Posts Tagged ‘War Against Men’

WHAT WOULD FREUD SAY?

Monday, June 19th, 2017

Note (10JUL2017): As though the world required more confirmation of the semi-psychotic state into which these United States of America have degenerated, the U.S. Army reportedly issued new instructions concerning so-called trans-gender personnel. Normal females in the context of a shower-room simply should ignore an abnormal, naked male characterizing himself as “trans-gender”. Those who are religious might view this blatant denial of reality as spitting into the eye of God. Those who are less religious might view it as poking a finger into the eye of Mother Nature. Whatever the case, reality is reality, and perversion is perversion.

Note (03JUL2017): Tomorrow is Independence Day. Independence from what? In 1776, from the British Crown. Today, from social sanity. The following posting offers a commentary on but one aspect of the semi-psychotic state into which this land of the increasingly enslaved and home of the increasingly timid has become.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” -Camille Paglia (b. 1947)

Radical Feminism: A movement demanding a restructuring of society, so that male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

One element amid the decline of these United States of America has been the rise of “Radical Feminism” devolving into that which might be called “Radical Maternalism”. What is “Radical Maternalism”?

Radical Maternalism: The infecting of normal maternalism with a combination of “Radical Feminism” and perverted “humanitarianism”.

“What fools these mortals be.” -Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC-65 AD)

Envy
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of psychoanalysis may have been off the mark with his non-scientific theories of mental activity, but he was close to the truth in many of his phenomenological descriptions thereof. One of those descriptions addressed human females’ envy of the male sexual organ.

Freud’s explanation revolved around anxiety, often unconscious, among little girls elicited by their father’s manliness, which seemed, even unseen, as dangerously gigantic — capable of ripping them apart. As little boys identify with their father’s organ and, thereby, with their father, given their anxiety little girls identify with their mothers, who as they do lack the frightening member.

Recent trends among many American women give credit to Freud’s observation. Examples?

“And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolk, nor of his friends.” -First Kings 16:11 (King James Bible)

Zippers. Traditionally, women’s slacks had their zippers on the side; thereby, maintaining a smooth and pleasing frontal line. Then, the zipper on women’s slacks migrated to the front to become a “fly” as on men’s slacks; thereby, disrupting that line. What’s the point? Biologically, women do not have the anatomical equipment to require or even make use of a “fly”.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -George Orwell

Another example? Grammatically, the disappearance of the feminine among nouns; for example, aviatrix and executrix. Even more to the point, the use of the plural pronoun in the third person when its antecedent is singular.

These examples may seem trivial to some. They are not! Their inefficiency symbolizes a confused and conflicted society in decline and on fire.

The War Against Men
“To accuse is to smear.” -Saying

The Radical Maternalists have enjoyed success while the nation suffers failure. They have declared a War Against Men. One of their most potent weapons has been the accusation of sexual harassment. Its mere suggestion forces American men, now emasculated, to cringe — successful companies to disintegrate.

A lone woman, even a known prostitute, accuses; sometimes years after the alleged act. She offers no objective evidence. The accused male is guilty with no way to prove himself innocent. Be he an executive, he is fired or suspended, at best. Be he a student, he is expelled, prevented from even confronting his accuser. Be he key-man to a commercial enterprise, it suffers substantial financial reversal.

Has the accused with the been found guilty in a court of law? No. Has the accused been arrested? No. Has a criminal charge been brought against him? No. His career, nevertheless, is ruined, and his personal life destroyed. All because a lone woman accused him without objective evidence. His possession of a penetrating sexual organ is sufficient.

“Wait!” you say. “After she made her accusation public, other women made the same accusation.”

So? None produced objective evidence. The only confirmation was hearsay.

The following is a true story:
Some years ago, a woman working in an office-building began to complain of generalized itching upon arriving at work. Her complaint became a public accusation that the building was infested with some unknown, unseen vermin and that the callous owners, men of course, had been indifferent to her alleged plight. Immediately, thereafter, her complaint spread among other women. An expert’s investigation of the building revealed nothing. A dermatologist’s examination of the women revealed nothing. Asked for his opinion, a psychiatrist labelled the accusations a sign of “mass hysteria”. The accusing women were advised of his professional opinion. Their complaints faded into a past, for them, best forgotten.

PART TWO

Humanitarianism
Humanitarianism n.: Concern for human welfare. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

A definition reflecting a noble sentiment, indeed. The question arises, however, What form does that “concern” take operationally in terms of actual behavior?

Sadly, “humanitarianism” has become a self-righteous obscenity camouflaging a multitude of sins. Instead of promoting the greatest good for substantially the greatest number, it has degenerated into sacrificing the whole in order to serve a part — often an undeserving part; even a minuscule, undeserving part.

In the name of “humanitarianism, for example, the disestablishmentarians concocted a euphemism for a particular form of sexual perversion; namely, “trans-gender”. Then, to protect the perverts who cloaked themselves in that euphemism, less 0.1% of the population, they destroyed a millenia-old history of basic morality, commonplace decency, and personal privacy of the most intimate kind; infecting even the military. As for ostensibly protecting children characterizing themselves of the opposite sex, the majority of such children revert to normalcy by the time of their adolescence. Beware especially of those claiming to generate social change in order to “protect the children”!

Too often, abstract, idiosyncratic, misguided ideologies without scientific basis promoting outrages of semi-psychotic proportions in the name of so-called humanitarianism and social justice become the basis for law. Currently, we are witnessing such madness sweep the country.

“Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” -Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Normal maternalism places mercy before justice. Normal paternalism places justice before mercy. Combined with moderation, prudence, and charity, together they generate healthy humanitarianism.

In these United States, no longer! The Radical Maternalists and their sycophantic supporters on The Left have accused men of waging a so-called War Against Women. They claim that, in the name of their version of humanitarianism, women must be elevated economically, politically, and socially based upon their sex not upon their abilities.

The strategy is to emasculate men, beginning with little boys in kindergarten. In schools across the nation, both public and private, feminine sympathy has replaced masculine honor. Gone is accepting individual responsibility for one’s own self in favor of shifting collective responsibility to others. Gone is heroic strength among men in their righteous pursuit of riches in favor of cowardly stealth masking perverse deception and treachery. Gone is grace among women in their righteous and proud pursuit of feminine honor in favor of disgrace in a lustful pursuit of dishonor and an impossible pursuit of manhood.

Consequences
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” -Yogi Berra (1925-2015)

B = f(x) under c. Science tells us, “Behavior is a function of its consequences in a given context.”

Ideologues of The Left would have us believe that theory trumps practice. Witness the continued resurrection of Marxism after the collapse of the Soviet Union via messengers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (b. 1941), frighteningly admired by an indoctrinated and misguided American youth. Perhaps, spending a month in the socialist reality of Venezuela might make them realize the actual consequences of “free-this” and “free-that” really mean.

“For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.” – Will Durant (1885-1981)

The rise of Radical Maternalism concurrent with the decline of the nation is no coïncidence. Can women lead a nation? Yes, consider Queen Elizabeth I and Prime Ministeress Thatcher of England and Czarina Catherine the Great of Russia. Should women be given equal opportunity under equal circumstances? Yes. Should women or minorities, for that matter, be given unequal advancement in order to achieve equal outcome? Consider the consequences.

Men and women are not equal and never will be; propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. From top to bottom — inside and outside, they differ biologically in anatomy and physiology. To pretend otherwise is to travel the Path to Perdition, as is Western civilization currently. Conversely, to give each his rightful due is to travel the Road to Righteousness, a route long departed.

Ultimately, however, reality wins. So it will be in these United States; ideologues of both Left and Right notwithstanding. Given current trends, it will be ugly. What then? The aftermath promises to be frightening.

There is a constructive alternative rarely mentioned, if ever. Biobehavioral Science. Shall we employ it? What’s your bet?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

 

MANGLING MASCULINITY

Monday, October 10th, 2016

“Beauty is only skin-deep, but ugliness goes all the way to the bone.” -Proverb

Radical Maternalist n.: An individual, not necessarily a woman, whose ideology combines radical feminism with normal maternalism.

Radical Maternalism is an abomination. It perverts healthy, normal maternalism with a radical ideology at odds with biology. Radical Maternalists would have us accept their angry, misguided ideology over documented Biological Science.

Facts
Let’s face some basic facts:

1) Beauty signifies genetic health. Accordingly, both sexes prize beauty.

2) Heterosexual mating is necessary for propagation of a species.

3) Humans are the most hyper-sexual animals on Earth.

4) Human males are more sexually aggressive than human females as a function of anatomy and physiology.

5) Human females are the only mammals with breasts not just teats — breasts that serve to attract males. Is it not the controlling factor in women undergoing expensive, cosmetic surgeries to augment their breasts?

6) Human females are the only animals with menses not oestrous, thereby, remaining sexually receptive throughout the year not just “in season”.

7) Human females are the only mammals sexually receptive while pregnant even though incapable of conceiving additional offspring via additional copulations.

Discussion
The manufactured uproar and feigned horror occasioned by the recent release of surreptitiously and probably illegally-made recordings of Donald Trump’s private conversation with another man more than a decade ago is but another example of blatant hypocrisy by cowardly politicians and the salacious Media in a long list of such examples. The Radical maternalists’ claimed upset notwithstanding, Mr. Trump’s admittedly lewd and lascivious remarks reflect the manner in which normal males often speak among themselves. So what?

Women not only know that fact to be the truth but manipulate it to their advantage. Why else wear skirts with hemlines only slightly below their genitalia (Mrs. Clinton understandably excepted.) and necklines only slightly above their nipples?

The craven homage paid by most male politicians to the vicious Radical Maternalists in response to Mr. Trump’s exhibiting normal, male, verbal behavior — the same behavior exhibited by most of these obsequious, unctuous fops — should be sufficient to sicken any voter with the intelligence and political awareness above an imbecile’s. These feckless, hypocritical sycophants and their ilk have been selling out this nation for decades.

Meanwhile, the truth about the Clintons’ own sexual behaviors and the infamous lies derived therefrom indicts this pair of evildoers beyond anything that can be said against Mr. Trump’s verbal behavior. Which of the two, major candidates is unfit even to run, let alone be elected — “Crooked Hillary” or “The Donald”? The answer can be found in the nicknames themselves.

“Every nation has the government for which it is fit.” -Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)

Any normal, self-respecting American male who falls for the affectations of both Democratic and Republican politicians, none of whom cares one whit about anything but being elected or reëlected, deserves that which he gets — economic, political, and sociological castration. Is it any wonder why these United States of America have become a nation in decline — a nation on fire? To answer that question, one need only glance at the current political campaigns and the aforementioned castration of the American male inherent therein.

Sexual warfare? Yes, it exists. No, it is not the “War On Women” invidiously fabricated by the Democrats but an actual “War Against Men” declared by Radical Maternalists and supported by most politicians of both major political parties.

In this war, is it not time for American men proudly and righteously to defend their manhood? Is it not time for American women proudly and righteously to stand by their men — those who have a man, that is? Be advised, doing so is vital for the defense of traditional, American ideals and values; the Constitution; and the nation itself.

“I the Lord search the heart,
I try the reins,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.” -Jeremiah 17:10

Behavior has its consequences. Judge it thereby.

See “True Grit”.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.