The following is an outline of feminism as contrasted
with masculinism from a high or superficial perspective, a middle or
moderately careful analytic perspective, and a low or historical
perspective.
Feminism in America,
has the general goal of replacing male leadership with female. This
is a change of massive proportions since it envisions replacing a
culture of several thousands of years duration, back to Abraham, and
all of the institutions that have grown up in that time. To justify this
claim, I cannot go to feminist organizations and ask them what their
goals are, they do not know beyond the moment, themselves. We
must look at the programs they favor and what their long term
effects will be. Humans seldom work from conscious motives. This
would require them to understand what they are about, which is a
time consuming process, never completed. Therefore, we all act from
our feelings. If it feels right, we do it, and rationalize later. So, it
would not aid us to ask the beast why it does what it does.
We cannot judge whether feminism is a good thing or bad. It is
something that is happening to us, and we will have to adapt. On the
other hand, the implementation of the goals of feminism are being
pursued by human institutions and they can be criticized profitably
by those who do not agree with their methods. By this I mean to
say that whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, we will
still move towards feminism. It is instructive to note that the great
education debate hasn't produced a clue regarding the reasons for
the decline in test scores. Some say more money is required and
when the money is forthcoming, the slide continues. Some say a
return to basic education is required, but cannot explain why we
moved away from it in the first place.
It would be well to reflect that God is male and a spirit. Also
that ideas are the creation of the spirit and, initially at least, non-
material. Also that feminism's natural deity won't be male. From
these facts it should be possible to deduce what is wrong with
education. Also that we won't be able to fix it. For those that don't
care for deduction we can say that God is primarily the father of the
intellect and feminists won't wish to continue the enterprise of
building up the ego.
To understand feminism, one must know who the feminists are.
To do this one has to be able to identify a feminist when one sees
one, even if they do not so identify themselves. So, a feminist is one
who believes or feels that the best advice about one's life will be
provided by a female or one who lives in the style of a female as
opposed to a male. This style results from one's attributes. For
example, we cannot expect a monkey to write a sonnet. It's
attributes don't allow for such a possibility. For another a lion will
not fly. It lacks wings. In the same way, a feminine creature will
not fight except as a final resort, it will retreat. This is not the same
as saying a female can not fight, because a female can, if she wishes,
emphasize her masculinity. Female jackals in Africa have non
functional penis's. Creativity is an aggressive act, it alters the status
quo, feminism is passive.
So, what are the more important feminine attributes: passivity,
absorption, chaos, compassion, a multiplicity of gods. Now, we must
define our terms, else you may mean something other than I when
we use them. Passivity means tending not to act in the presence of
stimuli. In other words it is feminine to allow things to happen. The
opposite is active, or aggressive, or creative. To absorb means to
allow radiation to enter one and to keep it. The sun radiates, and
the earth absorbs. A female absorbs semen and is impregnated by
it. Chaos is the absence of order. The feminine is uncreative and
therefore has no need of order. One cannot create except by
imposing order. Compassion is the desire to share another's feelings.
It can result in attempting to eliminate those feelings that are
unpleasant. Thus compassion is most active when sharing the
feelings of suffering, since it wishes to eliminate them for the
comfort of the sufferer. So, a feminine being wishes to share your
feelings, because that is how it communicates and relates to another.
On the other hand no being likes to suffer, so the feminine will try to
eliminate it. This will cause it to try to destroy the source of the
suffering, in fact nature is always trying to destroy created things,
but the creator is always recreating, so one has a draw. Or a steady
state of affairs. Feminism recognizes godliness as a state superior in
power to that of humans, but assigns it to myriad's of beings, more
and more abstract according to the sophistication of the feminists.
Masculinism has one God because one God is a more orderly concept
than many.
Another way to describe the difference between a masculinist
and a feminist culture is to say that a feminist culture will use
masculinity in support of its methods and goals which will be
feminist in nature, while the reverse will be true of masculinists.
Thus, the feminist acting on the basis of compassion and attempting
to eliminate suffering is an example of using the subordinate
masculinism in the service of feminist values.
Feminism is the opposite of masculinism, so to understand it
more clearly we must also identify the main attributes of
masculinism. These are orderliness, radiation, the law, The One God.
Order can be defined as an arrangement of entities such that any
existing item is known and can be found. Surprise is not an
attribute of a masculine object. Radiation is the act of giving of
oneself automatically as a feature of being and is seen as aggression
from some points of view. The law is the verbalization or description
of the universe. It is made up of generalities, therefore categories
are established and commonality is recognized. The One God, the God
of order is well known in the West. I refer Easterners to The Bible,
His Book.
The motivation behind feminism for humans is power.
Feminists wish to wrest power from Masculinists, who have held it
for several thousand years, as previously pointed out. Naturally
Masculinists wish not to give it up. The main institution of
masculinism is the church, which has a masculine God. The actual
motivation behind feminism cannot be grasped by humans, though
one supposes that the existence of masculinism creates an ever
growing desire to have what one lacks (feminism) so that eventually this desire
grows larger than the original desire to have a masculine society in
the first place. Ultimately, we must resort to God's will. Women have always, in all societies, been
viewed as passive and exploitable, even by women. This is because
of the tendency to see the female as participating in the nature of
femininity, as mother earth. The supra-personal feminine, in
nature, has characteristics, as do all things. One of those
characteristics is passivity. Humans, can emphasize either their
femininity or masculinity, whether male or female, and therefore can
be, by training as passive or aggressive as they like. Of course, only
those that can see it, can do it.
As women's masculinism was emphasized by sending them to
school, eventually, they conceived that they were oppressed, and
having seen, determined to do something about it.
This put males in a difficult position, not being oppressed, they
had no wish to change their status. Unfortunately, males cannot
remain the same if women change.
As can be seen by generalization, there are only two ways to be
on any one scale (black/white, up/down, left/right, etc.), less
obvious is just how one-sidedness is compensated to maintain
balance, but if women become very aggressive, we can take it that
men will have no choice but to become passive. This though, will be
abnormal, as compared with most species. This is probably because
semen builds up, and places a requirement on the male to act.
When he does, it is an act of aggression. The passive,
exploited woman is believed by feminists to exist in an unfair state.
Their thinking is that fairness is a state of equality, with all members
getting and giving the same amounts of the same things. This is a
naive idea of fairness. In the economic world, fairness is achieved
when items of equal value are matched. Feminism assumes that
males and females can be equally capable and that differences in
physical and mental states are inconsequential. Masculinism
(Christianity) had the distinct advantage of assigning roles in accord
with the attributes of the sexes. Men were assigned the more
physical and intellectual roles and women the responsibility for
establishing and maintaining relationships. All changes are caused
by something, in this case we can be relatively confident population
pressure is the culprit. Humans establish related groups, and
thereby create political power. Population growth magnifies
political power. This creates desire on the part of women to have
some or all of it.
Since the fairness issue is naive, we must assume it is being
used tactically by the leaders, whom we assume are not naive.
Feminists would appear to be after power. They seem to think
that they are deprived because males have power and they don't,
and they want their fair share. This is an unusual view, historically.
Woman have been content in the past, due to their passivity, to rely
on indirect methods of achieving power, through their husbands.
This is apparently no longer sufficient to many.
It is clear that any woman married to a powerful male, is
potentially powerful herself. For some reason some women are
unsatisfied with this kind of access anymore. This could be
explained again as a result of education.
Education is a means of feeding the ego. The ego is inherently
masculine, since it is a spiritual entity developed through the
acquisition of ideas. Ego here, is understood to refer to the
personality as defined by one's personal memory.
Below the level of awareness, and aside from population growth,
the bomb is probably the catalytic event. The bomb made the
survival of humanity problematic. To get rid of it, it would be
necessary to forget it. That can only be done by de-emphasizing the
ego and rationality, for several generations. This will be the natural
result of rising feminism, since feminism will be antagonistic towards
a masculine construction like the ego.
As the notion of unfairness towards women has developed, the
perhaps natural extension of it has been to identify white Anglo-Saxon males as the crux of the problem since they hold most of the
apparent power in the West. The contention has been made that
they constitute a sort of club that actively discriminates in their
admissions policy, particularly against women, but generally against
all persons not included in the group, white Anglo-Saxon males.
There is certainly an element of truth here, but probably only an
element. Business, in particular, is held to the discipline of the
bottom line. They must make a profit to survive, and if women
represented a means of better competing, they would trip over one
another in the effort to get them.
In general, there is a conflict between those who wish to allocate
resources according to aptitude and those who wish to allocate
according to politics, or fairness. Unfortunately, allocating according
to fairness, inevitably leads to inefficiency, which means an inability
to compete, which leads to an early death. This discipline is
considered harsh by feminists who measure things against the
yardstick of compassion.
Beyond that, there will be at least an unconscious desire to use
fairness as the yardstick just because it will have a destructive effect
on current institutions and lead to replacement of them by feminist
ones.
Abortion of fetuses, is viewed by women as a
means of liberation from the slavery of childbearing. Since they are
insensitive to the masculine concept of morality, which has no
physical existence, they cannot appreciate their opponents attempt
to categorize the act as murder. To feminists, anti-abortionists are
guilty of equating the child with the mother, as coequals with equal
rights, this is patently absurd to them, though democratic. The
feminine, as the source of life, has absolute authority over it, in the
view of the feminist. The justification, used by feminists for their
position, is that it is uncompassionate to force a woman to give birth
when that act will produce suffering for the new mother. The
rationalization underlying societal approval of abortion is that the
world is overpopulated with humans and it makes no sense to bring
more humans into it, especially if the circumstances of the woman
will produce suffering for the child. The
Masculinists take the Christian view of abortion, which holds that
the child has a soul, and therefore participates in divinity and cannot
morally be disposed of, except by God. A moral act is here
understood to refer to actions that redound to the survival of the
species. No greater good can be imagined by humans, than survival.
Feminists, of course, must be against survival temporarily, since
they must oppose masculine institutions. After the failure of these
institutions their attitude towards childbirth will change.
Masculinists cannot answer the charge of overpopulation, since
any approach to dealing with it will fly in the face of traditional
morality. They therefore ignore it and ridicule those who treat it as
a serious issue.
The resistance to feminism is in the Church and the most
profound resistance is in Rome. This should make it clear that
feminism and Christianity are fundamentally opposed. The Church
is silent on the issue of overpopulation, driving one to the conclusion
that if it considers the possibility at all, it considers that evading the
inevitable fate of mankind, especially by resorting to immorality can
only produce a more harrowing last days than otherwise would
obtain. Or, to say it another way, that these ideas are inevitable as
the last days approach and the only resort available to the church is
implacable opposition no matter how that appears from without.
The Church is thereby subject to the charge of helping to fulfill
its own prophecy, but what other option does it have? To adopt the
attitude that man must manage its own life on earth, is to
participate in its own destruction (the church's) since this will
involve usurping the prerogatives of God, as in making life and
death decisions in abortion, and euthanasia, and eventually in the
case of birth defects and others not deemed useful. This will
ultimately lead to genocide and other horrors not dreamed of outside
of Hollywood. Feminism seeks to reduce the influence
of masculinity in the lives of the members of society. This is not a
conscious desire but an unconscious one and that means that
anytime a feminist considers an action that will have this affect,
he/she will get a positive feeling. After that, they will rationalize
their actions but this is little to be relied upon. One way to get
control of society is to invalidate the masculine influence in the lives
of children. To do this one minimizes the effect of the father's
presence on the children. To do this, one must make the father
disappear. To do this, one can make his life in the home unpleasant.
This can be done by not providing for him the comforts he wishes
for in a passive sense, and by fighting with him in the active sense.
Depriving him of sex will go a long way towards making him seek
comfort elsewhere. Denying him the satisfaction of eating will do
more. Causing the children to rebel against him and denying him
support when they do will make his life disagreeable indeed.
Unfortunately, men usually provide the family income, and
women are not well prepared to do the same in their absence. Even
if they are trained or trainable, they must leave their children to
minimal supervision while they are gone.
This results in large numbers of fatherless families that are a
drag on society's resources since they must rely on charity from the
state and federal governments to compensate for the lack of a
breadwinner in the family.
This seems bad, but from the feminist point of view it isn't. The
social structure is further stressed and teeters ever closer to failure,
which can do no other than lead to replacement of the masculinist
culture with a feminist one. Of course much suffering is attendant
on this sort of change, but feminism protects itself from that by not
recognizing the results as emanating from its own causes.
Hugh Hefner started Playboy after leaving the
employ of Esquire presumably because he was unable to express his
liberal values there. Playboy, by being first to inject high quality
female nudity into the mainline media, became very successful very
rapidly. Men enjoy looking at the nude female, though it has a bad
effect on them from society's point of view. This effect is to make
them more susceptible to the desire for female company and less
able to function effectively without it. In addition, with it, males
have their interest diverted from providing the resources for a
comfortable life to their families.
Not satisfied with this achievement, Hefner went on to describe
the ideal male as one consumed with hedonism and committed to a
lifestyle noted mainly by a lack of restraint, especially in the area of
sex. The key to the success of civilization is restraint. To check this
statement imagine a society which lacks any vestige of restraint.
Lebanon springs immediately to mind. Of course, young males are
attracted to this idea, having no idea that there are large
implications to dismissing responsibility in favor of pursuit of
pleasure.
A survey of historical records, primarily the Bible, will
demonstrate that failure of masculinist societies is preceded by lack
of restraint and hedonism. Consider Noah, Sodom, Gomorrah, Judah,
Israel, Rome. Rome of course adapted to Christianity and solved its
problem. So, we are instructed from this record that masculinism is
constantly threatened by hedonism, and that the only solution to
this threat thus far known, is Christianity.
One of the most destructive capabilities humans have is to
isolate and refine the sources of pleasure. Consider the importance
of cocaine or tobacco or alcohol in the absence of the ability to refine
it. Hedonism, uses its time to find ways to produce pleasure, even
though refined pleasure is the most addictive commodity in
existence. This perversion is impossible for the market to ignore
and the market is thereby enlisted as servant to hedonism and
therefore to feminism.
For many reasons, Hefner must be considered a general in the
feminist army. First, because his philosophy is so destructive to the
society in which it occurs, one must conclude that it may as well
have that society in view as its victim. Second, because he relies
mainly on sex to affect his destruction. One cannot imagine a more
devious and difficult weapon to deal with. Masculinism relies on
reason to deal with its foes. Sex is extremely difficult to deal with
on that level, and even if one can do it for himself, no one else is
likely to understand him.
Compassion has as its goal the sharing of another person's
feelings as a means of communication and relatedness. It is
principally a tool of women, since relationship is their value. It is an
irrational way of experiencing life, a way that does not require the
actual experience to be had. It is similar to theater, though much
more personal. It should require no action on the part of the
compassionate one, but when the feelings are those resulting from
the experience of suffering, the natural desire is to banish the
suffering. Here trouble arises. In our world, nothing can be
destroyed, it can only be transformed and there is always a price for
this. Normally the only way to deal with suffering is to transfer it to
someone else. It will not be received gracefully, since no one wants
it, therefore it must be imposed, a self defeating enterprise since the
transferee will eventually require to be paid.
One can therefore see that compassion is best left in the hands
of the individual. Institutional compassion is a contradictory concept.
A corporation must necessarily lack compassion because corporations
are inhuman creations of man and are incapable of feelings.
This analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that compassion,
when used in the service of the state has no such object as helping
people, it is instead a weapon with which to damage the opposition.
Consider the presidential campaign of 1992. George Bush was
accused of lack of compassion because he concentrated on foreign
policy while the people were suffering from economic recession.
Well, we can say it was Bush's fault for not recognizing the political
weakness his activities produced, but this in no way minimizes the
fact that the charge itself is false and can only be characterized as
political chicanery, unfortunately consumed without reflection by a
large enough segment of the population to lead to Clinton's victory.
The rule of law is a means of providing
enough structure to a society to allow it to grow beyond what would
be otherwise possible. Compassion when used as an alternative to
law removes that structure. Indiscriminate compassion used
whenever suffering appears, will needs destroy civilization since
those consequences attendant upon ignoring the law will not be
recognized as effects and will lead to wholesale dismissal of the law
itself. In order to replace men
with women as the leaders of society, it will be necessary to provide
them with some means of gaining power over men. This can be
accomplished by redefinition of the word "rape". Until recently, the
definition of rape was a provable event of forcible copulation.
Provable was key. Simple accusation was not deemed sufficient,
generally some witness was required. This was frequently not
possible which gave the advantage to males.
The new definition seeks to eliminate the need to prove the
contention. This change will provide advantage to females and
enable them to, for instance, use the threat as a means of gaining
power over the male.
Of course the feminists assure us that women wouldn't do such a
thing. The following was reported by Rush Limbaugh (Oct. '93),
though I didn't see it in the mainstream press.
A woman at Disney World contrived to have sex with someone
and then convinced her boyfriend to beat her up. She then reported
to the police that she had been raped.
The following incident was reported by Frontline on Public
Television in both 1992 and 1993.
In North Carolina, an upper middle class white mother, became
aware that her son had been slapped by an employee of a child care
center.
She then questioned her child extensively using more and more
explicit questions until she had led her child to agree that
molestation on his body had occurred. The writer is confident that
no such molestation had in fact occurred, nonetheless, the strategy
was used by social workers with every child in the day care center
and finally, the children being fully programmed by now, trials
occurred, in which the defendants, all adult workers in the facility,
were convicted.
This is not an isolated incident, it is happening again, as this
book is being written, in Georgia. In the writer's memory this
pattern began in the middle west about ten years ago.
What is clear is that feminists, thinking they are onto an actual
instance of corruption, pursue it to the point of creating a believable
case for some out of whole cloth. The doubters are then intimidated
into going along.
What we have here is no standard of objectivity being used by a
segment of society, activist women, who apparently don't understand
the need for it. This suggests we are in much greater danger than
might have been thought. If women don't understand objectivity,
don't perhaps understand that the mind has a structure, and that
using lies as foundation materials can lead to disaster, and we rush
pell mell to make them out leaders, what can we expect?
Child molestation, as used in recent years,
looks very much like an anti-masculine weapon. That is to say, by
making a case against a sufficient number of fathers, it can be
demonstrated that fathers are unfit for their role in society. If these
cases can be made by programming children who don't understand
the significance of what they say...
This has been a long standing goal of the
movement for obvious reasons and has met with more and more
success as time goes by, not only in this country but in others, even
Muslim ones. Whether or not this is a good thing we may be
forgiven if we doubt. Feminists will not operate on a thinking basis,
by and large, and this means a change from the past to a more day to
day point of view. Of course the long view (the hallmark of
masculinism) is always at odds with the short view for obvious
reasons. An ice cream now results in obesity later, and it would
seem, we would prefer a long term oriented politics. This
aspect of the movement has had a very long duration already. It has
been easier because it is a simpler problem. If one can demonstrate
a positive effect on the bottom line, one can succeed in business. But
the problem will be the same. There is a tension between the long
and short term result in business, such that most decisions have to
be made for short term results in startup companies and the reverse
is true for established companies.
Thought is required to penetrate the future. The only reliable
access to it is through analysis, unless one gives credence to
astrology or Tarot cards. So except for those few women who are
strong thinkers, problems will arise when women crack into the
executive layer of established businesses. The
problem in academia is less apparent, but no less worrisome.
Academia was established to produce and store the product of the
analytic mind. Women, by and large, will not excel in this activity,
so what can they do in academia? Well, they can interpret of course,
and teach when creativity is not required. They can administrate, of
course. But one worries that, since they cannot contribute to the
sum total of human knowledge, they will tend to belittle its
significance and corrupt the institution. This corruption can take
many forms, for example: I recently read an article purporting to
show grade inflation has become common in higher education today.
The writer said that C's had become uncommon in favor of B's,
thereby shifting the normal distribution that nature demands.
Women are of course, breaking into all male institutions, in many
cases just because of the challenge of it. The worry is that we will
lose all male societies and one wonders if they made contributions
that cannot be replaced. Looking back at history, most intellectual
and technical achievements have been produced by males without
the direct assistance of females. When isolation of males is
eliminated, will these contributions stop?
Human society is an artificial organism, not created by nature
and therefore high on nature's hit list. To defend against this
requires constant effort of an intellectual nature. Feminists will tell
us that, while there are few female intellectuals so far, this is the
result of skewed rules that favor men. When the barriers are
dismantled, women will fill the ranks of the creative. This is so much
hyperbole. The only way women can be creative is to emphasize
their masculinity. Some will no doubt choose this path, but not the
majority. It is too negative and self denying a life style.
The idea that has caught on here is that
discrimination causes suffering and therefore should be eliminated
from public life. The case of the treatment of African Americans by
European Americans is used as a case in point and from it by
extrapolation to any other minority. When someone points out that
the discriminating taste has been a much admired quality until now,
no answer to this conundrum is offered.
Actually, it should be clear to the reflective among us, that
creativity is an act of discrimination, and without it we are surely
doomed. Since civilization is an artificial organism, it is completely
dependent on the creativity of its members to sustain it.
The justification for elimination of discrimination in public life is
fairness. The contention is that it is unfair to treat people differently
as a matter of policy. The fairness referred to is presumably
sporting fairness. Actually, fairness cannot be used as the yardstick
of good government, and if it is, will doom the short-sighted
government that tries it. Survival is always the goal of any action
taken by a useful government and the only reason for having a
government at all. Since fairness is a means of choosing the least
able as leaders, it must work against the led.
Discrimination is the act of distinguishing subtle differences in
attributes between apparently similar entities. There is difficulty learning to distinguish
between entities based on subtle changes in attributes. The goal is
thus to idealize one's experience of life by distinguishing ideal
manifestations of certain objects. When applied to humans, the
result is a class structure, which discriminates against the lower
class and therefore causes suffering and motivates individuals to
strive for inclusion in the upper classes. This can be used as a
definition of civilization. Ms. Mead was an anthropologist of some
renown in the first half of the century. She studied primitives and
concluded that civilized restraints on sexual behavior led to
widespread illness of both mental and physical sorts. Feminists
adopted this view and popularized it for years. We now seem to
have widespread sexual dysfunction in our culture, as represented
by criminal sexual violence (rape, child molestation), and rap lyrics
from the black community and the divorce rate which can be laid at
this door as the mother in Tennessee Williams play "Cat on a Hot Tin
Roof" pointed out.
Ms. Mead is no doubt correct, but also probably fails to
recognize the lack of creativity in the cultures studied and to
identify the connection. Masculinism is responsible for creativity.
Preoccupation with sexuality defeats the possibility of elaboration of
this capability in humans. So, if we free sexuality of restraints, we
must expect a decline of creativity, which is already apparent. It
will go much further though, since a large part of society rejects this
view. Children, of course, are not equipped to make a decision and
so will no doubt go along with the view projected by television.
Dr. Spock, a pediatrician closely linked to
Margaret Mead, wrote popular books recommending dispensing with
punishment as a means of controlling the behavior of children. This
idea was popularized by the press and adopted by most of the
culture and still dominates the so called experts in the field. The
result is a generation of children, particularly in the lower classes
that has run amok, killing each other and anyone else they deem is
restraining them. Soon this generation will arrive at the status of
adult, when we must presume they will dominate the criminal class.
Dr. Spock's children began with the baby boomers and continues to
the present and will continue until the culture reverses its position
on child care. The baby boomers arrived at adulthood with the
demands that they be allowed free love, dirty speech, and hedonism
as their life style. Now, the lower classes not only want these
features they also seem to be demanding to support themselves
through crime. We have slowly come around to the view that
criminality is bad because it causes suffering. Actually criminality is
bad because it is a form of parasite. It causes decay and ultimately
destruction of societies that allow it to grow. We have done this
because compassion has refocused our attention on the fate of the
individual caught up in the criminal justice system. We should
consider the effect on society as a whole of the actions of this
system. Errors are bound to occur, but if one wishes to minimize the
damage of criminality it is essential to stop it from occuring and to
do this one must convince individuals that it will result in their own
suffering. Dr. Kinsey did more than
any other person to popularize the idea that many sexual practices
formerly thought beyond normal standards were in fact practiced
by most Americans on a regular basis. To prove his allegations he
presented material apparently gleaned from years of research. The
press up until recently was dominated by feminists and approval of
Kinsey's conclusions was widespread. However, recently,
conservatives, attempting to compensate for the liberal bias in the
press have written extensively debunking the ideas and science of
Kinsey. Hugh Hefner through his magazine suggests
that laws against free love and societal restraints on hedonism are
ridiculous limitations on freedom that should be dispensed with
immediately. By surrounding this kind of propaganda with
pornography, he assured that it would be widely read among the
males of the culture and since it expounded on allowing free
satisfaction of sexual desire, assured a positive reaction.
I would identify Mr. Hefner as the single most corrosive agent in
our society. His views could not be better designed to corrupt and
doom a society and presented in the way they are cannot but be
extremely influential in just the segment of society that will provide
its future leaders. These people will suffer unacknowledged guilt as
a result of following his practices, which will cause them to deny any
negative effect even when they become knowledgeable enough to
understand the danger they represent. Ms. Friedan, it can be argued, is the mother of
the modern feminist movement, based on the timing and content of
her book. That book attempts to identify that fairly mysterious set
of assumptions and stereotypes that combine to place a woman in
the role within the family that history provides for. She concludes
of course that they are only fantasies and myths and should be
exploded and discarded.
We will have to rediscover the reasons for the feminine role in
society since we must have forgotten or Ms. Friedan's argument
would have no power. Of course she is wrong. Otherwise the role
would not dominate in all societies whether feminist or masculinist.
She is not the only smart person in the history of the world, others
have thought these same thoughts. Some things are of course
different though. The mass media, and comprehensive exposure of
all people to these ideas. Ms. Steinem is an
acknowledged leader of the feminist movement and her magazine is
the journal of this cultural experiment. Of course the editorial
content makes no claim to objectivity and in fact blatantly favors any
and all ideas aimed at empowerment of the female gender.
Ms. Steinem represents the prototype of Jung's "animus
possessed woman." Ms. Yard was perhaps
chosen for her appearance as much as anything. A gray haired
fierce countenance as imposing as anything since the prohibition era
stands her in good stead at the political gatherings of the movement.
Her organization is the most well known feminist group in America
and occupies a very radical position. NOW lobbies not only for the
Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, but completely free
abortion for all, and equal rights for homosexuals, especially
lesbians.
One can see how the organization reached this position, but it is
a wonderment how politically naive they can be. One is driven to
the conclusion they do more harm than good to their cause. They
would no doubt reply that to soft pedal equal rights for homosexuals
would damage the case for lesbians and all minorities, and therefore
women.
The fear is real but the logic militates against any such
comprehensive generalizations as those proposed by NOW in any
political arena.
Sexual harassment, as a concept, didn't exist until feminism
reached full stride. The idea is that males can intimidate females,
generally in the work place, to the point of requiring sexual favors,
in a sort of protection racket, and that many women are powerless
to resist.
This is an argument for legal empowerment of females over
males and has the same thrust as the redefinition of rape. A woman
now has the implicit threat about her that she can claim sexual
harassment in the work place as a means of achieving her political
goals.
The downside of this strategy lies in convincing women that
they are victims of society. It is a highly negative self image and
will produce self destructive behavior and the mentality of a loser.
Because of this the strategy will soon be discarded. The Equal Rights
Amendment is the attempt to enshrine in the American Constitution
the modern notion of the relations between the sexes. This notion is
that of democratic values, that women and men should be equal and
out of that equality should arise a willingness to share in all aspects
of life. The men should share household chores and child raising
responsibilities, while the women should share in the effort to
acquire the necessary material resources for the family.
It should be noticed that this controversy follows the granting of
the vote to women, a foolish and politically inescapable act. The
vote had to be granted because of the definition of democracy which
has become a religious belief in the field of politics for Americans.
The quote from whence I don't know, "Democracy is not perfect, but
is the best system of government yet devised by man." springs to
mind. The implications of this statement are demonstrably untrue.
Democracy is not a new invention, it preceded the era of Kings in the
West. It is fatally flawed, because it cannot identify a ruling class
from among its best and therefore must choose leaders from among
its worst, from time to time.
This idea has led to the integration of females into almost all
male institutions in society, from clubs to business to politics to
schools. Males have had to be accepted into women's institutions
also but they are so few they don't matter.
Feminists don't seem to have noticed that if men perform the
women's role towards their children, no one will be fulfilling the
male role for them. This will result in children with no concept of
what the masculine role in the family consists of, or why it is
important.
The male role in the family is that of the provider of strength in
meeting certain of the challenges of life, providing an example of
how the spirit (the personality) can be developed to provide
psychological strength. He is used for this purpose because he has a
natural affinity for the spirit which is best characterized as
masculine.
Masculinity is at home in the non material half of reality, while
femininity is most at home in the material half. Humans contain
within themselves both halves, but males find it easier to develop
the spiritual half, while females develop more easily the material
half.
Feminism sees its role as that of zealous guardian of feminine
rights. One of these, perhaps the most important in their view, is
the right of control over one's body. From this it is easy to conclude
that the fetus, growing inside the body of the female is or should be
under the control of the woman involved and therefore it is her
right to pass life and death judgment on it. NOW is therefore a great
champion of this right.
Because of the tendency to hereditary claims on responsibility
in society, control over the unborn is a powerful tool with which one
could, in the long term, determine the fate of society. One can easily
imagine the aborting of the heir to a throne when kings controlled
politics and the loss of the throne as a result. Updating this idea for
modern times isn't hard. Suppose Mary aborted Jesus. NOW
supports homosexuals because they are a minority and share that
status with feminists. Many of them are lesbians and therefore they
share goals with the feminists. Ultimately, however, whether or not
acknowledged, they support homosexuality because it is very
destructive to the institution that allows it and therefore will
eventually cause damage to the masculine social structure that they
must defeat in order to have any hope of replacing it.
As an example of how destructive homosexuality can be
consider the case of the Catholic Church of America. Twenty or so
years ago they had a crisis in recruitment of priests, so in addition to
advertising for more via billboards among other ways, I conclude
that they accepted homosexual applicants, because of the liberal
control of the administration. The result now is that they have
scandal after scandal resulting from the seduction of children by
priests. This organization purports to be
supportive of children as an interest group and a minority. In fact
the agenda of this group is to establish the class of children as
having a status equal to any other minority, including the right to
legal redress for their grievances even against their parents. How
this can be understood in any way except as an attack on Western
culture is unknown to the author.
This means, carried to its logical conclusion, that children can
legally prevail when their personal interests are sacrificed to the
good of the family. This means that husbands will be afraid to lead
their families, knowing in advance that in an argument with his
children, the government may come down on their side. This is so
reminiscent of the Garden of Eden. It seems like a good idea, think
of the poor defenseless child and an abusive father, perhaps taking
sexual advantage of the child (says the snake.) The perfectly good
father is thereby emasculated and the family disintegrates and drifts
to the feminist commune.
The media has the responsibility for
chronicling the successes of the feminist movement and ignoring the
failures. This amounts to propagandizing and would never be
admitted to by the news sector at least. One doesn't know how this
comes about but they have such a united front one is driven to
conclude that they don't know how biased they are.
This suggests that there is a bias towards selection of liberals in
the media, due to the nature of the work. I think this a reasonable
assumption, but this natural selection, as it were, is now over. The
conservatives have understood the problem and have set about
rectifying it, and are having great success.
One needs to understand the nature of these extremes if one is
to understand the political climate in the world. Conservative means
that one is resistant to change while liberal means one is attracted to
change. Rationalizations abound but this is the essence of the
spectrum.
There are implications here of great importance. One is
naturally attracted to change if one is poor relative to the society in
which one lives. Thus the young are almost always liberal. One is
naturally conservative if one is wealthy relative to the society in
which one lives, therefore the rich are almost always conservative.
Then there are the young rich who feel guilty and therefore are
even more liberal than the rest of the young. There are those who
make such a commitment to one side or the other they cannot
change as they grow older.
Finally, it is possible to thoroughly explore liberalism when
young and then conservatism when one is older and finally see that
change is necessary sometimes and hew to the middle ground.
Much is said about whether or not TV is causative in the
production of violence. First, it must be recognized, violence is one
of the possible modes of behavior that humans can indulge in. So
TV isn't creating anything. Violence usually flows from frustration.
When one is required to perform an important instinctual act, one
will try very hard, and recognize that it is a higher authority than
the government that is behind the demand. When that need is
frustrated then violence sometimes results. If then, TV suggests a
style of implementation, perhaps a style never considered by the
frustrated human, then that act may be brought about. So the
answer is yes and no.
But, not enough can be said about the potential for
implementing a new philosophy via the airwaves. It is not too much
to say that TV is an invention of the significance of writing, since a
new level of simplicity has been provided to the act of dissemination
of ideas. Since the media is dominated by liberals the ideas thus
disseminated are destructive, emphasizing violence, sex, and
rebellion.
The culture didn't have the problems with children in the past
that it does today and one wonders if some of the reason comes
down to establishing the existence of destructive ideas in the minds
of children, where they had not existed in the past. For similar
reasons to those that make the media liberal, academia shares the
same propensity with perhaps a touch more militancy, due to the
lack of a need to produce a profit. With the intellectual orientation of
the academic community, it performs the function of theoretician for
feminism. This requires, as one would guess, a grand capacity for
seeing what one wishes and ignoring the rest, but they are up to
it.
Feminism is in that stage of development where theory is much
less important than political maneuvering however, so they haven't
much to do except invent new ideas for the further weakening of
masculinism.
They are also extremely naive, how else to explain the
"Politically Correct" movement without foreseeing that in a country
like the US, which is never allowed to forget the first amendment to
the constitution by the same people that invented the PC movement,
it would be instantly recognized as an attempt at thought control,
and was thoroughly in opposition to the spirit of free speech.
However, since the PC movement continues unabated even though
discredited, perhaps the feminists are ahead of those of us trying to
understand it. Discreditation will be ineffective if the audience isn't
paying attention.
One wonders if the academic community, now dominated by
destructive people got that way because of a flawed original goal or
because it had acquired the influence needed by the feminists.
In former times, the Democratic
Party was the party of the past. Holding onto old values, as the
more Northern urban Republican Party was the party of reform,
having The Great Emancipator as its first President.
As such, it was the party of the South, where family values were
held in great esteem, at least until integration.
With a name like Democrat, one guesses that the result was
inevitable. Democratic means government by the citizenry, and by
extension that leads to government by one man, one vote, and
government by referendum, as in California. This may seem good,
but means dictatorship by the average. It may be that survival is
more difficult than that.
Actually it is worse than that. Since, when a large number of
people are considered, most issues will split evenly. That means
that any block voting minority can get control.
At the convention in Chicago in the Viet Nam era, The Freedom
Democratic Party of Mississippi, succeeded in ousting the traditional
delegates, and the Party was lost to feminism.
Today, the Democrats have become so entwined with the
feminist movement in all its manifestations, that one is compelled to
identify it with them. From the centrist feminists who want power
for females, to the integrationists who wish for political equality
with their white brothers, to the environmentalists who wish to
make Earth a deity, to the homosexuals who wish to gain societal
acceptance, all feel most at home with the Democrats.
We have successfully put feminism in charge of our culture. This
is surely tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
The Clinton administration is filling the Federal Government with
feminists as fast as it can, and the Republicans are looking the other
way.
This will mean feminist policies and the grandest political
disaster ever seen in the end. Feminism in no way is approved by
the vast majority of the citizenry, except in its most benign
definition (equal responsibilities and rewards between the
sexes).
It is impossible to say just how this political disaster will come
about, but filling Washington with homosexuals, with their distorted
view of reality, cannot but lead there.
The Republican Party, which freed the slaves in the first place, in
accord with feminist ideals of the time, now finds that feminism has
come so far as to demean traditions like marriage and family and
religion and honesty. It is thus forced into the camp of the religious
fundamentalists and a real ideological divide is created.
This extremism, with the feminists on one side and the Christian
fundamentalists on the other makes clear the essentially religious
nature of the conflict.
Formerly the genius of the American political system seemed to
be in relying on two parties with essentially the same values.
Perhaps we are destroying that which provided us with the stability
to develop such a productive society.
Ross Perot seems positioned to capitalize on
the extreme positions being taken by the traditional parties. Mr.
Perot talks a lot about the economy and particularly the Federal
budget deficit, however he has nothing noticeable to say about
abortion and homosexuality. This may be the strategy of success. Of
course, he is devoted to traditional values and will ultimately come
into conflict with feminism. But perhaps that will be too late to harm
his movement.
This is a modest hope, of course, feminism is bound to succeed
eventually, for the same reasons that the writer of Genesis noted.
One can say that reason is unsuited to management of a large social
order, it becomes too unwieldy due to ever increasing complexity.
Or one can say that a dream beginning with the defiance of God
cannot be expected to succeed in the long term. However you say it,
civilization is doomed to a comparatively short run. It is, none the
less, very difficult to assign timing to this insight. I think the best
we can say is that civilization will fail sooner or later and probably
sooner. The current century has been given its
stamp, in The United States at least, by the Supreme Court, the third
branch of government much overlooked in earlier times. Amazingly
it gained its greatest influence under the leadership of Chief Justice
Earl Warren of California. The fact that he was from California is no
surprise, but he was appointed by President Eisenhower, a
Republican, and essentially conservative in his attitudes.
In its most important decision, the court decided in favor of
Brown vs The Board of Education, thereby starting the integration of
the races. While a most desirable thing in light of compassion since
blacks were discriminated against, the motives of the discriminators
can not be called greed. They wished to save their culture which
they felt could not withstand the impact of a primitive black
citizenry with only poorly absorbed values from the dominant
culture. This fear would seem to have been born out by the
acceptance of the drug business by the lower class black
community.
It is also true in other ways. The lower class black language,
complete with the most sexually explicit slang has quickly invaded
the language of the dominant white culture. The sports industry has
been taken over by blacks and at the same time adopted the bottom
line as the final measure of success. The media industry has
adopted sex and violence as the medium of success. The institutions
of marriage and family and religion have been devalued with
concomitant rises in illegitimacy and sexual aggression. The arts
have declined to such an extent that their leaders cannot think of
reasons not to display human excrement and sexual perversion.
Order has been lost in massive quantities thus far. Marriage is
failing as an institution because fathers refuse to remain in a
demeaning relationship with their feminist wives, who fail to obey
them and in fact hold them up to ridicule before their families.
Honesty is in a weakened state due to the thievery associated with
drugs and a general decline in appreciation of the fact that society
relies on the general trustworthiness of partners to a contract. At
the same time, in order to compassionately safeguard the rights of
the accused, the court continually finds against the force used by the
police in their efforts to retain what little order remains. Finally, in
Roe vs Wade, the court concluded that women should be allowed to
kill their unborn children in order to exercise that inalienable right
to control their own bodies. Here we see the final conflict between
the individual and society. Society cannot allow individuals this
degree of freedom because it is tantamount to suicide, as we will
soon see. The modern feminist
movement dates, perhaps, from Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. FDR
was famous for his "New Deal" social legislation and his wife was an
activist for the disadvantaged. The "New Deal" was largely a failure,
but it did suggest to people that government might be able to deal
with some of the most egregious problems associated with poverty,
and this was very much in tune with the origins of American
Politics.
Eleanor demonstrated that it was possible to lead a life of
independence and success while at the same time remaining married.
This at the time was a revelation. Barry Goldwater was
the first leader in the Republican party to suggest the time had come
for a conservative reform from the policies of Roosevelt through
Johnson. He was premature as demonstrated by the election, but the
seed was growing and eventually bore fruit in the election of Reagan.
The conservatives then and now, however, don't understand
feminism and therefore don't understand what it is they are fighting
against. Instead they continue to fight symptoms, like abortion,
prayer in the schools, big government, and high taxes.
The world economy has become the world's largest shell game. The feminists
say that it is basically a zero-sum-game, which means if someone
profits it must be at the expense of someone else, which
conservative capitalists say it is most assuredly not. They seem to
believe, contrary to the first law of thermodynamics that humans are
capable of actual creation, rather than transformation.
The trick, as with all shell games is to train your eyes to watch
the ball and not the hands of the shuffler.
To take a simple case, a farmer transforms dirt into edible
goods, say corn, using muscle power, or possibly oil power. This is
the essential act of transformation (not creation). It is the same for a
manufacturer. The farmer then sells his produce to a wholesaler.
This person then stores the produce in expectation of a buyer. In
Chicago a buyer buys rights to a certain amount of corn at a certain
price. Then a trucker is dispatched to retrieve the corn at the
assigned storage facility. He delivers to a grinder who transforms it
into cornmeal and then packages it and sells it to a baker. The baker
transforms it into corn bread and sells it to a retailer, say Kroger.
Finally, you buy and eat it. Every person in the chain adds his fee
for handling of the produce and you, the consumers agree to support
all of these middle men to avoid having to go to the farm to buy the
produce and convert it yourself into cornbread.
There is a certain price you are willing to pay for the bread that
is based on the difficulty of getting it. That is to say it depends on
the supply. If there is a lot of cornbread, you can shop around for
the lowest price, thereby putting the retailers into a state of
competition, which has the effect of forcing the price down to an
amount that will pay all people in the chain as little as they will
accept for their work before looking for another job.
The point is the feminist and free traders are both wrong. They
are trying to convince you that they understand economics so that
you will hire them to manage it. The left tells us that since
capitalism takes from the poor to give to the rich it is inherently
unfair and we should hire them to distribute everything fairly,
never explaining how they will then motivate people to produce
things to distribute. The conservatives tell us that it isn't a zero-sum
game and therefore that entrepreneurs actually create something
from nothing. God can create things from nothing, I've never
observed any human reproduce this trick. The shell game is so
elaborate they conclude we will give up before we see the entire
movement involved and we will have to operate on the basis of
trusting either them or the liberals.
The people who are getting rich are the one's who can induce
the consumer to pay more and the farmer to take less. Should
people get rich? If you like the packaging well enough, you should
pay for it, nothing's free, and the last time I looked consumers and
farmers were buying the packaging as if it were something of real
value. Yesterday I heard about a team in New England that is
selling souvenirs for their new baseball team at such a rate, that they
wonder if it is necessary to actually have a baseball team.
It is also true that the more people there are, the more difficult
it is to follow the shell game.
Now, where does that wealth come from? Turning dirt into
consumables. Via manufacturing which means that humans are
doing it in a non biological way or via farming, which means that
humans have harnessed nature to do the manufacturing for them.
So, the more money there is, the more land has been exploited. It is
not possible to transform the contents of the soil without
transforming the soil itself in some way and it is also true that we
were ideally formed to live in the environment that obtained when
we were designed, that is at some time earlier than the industrial
revolution. More people, more environmental damage. This is
simple. The only complexity is that which has been invented by
man to hide his chicanery from himself.
Capitalism
The Theory
This system relies on an incomprehensible theory known as
market forces. Market forces are subdivided into supply and
demand and mean that the market will cause to be created just
what the society needs because of the demand for the products it
wants. Competition will force the price to the lowest possible that
will keep the producers in business.
The Conclusion
Eventually, abusers will gain control of all currency and control
over all humans, or government will control all transactions. These
extremes are indistinguishable except that in the one case liberals
have control and in the other, conservatives do. Socialism is an
attempt to imbed compassion in a masculinist society, in the form of
benefits paid out to the poor from the profits of the rich.
It doesn't work because there are always too many poor for the
coffers of the rich to manage and in fact, the act of trying creates
more poor. Including feminism in masculinist societies
destroys the benefits of masculinism and results in trading the
problems of the poor for other failures that lead to more poor. This
spiral, if allowed to continue would eventually result in failure of
the society. Communism
trys to achieve the goals of socialism by redefining the property of
the state as belonging to all and then dividing it up amicably
between them. This Herculean task is beyond the means of the
organizational capabilities of mankind, thus far. The main
problem of communism, beyond organization lies in the deprivation
of motivation that inevitably accompanies lack of material need
combined with lack of the ability to become rich, so that the result is
chronic decline in production, resulting in chronic decline in living
standards. The only reason it seems to work in the beginning is that
the new government can exploit the values it inherits from the
previous government. However, this is tantamount to spending
one's capital and eventually leads to poverty. This system
results, in all cases, in the destruction of the society pursuing it, if it
goes on long enough. It destroys institutions of centuries and lacks
the time to create new ones to replace them.
One can view history as an
ever wider search for a workable system of governance for human
beings. In the beginning, only informal arrangements were
necessary. The father of the dominant clan would suffice. This
system fails when the leader hasn't the time to meet and know all
members of the society.
At that point a king is chosen, who makes it his business to
attend to the problems of society as a full time job. He, of course
needs power to implement his programs, so he is given all power.
This leads to abuses when the king uses his official perquisites to
pursue goals of importance to him but not to society. Especially
when he uses immoral means to achieve the desired end.
So, a council is chosen to govern the king. This resulted in abuse
by the king's advisors. So more advisors were used to watch the
advisors. This resulted in the abuse by the aristocracy. More
advisors were obtained, and more until democracy was invented
and voting was used to identify the advice to be used by the king or
president. This resulted in the tyranny of the majority and so each
human was given the vote. This resulted in anarchy.
When every possible form of government fails, the time comes
to evaluate the viability of masculinism as an ideal towards which
humanity can strive. From our
perspective through Dickens, especially in "A Tale of Two Cities" we
are driven to the conclusion that the aristocracy had run amok in
France. They seem to have reached the conclusion that the lower
class existed for them to exploit. Whether or not this is true is
neither here nor there, it is believed to be true. No doubt there is an
element of truth in it. No doubt some men thought as described by
Dickens. Whether or not that was most or all, is unknown.
In any case, a general program was adopted to kill the
aristocracy and adopt a more egalitarian style of government. This
amounted to trading order for compassion as can easily be seen in
Dickens. Therefore this was a move towards feminism. Less is known by
me about The English Revolution, except that its leader was Oliver
Cromwell and the result was the King giving up power to parliament.
Again we call this a move towards feminism because one king is
more orderly than many parliamentarians. The American
Revolution was a major step towards feminism, since the new form
of government was democracy and compassion was enshrined in an
addendum to the constitution called The Bill of Rights, which was
meant to protect the citizen from the greed of the government.
The last word in large scale revolution and the largest step towards
feminism was The Russian Revolution. In this system the citizen was
to be protected from suffering imposed on him by the upper classes
by destroying class altogether and its creator, religion. This effort
was unsuccessful, since it was an attempt to make feminism work in
a masculine world. Since the people were not willing to dispense
with the rewards of masculinism, reliable shelter and food, they
were not able to dispense with the price of masculinism, discipline
and competition. Henry VIII, King of
England, was the first man to successfully defy the Pope. The Pope
symbolizes God and the father. Therefore Henry VIII demonstrated
that one could successfully rebel against the father and by extension
the husband because he holds the authority of the father. All
females are primary beneficiaries of this bequest, followed by sons
and other children, and all fathers lose authority.
This was the defining secular event of feminist history.
Martin Luther was the
second man to successfully defy the Pope. He chose to dissociate
himself and his followers from the Church of Rome because of the
corruption there. Secondarily, he chose to emphasize the literal
interpretation of the Bible as the authorized one.
This had multitudinous effects over the years, but the effect
that concerns us is the suggestion that the Pope might not be
infallible after all. If he is not, then anyone can aspire to leadership
in this world because all are human and that is the main
requirement remaining, once a special relationship with God is
removed. Therefore women can strive for leadership, even religious
leadership, even the role of priest or pope. Therefore God is
androgynous, or maybe even feminine.
This was the defining religious event in the history of feminism.
Non-violence is of course a primary
goal of feminism, since in a violent world, females cannot hope to
succeed in contests with men. Ghandi succeeded in demonstrating
that at least in politics, non-violence was a viable strategy. It called
upon people's compassion and forced them to support the
demonstrator. Of course the purported goal of non-violence is saving
lives, but we may be forgiven if we suspect that this is secondary to
the attempt to gain an advantage with few resources at one's
command. Uncle Ho is significant because
he best represents the strategies of guerrilla warfare and
propaganda. Ho realized, perhaps more profoundly than any other
that the organization of traditional masculinist warfare could be
turned against it. It was inflexible. He therefore turned to the, by
now well known tactics of the guerrilla. That is to say very small
groups, no drill or formation, stealth, and retreat. The weapons of
choice can be simple and homemade if used in close proximity, since
the main advantage of high tech weapons is the ability to damage at
long range.
Propaganda was also recognized as a potent weapon by Ho. He
also understood that the real weapon underlying propaganda was
compassion and that to increase one's enemy's compassion is in
effect to weaken him by removing his desire to fight. To escape
from the conflict thus induced, the soldier will do almost anything,
including desertion in mind or in body. Martin Luther King was a
beneficiary of both Ho and Ghandi. He also was constrained by
resources since he represented only about ten percent of the
population of the US, and the feminist tactics and strategies
developed by these men fit very well into the African American
psychology.
By this it is meant that, since the African Americans came from
a primitive feminist culture, they were perfectly suited to the
strategies of feminism, passive resistance (because a fatalistic
attitude towards life is required, a common feature of feminist
cultures) and indoctrination (minimal consciousness is required,
think of Patty Hearst). Feminism,
even in its current form is a movement of long duration. This is
clear when one recognizes the Women's suffrage movement as a
manifestation of feminism. And what else could it be. It seeks to
empower women. Feminism was however already active, how else
to explain the movement of women away from home education to
public education. The
Prohibition movement was not pure feminist in nature, since it was
not aimed at empowering women directly, but to save them from the
suffering that resulted from male drunkenness. But, if we look
closer, we will see that men don't get drunk for no reason, but
rather to escape from an environment they find themselves unable
to live in. This environment is presumably created by women, since
that is their traditional function in the family.
So, we can say that, in the effort to move society towards
feminism, women find themselves creating environments
uninhabitable by men, who try to escape, some by way of alcohol.
Prohibition is therefore an effort to force those men choosing this
method of escape to remain and continue their support efforts.
We would like to describe this uninhabitable environment, but
cannot, in general, due to lack of research. But, the fact of its
existence cannot be denied. We can make one general statement
about it. It includes emasculation, which is probably its most
painful component and which probably is a component of all
unacceptable features in it. The Flappers
represented a period in American history of a particularly
flamboyant rebellion against convention, particularly among women.
They were called flappers because of the style of dress (high hems
and exposed arms and upper chests) and the abandon with which
they danced. This was a particularly virulent outbreak of feminine
independence which would not be exceeded until the second world
war, and leads inevitably to the sixties. Rebellious women always
resort to nudity as a means of expressing their rebellion. Think of
Lady Godiva. This is because societal order, the creature of
masculinism, has as one of its manifestations, clothing. The higher
the rank the gaudier the clothing.
The Anti-War Movement is a creature of feminism. It is conceived
by women that war works to their disadvantage by depriving them
of their support when their husbands are killed.
Later they saw it in terms of compassion. That it is just too
cruel to be allowed to continue.
Naturally, when the UN was established, being a representation
of the idealistic notion that man can govern himself, liberals and
therefore feminists were attracted to it. Because of this it has
tended to compassion in its institutions. To eliminate the suffering
of mankind. This is a foolish idea. What would restrain the growth
of human population if suffering were eliminated. This is as much
as to say that there should be no penalty for bad management. This
is impossible since bad management is the creator of suffering.
One of the ideas that the liberal establishment
has had to reduce human suffering was to inoculate it against viral
killers. This is typical of the acts of compassion. Stop today's
suffering at the cost of much greater suffering in the future. Strictly
in terms of numbers, stopping viral killers will increase the numbers
of humans that will then eventually be subjected to starvation when
the ability to procreate outstrips the ability to exploit the land to
feed the multitudes. The control of human
population was accomplished perfectly well by nature when it had
the job. But now we have taken over control of the problem by
disabling nature's remedies. We will therefore have to stop human
population growth or face the consequences, which will be disasters
on a scale never before experienced.
To suggest that the population curve is inconsequential means
that one subscribes to the notion that a benevolent God will stay the
grim reaper and level off the growth of population at some
sustainable number. This is faith in its purest form. There is no
evidence that such an event will occur. It has never occurred
before, and over-population is not unheard of, though never on the
scale we are discussing now.
Controlling population growth will involve allowing humans to
die and acceptance of suffering. I think it is too much for us.
Hitler used the simplistic notion of racial
superiority to organize his dispirited nation into a motivated army.
Unfortunately for him the charge was baseless, certainly against
nations stocked with essentially the same genes, so, ultimately the
strategy failed. However, it cannot be denied that those cultures
with the longest intellectual histories have the upper hand in a
technological society. Feminism is the solution to this problem.
There is a masculinist appeal to militarism. The sight of men
marching in lockstep order appeals to the sense of the desirability of
order within our souls. But, in society at large, militarism is only
sustainable with a group of men, this is because feminism has no
commitment to order and will never see it as something worth
sacrificing for. Since women are required to continue life, militarism
cannot be sustained as an ideology.
Racism has the appeal that one is told to believe that some branch of
humanity is superior to the rest. No one ever bothers to identify the
areas of superiority and why this superiority is more desirable than
some other. On the basis of professional sports in America, it can be
concluded that Equatorial Africans are superior, based simply on
their numbers in this most desirable position.
The rise of racism currently on view is primarily a result of
rising population and immigration, but it is induced indirectly by the
recognition that the immigrants are different and that difference lies
primarily in their feminism.
Racism appeals to the orderly instinct of masculinism. It is
therefore a regression and a reaction.
Fundamentalism is related to racism. It offers militancy and a literal
interpretation of holy writ, and suggests that one who closely follows
religious law is superior to others. It has the appeal of making life
simpler. Non-fundamentalists are viewed as corrupt.
Fundamentalism comes about because of the rise of feminism which
creates social upheaval and calls into being a longing for simpler
rules for life and a desire to eliminate ambiguity. Muslim
fundamentalism is in an expansionist state and now controls as
much as half of the Arab world, though it only controls the
governments of a few countries. Feminism is particularly a factor
here because of the male dominated social structure and the
recognition that feminism, on display in the big cities, threatens that
structure. Every time a woman appears partially or wholly nude at
a resort, male Muslims are reminded of the threat.
Muslims assume that since their prophet arose later than the
others, he must have been wiser, since he could and did take
advantage of the insights of his predecessors. They therefore
assume, on that basis, the superiority of their culture. Christian
fundamentalism has had a long run in the West also. The US was
established by Puritans, a fundamentalist sect. Many such sects exist
now, but are not widely popular because social problems are not yet
viewed as critical in the West. The time, however, is rapidly
approaching. The rise of crime will, inevitably, be associated with
feminism and result in rising popularity of fundamentalism. This
trend is already visible in the ministries of Falwell and Robertson.
If this group becomes powerful enough to dominate the Republican
Party, a struggle between it and the Democrats and a concomitant
polarization must be expected.
Christian fundamentalism is inspired by contempt for the lack
of morality in the feminist movement and the obvious
correspondence between that and the object lessons in the Biblical
descriptions of failed societies such as Sodom.
Christians have had the appeal of racism at their doorstep
since the beginning. We have had the option of blaming Christ's
death on the Jews. This is patently silly, but it does sell. One
guesses that humans will do anything for a scapegoat when trouble
arises so as not to have to admit one's own culpability. It is
endlessly exploited by politicians. Feminism is the home of chaos. This is a
pejorative word, which tells us to what extent we have lived in the
masculinist camp, where order is king.
As one looks at Rembrandt, one sees order. There are surgeons,
studying human anatomy. There are burghers dressed in such a way
as to identify their social strata. There are gardens. There are neat
villages. Sexuality is not to be found.
On the other side, as we look at Picasso, we see chaos. Objects
blur into one another. Unexpected appendages appear. Shapes are
utilized that have no place in the object presented. Sexuality is
evident.
Sexuality is the destroyer of order. It is never intimidated by
social position. It pays no attention to age, rank, wealth, or any other
ordering principle. Trollope describes for us the
stresses of social life among the leaders of society. Particularly the
efforts of non-members to become members. Faulkner describes
ordinary people, who, by and large, have no impact on society.
Inclusion is still a matter of family, though. Faulkner's people are
the destroyers of society. They are rebels. They are individuals, too.
From nature, we see that feminism involves identification with
the group instead of the individual. Faulkner and his people are
more concerned with compassionately suspending the rules of
society for the deserving, which they see as an ever widening group.
Trollope always ends with the failure of the pretender to crash the
party. Shakespeare suggests the
possibility of overcoming the dominance of order in his fictional
society through the young lovers, but reality overtakes them when
fate and human error combine to defeat their plans. In My Fair Lady
order is successfully defeated for the deserving Miss Dolittle. At the
same time the orderly Higgins is displayed as a cold hearted oaf for
not understanding the exposure of Eliza's soul. But, her father
provides the most profound condemnation of order in his song about
what he ought to do and how he happily and successfully evades
responsibility at every turn. The implication is that responsibility is
no fun. In Beethovan's time, the orchestra was
the undisputed champion of music. With its profound examples of
order that could cause a large company of humans, probably men, to
act in unison for two hours at a time.
By now, however, musicians are seldom closely related to order.
They see departure from the planned as the hallmark of the mature
musician and violate customary usage at every opportunity. They
use drugs to defeat the organ of order, the ego. In Casablanca, despite the call of love, the
hero and heroine obey the demands of society that they contribute
instead of fulfilling their own purely personal wishes. In The
Graduate however, the hero and destroyer of social rules, (which are
presented as corrupt,) is successful in turning the heroine away
from social conformity and even convinces her that the lover of her
mother is none the less a suitable object for her own affections.
Finally, it must be noted that art itself is in it's
death agony. There has been no compelling music or drama from
New York since West Side Story. There has been no innovative
music since the English made their final contributions in the '70's.
There has been no new fiction that could be confused with literature
since the arrival of Peyton Place.
Movies have lasted longer, probably because they are the
newest media, but they are going the same way. Sensationalism
seems to be the only thing that sells enough to justify the expense of
the project. Since the 1960s social revolution was about
dirty speech, nudity, drugs, free sex, long hair, unkempt appearance,
denial of the struggle for wealth, and since the longest lasting legacy
of this cultural revolution has been feminism, we must look at these
acts as representative of the values of feminism in addition to acts
of defiance against the masculinist society.
Dirty speech, long hair, unkempt appearance, can be dismissed
as disorderly attempts to unnerve the establishment. Nudity and
unkempt appearance can also be seen as making a statement about
solidarity with the working class against the power structure.
Free sex and nudity also represent attempts to be natural
(according to nature) and therefore closer to feminism, whose final
Goddess is Mother Nature.
Denial of the struggle for wealth is a repudiation of the values of
the majority and can be seen as the beginnings of the environmental
movement, since the struggle for wealth usually results in
exploitation of nature and despoliation of the environment.
The most interesting feature of the movement, though, is the
use of certain drugs. The favorite drugs were marijuana, hashish,
and LSD, with mescaline also favored by some. These drugs all
produce hallucinations or, some would say, religious experiences.
For those familiar with the structure of the psyche, we can also say
they have the effect of dissolution of the ego.
The concentration feature of the mind can be thought of as a
flashlight, with that area inside the light beam constituting the
personality or ego and that area outside the beam the unconscious.
So, the effect of the above named drugs is to reduce the power of
the flashlight, making the area outside the beam more visible.
Later, we see an almost holy war against the cigarette amongst
feminists. One supposes from this that nicotine is a masculine drug.
That is to say that nicotine enhances the mental process most closely
associated with masculinism. Or going back to the above analogy,
strengthens the beam of light.
Of course these are subtleties, difficult to prove.
In the
absence of an effort to do otherwise, one will live the feminist life
style.
By this it is meant that, without a guiding philosophy, what one
does will be determined by natural realities, in a word, survival.
Since sex is central to the survival of the species, it will control all
actions.
Language is essential to philosophy, since one's ideas cannot be
passed along without this tool.
Writing is critical to the passing on of philosophy, since it will be
difficult to understand and can't be expected to survive long if
dependent on word of mouth.
Ideas can and do control actions, so the trick is to make an idea
popular. This trick was very restricted when the means of
transmission was extremely limited, but now anyone can do it and
before long everyone will. This state of affairs brings us to the
equivalence of two extremes. No one having the means to transmit
an idea is the same as everyone having the means because when
everyone can do it, the gems will be hidden under so much
worthlessness that they won't be found. The difficulty of publishing,
assures that only worthwhile material will be published.
From this it can be seen that all animals are feminists, they have
no philosophy. By extension this is also true of primitive tribes up to
the point of the development of writing. Philosophy exists before
this point but it is poorly transmitted and therefore cannot gain
critical mass within the community. When writing occurs, however,
nothing is ever the same again. Philosophy now rules the lives of
men, this is because, naturally when problems arise we try to find
an expert to advise us. Now a written record is available and
therefore a new oracle. And it is relatively easy to get access to. We
are relieved of the necessity to think for ourselves, which is a
burdensome task for many. The written word is the material
representation of the non material, the spirit, God.
This state of affairs arrived in Greece at the time of Plato and
Aristotle. And in Egypt at the time of the Pharaoh Tutenkamen or
more precisely his father. When a society is governed by masculinism,
female leadership will lead to problems or complete ruin, we are
told in this story. God represents masculinism, since He is a God and
male, and he is the creator of the environment in which Adam and
Eve live. Eve is created as subordinate to Adam and is provided to
comfort him. Adam, fails to effectively lead her and she strikes out
on her own, but immediately falls victim to the snake (devil, that
element of human nature that opposes the creator), and, not content
with that takes Adam with her.
Most of us understand the eating of the apple as an act of defiance,
as it was, but to understand in more detail, we must recognize that
the apple symbolizes something and understanding what that
something is will make the act more comprehensible.
So, what was the apple exactly. We are told that eating it gave
the eater some attributes of God and that the result was recognition
that the eater was unclothed. So, we should recognize here the
attributes of consciousness. To be conscious means to acquire
objectivity and the ability to reflect. In this state, one is able to
perform mental tricks not available to other animals. One can
observe oneself, for example, and one can compare and draw
conclusions based on the differences or similarities. This is a result
of being separated from one's environment. In other words, animals
don't distinguish themselves from their environment.
This has some implications. Animals never see themselves as
causative and therefore in peril of being to blame. They therefore,
never distort their behavior to escape responsibility. Another
implication is that a being in this state of existence can create. Or to
state the obverse, if one does not occupy this space, one cannot
create. To create means to bring into existence a new object. The
critical word is object. If the object lives, this becomes a fearsome
responsibility. One that would crush the merely human. Suppose
that life included suffering! Suppose that life included nothing but
suffering!
To continue, the further implication is that Adam and Eve
formerly lived in a masculinist creation but were not themselves
masculine. The problem that faces us then is that we live in a
masculine society that is our own creation. It includes a rising
population that produces ever increasing complexity. Ultimately we
will be called upon to manage every living thing and every non-living thing in the world.
Feminism is the effort to solve this problem by dissolving the
culture that holds it together. Life, being the preeminent creation of God, is
divine, because it is His work. Therefore, it would be immoral of us
to preempt His role and create or terminate it. We can say
propagation is a divine function wherein the parents are the
instrument of God and interference would be wrong, since it would
usurp God's role.
It is also true that terminating life is the responsibility of God,
since He created it. On the other hand, we may well be His
instruments, which we should not fear to be.
The trick is distinguishing God's acts through us from our own.
One is divine and the other mundane. We interfere in the former at
our peril.
From this it can be seen that abortion is a mortal sin, that is a
sin of great consequence.
Of course, one motive for abortion is the attempt to control the
growth of human population. This problem though, is God's problem,
since He created us, and therefore it.
In other words, we would be interfering with The Will of God,
were we to either create or destroy human life.
This is in no way the same as interfering in the lives of animals.
For them we are part of the environment and therefore just one
more hazard, along with many others.
For us though, we are interfering with ourselves and therefore
possibly interfering with the will of God. Again, the difference lies in
where the motivation emanates from. If the act is ego driven, then
it is arrogance, but, if it is fulfillment of the will of God, then it is
appropriate.
We will be safer if our acts are approved by many, but this is
still no guarantee, because of group psychosis and popularity.
The Tower of Babel is recognizable as a
masculine institution, since it was a creation of man and required
great organization, and was destroyed by feminism when multiple
languages were introduced. This is the first description in the Bible
of the tension between feminism and masculinism and the problem
of succeeding with a masculinist culture. The suggestion here is that
it tends to be a victim of its own success.
We can expand on the story by envisioning a society of some
age and success, to the extent that it conceives of a technological
marvel, and sets about to achieve it.
As time goes by however, the organizational powers of the
culture are taxed to the limit and eventually fail. At which time
feminism creeps back in and the whole effort dissolves.
In our times, we would equate the Tower of Babel to the world
economy or perhaps science. The story of Noah
can be interpreted in terms of feminism, since the ocean is a symbol
for the unconscious, the domain of the feminine, and dry land is a
symbol for consciousness and therefore, masculine. Thus God, in his
anger, due to the behavior of humans, retreats from them and takes
his creativity with him. This results in humanity being overrun
with feminism as a more or less immediate consequence.
So, the reality of this event, which may have happened many
times, is that humanity would begin to develop its masculinism only
to fall into the errors of consciousness which would defeat the effort
and cause it to fall back into barbarism. The errors are typically
symptomized by sexual immorality, or hedonism from the
description of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In one of these episodes, Noah is saved by technology, and acts
as a bridge between the previous and next experiments in
masculinism.
From later accounts of similar happenings to the Jews,
regression to barbarism doesn't occur, presumably because some
religious leader arises to recall to the people their calling.
Of course, this account comes from the masculine Bible, which
will interpret lapses into feminism in the most negative of lights,
because it represents a period when the people are cut off from
God.
The reverse description never occurs, since feminists aren't
analytical or motivational. Once writing was
invented, presumably to keep records about trade, it became
possible to record the discoveries of man. The importance of this
cannot be overstated. Consider the Constitution of the United States,
The Bible, Hamlet, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, the
mathematics of Pythagoras, the establishment of formal education,
science, technology, the hydrogen bomb, DNA. This means no less
than that the adventures of the spirit can be documented so that
another can use the story as a guide in his explorations. In my own
case, I had the great advantage of starting from the position obtained
by Jung before attempting my own search for understanding of the
reasons behind the remarkable sixties.
Tutankhamen's role was to attempt to repress the knowledge of the
existence of the One God, recognized by his father, Ikhnaton. The
result was to transfer the knowledge to the slaves of the Egyptians,
the Jews.
The Jews immediately bring to consciousness the cult of the One
God and, more importantly, write it down. The written record is
then identified as the holiest object, carried about in a special
container as the material representation of God.
So, the deity of masculinism, is the word, which is God. It is now
possible to transfer ideology from one generation to another with no
loss of accuracy. This advantage makes the Jews a special race
indeed. This was the first Western society to recognize
the power of masculinism and begin to exploit it. They covered the
entire territory but only superficially. History then provided a
culture to thoroughly examine and try out every concept they had
identified.
The Greeks explored ideas widely, but were still a polytheistic
culture, one supposes this is the reason that the culture failed.
Masculinism here was a last gasp effort to stave off oblivion, as it
were. These were the first to attempt to exploit
what the Greeks had discovered. They succeeded beyond their
wildest expectations, even absorbing the philosophy of the children
of the Egyptians, after their ideology had matured into a well
defined religion and had even given birth to its nemesis,
Christianity.
They start as feminists with many gods, they attempt to
institute masculinism and fail in the usual way (hedonism), and
finally adopt Christianity which allows profound success and export
of their culture to northern Europe. In the masculinist view, there is one God and
He has a direct and compelling interest in humans. In fact he
directly intervenes from time to time. Abraham originally identified
this being and is the acknowledged spiritual father of the Jews,
Christians, and Muslims.
This suggests that the Jews actually brought the idea of the
father God with them to Egypt, and from there it eventually made
its way to King Tut's father.
The main story in the Bible about God and Abraham is the one
in which God demands that Abraham sacrifice his son instead of a
farm animal. Abraham accepts this demand and reaches the final
stages before his hand is stayed by God.
From this we see that the masculine God is demanding, but is
interested in educating His people rather than treating them with the
remoteness that characterizes feminine deities like the Greek
Gods.
In another story God allows the post menopausal Sarah to have
a child, who then gives rise to the Jewish people. From this we see
that God is capable of producing miracles in our lives, again differing
greatly from the feminist gods. From
Moses we learn, mainly, that the Jewish God is a God of laws. That
every aspect of man's life is best understood in terms of God's law,
passed on to us by Moses. Laws are the intellectual representation
of order and we therefore see that the masculine God is the God of
order. The Mosaic Law is extremely detailed,
occupying most of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible).
It is, for Christians, encapsulated in the Ten Commandments. This
simple law is the basis of all of law in the Western world.
Feminism has many problems with this law. They cannot accept
the first one, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." They also
have trouble with taking God's name in vain, keeping the Sabbath,
honoring parents (they put them in nursing homes), killing
(abortion), adultery (Hart, Clinton), stealing (from the rich to give to
the poor as in taxes), lying (to make political points (Anita Hill)), and
coveting (political power). They also follow one graven image after
another (pyramids, crystals). This
is the most famous case of adultery in history and instructs us about
God's attitude towards the act and the results of defying Him, even
for a king of his own choosing. David goes so far as to indirectly kill
Bathsheba's husband in order to fulfill his lust towards her. She
eventually becomes his wife but his son of a prior relationship turns
against him (Absalom).
From this we can conclude that sin, while serious, need not
separate us from God, and in fact God's chosen may be guilty of the
most heinous crime.
To generalize, we can say that the male is king and the female is
provided as a comfort to him. That the law is God and is complete in
its superiority to man. Waxing more objective we might say that the
law is a reflection of the non obvious rules of the cosmos.