← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robbie
Thread ID: 6541 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2003-05-07
2003-05-07 16:58 | User Profile
This is quite a long article, due to the e-mails that stem from a "Sheryl Jackdaughter".
[url=http://www.rense.com/general37/sosical.htm]http://www.rense.com/general37/sosical.htm[/url]
Beautiful Women: Sex and Social Control By Henry Makow, PhD 5-5-3
At the mall, my wife and I passed a 30-foot-high banner suspended from the ceiling. It didn't say "Obey." Rather it displayed a 19-year-old girl wearing nothing but a bikini.
"That makes women feel inadequate and insecure," my wife remarked.
While women cringe, men are supposed to pant and salivate. Thus, both sexes are programmed to seek a shallow and impossible ideal.
I could honestly tell my wife she needn't feel insecure on my account. These girls are great to look at but not worth the trouble. I used to be married to one and recorded the experience in my book, "A Long Way to go for Date." My experience taught me to separate a woman's appearance from her character. Like many immature men, I used to idolize beautiful women. They ceased to be human beings.
Marilyn Monroe once said, "I always let men fool themselves. They were obviously loving someone I wasn't."
Women actually find pedestals uncomfortable. Soon they pity and resent the men who put them there.
A producer married to a beautiful starlet said," I treat her as though she were ugly."
Men should never forfeit power by worshiping a woman. The essence of masculinity is power. Women crave male power, expressed as male love. When a woman falls in love, she surrenders "power" in exchange for love.
Men and women are equal in terms of dignity and self-fulfillment. But they do not find fulfillment in the same way. Women find it in self-surrender. By insisting on equal power, feminists emasculate men and neuter women. Their marriages remind me of roommates.
BOYS ARE NEEDY. MEN ARE DEMANDING.
Gentlemen. The measure of a woman is not what she looks like but what she will do for you.
What good is a gorgeous woman if she makes your life hell? After the sex urge has abated, what else can she do? My ex couldn't master anything that wasn't also a natural function. Men have been brainwashed to think they're evil ogres who must cater to women in exchange for love. That's what women do! Feminism has turned men into women. (I'm exaggerating when I use the term "cater.")
A feminine woman adjusts to the man she loves. She is yin to his yang. Men should seek feminine women in the ranks of pleasant or even plain-looking women. They have skills and personality. They are rational and decent. They don't think they are special and aren't so obsessed with their appearance.
Love makes a woman beautiful. Making love, you're looking at her face, not her body. If she loves you, her face is spectacular.
THE (HOMO) SEXUAL REVOLUTION
The 1950's-60's sexual revolution was designed to destroy family and morality by turning heterosexuals into homosexuals.
As I have described elsewhere (http://www.savethemales.ca/091101.html) the Rockefellers have long promoted eugenics and population control. They funded the fraudulent Kinsey Report that encouraged homosexual behavior. This led to the media- hyped Hugh Hefner and Helen Gurley Brown who retailed promiscuity and mocked marriage. [url=http://www.savethemales.ca/130103.html]http://www.savethemales.ca/130103.html[/url]
Heterosexuality is not a sexual preference. It is the natural life cycle, characterized by marriage and family. This is the way we grow.
Homosexuality is arrested development caused by inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. This is usually due to overbearing mother, distant father, or sexual abuse as a youth.
Generally homosexual relationships are distinguished by a desperate quest for love through sexual gratification. They tend to be short term and numerous. Gay writer Andrew Webb says the dominant homosexual ideology regards "unfettered sex as the defining feature of gay identity." Gay relationships he says "are a joke and rarely monogamous." [url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.webb.html]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/.../0111.webb.html[/url]
Increasingly this ailment has inflicted heterosexuals too. The (homo) sexual revolution has crippled our ability to bond. Feminism (which is lesbian at heart) has emasculated men and taught women to fear men and usurp their identity. Heterosexuals have difficulty forming a permanent bond. A friend observes a "sadness" among the single young women he knows. There are so few men fit to take on the responsibility of family.
SEX AND MORALS
I was born in 1949 and can remember when sex was consecrated for marriage. It was harnessed to raise healthy families and build society. People found their identity and fulfillment in family.
Morals are spiritual laws that uplift and protect us. Sex is the most intimate experience two people can have. It must take place in the context of love because humans are also rational, emotional and spiritual beings. Anything else is degrading.
The elite media portrayed the (homo) sexual revolution as "liberation." People could copulate free from the "restraints" of morality. As a result, all human relationships have been debased. Strangers are suspicious of every glance, word or smile. Men can't show affection for other men. Adults can't admire children. Society suffers from arrested development i.e. a juvenile obsession with appearance, sex and genitals.
I am not opposed to pre marital sex but would restrict it to long-term relationships, the fewer the better. I admire women who consecrate themselves for their future husband and family.
ELITE CONSPIRACY
This assault on heterosexuals, motherhood and the family in my lifetime confirms the existence of an elite conspiracy. The annihilation of "bourgeois" marriage and family is a basic tenet of Communism.
Wealthy capitalists bankrolled Communism. It was never about class, equality and public ownership (bait for "innocents.") Communism is an elite program to destroy Western Civilization. Its aim is totalitarian government based on private instead of public monopoly, i.e. very big government in the service of very big business.
(We scoff reflexively at any mention of a "Communist conspiracy." Why do you think that is? The "elite" media shapes our attitudes.)
Elite "Communists" took control of the United States under FDR and have been in charge ever since. They're called liberals, neo conservatives and feminists now.
Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's professor at Georgetown University, had access to their records and wrote in his book "Tragedy and Hope" (1966):
"It was this group of people...who provided much of the framework of influence which [enabled] the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers [to] take over in the United States in the 1930's. It must be recognized that the power these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie." (Quoted in Steve Bonta, Inside the UN, p.21) As long as half-naked girls fill our billboards and our minds, we are easy to control. Sex starved, stunted, and isolated, we can't resist satanic forces.
By rejecting shallow sexual snares and building healthy lives based on our natural heterosexual roles, we spit in the devil's eye.
Henry Makow, Ph.D. is the inventor of the board game Scruples and the author of "A Long Way to Go for a Date." His articles on feminism and the new world order are found at www.savethemales.ca He enjoys receiving comments at henry@savethemales.ca
Comment
From Sheryl Jackson moonfyre1@earthlink.net 5-5-3
Dear Dr. Misogynist,
The thing I resent most about what you write is that your Zionist ass is so "sincere and truthful"............. You sound like you believe the OldeWhiteBoyKrap you spout.......... And you learned so much from your "Beautiful and Stupid" wife who made your life hell........ I would point out to you that the rich and undeserving perpetuate the myths you talk about..... It is not wymyn who came up with the game plan.............. Men did.............. They want wymyn who are compliant, obedient and wimpy............. I call it being "DickWhipped".............
Why would any womyn want to KowTow or Cater to a man, with his mood swings, his fractious needs that are unstable and ever-changing with his mood, and then having to pick up after his ass supporting the adage "a man's job is from sun to sun, while a womyn's work is never done."
The only reason that your granddaddy gave us the vote was because the FatAssedWhiteBoys thought they could control the votes and get their man elected............ He did not give us the vote to make us have a voice but one more control.............
It is nice that you think you are happy, as we all seek that, but to pass on your "wisdom' is to deny men the joy of having wymyn who love them for what they are............. You perpetuate the myth that men make better decisions and that men can do more and better than wymyn...... Yet by your own admission, you were an asshole of the first order because you were selfish and bound to your ego.......... Maturity changed you............... Well, you are preaching to a bunch of men who are young, stupid, selfish, beer drinkers also.............. You are denying them the joy of growing up and realizing what you have, that wymyn are certainly more than you thought we were............ As the sex wears down, they are brothers and sisters? Well, that is what happens in most adult relationships............ What you are teaching keeps men from trying to meet wymyn and to have a relationship where they can become all that they can be...........
Nowhere in your prattling have you mentioned that all zygotes are female until the fortieth day after conception. Or that more females are born than males...... or that we have nine of ten of us born with both lobes fully functional while you boys have only one in ten males born with both lobes functioning.......... That more of us live to the age of five, that we are healthier, stronger emotionally and mature more rapidly than men............
Wymyn can go longer without food and live longer without food than men can, that is why fat is a female thing, Men are not becoming wymyn they are becoming more vain, selfish, hateful, vengeful, violent, criminal and cruel than we are.............. men are the carriers of 97% of all gross birth anomalies and diseases, while wymyn only pass on .5% of the anomalies, the attending doKtors are responsible for the remaining two percent...........
Why do wymyn want you to put down the ring on the toilet? You do not think we are the ones who leave the pubic hair on the porcelain throne do you? We don't have to lift the ring to pee........ So how could we be the ones who do that?
You worry like an old lady who has too many cats.......... Your femininity is there for all of us to see........ What could be wrong with men becoming more like wymyn? We are more stable, more capable, and more apt to do the right thing for the majority than young men are......... They make choices that are for themselves and they want wymyn to shut up and put up with their stupidity and Krap until they grow up............... Stay home and live with your mother......... She doesn't mind that she has to take care of your sorry asses........... It gives her some purpose and something to do, yeh, right.............
You are a Krap stirrer of the worst order and your stupidity perpetuates the New World Order Agenda of division............. Divide families, both nuclear and extended, divide friends with fear and loathing, divide religions and their constituents, keep everyone fighting over the usual Krap and Small stuff and ignore the reasons that we need unity........... Mainly, this country is being taken down the tubes by the Four Horsemen of the WhiteHouse and you perpetuate the very thing you say that feminism does.........
We teach wymyn they can go on without the man who beat them or left them when the going got rough......... We teach wymyn that if they want to be warriors or compliant to the male egos she has the right to do that............ If she wants to be a trophy and live that lifestyle, she can do that and if she doesn't want to get married and have a family she can do that........... If she wants to work for PG&E as a lineman instead of a secretary she can do that.......... We teach wymyn that if they wish to have a life without the benefit of a male she can do that............ That her value and worth is not just in her ability to be a more traditional type of female, but that she has a brain of her own with which to think and that she can earn her own retirement and her own insurance and her own life without having to cater to a male who will not benefit her life in one iota............. That she is more than her ability to KowTow to a man and his misogynistic ways......
You are an American Zionist who is using his limited writing abilities to perpetuate the very myths that made this country go backwards in time.................. We kept your asses eating when we all lived in caves, because men did not always bring home the mastodon, but we always picked the fruit, the berries, the veggies and the tubers that kept the village going.......... Your desire to return to the fifties where "men were mean and wymyn shut up" is shared by those who seek power internationally for creating a totalitarian government........... You are in bad company, and you are stirring the pot of stink...........
Have a nice day, Dr. Misogynistic,
Sheryl Jackson
Comment
From David Hess 5-6-3
Mr. Makow,
Did you even bother to read the whole of Mr. Webb's article? Here is a quote from it for you from the end:
"Ultimately, though, HIV prevention efforts will not take root until mainstream society welcomes gays into the fold. After all, how can we ask gay men to respect the well-being of larger society if we don't ask mainstream society to respect the health of gay men? Legalization of same-sex marriage, domestic partnership benefits, and other measures that would allow gays to have culturally supported, monogamous relationships would go a long way towards curtailing excessive promiscuity, not to mention protecting the public health. At the same time, homosexuals must be held to the same legal, moral, and cultural standards applied to heterosexuals both in and out of committed relationships."
Your extremely selective quoting from Andrew Webb's article completely distorts his true message. What Mr. Webb is asking for is acceptance and support for the homosexual community. Do you think you support him, and your gay friends, and offer the acceptance he seeks when you write:
"Homosexuality is arrested development caused by inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. This is usually due to overbearing mother, distant father, or sexual abuse as a youth."
Where is the valid scientific research you cite to be able to make this claim? Where are the interviews and personal examples you share so that others can question and validate your work? You do not make any such claims nor do you give such examples because there is not a shred of truth to your 'the sky is falling' writing. You are a sad, hateful man Mr. Makow and your prevalent homophobia shines through your writing like a great beacon. Perhaps your pseudo-scientific propaganda will sway the feeble of mind, but most will dismiss you for the hate monger you are.
With regards to the birth rate being down 50%, if you were a true researcher and scholar it would be become evident to you that if the birth rate is down (I do not know where you get your information to be able to verify if it is true) it is far more likely due to the urbanization of our society. We no longer live on the farm, Mr. Makow. It is no longer economically necessary for people to have large families. In fact, it is economically advantageous to have fewer children today because of the skyrocketing costs. So, if you are looking for a cause, instead of falsely demonizing homosexuals for what you see as a decline in our society, you would be better served to do what professional journalists do, follow the money.
Comment From Founders' America foundersamerica@hotmail.com 5-6-3
Dear Sheryl Jackson,
Some men believe women are too shallow-brained to think deeply.
I don't think that about you, and I think Dr. Makow is mostly correct in that essay.
Best,
-Richard
P.S. Good civilization declines when mother - the feminine, seductive side of mother - : ----- é1995
CIVIL SOCIETY DECLINES WHEN 'MOTHER' RULES
MATERNALISM = EMOTIONALISM = IRRATIONALISM
EQUALS
FEMINISM = LIBERALISM = MARXISM
Communism is liberals' ultimate response for meeting the needs of the few, but at the expense of the many; an enslavement of the productive to the needs of the unproductive; a plan for making everyone equally happy or, as is mostly the case with Marxism, miserable. Such is the power of empathy in "Mother" for her "children." She would rather see her offspring corrupted and depen- dent on her, rather than have one of them suffer alone.
Mother despises the ruling class because it reminds her of Father, and she fears he'll liberate her children from her clutches--he might let them grow up to become independent of her (s)mothering emotionalism.
Mother especially disdains the middle-class since that large pool of citizens can protect the ruling class from any revolt coming from the poor, and from which pool the ruling class can draw good, future leaders. Mother would destroy the upper and middle classes in order to reduce the pain she feels for her downtrodden poor.
Mother's warring is far more brutal and extensive than Father's because her violence is hysterical, irrational and frenzied while Father's is calculated and controlled.
The political Right's killings worldwide these past sixty years are small compared to the savage carnage wrought by the Left. Mao's cultural revolution in China and the Khmer Rouge's Killing Fields are the latest examples of Mother losing control and slaughtering her children out of an emotional rage (read my essays, "Trucfemism" and "Liberals' Love-Crimes: Why Left-wing 'love' begets Right- wing 'hate'").
When Mother rules in a society it signals that maternalism (emotionalism) has ascended to supplant paternalism (rationalism)--and civil society declines, accordingly.
Paternalism builds civil society; maternalism destroys it. American civilization is in rapid decline because Mother has meddled by direct or indirect means for over a century. Father has been in retreat, appearing impotent to counter her irrationalism.
President Clinton and his liberal Democrat supporters "think" like hysterical, emotion-dependent women; they are too emotional and maternal in their relationship with the citizenry, and fickle in their decision-making and controlling in their concern for the citizenry. And because they're more likely to accommodate the exceptional case at the expense of the well-being of the many -- more likely to adjust society to meet the needs of exceptional cases, but only because the exceptional case is more immediate, pressing and emotion-packed for them than are the long-term needs and well-being of the many -- liberals' liberalism has become a grave danger to the requisite underpinnings for maintaining civil society in America, for keeping savagery at bay (read my essay, "The Donahue Syndrome").
President Clinton's "I can feel your pain" waffling on issues results not from any deep analysis of the facts, or even from any political opportunism, but from an innate inability to reason. He is incapable of applying induc- tive and deductive analyses to issues. He can't discover correct solutions because he, as with most liberals, is unable to think beyond the emotionality he currently feels; his emotions change from day to day, depending on whichever emotional trigger is strongest--gays, feminists, the poor, Fidel Castro, his reelection, sexual conquests, etc.
Mother can't think as well as Father because Mother's emotional bent suppres- ses her reasoning faculty, especially when the emotion is very strong. Women are more emotional than men because empathy is an evolutionary trait that benefits their offspring, since an emotional woman is more likely to bond with her children and, ergo, is less likely to abandon them. Men's greater lack of emotional response makes them more daring and adventurous, and much less tied to familial duties; a strategy necessary for freeing men up, at times, for inventing or exploring or building or fighting to evolve higher levels of civilization (read my essay, "Two Legs Of The Same Whore").
President Clinton can't reason well because he's PSYCHOLOGICALLY FEMININ, which nature in him helps to explain the large number of women who voted for him, and who hold greater affinity for liberal Democrats' social agenda than for conservative Republicans' "Contract with America" (read my essay, "Emoting Women Vote and American Civilization Crumbles").
Rational men have built and ruled societies throughout the ages, with few exceptions, while women eventually destroy them with their emotionalism. Greece and Rome are good examples. It has been the battle waged between maternalism and paternalism -- between emotion and reason -- that drives political affiliation (Note: There are rational women who are men's equal; they're rational and conservative in their politics but more weak for the emotional argument than are conservative men).
Most people don't understand the battle or the nature of the combatants, more often than not confusing maternalism for paternalism. Pundits incorrectly call what has damaged America these past 130 years "paternalism." For example, Richmond Times-Dispatch editor Ross Mackenzie writes in his inspiring commentary on America's Independence Day that "We are now in the process of reversing years of paternalism" ["Rejoicing In This Sweet Land of Liberty," Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 2], as if Governor and then presi- dential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't sound more like a woman than a man when he planted his socialist seeds in 1932: "I assert that modern society, acting through its Government, owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation or the dire want of any of its fellow men and women who try to maintain themselves but cannot." It sounds good but masks the seeds for a society's collapse through its government.
A rational man would have beseeched the citizenry to work harder and pull together to struggle against adversity, not whine about starvation and (s)mother the citizenry with false relief, false hope and numerous heavy-handed bureaucracies for dispensing them. Hunger during the Great Depression was being handled quite well by churches, private charities and by ordinary citizens coming together in their communities to reduce suffering among the destitute. Would that Roosevelt had simply called on Americans' kind heart and ingenious mind to make a recovery . . .
But after promising to cut the deficit and taxes and reduce federal spending, Roosevelt moved in the opposite direction upon taking office, creating a massive federal bureaucracy of commissions and agencies (many of them created as payoffs to his cronies and friends who were assigned to run them), which expenditures helped to prevent any real economic recovery. After ten years of feel-good talk and no improvement -- with billions of dollars in deficit spending, with little change in unemployment and with a growing welfare class -- Roosevelt's diversion of capital from business and industry into massive make-work programs had suddenly been shunted back to industry to help fight a war, and the real recovery began.
Roosevelt had prolonged the Great Depression for ten long, grueling years until WWII gave a tremendous boost to an employment and production rate that barely changed while he fiddled, giving him undeserved credit for what was really a war-based recovery instead of scorn for his decade-long mismanagement of the economy. But the full cost of Roosevelt's socialism wouldn't be felt or understood for fifty more years when, in 1994, Americans awakened from liberal Democrats' Great Society slumber, only to discover a nation full of whiners and wimps lacking any moral virtue, work ethic, or sense of self- reliance.
President Roosevelt's maternalism spawned this ever-growing dependency class with its plethora of social welfare programs that feed it. And President Johnson, another maternalistic "man," redoubled Roosevelt's social-welfare efforts with his Great Society agenda in the Sixties.
Roosevelt began the Social Security System, unemployment compensation, workmen's compensation, and agricultural subsidies. But more critically, Hoover's defeat instal- led a majority of maternalistic Democrats in both houses of Congress, thus silencing the rational masculine mind -- paternalistic mind -- of Republicans, in order to construct every conceivable kind of social welfare program for weakening the citizenry and the nation. Such a history of emotional seduction could come only from the mind of an intrusive, (s)mothering woman--only from what I've termed "emoting feminine mind" (read my essay, "Restoration Revolution or Futile Posturing").
Roosevelt and his Democrat Congress were emoting socialists. They appealed to emotional weakness in the citizenry; especially in women who not long before had acquired the vote to forever change -- and for the worse -- the face of politics in America. The emoting feminine mind of Roosevelt's leftists FELT rather than THOUGHT about the long-term consequences of their "solutions"-- their socialism; they could only feel the immediate pain in the citizenry and sought immediate "solutions." That their sixty years of government-can-fix-everything maternalism gave us this economic and cultural house of cards can't be logically refuted; that those "men" turned a once-independent citizenry and nation into an effeminate class of selfish dolts is becoming more apparent with each passing year.
Maternalism caused all this social wreckage not paternal- ism, which masculine nature is characterized more by aloofness and self-sufficiency than with intrusive and doting "helpfulness." Mother gets her pleasure from emotional stimulation, so she craves social chaos. Mother intrudes and dotes to cause social conflict; ergo, she likes open borders, gay rights, forced integration, or any cancer on civil society.
Where did the confusion about the terms "maternalism" and "paternalism" origi- nate? I believe people have confused physicality for psychology. Because a person appears to be a man doesn't guarantee that he has the psychological make-up of a man, about which common stereotypes and historical traditions correctly identify as strong, silent, and resolute in fixing things -- get- ting things done -- rather than as incessantly talking and emoting about them in hope of avoiding tough decision- making, as liberal women and President Clinton generally are wont to do (read my essay, "The Progressive Jew in 'Weimar' America").
Another source of confusion is Christianity, which history and influence on the Western mind have been mistakenly termed "paternalistic" because "men" conceived, built and rule that religion. The psychology of Chris- tian authority is feminine not masculine. One would be hard-pressed to show that Christianity is a masculine religion, although the Old-Testament Christian Church is far more masculine as compared with the New-Testament Christian Church (read my essays, "The Jesus Connection" and "Jesus: Liberal and Communist and Social Worker").
Liberals have a stake in using the term "paternalism" to describe liberal Democrats' social wreckage. If men caused this social chaos, then women surely ought to be given a chance to run things for a time--right? Wrong! That's only a ploy to keep intact their mostly hidden power and influence. And conservatives who use "paternalism" to describe liberals' mothering only harm their cause by confusing the public. Mother has been running and ruining America for a long time while disguised as "men" in liberal Democrats' political party.
Women have had a heavy influence on American social thought beginning in the nineteenth century; especial- ly from the time maternal and henpecked Abraham Lincoln began the slaughter of 600,000 white men to placate the liberal and effeminate New-Testament congregations in the North; congregations greatly invigorated against the South by feminist Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," prompted Lincoln to say this upon first meeting her - "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war!" (read my essays, "Novelists Tell Lies" and "Lincoln's Folly").
Yes, the emotion in maternalism -- not the reason in paternalism -- plunged America into civil war. And maternalism's influence crept forward from Lincoln's day to create this confused and debased generation through ever-expanding feminism (Note: As with President Bush, President Lincoln's political facade masked his emotion- alism--helped hide his feminist, irrational, and maternal character).
Maternalism has so badly damaged this republic's social and economic infrastruc- ture that recovery is very unlikely without massive suffering. From the Bible's account account of Eve's seduction of Adam to present-day seduction of Americans by liberal Democrats, maternalism's emotion- based promise to provide for citizens' every need has been the bane of rational men who have conceived and built grand civilizations throughout the ages. And the seduction runs deep and wide in today's America, with emotion slaying reason at every turn -- with women playing fireman and policeman and doctor and soldier and fighter pilot and statesman and engineer and scientist and priest, and with nobody at home to raise the children -- and with all those occupations being debased because women can't match the skills of the men who might otherwise have filled those positions. To those caught up in the insanity -- in the emotionality of this age -- all of that sounds extremely "sexist." But to rational minds it strikes a strong chord, when considering all that history teaches humanity about what does and doesn't work in keeping good civil society.
History teaches that when men become emasculated and accommodate the wishes of feminists, then civil society declines. In the case of American civilization, it portends the death of the noblest experiment in democracy ever conceived--and portends another round of Dark Ages.
What do we know of fathers?:
They are explorers, inventors, builders and reluctant to be too tied to familial duties. Regarding the rearing of children, they allow more risk-taking while mothers are more guarded about a child's testing his/her limits and environment. Fathers exercise less control than mothers, and are anxious to see their offspring strongly independent while mothers may intrude in their children's affairs for decades (read my essay, "Crazy Women: Crazy Society").
From Roosevelt to date, Mother has created over 80 major welfare programs, wasted $5.4 trillion in her war against poverty (since 1964), and created this massive and ever- growing dependent class of citizens and immigrants.
Miss Taylor Caldwell wrote this in "Dear and Glorious Physician," to describe the bad consequences of Mother's rule:
"Rome has decayed into a confused democracy and has acquired feminine traits . . . A feminine nation has an insensate desire to control and dominate."
That describes liberal Democrats and their social engineering schemes; that describes NOT PATERNALISM but MATERNALISM!
Get it right, folks!
Founders' America P.O. Box 71024 Richmond, Va 23255
Comment
From Big D in Seattle To Sheryl Jackson Subject: Nice Job On Rense!
I read with pleasure your reply to the good doctor's article on Rense.com because it reminded me of why there are growing signs of a big turn around again on the part of MEN that will be standard fare in the future times ahead. A man's strength is absolutely superior in all way's over a female's. Always has been and always will be. In the times ahead, the times when everything is falling apart right down to cinders in what were once streets, because of bitch jobs like you out there today, women are going to have to tread very, very, very softly, and nicely, around men because they will simply kick the holy sh*t out of them otherwise and there may not be any laws or courts to stop them. And it will be all your fault and females like you. I'm sure a lot of men will love to run into you out there when those times come around in order to kick your man hating ass. It won't be me, however, because I'm sure you must have yourself looking like some kind of Marlboro Man with tits and I wouldn't want to puke on your logging boots looking at you. Real women don't talk, write or think like you bozo.
You misinterpreted everything the doctor conveyed, you dumb jerk. Talk about "lobes." where in the hell are yours? He's a Zionist? My big white fat macho *ss he is! He is right-on about the sex and bitch scene in current times. Why don't you find yourself a nice liberal website to haunt (try neoconvervatism.com) and leave the thinkers with brains on Rense alone.
What a sick **** you must be. You sure write like one.
Big D from Seattle
Friom Sheryl Jackson 5-6-3
Thank you so much for your well thought out response to my commentary and your so intelligent abilities to communicate................. You are exactly the type of male I love to have in my group. I work Maximum Security with the Kriminally Mentally Ill males of the state of California. Most of them are pedophiles and rapists........... which category do you fit into? probably pedophile..... You hardly seem brave enough to be able to have a relationship with an adult female....... Your anger is in direct response to your inadequacies and feelings of failure and lack of accomplishment................. Your thinking that wymyn need to be beaten into submission is directly related to your own inabilty to have sex with a live partner.......... Bless your heart, you seem to be a real mess............. Big D in Seattle? I would imagine that you wish you had a Big Dick in Seattle............ But the measure of a man is not in his equipment but rather in his ability to use it to make both him and his partner enjoy it......... I would imagine you are about 300 pounds, eating doritos and drinking diet pepsi while cruising porn sites on the web.......... Have you ever heard of Echelon? since you wrote to me, you have been picked up by Echelon and their New Homeland Security............. They will be tapping your computer from now until they catch you........ Have a nice day, and make sure when you respond to others that they are not being watched by Echelon............... You sure made my day.............. Thank you for writing.............. Sheryl Jackson
Disclaimer
Email This Article
2003-05-07 18:47 | User Profile
There was a Liberty forum thread on the Makow article.
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=604422&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Okiereddust&Match=Username&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=603989#Post604422]Beautiful Women Aren't Worth the Trouble[/url]
2003-05-07 19:05 | User Profile
To Ms. Jackson: Real women are not "wymyn", or feminist lesbians. You are one lady with problems.
As for Mr. Makow's article, real men need to head their families to teach their sons look at women beyond beauty and focus on character and their daugthers not to dress and act like sex objects. A good way to accomplish this is to eliminate dating and bring back courtship.
2003-05-07 19:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@May 7 2003, 19:05 ** A good way to accomplish this is to eliminate dating and bring back courtship. **
Definitely needed, though quite a challenge in our individualistic, liberal dominated society.
Maybe we should just bring back the veil :D
2003-05-07 19:54 | User Profile
The jewish corruption, exploitation and influence over male/female relationships is perfectly damaging our society on a daily basis, running us down the slope at breakneck speed. Every man and woman I know, whether single or married, is confused, baffled, alienated and sad about relationships whether their own or someone else's. Thanks Schmuel!! It's certainly jewish in origin, procedure and treatment (psychology, self-help, etc) and it's all in their hands. Makow is not too shy about naming names and I do look forward to his columns every week, but there's just something funny about him that I can't quite figure out. Oh well, maybe it's nothing, let me shut up.
2003-05-08 01:15 | User Profile
Makow is a strange bird. Some of his writing is really good -- and then he will turn up an alley and start describing how the English aristocracy program their own children by torturing them in masonic rituals. His source of information will be one hysterical lady that wrote a book. He's a Jew.
2003-05-08 02:11 | User Profile
**Okkiereddust: Maybe we should just bring back the veil **
What? What? You wanna bring back veil dances? What kinda perv are you?!? :naughty: :lol: :D
2003-05-08 02:43 | User Profile
I would imagine you are about 300 pounds, eating doritos and drinking diet pepsi while cruising porn sites on the web
What is this, the default web-insult for dummies? Microsoft PutDown™? You always know you've scored a direct hit on your opponent when they run the old "you're probably fat and pimply and jack off like a lifer..." response.
And why on Earth would a 300-lb mesomorph wash down his or her Doritos with Diet Pepsi?
2003-05-08 06:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@May 7 2003, 19:08 ** Maybe we should just bring back the veil :D **
Better yet, arrange marriages for kids while they're still infants. It worked for the Greeks, Persians, Egyptians and Sumerians most of the time.
They might not have made perfect matches, but it sure took the uncertainty out of marriage.
Who needs "courtship" anyhow? ;)
2003-05-08 08:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Bardamu@May 8 2003, 01:15 ** Makow is a strange bird. Some of his writing is really good -- and then he will turn up an alley and start describing how the English aristocracy program their own children by torturing them in masonic rituals. His source of information will be one hysterical lady that wrote a book. He's a Jew. **
Ditto.
I'm not sure what to make of Henry Makow.
He displays the right instincts for our movement, that's for sure. He seems to be genuinely interested in applying the same standard to Jews (his own tribe) as to the rest of humanity.
He thus comes up with some very good stuff, such as this article.
Then suddenly he veers off into tinfoil hat territory with wild ideas about how the world's ruling financial elites belong to the satanic Illuminatti religion, and how thousands of these Illuminatti families torture their children in horrific satanic rituals but the police never find out about it because they control everything.
It's all too weird - suspiciously weird.
I would theorize that he's what Il Ragno and I would call a "Screamer" (from the Sci-Fi "B" movie of a few years ago). He's really a deadly enemy due to his brain's "wetware" programming, but part of that same programming is to hide from the Screamer's conscious mind that he's actually an enemy. He is thus convinced that he's a friend, which allows him to infiltrate the enemy ranks. This makes him and other Screamers (Micheal Hart, Michael Levin, Israel Shamir) very dangerous indeed.
My intuition tells me that the Illuminatti craziness is the Screamer side of him, but I haven't yet figured out how that will work. I sense that it's there someplace, though.
Perhaps Il Ragno could chime in here.
Walter
2003-05-08 13:36 | User Profile
Hate to disappoint anyone, but I think Makow's a nut, more or less. I get the feeling, reading him, that he came home early from work one day and got the shock of his life.
2003-05-08 15:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 8 2003, 02:43 **
And why on Earth would a 300-lb mesomorph wash down his or her Doritos with Diet Pepsi? **
Do you know how many fat people I've seen who will eat the same fattening, junk food as I do and yet drink it with a diet soft drink?? They might as well drink the regular kind. That will never lose them any weight.
2003-05-08 16:01 | User Profile
Yggdrasil examined this issue from a different perspective in his long 1996 essay, "Eurocide."
YGGDRASIL
Race Bias #42 - "Erocide"
We conclude this series on Race Bias against European-Americans on a more personal note, and with a second call to action. The actions which are most essential to our survival are only marginally "political."
Indeed, there is a titanic struggle unfolding in America today. It is a struggle of far more consequence than passage of the Contract with America, or the legislative defeat of the racial quotas that have been the primary subject of this series. It is the struggle in which the fate of Western Civilization will be determined.
It is the struggle to reproduce.
As we have discussed in previous posts, the advertisers in our mass media seek to encourage irrational purchases by appealing to status longings and sexual frustration. Prior to the invention of photography shortly before 1850, young boys and girls invariably formed their ideas of sexual attraction based upon people they actually saw in their neighborhoods.
However, with the advent of the photograph and the use of the photograph in advertising, it became possible to select rare and infrequent images of human beauty and present them to the public as the desired norm. Thus, sexual imprinting came to be based upon the result of a selection process that excluded all but a very tiny fraction of the population. The selection was done for commercial reasons. The scarcity of the image in real life increased its advertising value.
Politics in the 19th and 20th centuries has been largely a struggle over equality. However, few areas of life present more stark and visible inequalities than sexual attraction. Given equal amounts of exercise and training, most men can run the 100 meter dash at pretty much the same speed. The differences are minor.
But the aesthetic differences between individuals are absolutely enormous - orders of magnitude greater than the differences between them in strength, manual dexterity or intelligence. In other words, the ability of most people to make a contribution to the economy is far more equal than their ability to attract a mate (if the reasons for mating are exclusively based on aesthetics, and not practical necessity).
The problem, of course, is that every advertisement published by the press spreads images of women the like of which are seldom seen in real life in most towns and cities in America.
You can search the streets of Manhattan for days and never see a blonde beauty like Claudia Schiffer. In cities such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Columbus you can wander for days through shopping malls of European-American neighborhoods and never see a woman who comes anywhere close to looking like Claudia Schiffer or Cindy Crawford.
You do see small numbers of women who look like them throughout the Western United States, but it is still a minority.
The pathology created by these images are fairly predictable.
Males are frustrated. Inevitably, the mate you pick will represent a compromise. Nothing will match the images in the movies or on TV.
The women know they cannot measure up and so the temptation is not to try. They assume that men want what they see in the movies, so they might as well become male-hating liberationists, or stuff their faces and drop out of the sexual competition.
Organized ideological male-hating never existed until the advent of movies and television. Indeed, if you are seeking an explanation for the anti-white animus of our cultural elites (despite their Euro-American racial origins), sexual anger is an excellent starting point. Here is just one example from the April 22, 1994 edition of the Wall Street Journal, page A1, entitled "Mixed Signals":
Mixed Signals
Some white students make an effort to cross the racial divide. Lisa Todorovich, a senior from Milwaukee who is the first in her family to attend college, took an African American Studies class last semester on the writings of Toni Morrison. In a class equally split between blacks and whites, Ms. Todorovich, 22, found herself for the first time feeling self-conscious about her skin color.
When the class discussed Ms. Morrison's "The Bluest Eye," a book about how white ideals of beauty affect a black girl, Ms. Todorovich felt she, too, could relate. As a child, she felt unattractive because her looks didn't measure up to Shirley Temple's. "But I didn't open my mouth," she says, because she considered her childhood pain trivial compared with the experiences of black women in the class.
Given the blatant anti-white attitudes of the cultural elites who produce the icons of our popular culture, the most tempting analogy is chemotherapy. One suspects the poisons produced by the dream meisters, while harmful to all, are intended to destroy only the hated "white bread" of society. And, indeed, we find considerable evidence of this intent in Race Bias #40.
But, paradoxically, that isn't how it works in actual practice. In effect, the frustrated and angry dream meisters often end up eating their own young.
Exhibit One comes from Eldridge Cleaver's "Soul on Ice," page 19.
"This little game got good to me and I got good at it. I attacked all forms of piety, loyalty, and sentiment: marriage, love, God, patriotism, the Constitution, the founding fathers, law, concepts of right-wrong-good-evil, all forms of ritualized and conventional behavior. As I pranced about, club in hand, seeking new idols to smash, I encountered really for the first time in my life, with any seriousness, The Ogre, rising up before me in a mist. I discovered, with alarm, that The Ogre possessed a tremendous and dreadful power over me, and I didn't understand this power or why I was at its mercy. I tried to repudiate The Ogre, root it out of my heart as I had done God, Constitution, principles, morals, and values -- but The Ogre had its claws buried in the core of my being and refused to let go. I fought frantically to be free, but The Ogre only mocked me and sank its claws deeper into my soul. I knew then that I had found an important key, that if I conquered The Ogre and broke its power over me I would be free. But I also knew that it was a race against time and that if I did not win I would certainly be broken and destroyed. I, a black man, confronted The Ogre -- the white woman."
Continuing on page 23:
"From our discussion, which began that evening and has never yet ended, we went on to notice how thoroughly, as a matter of course, a black growing up in America is indoctrinated with the white race's standard of beauty. Not that the whites made a conscious, calculated effort to do this, we thought, but since they constituted the majority the whites brainwashed the blacks by the very processes the whites employed to indoctrinate themselves with their own group standards. It intensified my frustrations to know that I was indoctrinated to see the white woman as more beautiful and desirable than my own black woman. It drove me into books seeking light on the subject. In Richard Wright's Native Son, I found Bigger Thomas and a keen insight into the problem."
And finally, beginning on page 25:
"Somehow I arrived at the conclusion that, as a matter of principle, it was of paramount importance for me to have an antagonistic, ruthless attitude toward white women. The term outlaw appealed to me and at the time my parole date was drawing near, I considered myself to be mentally free - I was an "outlaw." I had stepped outside of the white man's law, which I repudiated with scorn and self-satisfaction. I became a law unto myself--my own legislature, my own supreme court, my own executive. At the moment I walked out of the prison gate, my feelings toward white women in general could be summed up in the following lines:
TO A WHITE GIRL
I love you Because you're white, Not because you're charming Or bright. Your whiteness Is a silky thread Snaking through my thoughts In redhot patterns Of lust and desire.
I hate you Because you're white. Your white meat Is nightmare food. White is The skin of Evil. You're my Moby Dick, White Witch, Symbol of the rope and hanging tree, Of the burning cross. Loving you thus And hating you so, My heart is torn in two. Crucified.
"I became a rapist. To refine my technique and modus operandi, I started out by practicing on black girls in the ghetto--in the black ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of a day--and when I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically--"
Clearly, blacks suffer much more than whites from the images of European beauty that are cast in front of them by the advertisers.
Here is a second example from the perspective of a black female reporter for the New York Times:
Glamour Magazine October, 1995 p. 127
Bridges:
Light skin versus dark: A painful topic many blacks would rather not confront.
By Charisse Jones
I 'll never forget the day I was supposed to meet him. We had only spoken on the phone. But we got along so well, we couldn't wait to meet face-to-face. I took the bus from my high school to his for our blind date. While I nervously waited for him outside the school, one of his buddies came along, looked me over and remarked that I was going to he a problem, because his friend didn't like dating anybody darker than himself.
When my mystery man--who was not especially good-looking-- finally saw me, he took one look, uttered a hurried hello, then disappeared with his smirking friends. I had apparently been pronounced ugly on arrival and dismissed.
That happened nearly 15 years ago. I'm 30 now, and the hurt and humiliation have long since faded. But the memory still lingers, reinforced in later years by other situations in which my skin color was judged by other African Americans--for example, at a cocktail party or a nightclub where light-skinned black women got all the attention.
A racist encounter hurts badly. But it does not equal the pain of "colorism" -- being rejected by your own people because your skin is colored cocoa and not cream, ebony and not olive. On our scale of beauty, it is often the high yellows--in the lexicon of black America; those with light skin whose looks reap the most attention. Traditionally, if someone was described that way, there was no need to say that person was good-looking. It was a given that light was lovely. It was those of us with plain brown eyes and darker skin hues who had to prove ourselves.
I was 12, and in my first year of junior high school in San Francisco, when I discovered dark brown was not supposed to be beautiful. At that age, boys suddenly became important, and so did your looks. But by that time--the late 1970s--black kids no longer believed in that sixties mantra, "Black is beautiful." Light skin, green eyes and long, wavy hair were once again synonymous with beauty.
Colorism--and its subtext of self hatred--began during slavery on plantations where white masters often favored the lighter-skinned blacks, many of whom were their own children. But though it began with whites, black people have kept colorism alive. In the past, many black sororities, fraternities and other social organizations have been notorious for accepting only light-skinned members. Yes, some blacks have criticized their lighter-skinned peers. But most often in our history, a light complexion has been a passport to special treatment by both whites and blacks.
It is hard to understand how anyone reading these words could believe that the multi-racial empire was worth its costs.
The problem is that racial affronts and racial animus against whites arise from well springs of human interaction that have little or nothing to do with the actions of whites themselves.
What could any white person do to avoid the hurt of Charisse Jones? The answer is not much, except to partition the country into separate nations.
And absent that partitioning, people who's character and moral judgment have been formed by racial anger and sexual frustration gravitate naturally toward occupations in the media, where their anger makes it much easier for them to participate in the broad attack on middle american culture and its restraints.
Eldridge Cleaver sold over 2 million copies of Soul on Ice over 20 years ago. The cultural elites have been well aware of the misery integrationism inflicts for at least several decades.
But that was 20 years ago when we were only required to imprint upon the unattainable. Today, the giant consumer brands provide us with much more powerful toxins.
May 19, 1995 Wall Street Journal B5
Advertising/by Fara Warner
More Marketers Aiming Ads at Lesbians
The magazine advertisement for Tuaca liqueur seems pretty traditional at first glance: Three trendy young women gabbing over drinks.
Then you realize the women are flirting with one another. Another advertising taboo is being shattered as Hiram Walker & Sons the distributor of Tuaca, joins a small wave of national advertisers targeting the lesbian market.
"In the last two years, there's been a much broader discussion of lesbianism," says Richard Mukamal, vice president and group category director for Hiram Walker's liqueurs. "Lesbianism has made its way into network television. It's part of a young, hip, urban demographic."
The "outing" of the lesbian market is drawing big-name advertisers such as American Express, Stolichnaya vodka, Atlantic Records and Naya bottled water to such magazines as Deneuve, Lesbian News, Girlfriends and On Our Backs which all have national distribution. In addition, Tanqueray vodka and Pierre Cardin have signed on to sponsor the television show "Freestyles," hosted by Amanda Bearse, the openly lesbian actress from the "Married ... With Children" TV series, according to the marketing publication Next News. The paid program will run this summer on cable channel VH-1 with features that appeal to both gay women and gay men.
Most marketers use general ads that simply show their products, but a few marketers are being more direct with ads like Tuaca's and one for Atlantic Records showing two women holding hands at the beach.
For years, the lesbian market was overshadowed by the more vocal and more noticeable gay male audience, which a number of advertisers considered worth pursuing. Lesbians were stereotyped as less affluent than gay men and uninterested in traditional women's products such as cologne and cosmetics.
But now some marketers are taking another look, with brands like Unilever's Calvin Klein fragrances and Vivant skincare products considering advertising to the lesbian market. They are being swayed partly by new statistics breaking out lesbians from the overall gay population. Overlooked Opinions, a Chicago-based research firm that tracks the gay market, estimates that lesbians spend about $137 billion a year and have average household incomes of $42,755.
Beyond the numbers, lesbians have greater visibility, with lesbian relationships featured in television shows such as "Friends" and movies such as "Bar Girls" and "The Incredibly True Adventure of 2 Girls in Love." Also, more women are joining celebrities such as k.d. Lang, Melissa Etheridge and Martina Navratilova in openly expressing their lesbianism.
"The market, both gay and lesbian, is one of the most highly educated and fiercely loyal audiences we have," says Vicky Germaise, senior vice president of Atlantic Records, which runs ads in Out and Genre magazines promoting lesbian artists such as Melissa Ferrick.
In addition to media, such advertisers as Seagram and Hiram Walker also are trying to reach the lesbian market through special events such as the Dinah Shore Weekend, a gathering held every March in Palm Springs. Calif., that draws about 20,000 women. The event occurs at the same time as the Nabisco-Dinah Shore golf tournament, but isn't connected to the Ladies Professional Golf Association tournament.
And as the above excerpt makes clear, the driving force behind production of these toxins is money.
And indeed, there are hints in the above quotes from the market research types that the most educated and the highest income groups are the most severely impacted by the toxins.
Reprinted from Race Bias #40, and from page 4 of the January 20, 1995 edition of the Jerusalem Post, is a more normal expression of despair in the war to reproduce. Indeed, it is clear that the dream meisters of Beverly Hills are eating their young:
A friend who lives in her own condo on the Upper West Side of Manhattan calls me. She's 39, single, a partner in a Big Eight accounting firm and inexplicitly identified as a traditional Jew. She's called to say good-bye.
It is the old story. She is quitting New York, tired of looking for a husband, tired of being rejected by persnickety Jewish men. Maybe it has something to do with their mothers or with their fathers or with their cousins from France, my friend speculates, laughing. Who cares. I'm outta here, she says. It's 1995. She has to do something radical. She is moving to India.
The idea of moving to a Third World country - to a place she says where men are still men and where a white woman who can buy her own elephant for transportation is prized - is not new. Another SJF from Manhattan who moved to India several years ago became folklore. In a small Jewish congregation in Bombay, she met her British-Jewish Hugh Grant. Today they are married and living in London. After 15 years of chasing Jewish men, my friend says her tired flesh wants a little adulation, a little lust, a little naches from having been born female. And she wants clamorous attention from thousands of men. A Jewish Benazir Bhutto, that's what she wants. So when her company decided to transfer the current managing partner in Bombay, she, to her parents' dismay, volunteered for the position.
Jewish men want what's intensely familiar to them - Eastern European food, intelligent female conversation - and what's intensely alien: extreme height, a degree of imagined carnality. (SJFs in Tel Aviv report men there favor Dutch converts for wives.)
The divorced men, according to my friend, are slightly different. They act like they've just made a jailbreak. They want a whole different model, preferably waitresses from Minnesota, science teachers from Duluth, basically any female whose never heard of Loehmann's, decorators or lawyers. They want women who, when they hear they have to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, say, "Great!"
As the sun sets over the 20th century, one of the biggest jokes, according to my friend, is that Jewish men aren't anxious to marry her: a pert, admittedly aggressive, self-made Jewish woman. She blames traditional feminists whom, she believes, devalued female sexuality without concerning themselves with cultural trespass. Traditional Jewish women, she says, who really believed they could "have it all" are paying the price. Jewish men can't handle so much firepower. They are seeking their white bread and mayonnaise elsewhere. According to my friend, it's not that Jewish men reject strong women, they just don't like the artifice unmasked. They are still earnest, programmed to work hard for home and hearth but not for peers. Only for pale, lanky types who say "great" every half-hour.
The above excerpt is consistent with the statistics. College educated black women with advanced degrees have the lowest birthrate in the nation. Second lowest is Jewish women. In both cases, they are far below replacement levels.
As Lipsett and Raab state in "Jews and the New American Scene," page 46:
The Jewish birthrate is low and declining. The completed fertility rate for Jewish women age 45-49 is 20 percent below that of Jewish women of the same age 20 years ago, almost 20 percent below that of all American white women, and 10 percent less than the level needed for population replacement.
The irony of the article on lesbian advertising is that Edgar Bronfman, chairman emeritus of Seagrams, marketer to lesbians and purveyor of the message that the lezzie lifestyle is hip, is the head of the American Jewish Committee, and like Lipset and Raab, publicly bemoans the high intermarriage rates and low birthrates of American Jews.
Well, it is Bronfman who produces the toxic waste that, to a large measure, drives young Jewish women to leave the country, and young Jewish men to seek out the genotype of the models in his ads.
And, of course, Edgar Bronfman Jr., was busy chasing every shiksa skirt in New York City 25 years ago. Now Edgar Jr. has caused Seagrams to buy 80% of MCA so that he can get into the movie business and begin producing toxic waste on a much grander scale.
Daddy has much to atone for. Sonny doesn't care.
As if to anticipate the family's new onslaught, the elder Bronfman's antidote to Seagram's cultural effluent is more "Jewish education," by which he means the segregation of young Jews so that they can imprint on one another, and to make explicit the message that the cultural toxic waste flowing from Seagrams and others is not meant for Jews. Jews are supposed to be smart enough to resist the stuff. Intermarriage is for goyim, dummies!
Reality presents much more compelling arguments for racial separation than slogans. And indeed, in the United States, minorities suffer at the hands of the integrationist state. The reason they suffer is that the integrationist state is attempting to do something that simply cannot be done.
When several races are placed in a single country they compete. That competition does not go away. Our social sciences tend to focus solely on legal relationships (like slavery) or economic relationships (such as relative income levels). But the truth is that the social sciences conceal the most significant form of competition - sexual selection. Legislation cannot stop it or the hurt it engenders. In fact, the well-springs of racial feeling run so deep that they can never be eradicated. It is foolish to try.
In the struggle for sexual survival, educated Blacks and Jews are losing in the United States. But in all honesty, if Euro- Americans are experiencing the "thrill of victory" in this area, I would hate to experience "the agony of defeat." As with so many aspects of life in the Multi-Racial Empire, we are all losing, it is just that European-Americans are losing at a less rapid rate in this one particular arena.
If this seems paradoxical, I would suggest that it is one more illustration of the powerful self-destructive impulse that the Multi-racial empire stirs up in minorities. (See Yggdrasil's Lesson #9.) The need to attack Euro-Americans is so overpowering that the attackers pay scant attention to the casualties from within their own ranks.
From the economic perspective of the purveyors of our popular culture, the ideal would be for all of us to become totally self- absorbed, have no children, spend all of our income on impulse and status related purchases, and then die off in a single generation, to be replaced entirely by new immigrants.
Our advertisers are equal opportunity exterminationists. They could care less who gets destroyed by their wares. They bestow quotas on minorities in the hope that minorities will think the system fair and refrain from direct challenges to the great herds of freeway commuting Euro-Americans. If the Euro-American middle class were to feel racially threatened, they might become distracted from the urgent business of getting and spending. Heaven forfend!
And as luck would have it, the agony of Erocide produces many talented volunteers willing to attack the Euro-American middle class and mold their moral sentiments in such a way that any defensive racial response becomes impossible. After all, we cannot let racial identity keep us from shopping till we drop!
In several earlier posts, I have argued with Milton Kleim that if by "National Socialism" he means government control of the economy, 1930's style National Socialism makes no sense for Euro- America in its present circumstance. Economic freedom has been the primary offensive weapon of Western Civilization. Shackling our economic power with the dead hand of bureaucracy is a prescription for our collective defeat.
If, on the other hand, "National Socialism" means some form of public dampening of the cultural toxins that advertisers spread to encourage the self-absorbed lifestyles that lead to evolutionary failure, then Milton Kleim seems to have a valid point.
Even if the sphere of activity of such a government were confined to public exposure of the toxic waste, as opposed to its outright repression, such a government would need a will and a ferocity to resist the organized special interests and their frustrated, angry minions that could only be described as "heroic." But let me suggest that government power gives us no magic bullet for Euro-American survival. The truth is that Euro-American survival depends upon our behavior as individuals and as part of a group. At this point, it has very little to do with who is elected to the next Congress.
In Yggdrasil's lesson 10, I asked that all of you cut your cable TV subscription.
We must minimize our exposure to advertising and its media. As outlined earlier in this post, advertising has the primary purpose of making us unhappy with our lot and leading us to believe that an irrational purchase might help. One of its primary tools is sexual frustration. It causes us to imprint upon largely unattainable images.
Second, advertising is the vehicle that brings us cultural messages designed to weaken our motivation to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our own kind. After all, why would one wish to go through all the work of having children when they will just be "white bread" or "wimpy white guys" or "barbie and ken dolls" or one of any number of other epithets served up to us in word and picture by the dream meisters of Beverly Hills.
We are all much better off if our kids learn to interact with real people rather than watching TV all the time.
Further, once several million of us cut off the cable, it creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to create new media and a new cultural message to communicate to us.
But more important, by isolating ourselves from the commercial media, we can begin to overcome the many pathologies that limit us in our everyday lives.
Most relevant for you college students are those cultural pathologies that make finding a mate much more difficult than it should be. Let's list a few examples:
Young men (and women) often select mates for "status" reasons rather than on how well they get along together. Young men and women carry around images and ideals of the perfect mate (crafted in large part by the media) that are often destructive.
First, high status females are hard to find. Women with IQs above 130 constitute only 2% of the female population. If you restrict yourself to that group, you will have very few examples to pick from and you are likely to end up with a compromise that requires more than the normal amount of endurance to live with.
Second, females with IQs above 130 mature much more slowly than the general population. Thus, they tend to have greater hangups about their physical attractiveness. They are much more susceptible to feminist ideology as a universalized and institutionalized excuse for their own self-imposed sexual failures.
Third are the crippling effects of prosperity. Most high status females spend 10 to 12 years perfecting the manipulative behaviors that enable them to avoid doing the dishes and cleaning their rooms. There are limits to how much nagging mom is willing to do; and dad will not resort to violence or severe economic coercion. The bottom line is that the young princesses have become expert in turning mom and dad into maid service.
And of course, having children means doing lots of dishes and other lowly chores. It may seem shocking, but the abysmally low birthrate of college educated women has almost nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with avoiding maid service. After training for 12 years to handle mom and dad, don't be surprised if she has the same thing in mind for you.
This deep and irrational status aversion to doing chores not only has personal consequences (low birthrates) but has enormous secondary economic and political consequences as well. It means that much of the economic value of household tasks is moved from the untaxed self-help economy to the transaction economy where it yields tax revenue that strengthens our oppressive government. To avoid untaxed household work, the career woman gets a job and gives up 40% of her wage in taxes just to spend the remainder to buy fast food every night (rewarding those high advertising budgets) and to hire day care and maid service, which, in turn generates more tax revenue.
From the perspective of a successful male, eating pizza and McDonalds hamburgers every night (it is surprisingly expensive) hardly seems like much of a reward for a successful business career.
The second career is not the problem. Rather, it is the inevitable irrational spending and the irrationality of the lifestyle that follows.
For you young Lotharios who want to take on the challenge of having a family with the "high status" female college graduate, the Ole Ygg says "go for it!" Just don't allow yourself to be surprised at the agenda you may face the day after the wedding if you fail to work these issues out in advance. If her agenda is the same as the agenda of the society around her, then it ain't likely to have anything to do with personal sacrifice or the survival of the Euro-American race.
If the Ole Ygg has one piece of advice, it is to ignore your own status perceptions and concentrate on finding a mate who delights your aesthetic senses. If she is smart enough to communicate well with you, she is smart enough to have your children.
The truth is that our status yearnings have been thoroughly manipulated by the media in ways that make it more and more difficult for Euro-Americans to get along and reproduce. These status images have become unreliable. Shed them.
For all the media talk about sexual freedom and liberation, our popular culture makes an unmistakable statement. The status of a woman can be measured by how often she says "no." The women with the greatest status are the ones who have sex the least often and with the fewest partners.
The image applies across the board from Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton to the young starlets on the TV series 90210.
I will never forget the stunning episode of 90210 in which Shannon Doherty's character (Brenda) loses her virginity to Luke Perry's character (Dillon) the night of the prom. The day after the big event, Doherty's character breaks off the relationship complaining that she didn't know whether she enjoyed it. I watched this episode in amazement, wondering what sort of extra bonus they had to pay Luke Perry to play along with this insult to his masculinity and to pretend that he wanted the ice princess back. It was impossible to suspend my disbelief.
In truth, the images produced by the mass media are profoundly hostile to heterosexual sex. In Hollywood, frigidity among heterosexual females is the expected norm. Sexual failure is the expected norm. It is no accident that the real heroine of 90210 was the producer's daughter, Tori Spelling, who managed to say "no" to everyone in every episode. She never made anyone happy!
These messages have an effect.
They give broad license to the status ranking among the herds of suburban PTA moms. Being 40 pounds overweight is the irrefutable symbol of arrival at the exhaulted position of having to please no one. Pity the poor divorced woman who has to lose 30 pounds to find a new husband, or the slender model types who are so insecure about their place in society that they must maintain their sexual prowess and skills. Low status work indeed!
In truth folks, all human societies seek to control reproduction of their members. Our modern American society is no exception.
What is surprising is that Hollywood had so little difficulty wresting control from the priesthood. But once the priesthood was replaced, it was no surprise that Hollywood satisfied the market demand for sexual expression with fare that avoids any suggestion of a joyous link between sex, rewarding relationships and procreation. And indeed, the images it sells are uniformly of sexual frustration and failure.
The Ole Ygg is always bemused by the protests against pornography orchestrated by the religious right. If you have a teenage boy, you had better watch a few of these films, because your teenage son certainly will. The stuff is all over the place. And when you do watch a few of these movies, it becomes obvious that the sexual message is exactly the same as the sexual message of 90210. It is only the explicit acrobatics that are different. The message of the porn flicks is that even women who habitually say "yes" are at best frigid, but more likely lesbians, and that men are better off withdrawing from it all and masturbating.
Seldom ever do porn movies portray normal heterosexual intercourse that ends in a happy conclusion for both parties.
It is just more of the same toxic waste with the same message.
I see no reason to treat pornography more harshly than Network television. The messages are indistinguishable.
No matter what your station in life, whether it is a teenager trying to build your own sexual identity, a young adult trying to find a mate, or an older adult trying to raise children, you face a formidable challenge.
The first step in coping with that challenge is to stop the flow of poison into your home. Cut the cable TV subscription. Then, seek out sources of culture that assist in our collective survival.
Gents, if you have daughters, you are going to have to do the dishes with them occasionally, and convey the message that household chores are meaningful activities that you care about doing right. More than mere convenience is at stake here.
The typical middle class father will push his daughter to become "independent" and a "career woman" so that he will not have to support her. Thus, the real, unspoken message to middle class girls is that no young male is likely to want to support her for the value of her companionship. Children listen to deeds, not words, and the real message that the typical middle class male communicates to his daughter is that no young man can be trusted to want her for any considerable period of time.
As counter-intuitive as this might be for a father, you are going to have to make clear to your daughters that you admire and respect the women that have the most sex (and the most offspring) and not those that have the least. This principle applies whether you raise your family in the Christian tradition of glorifying sex by saving it for marriage, or (most likely by default rather than by design) in a more instinctive and pagan tradition in which sex is glorified for its power to unify and continue the tribe.
To your sons, you are going to have to make clear the enlightened self-interest motivating the chivalry of Gismond in Robert Browning's classic poem, "Count Gismond."
These issues are not new.
Gentlemen, rebellion against our tormentors may come in time. But first we must strengthen ourselves and reconstruct our personal and cultural defenses.
We have not arrived at this pass through conquest, but through our own divisions and our own weakness.
Yggdrasil-
© 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.
2003-05-12 02:50 | User Profile
**It intensified my frustrations to know that I was indoctrinated to see the white woman as more beautiful and desirable than my own black woman.
---Eldrige Cleaver feeling sorry for himself prior to raping white women**
Indoctrinationhas nothing to do with it.
2003-05-12 18:54 | User Profile
**
Forget about the veil...let's just force all women to convert to Hinduism..that'll solve the problem!!
**
RBAN, how shallow of you. It might solve the problem as far as YOUR concerned. But most of us, I think, don't want our women's breath to smell of cow dung.
Sheesh, your so culturally insensitive.
2003-05-12 19:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@May 8 2003, 11:35 ** > Originally posted by il ragno@May 8 2003, 02:43 **
And why on Earth would a 300-lb mesomorph wash down his or her Doritos with Diet Pepsi? **
Do you know how many fat people I've seen who will eat the same fattening, junk food as I do and yet drink it with a diet soft drink?? They might as well drink the regular kind. That will never lose them any weight. **
I can confirm this--I've seen the "gravitically challenged" indulge in all kinds of foods they shouldn't, and it seems that as long as they have the "diet soda" handy, they think it will somehow "ward off" the additional poundage.
I think "diet foods" encourage abuse, since the label makes people feel safe so they really go overboard with it. I read once that the key to this kind of thing is "portion control." Americans haven't figured that out, by and large. Nor do restaurants help much, since they attract customers by offering huge portions.
2003-05-12 19:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 8 2003, 09:36 ** Hate to disappoint anyone, but I think Makow's a nut, more or less. I get the feeling, reading him, that he came home early from work one day and got the shock of his life. **
By this, I assume you mean he found his wife in bed with someone else?
If so, that could very well be. That kind of thing tends to wake men up to the abuses women are capable of. At the same time, those sorts of explanations for anti-feminism seem a bit charged, since it's too easy for pro-feminists to say that there's no intellectual reason behind the anti-feminist position, but just personal sour grapes.
2003-05-12 20:14 | User Profile
I think "diet foods" encourage abuse, since the label makes people feel safe so they really go overboard with it. I read once that the key to this kind of thing is "portion control." Americans haven't figured that out, by and large. Nor do restaurants help much, since they attract customers by offering huge portions.
Diet foods are often loaded with sugars and carbs to make up for the taste loss by getting rid of the evil "fat". Unfortunately, sugars and carbs make you fatter than... fat. It also takes a larger portion of carbs to make you full than fatty animal protein.
I think it's funny that both Americans who try to lose weight and Sumo wrestlers who are trying to pack on pounds both reach for rice and other low-fat but high carb foods. Well, we can see who's diet is successful for their goals :lol: