherless children carry the psychological and emotional damage of their fatherlessness with them into adulthood, where the males display a violent and validation-dependent conception of masculinity while the females also seek validation through a lack of discretion and an excessive display of sexuality. These damaged kids go on to be the next generation of voters, whose concept of authority is primarily political. This results in even more power inuring to the State and less to individuals, creating a downward spiral of ever-increasing dependency over time.

Fatherhood and motherhood are a blessing, not a curse. It is foolishness to criticize mothers who abandon their children to a life of foster care or who destroy their children via abortion -- and after criticizing this on a moral basis, it is foolishness to demand the legal right to do the same thing as if equality itself was a moral virtue. These are human beings that we're talking about here -- children. These children are not pawns in a political chess game between the genders and the State. Moreover, these children do not spontaneously spring forth from their biological parents exclaiming, "Surprise! Pay up!" Mothers and fathers create the children through their own deliberate actions.

A sensible course of action is to disempower those who want to abandon their kids, rather than to empower either gender to abandon. Abandonment by either parent only hurts children and, later, undermines the security and well-being of the community at large.

"Choice for men" is the most heinous thing to afflict the agenda of the MRM. I, for one, want to go on record as fundamentally opposed to it. Take away the choice of women to destroy their children with suction catheters, or to abandon them, and instead restore the rights of children to receive nurturing care and permanent access to both of their biological parents. The MRM needs to stop imitating the entitlement mindset of the feminists and Statists my demanding, "I want mine too." Again, these are human beings that we're talking about here -- children.

**Kargan3033** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from John Dias

I have never understood why abandonment of fatherhood has been embraced by many in the MRM. A parent abandoning his or her offspring is utterly devastating the children, and ultimately his abandonment is devastating to the community at large. Fatherless children carry the psychological and emotional damage of their fatherlessness with them into adulthood, where the males display a violent and validation-dependent conception of masculinity while the females also seek validation through a lack of discretion and an excessive display of sexuality. These damaged kids go on to be the next generation of voters, whose concept of authority is primarily political. This results in even more power inuring to the State and less to individuals, creating a downward spiral of ever-increasing dependency over time.

Fatherhood and motherhood are a blessing, not a curse. It is foolishness to criticize mothers who abandon their children to a life of foster care or who destroy their children via abortion -- and after criticizing this on a moral basis, it is foolishness to demand the legal right to do the same thing as if equality itself was a moral virtue. These are human beings that we're talking about here -- children. These children are not pawns in a political chess game between the genders and the State. Moreover, these children do not spontaneously spring forth from their biological parents exclaiming, "Surprise! Pay up!" Mothers and fathers create the children through their own deliberate actions.

A sensible course of action is to disempower those who want to abandon their kids, rather than to empower either gender to abandon. Abandonment by either parent only hurts children and, later, undermines the security and well-being of the community at large.

"Choice for men" is the most heinous thing to afflict the agenda of the MRM. I, for one, want to go on record as fundamentally opposed to it. Take away the choice of women to destroy their children with suction catheters, or to abandon them, and instead restore the rights of children to receive nurturing care and permanent access to both of their biological parents. The MRM needs to stop imitating the entitlement mindset of the feminists and Statists my demanding, "I want mine too." Again, these are human beings that we're talking about here -- children.

Sorry to say but this is just all part of the game plan to destory the tradisnal male headed famly and familes in general, after having been so throughly discrimanted against for more then 50+ years men are saying enough is enough and the powers that be are turning men's dissatisfaction to their advange by underming men's/father's oblagation to their children as women have done as well as giving men the option to deslove and oblgations to women as another knife in the back to tradisnal and loving relationships between men and women so they can step up their campain to grab more power while men and women are fighting one another, in the end all of this will led to the comeplet disaluion of each other by both sexs and the final destruction of not only the tradisnol family but freedom it'self and there is nothing that's going to stop this so like I say bring on The One Big One and let the survivours fight one another for what few uncontaminated resoruces that will be left.

Hell who knows maybe after a few hundred years or more if they are any surviving humans left they will evolve into a more stable socity after living with the legacy of our own stupidy and greed and assholishness in the radicly altered world.

**John Dias** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from Kargan3033

Sorry to say but this is just all part of the game plan to destory the tradisnal male headed famly and familes in general, after having been so throughly discrimanted against for more then 50+ years men are saying enough is enough and the powers that be are turning men's dissatisfaction to their advantage...

When you validate the power of the State you invalidate the value of the father, and ultimately you disempower the father. Fatherhood should not be perceived as a political right; such thinking only serves to undermine fatherhood and the tenuous bonds between dads and their children. Do you want to restore fathers' rights? Do it by promoting fatherhood. What makes us unique as men -- our ability to provide stability, constancy, security, and judgment -- is being made irrelevant when we walk away from our own kids. If we're making our own uniqueness irrelevant, we might as well be castrating ourselves as men. We have something highly valuable to offer to our kids, and a responsibility to them.

And let's get one other thing straight: men's rights should not disempower male (or female) infant children straight out of the gate! Father's rights is men's rights, and men's rights begin at the beginning of life. If we reject this concept, we are killing ourselves, helping those who I thought had already perfected the art of killing fatherhood.

**Kargan3033** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from John Dias

When you validate the power of the State you invalidate the value of the father, and ultimately you disempower the father. Fatherhood should not be perceived as a political right; such thinking only serves to undermine fatherhood and the tenuous bonds between dads and their children. Do you want to restore fathers' rights? Do it by promoting fatherhood. What makes us unique as men -- our ability to provide stability, constancy, security, and judgment -- is being made irrelevant when we walk away from our own kids. If we're making our own uniqueness irrelevant, we might as well be castrating ourselves as men. We have something highly valuable to offer to our kids, and a responsibility to them.

And let's get one other thing straight: men's rights should not disempower male (or female) infant children straight out of the gate! Father's rights is men's rights, and men's rights begin at the beginning of life. If we reject this concept, we are killing ourselves, helping those who I thought had already perfected the art of killing fatherhood.

I agree with you on that, sorry if you thought I aproved of father's walking away from their responceabilties as fathers but since it's pretty much a crap shot with loaded dice when it comes to being a father more and more men in the west are saying " Why bother " because the deck has been stacked against them which is what the powers that be want so that there will be a fianl end to nromal familes and normal and loving relationships between males and females so they can step in and impose their idea of socity on the masses including women because men will not longer have any reason to save them not the the last links between ture and honset love between males and females are just about cut in two, once and for all and never to be repaired.
See what I'm saying?

**haahoo** · 20th-May-2010

Percy makes a very good point with his first post extract. I did not read it all but got the general jissed of it. Ideology is truly a limiting factor, but sadly, too many folk do want to live up to "idiotology", as I prefer to call it..

Truth as always the best thing! I believe that because I am a red pill person, unlike the masses who prefer their blue pill ignorance.. idiotology is a blue pill existance.. for idiots who would rather apply a template to life than just fucking live it on the "suck it and see, men" basis..

Truth is not for the feeble minded though. Id estimate that only 1% of the population can face it square in the eye and swallow it raw! And they are probably insane by the definitions of the protectors of middle ground mythology..

When forced to face reality, sometimes giving up those comfortable idiotologies is a painful experience. Even, downright mother-fucking humiliating!

Noone wants to have to give up those ideas they have loudly and pubelickly proclaimed over the years.. Makes them look like.. Fools?

One of the examples mentioned made me shit up and take note..

This morning, I went to visit a school in my area for one of my kids to go to..

My personal idiotology has always been anarchism, I truly believe that anarchy is the best way. But I have my own personal take on anarchy, its a one man show, the moment you involve others, it becomes too organised and prone to the iron law of oligarchy! So, in effect, its a sack of horse shit! Still, you can fertilise a lot of crops with shit!

Libertarianism seems to show this up more than any other attempt to put anarchic concepts into the mainstream.

Its a fucking abortion of a "political" cause! It is the thin end of the wedge that ends in statism!

I have yet to see a proclaimed libertarian who does not fall foul of the libertarian paradox. By allowing freedom, you also allow freedom to abuse freedom for your personal gain, by denying the freedom of others, which, could of course be that those others seek to deny freedom to deny freedom, but why deny folk their freedom to deny freedom if you truly believe in freedom?

This is why libertarianism will always be a small player politically, and, paradoxically, why middle ground politics and coalitions make for BETTER systems of governance..

A big head fuck? Sure, but it makes sense in a grand sort of way!

anyway, I went to this statist school, having been told by growbag6, my housekeeper, that it was a shit place, not religious enough, full of low grade human flangeturds from the druggy sectors of the neighbourhood..

Her first choice of school was the nearest one, the religious one, and I agreed that was the best one, but that was because it was nearest!

Anyway, this other school, well, It was very nice and new, spacious and full of kids. These kids looked like any other kids, wearing their uniforms etc, doing their work, happy enough..

The teacher, well, she was showing us round and really, what a woman!

I judge a woman on the basis of objective factors.

I could not take my eyes off her tits.

And when she turned round..

Could not take my eyes of her perfect rounded derriere..

An hourglass figure.

I could not hear what she was saying really, but it made sense.

a good role model for kids, not fat and dykey!

She said the school had a bad reputation that was completely unfair, and I think she was right.

School is just a place to program kids for their future lives as serfs.

And, as she said, the kids are no problem, its the fucking idiot useless scumfuck parents that are!

There is a good reason why so many kids that went to "bad" schools do very well in society..

And kids who went to expensive priveldged schools end up as whacked off pyscho freaks living in the land of fuckerduckery..

As I can attest to personally!

We all have to throw off our programming if we want to progress things for the greater good.

Most cant, so, well, they have to take their place..

All progress depends on the unreasonable man, reasonable folk never achieve anything!

**Kargan3033** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from haahoo

Percy makes a very good point with his first post extract. I did not read it all but got the general jissed of it. Ideology is truly a limiting factor, but sadly, too many folk do want to live up to "idiotology", as I prefer to call it..

Truth as always the best thing! I believe that because I am a red pill person, unlike the masses who prefer their blue pill ignorance.. idiotology is a blue pill existance.. for idiots who would rather apply a template to life than just fucking live it on the "suck it and see, men" basis..

Truth is not for the feeble minded though. Id estimate that only 1% of the population can face it square in the eye and swallow it raw! And they are probably insane by the definitions of the protectors of middle ground mythology..

When forced to face reality, sometimes giving up those comfortable idiotologies is a painful experience. Even, downright mother-fucking humiliating!

Noone wants to have to give up those ideas they have loudly and pubelickly proclaimed over the years.. Makes them look like.. Fools?

One of the examples mentioned made me shit up and take note..

This morning, I went to visit a school in my area for one of my kids to go to..

My personal idiotology has always been anarchism, I truly believe that anarchy is the best way. But I have my own personal take on anarchy, its a one man show, the moment you involve others, it becomes too organised and prone to the iron law of oligarchy! So, in effect, its a sack of horse shit! Still, you can fertilise a lot of crops with shit!

Libertarianism seems to show this up more than any other attempt to put anarchic concepts into the mainstream.

Its a fucking abortion of a "political" cause! It is the thin end of the wedge that ends in statism!

I have yet to see a proclaimed libertarian who does not fall foul of the libertarian paradox. By allowing freedom, you also allow freedom to abuse freedom for your personal gain, by denying the freedom of others, which, could of course be that those others seek to deny freedom to deny freedom, but why deny folk their freedom to deny freedom if you truly believe in freedom?

This is why libertarianism will always be a small player politically, and, paradoxically, why middle ground politics and coalitions make for BETTER systems of governance..

A big head fuck? Sure, but it makes sense in a grand sort of way!

anyway, I went to this statist school, having been told by growbag6, my housekeeper, that it was a shit place, not religious enough, full of low grade human flangeturds from the druggy sectors of the neighbourhood..

Her first choice of school was the nearest one, the religious one, and I agreed that was the best one, but that was because it was nearest!

Anyway, this other school, well, It was very nice and new, spacious and full of kids. These kids looked like any other kids, wearing their uniforms etc, doing their work, happy enough..

The teacher, well, she was showing us round and really, what a woman!

I judge a woman on the basis of objective factors.

I could not take my eyes off her tits.

And when she turned round..

Could not take my eyes of her perfect rounded derriere..

An hourglass figure.

I could not hear what she was saying really, but it made sense.

a good role model for kids, not fat and dykey!

She said the school had a bad reputation that was completely unfair, and I think she was right.

School is just a place to program kids for their future lives as serfs.

And, as she said, the kids are no problem, its the fucking idiot useless scumfuck parents that are!

There is a good reason why so many kids that went to "bad" schools do very well in society..

And kids who went to expensive priveldged schools end up as whacked off pyscho freaks living in the land of fuckerduckery..

As I can attest to personally!

We all have to throw off our programming if we want to progress things for the greater good.

Most cant, so, well, they have to take their place..

All progress depends on the unreasonable man, reasonable folk never achieve anything!

You know I have a hard time understanding you some times but this is not one of those times.

From what you have posted I can take it that you mean that the socalled " Well adjusted " people are the wacked out loonies living in a fathsty land right?

And that it is the so called " Insane " people who have a grip on realty that are insane?

Basicly the clowns running the circus right?

Btw I love your avatar you mind if I swipe a copy of it?

**haahoo** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from John Dias

I have never understood why abandonment of fatherhood has been embraced by many in the MRM.

Maybe you dont understand that the MRM is often promoting that idea (in its many forms, the "celibacy" or "recreational sex chasers" are just as much abandoning fatherhood in their own way), because the whole MRM is a completely reactionary movement to femistatism.

But, I am sure you know that, after all, you are John Dias, not some newbie to the cause.

I am sure you also know that men would not need to ask for "rights" if it were not for the fact that the femistate has perverted the natural order of the family by creating artificial rights for women, rights that men have to pay for, but get no clear direct benefit from!

BUT, the ability to choose FLIGHT is one.. Naturally, a man would FIGHT.. But, that has been criminalised..

So, logically, men will retreat and this is why they choose to declare their flight from fatherhood as a stance..

It is a RESPONSE to the femistate fucking it up for men.. It is a BOLTHOLE for them to run down..

And who can blame them?

Frozen out of the place they may want to be, they have decided to run to safety and lick their wounds.. Or, simply avoid getting them!

A parent abandoning his or her offspring is utterly devastating the children, and ultimately his abandonment is devastating to the community at large. Fatherless children carry the psychological and emotional damage of their fatherlessness with them into adulthood, where the males display a violent and validation-dependent conception of masculinity while the females also seek validation through a lack of discretion and an excessive display of sexuality. These damaged kids go on to be the next generation of voters, whose concept of authority is primarily political. This results in even more power inuring to the State and less to individuals, creating a downward spiral of ever-increasing dependency over time.

Yes, which is what the femistate wants.

Fatherhood and motherhood are a blessing, not a curse. It is foolishness to criticize mothers who abandon their children to a life of foster care or who destroy their children via abortion

Is it? Unless this is part of the next "and" it seems a srange comment. Why not critisize them? They made their "choice" and then changed their minds when they found out the consequences.. Or perhaps they had "good reason" to change their minds, and perhaps they did not "choose" so freely..

-- and after criticizing this on a moral basis, it is foolishness to demand the legal right to do the same thing as if equality itself was a moral virtue.

Equality is a crock of shit concept, like chasing the dream of eternal life.. Legal rights dont make the basis of a decision to do something, they just make it "legal".. Or not.. Morality too, is a concept that is not absolute and is subject to variation by culture etc..

Folk will always want to do what suits them, and what suits them does not always suit others. But who should decide what another should do? The state?

These are human beings that we're talking about here -- children. These children are not pawns in a political chess game between the genders and the State

.

Yes. But no, but.. They ARE pawns. The are "Pwned" by the state. As are parents. Fact. Ugly, stinking fact. And that is why I request that the state needs to be starved to death by all men! (since it is easier to deny the beast its food than to attack it with little sticks! the state is "fenced in" by its own agents, it relies on being fed blood by the donor fucktard cattle! it farms!)

Moreover, these children do not spontaneously spring forth from their biological parents exclaiming, "Surprise! Pay up!" Mothers and fathers create the children through their own deliberate actions.

Yes, which is why they should be allowed the responsibility, not have the state steal it off them! If the state has done that, then, parents have NO RESPONSIBILITY at all. The state is 100% responsible! 100%, as in, the fucking whole damned lot! EVERY parent in a statist society that denies parents true responsibilities has the natural right to reject their offspring and profer them to the state. Reality is, that is the case and the natural consequence of femistatism.

A sensible course of action is to disempower those who want to abandon their kids, rather than to empower either gender to abandon. Abandonment by either parent only hurts children and, later, undermines the security and well-being of the community at large.

Yes, but how can one do that under the statist system? It is a different matter for fathers, as a opposed to mothers, as well..

Fathers have always had the natural right to tell mothers to go take a hike.. Mothers have always had the natural right to kill their offspring..

"Choice for men" is the most heinous thing to afflict the agenda of the MRM. I, for one, want to go on record as fundamentally opposed to it. Take away the choice of women to destroy their children with suction catheters, or to abandon them, and instead restore the rights of children to receive nurturing care and permanent access to both of their biological parents. The MRM needs to stop imitating the entitlement mindset of the feminists and Statists my demanding, "I want mine too." Again, these are human beings that we're talking about here -- children.

I cant say I disagree with that, I am repulsed personally by the "choice for men" BS I hear in the MRM too, its logically unsound as well as just following a femistate lead..

But, id never give rights to children.

They dont have rights by nature.

Parents have a natural duty. That is what sustains children, not this "rights" apeshit..

"The state" has a duty too, but, the state comes in many forms, and is not an individual, it is a group of responsibility seekers..

You can have a femistate, or a corporation, or a religious group, or charity taking the role on..

**Percy** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from John Dias

I have never understood why abandonment of fatherhood has been embraced by many in the MRM. A parent abandoning his or her offspring is utterly devastating the children, and ultimately his abandonment is devastating to the community at large. Fatherless children carry the psychological and emotional damage of their fatherlessness with them into adulthood, where the males display a violent and validation-dependent conception of masculinity while the females also seek validation through a lack of discretion and an excessive display of sexuality. These damaged kids go on to be the next generation of voters, whose concept of authority is primarily political. This results in even more power inuring to the State and less to individuals, creating a downward spiral of ever-increasing dependency over time.

Fatherhood and motherhood are a blessing, not a curse. It is foolishness to criticize mothers who abandon their children to a life of foster care or who destroy their children via abortion -- and after criticizing this on a moral basis, it is foolishness to demand the legal right to do the same thing as if equality itself was a moral virtue. These are human beings that we're talking about here -- children. These children are not pawns in a political chess game between the genders and the State. Moreover, these children do not spontaneously spring forth from their biological parents exclaiming, "Surprise! Pay up!" Mothers and fathers create the children through their own deliberate actions.

A sensible course of action is to disempower those who want to abandon their kids, rather than to empower either gender to abandon. Abandonment by either parent only hurts children and, later, undermines the security and well-being of the community at large.

"Choice for men" is the most heinous thing to afflict the agenda of the MRM. I, for one, want to go on record as fundamentally opposed to it. Take away the choice of women to destroy their children with suction catheters, or to abandon them, and instead restore the rights of children to receive nurturing care and permanent access to both of their biological parents. The MRM needs to stop imitating the entitlement mindset of the feminists and Statists my demanding, "I want mine too." Again, these are human beings that we're talking about here -- children.

This is a prime example of the 'HOW'. Clear and logical, comprising facts about humanity rather than petulant tit for tat. It is adult. It considers matters that make us human and properly values the primacy of being human. It suggests an alternative course more likely to portray the MRM as adult.

One can have a variety of attitudes but simply following flawed feminist modes of gimme, gimme and childish demand for selfish 'rights' which are ultimately anti-life, plays into feminism's dirty hands.

Marriage may well be hard. Having children may make one very vulnerable today. But both are tried and tested human activities which underpin civilisation. How a MRA can advocate 'abandoning' fatherhood and its responsibilities without reinforcing the anti-family values identical to those of feminists beats me. But then the drivel advocated by Paul fits nicely with his shafting of David Usher, one of the most cogent MRM advocates for adulthood. Problematic is that his writing ability far outstrips his intelligence.

**haahoo** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from Kargan3033

You know I have a hard time understanding you some times but this is not one of those times.

I have a hard time understanding me all the time!

From what you have posted I can take it that you mean that the socalled " Well adjusted " people are the wacked out loonies living in a fathsty land right?

Well, its the old matrix analogy. If they want to take the blue pill, they can be happy with their lives forever, if they dont develop an aversion to those pills.. Their concept of "reality" is real to them, because they have set their boundaries short of the "truth" which is bigger, infinitely so..

But, they are still within the boundaries set by those who farm them as a power source for their own ends, the "elite"..

That may be a "reality" they accept, by denying it as a reality, or doing nothing about it!

And that it is the so called " Insane " people who have a grip on realty that are insane?

Those who dont power the hamster wheel for the elite, either refuse to do so or try and break it, are sometimes held up as useful "bad examples" to try and keep the blue pillers popping their meds. They are rarely a problem as such, as long as they remain in low numbers and dont organise themselves. The best way of keeping them from being able to organise themselves is to tell the world (hamsters) that they are insane and NOT to be emulated or listened to..

bad examples often thrive on that sort of existance. we have to keep it up, let the world know we are insane, so that most folk indeed do not listen, then the state provides for us well and lets us breed and create more serfs for the wheel..

So, they have got us in that regard, as long as they can ensure that not more than a small number of our offspring can avoid the programming against their "insane" parents..

Basicly the clowns running the circus right?

Yes. The clowns. The truly psychopathic, inhuman, all knowing statists are simply bad examples that had the smarts to take over and organise..

The reason the state hates psychotics/visonaries more than any other group of humans is because within a period of about 20-30 years, a psychotic mind can become highly efficient at competeing with the elite at brainwashing the proles.

The state snaps them up as early as it can for its own use..

They even try and create more of them by allowing illicit drug use to bring them to the fore..

But, that tactic is also a way of getting more control of the proles, because, drugged minds are notoriously easy to manipulate.

Its like, they know how their minds work, and drugs are like tools to manipulate them, creating humans who serve the role the elite want.

One of the little know facts about "insanity" is that many forms of it are completely "voluntary" and only activated when it is useful.

Its a bit like the turbo boost button on a race car..

If you have one, its there when needed.. If you dont have one.. Well, maybe you can take solace in the fact that you have less chance of crashing and burning!

Btw I love your avatar you mind if I swipe a copy of it?

Sure, take it for your use! Came of a MRA blog I pasted here yesterday

**Kargan3033** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from haahoo

Maybe you dont understand that the MRM is often promoting that idea (in its many forms, the "celibacy" or "recreational sex chasers" are just as much abandoning fatherhood in their own way), because the whole MRM is a completely reactionary movement to femistatism.

But, I am sure you know that, after all, you are John Dias, not some newbie to the cause.

I am sure you also know that men would not need to ask for "rights" if it were not for the fact that the femistate has perverted the natural order of the family by creating artificial rights for women, rights that men have to pay for, but get no clear direct benefit from!

BUT, the ability to choose FLIGHT is one.. Naturally, a man would FIGHT.. But, that has been criminalised..

So, logically, men will retreat and this is why they choose to declare their flight from fatherhood as a stance..

It is a RESPONSE to the femistate fucking it up for men.. It is a BOLTHOLE for them to run down..

And who can blame them?

Frozen out of the place they may want to be, they have decided to run to safety and lick their wounds.. Or, simply avoid getting them!

Yes, which is what the femistate wants.

Is it? Unless this is part of the next "and" it seems a srange comment. Why not critisize them? They made their "choice" and then changed their minds when they found out the consequences.. Or perhaps they had "good reason" to change their minds, and perhaps they did not "choose" so freely..

Equality is a crock of shit concept, like chasing the dream of eternal life.. Legal rights dont make the basis of a decision to do something, they just make it "legal".. Or not.. Morality too, is a concept that is not absolute and is subject to variation by culture etc..

Folk will always want to do what suits them, and what suits them does not always suit others. But who should decide what another should do? The state?

.

Yes. But no, but.. They ARE pawns. The are "Pwned" by the state. As are parents. Fact. Ugly, stinking fact. And that is why I request that the state needs to be starved to death by all men! (since it is easier to deny the beast its food than to attack it with little sticks! the state is "fenced in" by its own agents, it relies on being fed blood by the donor fucktard cattle! it farms!)

Yes, which is why they should be allowed the responsibility, not have the state steal it off them! If the state has done that, then, parents have NO RESPONSIBILITY at all. The state is 100% responsible! 100%, as in, the fucking whole damned lot! EVERY parent in a statist society that denies parents true responsibilities has the natural right to reject their offspring and profer them to the state. Reality is, that is the case and the natural consequence of femistatism.

Yes, but how can one do that under the statist system? It is a different matter for fathers, as a opposed to mothers, as well..

Fathers have always had the natural right to tell mothers to go take a hike.. Mothers have always had the natural right to kill their offspring..

I cant say I disagree with that, I am repulsed personally by the "choice for men" BS I hear in the MRM too, its logically unsound as well as just following a femistate lead..

But, id never give rights to children.

They dont have rights by nature.

Parents have a natural duty. That is what sustains children, not this "rights" apeshit..

"The state" has a duty too, but, the state comes in many forms, and is not an individual, it is a group of responsibility seekers..

You can have a femistate, or a corporation, or a religious group, or charity taking the role on..

Well said Bros

However here's my take on this subject.

Men who are saying no to having children because the system is stack against them are excercing power over the state, if there are no new young bodies to word to suport the state the state will die out because there are no young and abled bodied people to suport it, see what I'm saying.

However it is the men who run around popping off kids and ducking out on them that are the problem because they are proviging the state with fresh young minds that are basicly a clean slate since they did not have their fathers to raise them so the state can warp their minds and have fresh young bodies to keep the state going.

Also I think the reason why the state seems to keen to give this " Choice to make fatherhood optional " to men is to counter the power of the men who are chosing not to have children in order to stave the state to death by cutting off it's suply of fresh young minds and bodies needed to keep the system going.
See what I'm saying?

**Kargan3033** · 20th-May-2010

Quote from haahoo

I have a hard time understanding me all the time!

Well, its the old matrix analogy. If they want to take the blue pill, they can be happy with their lives forever, if they dont develop an aversion to those pills.. Their concept of "reality" is real to them, because they have set their boundaries short of the "truth" which is bigger, infinitely so..

But, they are still within the boundaries set by those who farm them as a power source for their own ends, the "elite"..

That may be a "reality" they accept, by denying it as a reality, or doing nothing about it!

Those who dont power the hamster wheel for the elite, either refuse to do so or try and break it, are sometimes held up as useful "bad examples" to try and keep the blue pillers popping their meds. They are rarely a problem as such, as long as they remain in low numbers and dont organise themselves. The best way of keeping them from being able to organise themselves is to tell the world (hamsters) that they are insane and NOT to be emulated or listened to..

bad examples often thrive on that sort of existance. we have to keep it up, let the world know we are insane, so that most folk indeed do not listen, then the state provides for us well and lets us breed and create more serfs for the wheel..

So, they have got us in that regard, as long as they can ensure that not more than a small number of our offspring can avoid the programming against their "insane" parents..

Yes. The clowns. The truly psychopathic, inhuman, all knowing statists are simply bad examples that had the smarts to take over and organise..

The reason the state hates psychotics/visonaries more than any other group of humans is because within a period of about 20-30 years, a psychotic mind can become highly efficient at competeing with the elite at brainwashing the proles.

The state snaps them up as early as it can for its own use..

They even try and create more of them by allowing illicit drug use to bring them to the fore..

But, that tactic is also a way of getting more control of the proles, because, drugged minds are notoriously easy to manipulate.

Its like, they know how their minds work, and drugs are like tools to manipulate them, creating humans who serve the role the elite want.

One of the little know facts about "insanity" is that many forms of it are completely "voluntary" and only activated when it is useful.

Its a bit like the turbo boost button on a race car..

If you have one, its there when needed.. If you dont have one.. Well, maybe you can take solace in the fact that you have less chance of crashing and burning!

Sure, take it for your use! Came of a MRA blog I pasted here yesterday

You know what you have said in this post strikes a very deep cord within me because of some of the messed up events in my life I ended up being used as a lab rat by the " Mental Heath system " and I was being cosently pumped for of new and exsperament " Happy Pills " while being told I was pschotic one weeek then being told that I was pairniod the next week, it was so bad that if you had told me the sky was purple I would have seen a purple sky, it got so bad that I got OD and died, not near dead but DEAD as in stick a fork in his ass he's done for, when to hell because I was getting to the Dark Arts so God gave me a bit of a scare in order to get me on the right track and then God broguht me back to life a second time.

Even now I'm on Happy Pills because my mind has been so fucked up and changed because of all that shit that if I go off my meds I freak out very badly.

So all in all I understand what you have said in this post all to clearly.