What Would Happen If …


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – What Would Happen If …

What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

What is the most intelligent and self fulfilling course for modern American men in responding to the difficulties that American women present to us? And, if your answer is political, in the sense of group action, or if your answer is personal and unconcerned with group action, then what is the reason for that choice?

The following conditions are offered as a format for answers to this post:

1. No paste or transcriptions of more than thirty words from another source, i.e. original words only. Stolen ideas can’t be excluded, but we’ll all know you’re doing it.

2. Men only.

3. Relevance to the topic.

4. Any post which generates more than two negative responses relative to “straight thinking” of the author – that is, not to the viewpoint, but to the intellectual methodology of the conclusion – would require a simple majority of replying posters agreement to continue replying to the post in question.

5. No replys more than 250 words in length.

6. Gentlemanly comportment.

Just an idea for getting out of the endless bickering with females and partisans – especially the ones who have a secret political agenda that disposes them to take a side pro or con feminism, but who will not honestly declare their reasons.

Message Edited by Diogetrix on 10-06-200608:09 PM

10-06-2006 08:09 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

I think to ban together to attack feminism. We should get a constitutional amendment getting rid of alimony and child support. Women claim they are equal, let them prove it. We should destroy the notion that this nation wants Universal Health Care, or tax funded abortion or tax funded child care. All of which would help to put the nail in our coffin and turn us into a Immoral, Godless Europe so many Commie Lefty’s seem to think is Progress.

Other than Abortion, let women work their asses off. It’s fine by me. We just need to really get women to stand on their own two feet with this Victimology card they constantly play. Poor, me syndrome, that needs to end.

Other than that manWo’s, knock yourselves out!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-07-2006 02:02 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

Very simple first step (idea stolen from Warren Farrel):

Implementation of an equal in numbers Men’s Lobby, staffed entirely by men. No crossover which includes feminists in the men’s lobby. That is: There is a Council for Women – there is an equal Council for Men. There is an Office on Violence Against Women – there is an equal Office on Violence Against Men. Office of Women’s Health? Office of Men’s Health.

You get the picture.

If they are as militant as the women’s movements to begin with, fine. The idea is that arrangements for a workable solution to gender differences are worked out with an eye to meeting BOTH needs, not just the needs of one side. The ultimate idea is that both sides slowly become less and less militant and needed as time goes by.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-07-200606:14 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-07-2006 06:13 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

You lost me when you went from attacking alimony to “this nation doesn’t want healthcare.” This may be an example of the mind control imposed on us since the end of WWI – when American propaganda became a field of applied science. It’s easy to understand how someone who is conditioned to believe that liberalism means something it doesn’t, and that it is either synonymous with feminism, or that it implys feminism, would be forced to take a stand against liberalism when pushed to the wall by feminism. That’s a very basic political strategy the power hungry creeps use. While it is true that liberalism requires racial equality, it does not require sex equality, unlimited immigration, or a whole lot of other things that claim to be expressions of liberalism. I can easily understand the line of reasoning that goes from “one man one vote,” to “women can do anything a man can,” but I don’t find it rational or logical. That may be why feminist polemics is such an intellectual torture to read or listen to: It’s an attempt to make a good argument out of a pile of crap. If you fall for the BS that liberalism and feminism, or any of the other wild claims of liberal parentage such as bigger government, irresponsible spending, abortion on demand, anti-religion, etc. you can easily be manipulated. Try to look at it this way: If liberalism leads to feminism (the kind of feminism we’re talking about here) then it’s just as valid to say that conservatism leads to NAZIism. They may be cousins, but they have differernt colored eyes.

10-07-2006 06:43 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Diogetrix. What you said above reminded me of this interview:

http://www.cooltools4men.com/Zubaty.htm

10-07-2006 01:57 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

“then it’s just as valid to say that conservatism leads to NAZIism.”

That is a famous line used to attack Christendom. Hitler was 25% Jewish, he was into the occult via Theosophist, and Kabbalist rituals. I believe he was only doing what his investors and handlers had programmed him to do. Either via his childhood years in the occult, or wherever he got the instruciotns. Hitler was in the Skull and Bones of Germany after it branched out into America in Yale in 1833. Prescott Bush was an invester in Nazism, as were major international banking syndicats.

Sure there is evil done by Christians, or those that come themselves such, this was no black eye against us.

Just look how the failed League of Nations exalted itself into position via the United Nations as the world learned of what happened. You think that was not pre planned to go down that way? I think not!

I believe Liberalism is just a tool used by God’s adversary to destroy humans by any means necessary, as he is the god of this world as I believe for the time being. Just look at the fruits of so called Progressiveness, totally against the principles in scripture. Gay promotion in public school’s as young as kindergarten, 1 billion abortion world wide, high divorce rates, driving out of Christian churches (look at Europe 10% go to church, used to be a hot spot of protentantism).

Now  you show me where liberalism means traditional values and the like.

Not only that, but we have the Beatles coming to American with the Attention of wiping out Christendom. Saying they were “more popular than Jesus.” Now who sent them here? Was it Europe Diogetrix?

Christianity will go, it will shrink and vanish. I will be proved right. You just wait. We are more powerfull now than Jesus ever was”
-John Lennon
In the introduction of The World’s Tragedy, Israel Regardie says:
“This long, almost epic poem is one of the most bitter and vicious diatribes against Christianity that I have ever read.”
Crowley’s most famous teaching, “Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law” became the “mantra” of the 60’s revolution of drugs, sexual perversion and anti-Christianity. “Do your own thing”  “If it feels good do it”.
THE BEATLES & CROWLEY
“Do your own thing”  “If it feels good do it”.
-THE BEATLES & ALISTER CROWLEY
This site is intended to be a joke, but I didn’t make all this up by myself.
Click Here to go to my source material
Email I have recieved   –  Old Guestbook Entries
Email Me
Sign Guestbook View Guestbook
</SCRIPT> <SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=”http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mc/mc.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT src=”http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mc/mc1.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT src=”http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mc/mc2.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=”http://geocities.com/js_source/geov2.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT language=javascript>geovisit();</SCRIPT>

setstats
Perhaps you don’t see the wolf in sheep’s clothing, but I do. The bible talks a lot about the future of the world and what is too come! That the coming days will be like the days of Noah. You can see it coming! America is the last vestige of Christianity left in large numbers!  We need to stand for morality until they carve our tongues out of our heads!
own thing”  “If it feels good do it”.
-THE BEATLES & ALISTER CROWLEY
This site is intended to be a joke, but I didn’t make all this up by myself.
Click Here to go to my source material
Email I have recieved   –  Old Guestbook Entries
Email Me
Sign Guestbook View Guestbook
</SCRIPT> <SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=”http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mc/mc.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT src=”http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mc/mc1.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT src=”http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mc/mc2.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT language=JavaScript src=”http://geocities.com/js_source/geov2.js”></SCRIPT&gt; <SCRIPT language=javascript>geovisit();</SCRIPT> setstats

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-07-2006 05:08 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Oh, hell. You gotta go to school and learn the way to organize your thoughts. That rambling missive isn’t even close to making sense. The Unabomber sounds like Emmerson compared to it. It’s one thing to miss the point, but to go off into space like that almost qualifies you to be president. Here’s the most simple way I can phrase it, and try to get it:

American feminism is a radical movement in that it is militant and activist, and although it is essentially non-violent (on the surface) it is brutal in its way. That plus the extremist views, such as rape being worse than murder, and all men being rapists (with a little term twisting), etc. makes me classify it as radical. Radicalism is the extreme of left wing political philosophy. Thus, feminism is an extreme left wing movement. (Although, I don’t really consider it true leftist because I reject the premises that self determination and liberty was ever intended to include women, and the elements of feminism are therefore not liberalism. My opinion).

Now, having established (for myself) that American feminism is an extreme leftist movement, and that NAZIism is an exteme right wing movement (it is, and I’m through fussing with people who want to contradict that, but who will not take a class in political science), it is therefore logical that American feminism is to liberalism as German NAZIism is to conservatism.

If you want to argue that American feminism is not extremist, or that it is right wing (which is a very acceptable premise, but only if you know what you mean by those terms), or that NAZIism is not extremist, then you’re on. But, if you contradict established and accepted meanings and definitions (like some bozo’s who are still claiming that NAZIism/Hitler were liberal) then you’re wasting everyone’s time. You can argue forever that the earth is flat or that global warming is a myth, or that depleted uranium is not dangerous, but you can only argue such positions here; in an appropriate college class in physics, climatology, or poli sci you would be laughed at. Why shouldn’t we require the same standards here? Don’t we take ourselves seriously?

10-07-2006 09:10 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

I’ve got the same problem bush has, I’m dyslexic, and you have trouble getting you’re thoughts out. I’ve completed college, run a business. You’re school line has got to go, just because you don’t like the content of the post.

I meant every word I said.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-08-2006 03:27 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

How does Nazism represent the Right? Or the Christian right? Just about everything Hitler stood up for, is against Christians Morality. Christians never supported wiping out the Jews, as a matter of fact most Christians support the descendants of Abraham. It’s the blood thirsty Zionists that one needs to watch out for.

Why do moderate liberals even support the notion of Abortion? It is ending a life! Are you waiting for the Christians to save the day?

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-08-2006 03:34 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Can’t help you, dude. You’re not going to grow emotionaly or intellectually without deep and difficult work on yourself. I know that people don’t make those kinds of changes in thinking and living unless or until their behavior actually threatens their survival. That is an imperative that experienced therapists can tell you about. My point is that people won’t make those kinds of changes in their thinking and living until they can SEE that their behavior threatens their survival. How can I warn you that Jesus crap is poisoning your ability to think when there are hundreds of millions of other Jesus nuts pressuring you not to think? Hey, look on the bright side: The Pope just announced that the previously infallible dictate about Limbo is no longer operative, and the new infallible dictate is in force.

I’m sure you can’t get it, but NAZIism is right wing because it is anti-democratic, irrational, corporate, authoritarian, capitalistic, imperialist, racist, fundamentalist, religious (sorry, but it was. You just can’t get it in your mind that the true beliefs of the leaders isn’t the point – Hitler may or may not have believed in Jesus, but the rap was christian, the followers bought it and believed it, the practice was religious in character, and the church was a part of it.)
Your claim of having a college education is also not the point. You can’t learn the necessary political and historical material in phys ed or police science – but it’s amazing how many people think they did.

10-08-2006 01:48 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – What Would Happen If …

Re: What Would Happen If …
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

If you are all about the free will of the human being than you will not need me to change to be like you.

If 110 prominent lemmings jumped over a cliff to drown in the ocean, and 110 lesser lemmings were faced with a dilemma, what would you do? Go with the crowd? Or stand up for what you believe in?

You believe in spiritual evolution, or evolution, I’m not saying you need to see a psychiatrist to change your believes, you need to see the world with your own free will.

I don’t like what the liberal agenda promotes, If you don’t like it, than fine. I’ll live. What excites you about promotion of the gay agenda, condoms for Africans, or infanticide and low birth rates? All you have labeled me is delusional for believing in the Christ. You haven’t explained to me why you live in a field of Roses, whilst I am left to eat dirt.

We do have some common ground on our disagreement with feminism, no?

Germany was a Christian nation, led by despots from Hell. What, 95% of Germans didn’t know they were slaughtering Jews? I’ve never known somebody to pretend to be a Christian in Politics. Not even the great George Bush!!!! He claims to be born again, and to believe in Jesus even. I find that laughable!

Sorry man, I don’t want to illuminate myself with progressive ideology! I don’t see why you claim to be in Nirvana, while I am swimming in sewage.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-09-2006 12:04 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

‘I don’t like what the liberal agenda promotes, If you don’t like it, than fine. I’ll live. What excites you about promotion of the gay agenda, condoms for Africans, or infanticide and low birth rates?’

Two points:

First, those opinions or policy particulars are not ‘liberal’ nor do they follow rationally from ‘Liberalism’ – in my opinion – with the probable exception of ‘condoms for Africans’ if they want them.

Second, Liberalism is the philosophy that men should be free to decide their own fates and decide for themselves how to live. I don’t know that the ‘gay agenda’ excites me, but if all the men on Earth want to be homosexual, that would be fine with me. I’d be worried about getting a blood transfusion or paying for their healthcare, but it’s all unlikely anyway.

The problem is simply that you will not see that all the so-called ‘liberal’ ideas floating around are not modern expressions of real liberal philosophy – regardless of who claims they are.

I think that the reason you will not see this is because if you once realized that liberalism does not mean what you think it does, you might discover that you like liberal values and philosophy. After all, Liberalism was the basis of the American Revolution, the central philosophy of our Constitution, and is the only real philosophical difference between America and all the other nations. That’s why the neo-cons are trying to outlaw liberalism. Neo-cons don’t like Ameria.

From time to time I advise people that they should get to a community college and take some classes in political science and other related subjects. But, now I’m thinking that the influence of feminism and fascism may have changed the nature of education since I went to school – over forty years ago. It’s possible that politial science can’t be taught anymore; they may be teaching feminism and gender studies and calling it political science. I wonder.

But, if you could learn the realities without a bunch of partisan editing and censorship, then, you could be in a mess like me: A real liberal who knows that American feminism is bunk and not liberal, that liberal politicians are actually more fiscally responsible than conservatives, and that there are very few people with the smarts and education to even know what I’m talking about.

10-09-2006 06:27 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
I think you’re pretty much right on the money there.
All Americans (almost) are – gasp – liberals:

Broadly speaking, contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.
– from wikipedia

The almost Orwellian re-definition and distortion of the word in the last twenty-five years hasn’t done much for the public good IMO.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 10-09-200608:58 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-09-2006 10:27 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

No doubt I’m a fanatic about semantics and the ‘straight thinking’ branch of logic, so you could expect me to find (among others) the following flaws (or intentional confusion) in Wikipedia’s otherwise good article:

‘Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.’

I’m immediately alerted when a sentence attributes some action to an abstract entity like ‘liberalism.’ I first noticed that as a potential problem when my high school friends were beginning to act intellectual by discussion ‘capitalism’ and such philosophies. Some of them liked to parrot intellectuals, and Marx even, by saying what ‘capitalism’ does, and how ‘capitalism’ acts. I always wondered if there was an intended distortion of reality in it. Nowdays, of course, we’re being told about other abstractions of one sort or another ‘doing’ or ‘being’ something that threatens us, and the mystifying seal is put on the whole thing by using the abstraction to form a metaphor, as in ‘The War on Terror.’ Obviously, if there is a war on terror, then the enemy, terror, is either attacking, fighting back, or just dying from wounds, so the undeniable implication is that ‘terror’ is doing some action. Very clever propaganda, but not too hard to expose.

But, back to the Wiki article: If you notice, there are no people in that whole word salad – unless you accept ‘adherents’ as being an identifiable personage/group. But, those ‘adherents span a large part of the political spectrum,’ so it doesn’t tell you anything other than that it doesn’t tell you anything about what they believe. If I were conspiratorially minded, I might think this was intentional disinformation. Need I also point out that there’s no active verb anywhere in sight? The whole thing reminds me of what an author called ‘The Official Style’ in a very treasured book I have called, ‘Revising Prose,’ which can teach almost anyone how to write better. (See, I just did it too. Books don’t ‘do’ much except gather dust and mildew compulsively).

I’m going to try rewriting that last part of Wiki’s article with come active verbs and real subjects.

Original: ‘Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, …’

Rewrite: Liberals derive their fundamental values and beliefs from those of the European Enlightenment reformers. (And the more our modern ‘liberals’ and old liberals diverge in their thinking, the less authentically liberal the modern can claim to be. Derivation does not guarantee authenticity. Feminists extending ‘mankind’ to include women as a group entitled to equality have committed exactly that kind of questionable extension.)

Original: ‘… but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.’

Rewrite: Currently, most Americans use the term ‘Liberal’ either contemptuously or approvingly to describe any of a wide range of political beliefs and opinions.

Well, that’s the idea, anyway. **bleep**, it’s hard fixing the sloppy and intentionally misleading meaning of these writers. Oops. I mean, ‘**bleep**, I work hard fixing these writers’ sloppy and misleading meanings.’

By the way, if you try doing some rewriting of ‘official style’ crap, and putting in active verbs, you will notice right away that the endless prepositional phrases seem to disappear as if by magic. Or, ‘… the endless prepositional phrases magically disappear.’ Ha ha.

10-09-2006 06:11 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Good points.

You should try editing the entry with exactly what you’ve got there – that’s the whole point of the site – and see if it gets by the “wikipedia police” who review such changes to make sure they’re legit. I do that all the time when I spot the inevitable typos, badly mangled grammar, or just little facts left out. It only takes a sec. So it’s not supposed to be “official” text, it’s just what someone wrote once.

The difficult thing is in getting the hang of the edit codes, which go in a box below the text edit window and just above the preview and save buttons; I’ve yet to figure `em out.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-09-2006 06:38 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

You should try editing the entry with exactly what you’ve got there – that’s the whole point of the site – and see if it gets by the “wikipedia police” who review such changes to make sure they’re legit.

God help us if I edit a part of W and start another whole discussion board.

10-09-2006 08:20 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
The biggest difference I’ve seen between people in the men’s movement, is this “Christian right” vs “Real liberal” thing.

The problem with the modern practice of liberalism, is that it is illiberal. Frankly conservatives are going to end up reigning hell on liberalism because of what it has become.

For example, we have “tolerance and respect of” alternate viewpoints, vs. “acceptance and celebration of”. The former seems to be liberal, the latter seems to be … an attempt at proving how moral the advocate is, ie. “ooh look at me, I’m so open minded I accept zen zulu witchdoctor medicine as the only viable cure for breast cancer”.

I’d be stuck between a rock and a hard place with this sort of thing, let’s take the homosexuality issue for example:

1) Whenever I think about marginalising homosexuals, I always think of Alan Turing. Genius and war hero, along the lines of “we’d possibly be having this conversation in German if it weren’t for him”. After the war, he got busted for homosexuality when he reported a break in and ended up being forced to take drugs to “cure” him. He gained weight and ended up committing suicide. Predictable result of marginalising a class of people.

2) Celebrating homosexuality to schoolchildren F*CKS THEM UP. This is while they cannot be taught Christianity in school “because it might bias them”. WTF?

I believe the idea is tolerance, rather than acceptance and celebration. And the “tolerance” thing extends to EVERYONE.

At the moment Christianity is tolerated LESS than homosexuality. We’ve got “liberals” that WILL say things to Christians like “shut up god botherer” etc. Is that liberal?

There have been instances of a car with a George W Bush bumper sticker being run off the road by “liberals”. Uh yeah.

Problem with modern liberalism is that it’s gone way beyond the pale.

The reason I, personally, am not stuck between a rock and a hard place about this difference in values is that despite not even being Christian, I think the current Christian right is MORE liberal, than the modern practicioners of “liberalism”. Also I can respect that Christians have their heart in the right place, most of the time anyway. I’m positive fundamental Christianity goes against the basic idea of Christianity, just like “fundamental liberalism” goes against the basic idea of liberalism.

It pisses me off because I’m voting republican when I want to vote liberal (but can’t because they’re not.facking.liberal).

That’s what anti-feminism is about, for me anyway, it’s about the group “men” being almost arbitrarily marginalised so people can say what a good moral liberal they are by supporting supposed “marginalised” groups, and self-interested people hijacking this mechanism to their advantage. It is completely full of sh*t.

Funny (and really stupid) thing about illiberal liberalism is that if “men” ever become recognised as “marginalised” the tables turn almost overnight. Back and forth back and forth. Ridiculous. Probably has the feminists in a tizz that their own tactics might get used against them in the end.

So from my point of view for the time being we’re all on the same side haha

Also I’m reading a book right now called “The South Park Conservatives”. Basically about how modern liberal delusion and bias has made them the butt of modern comedy. Have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park_republican

Also it can’t be argued that conservativism is better or worse than liberalism based on their extreme forms. Seems like an appeal to consequences fallacy to me. Not pointing the finger here, noone’s done this more than the other.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-09-200610:33 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-09-2006 10:27 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

In keeping with your postscript above, I think you should take that last post about liberalism, print it out, and go to the nearest community college. Find an English comp teacher who has balls, both literally and figuratively, and tell him that you want to learn to express your ideas well – so that you can communicate them to other people.

Then, go find a political science teacher with the same anatomical and psychological requisites, and tell him that you want to learn about “isms” so you can understand the true nature of political philosophies and political movements.

Chances are, since they will be professionals, they will suggest that you take their classes. Because, as professionals, they  know that if you just try to learn on your own, or without the structure and discipline of an academic environment, you will most likely spend years and years spinning your wheels making mistakes that are not necessary – getting nowhere.

Most men would acknowledge immediately that it’s foolish trying to learn symbolic logic or chemistry on their own, but most men think they can learn about social-political subjects on their own. There are many reasons for this: Cognitive dissonance, egotism, misunderstanding of education goals (believing that social sciences are just sets of political beliefs which are passed from teacher to pupil,) fear of the academic environment (it is intimidating to men who have not developed intellectual assertiveness,) and (certainly in the last thirty five years) feminist-lesbian extremism, which has poisoned the academic environment. But, I know that there are still real men surviving in the snake pit of school life; they have learned to stay very under cover. You have to find them on your own – I can’t help you there.

You already have the answer to the situation as I outlined it above: Here we are, a bunch of men who know intuitively and certainly that American feminist-lesbianism destroys everything that is worthwhile to men, and probably to women as well. And, we all have good instincts about the problem. You can hardly believe that more intelligent and educated men disagree with us, and support feminism, because they are more intelligent and educated. No way.

You and I know that there are political-institutional reasons why John Gordon and Daniel Amneous and other clear speaking, clear thinking men are kept out of the media, and have to publish and speak outside the mainstream. So, why do you continually react to mainstream feminized men as though they were the real academic and intellectual men? They are just the sell outs and fools who have learned to sound intellectual and educated, exactly like the female phonies.

Now, extend this concept to ‘liberalism.’ Get it?

It isn’t easy. You will find at all levels of society men who think they are conservative, but who have developed their beliefs in reaction to nominative liberalism. And, you will find men who believe they are feminists because they are reacting to their own fears of masculinity, fear of female anger, guilt about being a **bleep** person, fear of being identified with ‘those other men’ who treat women badly, need to function in a feminized environment, inability to live one way while secretly believing another, etc. It’s a real complex world, and those guys at the bar who have a one liner to cover for their intellectual laziness on any issue – they don’t have any real answers or solutions.

And, they couldn’t write a coherent sentence even if they could organize their thoughts. That requires standards of excellence.

10-10-2006 06:17 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“Problem with modern liberalism is that it’s gone way beyond the pale.”

The problem with modern liberalism in my analysis is it’s over-emphasis on what are called “social justice” issues, as exemplified by your raising of how homosexuality should be treated.

Once on gets beyond really basic freedoms and civil rights, such noble projects quickly become problematic because everyone has an opinion and therefore an equally valid take on what constitutes “justice”. And as soon as the inevitable utopian calls are raised to re-jigger all of society to make things perfect, it then becomes an exercise in illiberalism because the state is the only thing around with enough power and resources to take on such a huge task. One therefore gets far away from the basic liberal ideas of limited government, personal freedom/responsibility, etc.

So I think it was a big wrong turn that liberalism took some time back when it decided to be about so many social issues. No doubt there’s plenty of social injustice, it’s just that in the absence of relatively simple fixes (eg, changing divorce/custody/support laws) it becomes a drain on energy and a waste of time, if not a diversion from areas where progress can be made.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-10-2006 11:25 AM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

The problem with modern liberalism in my analysis is it’s over-emphasis on what are called “social justice” issues, as exemplified by your raising of how homosexuality should be treated.

Let’s try again: I’ll interpret your words so that they make sense in my paradigm.

The problem with modern so-called liberalism in my analysis is … oh, wait. Gotta use active verbs.

‘In my analysis, so-called modern liberals over-emphasize social justice issues, as exemplified by their debates over homosexuals’ social and legal rights.’

In other words, so -called modern liberals are not liberals. When I say ‘so-called’ I mean it to show that someone is doing the ‘calling.’ The missing element in your thinking – in the habitual trains of symbolic language in your brain – is suspicion of those comfortable old terms.

We have been programed to run certain strings of referents in a quasi logical progression every time our thoughts go in some area. If you could learn to use another term for ‘modern liberals’ whenever you play one of these old tapes, then the problem would start to get your attention. But, the process you need to use is to understand the concept, practice doing the drill, and keep at it until you internalize the concept. Then, your mind will begin to synthesize new ideas and concepts using that new information. Until you do this, your mind will organize new information, and formulate new concepts utilizing the old, programmed misinformation.

Try using ‘non-libs’ or ‘lib-fakes’ instead of ‘modern liberals.’ Or, think of something better. If you speak to a Jew baiting, leader-loving, swastika wearing, torture loving, military jerk from Prussia would you just let him claim to be a modern conservative without arguing the point? No, because you have already been programmed or accepted the idea that those elements add up to his being a NAZI. Similarly, you have been programmed to think ‘liberal’ whenever you see certain terms of speech, styles of dress, hair fashions, bumper stickers, slogans, protesters’ signs, mannerisms, etc. The problem is the source of the programming. The most effective conditioning is that which the subject is programmed to believe came from his own perceptions. That’s why people will often make up lies about past experiences to explain their beliefs. They actually believe the lies themselves in a weird mix of self-premission to lie, along with justification for doing so because they know they are right because of personal experience based on the experience they are making up. Compare it with cult conditioning. Try to reason with a Moonie about the certainties they believe. Or, a Catholic, for that matter; Personal relationship with Jesus, and all is hard to argue with.

Here’s another way to approach the problem: Most Americans don’t have a clue about logical fallacies and logic (or much else) so I’m going to define the Question Begging Argument for readers.

To beg the question is to assume the answer to a question that is not yet decided (or even asked.) (You can surely find a better def. at Wikipedia or elsewhere, but that will work).

So, when someone says, ‘The benefits of Communism are such that the masses will soon come to be grateful for their liberation from capitalist oppression,’ you can see that the speaker has assumed the ‘benefits of Communism’ and the ills of ‘capitalist oppression.’ (The speaker also likes to use passive mood and intransitive verbs, and give abstractions the quality of ‘doing’ things). The fallacious elements, the questions being begged, are sufficient to call into question the speaker’s predictions about how the masses will act. You might note that it is just as convincing an argument if you turn it around: ‘The benefits of Capitalism are such that the masses will soon come to be grateful for their liberation from Communist oppression.’ Propaganda techniques don’t rely on factuality for their construction.

Another example: “Hey, dumbass!” Obviously, the speaker is assuming something; this is called a ‘Question Begging Epithet.’

So, whenever the term ‘liberal’ or ‘modern liberal’ is used, you can see that there is an unanswered question hanging in the air. But, only some of the people can be fooled all of the time. As long as there are still a few of us who know the basics of logic and rhetoric, the manipulators can’t fool all of the people – not even some of the time.

That is why I have so much difficulty getting the point across that there may not be such a thing as a ‘modern liberal,’ as opposed to a ‘classical liberal.’ Maybe there is just a ‘classical liberal’ which is actually a ‘liberal,’ and a something else, which is being called a ‘modern liberal’ for some sneaky reason. People can be easily programmed to accept terms; not so easily taught to question their meanings.

10-10-2006 05:36 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – What Would Happen If …

Re: What Would Happen If …
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
I really appreciate your posts on here Diogetrix. Some of them are very seriously worth printing out.

Here’s my problem: Time.

I do want to learn about political science more, but it’s not my field. Also I have basically zero formal education in well anything really. I learned the technical skills I use in my field basically from books and the Internet and I still do that with most of my time. I went to college, but to be honest I paid zero attention and didn’t attend class. I passed because I already knew the stuff. I guess technical knowledge is different to humanities knowledge, in that “you can either do it or not” with technical knowledge, so easier to self teach. Also the curriculum isn’t too hard to ascertain without help as you can look at what appears useful or popular in the industry etc. and learn about that.

Anyway, I’m aware I can always expand my knowledge on the subject and in politics there are people in this game with far superior knowledge to me, so I’d do what you said.. if I had time.

I have like a couple of hours a day in the evening to read about political science stuff and it seems to me very important for anti-feminist activism, so I’ve been going through Encarta reading up on the enlightenment, karl marx etc.

Anyway, my point is, are you SURE this can’t be learned from the Internet or books? I mean, okay you’ve pointed out some flaws in my thinking, which points to a need for supervision, but at the same time you’re doing it on the Internet. Are you sure you can’t just recommend some good books or links on the subject instead?… LOL.

[ I’m aware it isn’t possible to only ever have a limited grasp of the subject, if I were to even try and read most of the main texts that came out of the enlightenment I’d have to go on social services and lock myself in my house for years. ]

For example, I put “rhetoric ‘active verbs'” into google and got this:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Editing

How about I read stuff like that instead and keep sharing ideas on Internet forums?

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-10-200609:47 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-10-2006 09:38 PM

Re: What Would Happen If …
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

I understand the problem perfectly. That’s why I have college credits from as far back as 1964, but no degree. If I had time I would certainly have degrees in several fields ’cause I love learning, and I love the academic life. University is a whole lot different from the angst and agony of high school.

OK, so you won’t pursue it in formal ed. Then, you have a double problem, and that is the danger of all self taught people: You can become a crank. There is a current addition to the popular jargon, the term ‘peer reviewed.’ I think the latest context that it’s come up in is Global Climate Change. (There is not one peer reviewed scientist in the world who refutes that man caused Global Warming is occurring.) It’s virtually impossible to suffer from the egotistic crankiness of a self taught, narrow viewpoint, one sided thinker if you have to submit your ideas to a crowd of highly trained sharks. They’ll have you for lunch. And, that goes double for frauds like the right wingers’ whore scientists.

I digress. I could talk on this subject all night. Nothing is certain. No teacher is perfect. No course of study is finished. No answer is final. Not all lesson plans are right for all students. Etc. But, as far as professionalism is a guarantee of excellence and quality, the universities and colleges are the best we have.

If you are a genius, you can do it on your own, but then you still won’t have the papers that grant you credibility with the other experts. And, that includes the experts who hang out at the coffee house with their skateboards.

There are other venues, but I don’t know much about them, such as correspondence courses – or whatever the modern online equivalent is. I don’t suggest that because of the college credits, but because they at least have a structured plan of instruction. That makes it hard for a student to skip the part he doesn’t understand, or doesn’t like. And there is some kind of teacher-student relationship, I believe.

An interesting side note. I’ve heard about other nations that make continuing education easily available (possibly mandatory) for citizens. It’s interesting that our oft touted ‘best democracy in the world’ doesn’t seem to think as highly of furthering our awareness and knowledge.

Anyway, watch out for the pitfalls. Recently, I found a book at the little branch library used-book rack, and bought it for the title. I suspected that it was relevant to what I’m doing/studying right now. Damned if it wasn’t exactly what I needed! The problem with it is that the author is talking so far over my head that I’m reading every sentence and every paragraph over and over. I’d throw it out if I didn’t have a good instinct that he’s not just putting on some over-intellectualized babble. That happened to me once before, when I was about 13, and I happened to get a copy of ‘Philosophy in a New Key,’ by some broad named Langer, I think. I read it, but I didn’t understand a bloody word. It pissed me off. Then, about five years later, after more years of school and some college, I had reason to use that book for a paper I wrote, and went back to it. It was as clear as crystal. That’s the nature of the beast: The more you learn, the greater the potential to learn more and faster, and begin to formulate original ideas, and on and on. It’s a hook, if you have the inclination for knowledge. I remember a prof. I met socially in the mid 60’s. He was a Greek who had been there when the big revolution went down. Generals vs the Ruler as I recall. I think the movie, ‘Z,’ is about that period. Anyway, this intellectual and jolly guy had been a student protester, and had been shot by some very large calibre machine gun – maybe 50 cal. He was wounded and hiding in a basement somewhere, and there was a copy of Plato (I don’t know which book.) He read it while he was hiding out there, and he said he didn’t understand a **bleep** bit of it. He was a professor of philosophy when I met him. I don’t know what all this means, but it’s a good story. the book I stumbled over at my library and that’s giving me such a pain right now is ‘The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art,’ by Arthur C. Danto. You gotta read some of his stuff to get a taste of intellectualism gone bad. Ha ha. Here’s a URL to a sample text of one of his books you can look at for fun. It’s an easy one. http:www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s5911.html

I’ll shut up now.

10-11-2006 12:22 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: