THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Wednesday 28 February 2018
Tuesday 27 February 2018
If you live in Reading and are appalled at the way modern religious leaders condone sodomy and other sexual offences, please be there to stand up for your religious principles
https://www.facebook.com/ZviSolomons/posts/10155168481996406?comment_id=10155173099976406&reply_comment_id=10155177483881406¬if_id=1519728081400529¬if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif
Please do have a look at the arguments for and against being accommodating towards those the Bible and the Koran would regard as sex offenders. This rigged debate will only have one outcome: more legitimacy for sex offenders and the marginalisation of those who wish to defend marriage and restore patriarchy. Why is an Orthodox Rabbi participating in this disgraceful exercise of diluting the principles of Judaism and being accommodating to unashamed sodomites scripture would treat as sex offenders who worship themselves? Is he under duress? Do all Jews, however Orthodox, feel they have to assimilate into the degenerate culture of sexual liberation? Should Jews apologise to gentiles for not being fit for the purpose of reminding gentiles of the Seven Noahide laws, or should gentiles apologise to Jews for having utterly corrupted the morals of Jews?
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/reading-lgbt-debate-is-there-a-space-for-lgbt-in-religion-tickets-42219406381
http://www.readinglgbt.co.uk/?event=reading-lgbt-debate-is-there-a-space-for-lgbt-in-religion
27/02/2018
7:00 pm - 10:00 pm
On the evening, the front doors to the Council may be closed, please use the buzzer to the left of the door and inform security that you are attending the debate in the Mayors Parlour.
Civic Offices
Bridge Street
Reading
RG1 2LU
Wednesday 21 February 2018
Racial superiority rests on following your religious principles after choosing the right religion
If asked whether your race or religion is more important to you, how would you answer? Only if you are an observant Jew could you honestly answer that both are logically and necessarily equally important.— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) February 28, 2018
What bemuses me about white supremacists about their racial superiority is their inability to go with the logic of racial superiority. The following questions should occur to the thinking racist:
1) If racial superiority exists, does it really only rest on the colour of one's skin?
2) If racial superiority is not just about the colour of one's skin, does it rest on military, social, economic, political and moral superiority?
3) If racial superiority rests on military superiority, then racial superiority rests on science and technology upon which perceived social, economic and political and moral superiority rests.
4) The question of how military superiority is gained must be asked. It seems to me that this was kick-started by the Industrial Revolution which was all about selling stuff everyone round the world wanted to buy, and how to make them most profitably and cheaply, which was what science and technology was all about. Obviously, with all the SSMs (Slut Single Mothers) and variously fathered and badly parented illegitimate offspring that state schools have to take, you cannot expect this tradition to be kept up, particularly when one of the two parties of government refuse to countenance selective education, and this hurts the working classes by depriving them of the opportunity to better themselves.
5) It is your culture that enables you to maintain your military superiority. The Pyrrhic victories of WW1 and WW2 over Germany only sent the British into a tailspin of social unrest. After WW1 there was the General Strike of 1925, when the working classes felt they had died like flies in the Great War for nothing very much. Mosley's attempt to correct the situation failed, because what he wanted to do was correct the political system itself, proposing to abolish the Upper House and replacing it with Fascist Corporatism and a pruned Lower House. Instead of being more careful about whom they went to war with, the British thought they would finish the job with Germany in WW2. Again, they failed, but this time decided to let their hair down and everything hang out with their welfare state and their swinging. This accelerated their degeneracy and explains how they have got to the pretty pass of white men now being helpless against a Muslim invasion and their women totally out of control and hating them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists#Character
The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups—a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, "less factionist" democracy.
Am I alone in thinking that on the whole Mosley's proposals for reform seem sensible enough?
6) Culture is really the practices that the law allows, and the law is a reflection of whatever the current political orthodoxy - a mixture of religion and political tradition - permits. So now we approach again my pet theory, which is that Christianity has failed. Christianity has obviously failed because it has not protected the foolish British from their avoidable folly of following their ridiculous liberalism and the brain-numbing stupidity of their idolatrous Christianity. All the things they could have done to avoid the folly of declaring two World Wars on Germany would have been prevented by Islam as well as the post-war self-indulgence of not parenting their children properly and sinking into a culture of wine, women and song leading to the progressive (pun intended) enfeeblement of mind, body and spirit.
Returning to the subject of racial superiority, it does appear that racial superiority is only military superiority and military superiority is obtained by the happenstance of history eg the Industrial Revolution, an unplanned population explosion, and geopolitics. It is obvious that racial superiority is not permanent and relies on the rules one practices in one's racial group. Even Hitler did not assume that the Germans were so superior and perfect that they need do nothing more other than to marinate in their racial superiority. Indeed, he could be said to be urging Germans to strive and fight in order to become superior or perhaps just as good as the British. He was probably content with being just as good with what everyone thought were the masters of the universe of the time, the British.
Assuming that you are a racist who believes in the concept of racial superiority, the next question is to ask yourself must be "Who is the most racially superior race of all?" The Romans were once racially superior because they were militarily superior, but when they declined they eventually lost their culture of producing soldiers to conquer other lands, and lost the taste for conquest, sinking into decadence, wine, women and song. Why, a Roman emperor even changed his religion in an attempt to arrest decline. In the end, Rome was sacked, and the Roman Empire is no more. You cannot be racially superior to anyone if you no longer even exist.
Who, then, is racially superior? Not the Europeans in the great scheme of things, I'm afraid, simply because military superiority does not last forever, as I have easily demonstrated with the Romans, if you do not inculcate a culture, political system or maintain a religion that perpetuates it. You may technically be at the top of the tree, but you may just fall off if you suffer a dizzy spell it even if no one pulls you off.
To be racially superior one has to satisfy the condition of being in existence and of at the very least holding territory. Racial superiority does not necessarily rest on numbers, but numbers help if you are in the business of acquiring more territory. Israeli Zionist Jews are insisting that they have no imperial ambitions and simply want to live in Israel in peace. The Chinese already have enough on their plate and have for centuries been sucking their pencils on the question of their proper relationship with the rest of the world.
The top dogs of racial superiority are Jews and Chinese, simply because they have been around so long. I would award the top prize to the Jews, because they at least have bothered to write things down properly in their scripture and had a head start. Unlike the Chinese, Jews also had the perspicacity to attribute their survival to their God, to stop themselves from becoming too big-headed.
According to the Chinese calendar it is the year 4715. According to the Hebrew calendar it is the year 5778.
Now that we know that Jews are racially superior, we have to ask ourselves why they are racially superior. Clearly, it is their religion. Clearly, their religion is so obviously superior that two of the most famous attempts to adapt Judaism for gentiles are universally acknowledged to be Christianity and Islam. Christianity is now kaput, so the next religion of the West has to be Islam. It is really as a simple as an arithmetical problem. You have 3. You take 2 away and have 1 left. The one left is Islam, and the answer is the answer even if you don't like it.
My hypothesis can even be mathematically proven if we can agree that what made Britain great was the fact that it was the first nation in the world to have a world empire.
How did they lose their empire? The most proximate cause was WW2. It has been said by A J P Taylor that WW2 was a continuation of WW1. Why did the British declare war on Germany in WW1? Because the Liberal PM Asquith thought a short successful war would make him more likely to win the General Election of 1915. Imagine, losing your world empire because the Liberal Party wanted to win an election that was subsequently cancelled! You would have thought that the British by now would have realised their error or could have accepted Mosley's attempt to correct it, but what their political leaders lacked in wisdom was equalled and exceeded by their stubborn pride and chauvinism.
It is easily provable that the great upheavals suffered by the British would have been easily avoided if they had been Muslim and followed the Koran. The Koran only allows defensive wars and neither WW1 nor WW2 could by any stretch of the imagination be called defensive. British foreign policy was impelled primarily by a dog in the manger attitude towards Germany because it saw Germany as a rival and a threat. It is the equivalent of a foolish Monopoly player buying up properties he didn't want just to prevent his opponent from completing his set and bankrupting himself in the process and not being able to make the most of any opportunities he landed on, because he was mortgaged to the hilt.
Now they are the poodle of Uncle Sam and remain a vassal state of the EU, with approximately half its citizens begging to retain this status and its male MPs too terrified to question the parasitic nature of feminism for fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence. How are the mighty fallen.
www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-permissible-fight-islam-383824313
What is the sex of the Prime Minister?
What is the sex of the Home Secretary?
What is the sex of the Commissioner of Police?
What is the sex of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
What is the sex of the Chairman of the Bar Council?
What is the sex of the Director General of the CBI?
Is the Archbishop of Canterbury a bastard?
Has Peter Hitchens called himself a feminist?
Is Roger Scruton, the Conservative Philosopher, too afraid of his wife to challenge feminism?
Is Philip Davies MP, who used to challenge feminism too afraid to continuing doing so now because the feminazis have got him by the goolies?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/why-no-western-man-will-fight-feminism.html
Why does the Mail pay Peter Hitchens to sneer at British Conservatism?
Why Feminist Peter Hitchens is all talk and no trousers
Roger Scruton fails to denounce feminism again
Roger Scruton the Conservative philosopher evasive and prevaricating on feminism
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
What is the very least your religion should be doing?
Supporting marriage and the family.
This is what all the five world religions have in common.
Oh, and telling the truth, behaving honourably so men can co-operate with each other to defeat the internal and external enemies of their nation.
The eternal enemies of society and civilisation are sluts and socialists.
Patriarchy must therefore be regarded as the foundation of all civilisations. When your national religion no longer sanctifies marriage, it must be regarded as having failed.
How do you know when your religion no longer sanctifies marriage?
When your society is no longer a patriarchy.
How do you know when your society is no longer a patriarchy?
When your government no longer prioritises the preferences of married fathers and instead panders to the female voter which means it has become a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who are the bad parents of their illegitimate children who will not grow into productive citizens but become the adult criminals of the future.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/six-in-ten-northern-ireland-babies-are-now-born-outside-wedlock-31550726.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/births-outside-wedlock-at-new-high-28608539.html
https://www.facebook.com/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times-417696111659379/
http://old.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060416/focus/focus3.html
No other country has over 85 per cent of babies born to unmarried mothers and over 50 per cent without registered fathers. No other country routinely discusses parenthood in such relationship neutral terms as 'baby father' and 'baby mother'. No other country so readily accepts absent fatherhood or brings up children so carelessly. And no other country not at war has such a high murder rate.
Prostitution in a patriarchy and matriarchy
In a patriarchy, the supply of sex to heterosexual men are supposed to be wives and prostitutes, with the fornicating slut marginalised. The high end of the sex market is wives, the low end of the sex market is prostitutes, because men of the world know that men who cannot find someone to marry them have to make do with prostitutes, because in a patriarchy women would know that to have sex with a man not your husband would be a sexual offence or at the very least bring ruin to her reputation.
In a matriarchy, the main supplier of sex to heterosexual men are fornicating sluts with prostitutes the most marginalised and wives most cheated on. This the matriarchy necessarily has to do to keep men quiescent in a society that prioritises the preferences of the unmarried mother and her illegitimate offspring. The bargain struck with the fornicating slut is basically dishonest, because she pretends it is free but at heart expects or hopes for marriage to be the final outcome. Think of it is being repeatedly given free introductory offers loaded with hidden charges if you break the unwritten rules of transaction eg having to pay for illegitimate offspring you never intended to sire, being accused of regret rape.
Put it this way: patriarchy is transparent, matriarchy is opaque. Patriarchy is transparent because men like the rules to be clear, matriarchy is opaque because ambiguity is the weapon of the uncertain, indecisive, emotional, subjective and capricious.
It would be the easiest thing in the world to make even the women of the meanest intelligence understand that she is not to have sex with any man until she is married to him.
In a matriarchy, the main supplier of sex to heterosexual men are fornicating sluts with prostitutes the most marginalised and wives most cheated on. This the matriarchy necessarily has to do to keep men quiescent in a society that prioritises the preferences of the unmarried mother and her illegitimate offspring. The bargain struck with the fornicating slut is basically dishonest, because she pretends it is free but at heart expects or hopes for marriage to be the final outcome. Think of it is being repeatedly given free introductory offers loaded with hidden charges if you break the unwritten rules of transaction eg having to pay for illegitimate offspring you never intended to sire, being accused of regret rape.
Put it this way: patriarchy is transparent, matriarchy is opaque. Patriarchy is transparent because men like the rules to be clear, matriarchy is opaque because ambiguity is the weapon of the uncertain, indecisive, emotional, subjective and capricious.
It would be the easiest thing in the world to make even the women of the meanest intelligence understand that she is not to have sex with any man until she is married to him.
Monday 19 February 2018
Simon Sheppard says our justice system is now feminine and men should now be very very afraid
How women are now in the key positions of state. Few women have a developed sense of justice, even those in the legal profession.
Theresa May is our female Prime Minister, Amber Rudd is our female Home Secretary, Alison Saunders is our female Director of Public Prosecutions, Chantal Aimee Doerries is Madam Chairman of the Bar Council
Middle class men are too afraid to challenge feminism because they are afraid of being accused of a historic sexual offence or of their wives divorcing them and then taking half their stuff and depriving them of their children.
Philip Davies MP who used to make a stand against feminism is now too cucked and afraid to challenge feminism. Can anyone tell me when it was he last made an anti-feminist comment? You can be sure that the feminazi MPs have put the frighteners on him. He also knows that there is no such thing as male solidarity amongst male Tory MPs so if the feminazis get him, there will no masculine call to rally to his aid. Atomised Western men are invariably atheist, unprincipled and cannot think beyond the next election or sexual encounter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3736022/Tory-MP-slams-militant-feminists-men-pander-nonsense.html
Roger Scruton, Conservative philosopher, is now so old and doddery that he must know that his wife will soon be his nurse so he will understandably refrain from criticising feminism for the sake of domestic harmony. He has already told me his views on feminism is exactly that of Christina Hoff Sommers', no more and no less. (It is a bit like an anti-Semite saying exactly 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, no more and no less, wouldn't you say?) He also has a son to put through Eton, that school for unprincipled public school cucks. Don't expect him to risk any of that on your behalf, O Oppressed Men of the Matriarchy! Old men lose their testosterone and become old women, afraid to say too much in case their teeth fall out, or if saying anything should make their nurse angry at them and treat them roughly.
Isn't it a delicious irony that I, a female and a foreigner, should presume to care more about oppressed white men oppressed by feminism who are not my father, husband nor son? It must be because I am that rare female with a sense of justice, I suppose. It is probably because I was not born here and had part of my education abroad that made me retain some kind of decency, principle and fighting spirit, for which I only have my parents to thank. I like to think of myself as the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, doing it only because there is no one else around to do it.
https://drboli.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/the-little-dutch-boy-who-saved-holland/
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-scruton-conservative-philosopher.html
Peter Hitchens: "I'm a feminist, of course I am!"
http://www.radioaryan.com/2018/02/the-daily-nationalist-standing-up-to.html
According to Simon, the subliminal message being promoted by the liberal media is that it is OK for justice to be withheld from people you dislike and even hurt and kill them, especially if you think they are racists.
Will the West go the way of the Qing Dynasty during the Boxer Rebellion if its massive matriarchal mistakes remain uncorrected?
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/my-afternoon-in-york-with-simon.html
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=8
Theresa May is our female Prime Minister, Amber Rudd is our female Home Secretary, Alison Saunders is our female Director of Public Prosecutions, Chantal Aimee Doerries is Madam Chairman of the Bar Council
Middle class men are too afraid to challenge feminism because they are afraid of being accused of a historic sexual offence or of their wives divorcing them and then taking half their stuff and depriving them of their children.
Philip Davies MP who used to make a stand against feminism is now too cucked and afraid to challenge feminism. Can anyone tell me when it was he last made an anti-feminist comment? You can be sure that the feminazi MPs have put the frighteners on him. He also knows that there is no such thing as male solidarity amongst male Tory MPs so if the feminazis get him, there will no masculine call to rally to his aid. Atomised Western men are invariably atheist, unprincipled and cannot think beyond the next election or sexual encounter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3736022/Tory-MP-slams-militant-feminists-men-pander-nonsense.html
Roger Scruton, Conservative philosopher, is now so old and doddery that he must know that his wife will soon be his nurse so he will understandably refrain from criticising feminism for the sake of domestic harmony. He has already told me his views on feminism is exactly that of Christina Hoff Sommers', no more and no less. (It is a bit like an anti-Semite saying exactly 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, no more and no less, wouldn't you say?) He also has a son to put through Eton, that school for unprincipled public school cucks. Don't expect him to risk any of that on your behalf, O Oppressed Men of the Matriarchy! Old men lose their testosterone and become old women, afraid to say too much in case their teeth fall out, or if saying anything should make their nurse angry at them and treat them roughly.
Isn't it a delicious irony that I, a female and a foreigner, should presume to care more about oppressed white men oppressed by feminism who are not my father, husband nor son? It must be because I am that rare female with a sense of justice, I suppose. It is probably because I was not born here and had part of my education abroad that made me retain some kind of decency, principle and fighting spirit, for which I only have my parents to thank. I like to think of myself as the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, doing it only because there is no one else around to do it.
https://drboli.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/the-little-dutch-boy-who-saved-holland/
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-scruton-conservative-philosopher.html
Peter Hitchens: "I'm a feminist, of course I am!"
http://www.radioaryan.com/2018/02/the-daily-nationalist-standing-up-to.html
Simon Sheppard in York Crown Court on 22 February 2018 at 9:30 over the right of the indigenous white male to use the N word without being punished when he has committed no public order offence.https://t.co/Ow6oFwhZyy— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
According to Simon, the subliminal message being promoted by the liberal media is that it is OK for justice to be withheld from people you dislike and even hurt and kill them, especially if you think they are racists.
Will the West go the way of the Qing Dynasty during the Boxer Rebellion if its massive matriarchal mistakes remain uncorrected?
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/my-afternoon-in-york-with-simon.html
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=8
O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.
Will the West go the way of the Qing Dynasty during the Boxer Rebellion if its massive matriarchal mistakes remain uncorrected?
Alan Dershowitz explains the O J Simpson criminal and civil action. https://t.co/pfOXRp3eJU— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Alan Dershowitz explains the operation of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and how this standard of proof in the common law system means that the guilty are by definition more likely to escape justice than in a system that only requires guilt on the balance of probabilities. https://t.co/pfOXRp3eJU— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Alan Dershowitz tells us of how he has lost 7 pounds through the Trump Diet, because his liberal friends no longer invite him to dinner because of his support for President Trump. https://t.co/pfOXRp3eJU— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Alan Dershowitz: "When you are in front of a jury, it is not so different to when you are in front of the voters." The day before he is due to speak to a jury, he tries to get into their minds by going on social media and watching TV shows he would not ordinarily watch. https://t.co/pfOXRp3eJU— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Alan Dershowitz: The free speech of Nazis must be defended, otherwise the free speech of Martin Luther King will not be defended. https://t.co/pfOXRp3eJU— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Alan Dershowitz: The free speech of Nazis must be defended, otherwise the free speech of Martin Luther King will not be defended. https://t.co/pfOXRp3eJU— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Alan Dershowitz: "We shouldn't be prosecuting people like Trump or Netanyahu on matters of degree. The law should be crystal clear. The law should so clear you should be able to read it and understand it while still running." https://t.co/pfOXRp3eJU— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
The Koran is crystal clear on so many things. The New Testament is a mess of vague platitudes and weird extremist stories. If Christianity has failed, it is not really not hard to see why. As for the Old Testament, it is for Jews only and many Jews find Judaism too uncomfortably high-maintenance to remain Jews. It certainly appears that Islam will be the more successful attempt at adapting Judaism for gentiles. What remains now is to convince enough good strong men of influence capable of getting things done - and they won't necessarily be part of the political establishment whose pool of talent is currently so small and shallow - that the political system and religion of the West needs to be changed, otherwise, there will be trouble ahead.
The Boxer RebellionDo you think the West might suffer the equivalent of the Taiping rebellion if its decline is not managed competently? It was a 14 year civil war in which 20 million died. https://t.co/iyaFMRYEdY— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Simon Sheppard says our justice system is now feminine
Men *must* win the battle of the sexes for the sake of their civilisation
Spree Killers: The Forefront of Knowledge Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer
Simon Sheppard, political activist, in court again over the right to use certain words as an indigenous white male https://t.co/SXJysOQ1Q6— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
https://quran.com/24/2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
Saturday 17 February 2018
Mass Shootings are caused by Radical Feminism & Single Mothers
Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer
Simon Sheppard, political activist, in court again over the right to use certain words as an indigenous white male https://t.co/SXJysOQ1Q6— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Thursday 15 February 2018
The cucks of America
Are Canadians twice as cucked as Americans? Are the British three times more cucked than Americans? Quite a thought! #feminism #matriarchy https://t.co/LcCFbgRh0L— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
"Americans are nearly twice as likely as Canadians to say abortion should not be permitted at all. We are three times more likely than the British to say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases."https://t.co/3FWH3OXP3t— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018
Cucks will give up their guns without protest and America is full of cucks now. Leaderless beta males are really just women with penis extensions. In other words, they might as well be cattle being led to the slaughterhouse, hurried along with cattle prods. That is probably why American women are madly signalling for migrant Muslim men to enter America and themselves so they can exterminate the cucked white American men on their behalves.
Who is a cuck?
A man who sees the harm the stinking matriarchy is doing to them, their society, nation and civilisation yet refuses to put two and two together and challenge feminism by discussing my proposal to practice slut-shaming again. These tend to be atheist men who are not fathers of legitimate children who don't care what happens after they are dead. They won't fight back because they don't dare and don't want the inconvenience and risk of a fight. Also, they think what remains of Western civilisation will last till their lifetimes. They think that by the time the shit really hits the fan they will be long gone. If they have any children at all, they are probably illegitimate. If they are not illegitimate, they would be estranged from them having lost contact with them after being divorced by their mother under the rules of no fault divorce and deprived of access to their children. If they are still married and living with their mother, their children are probably such ill-bred disappointments they don't care what happens to them and only expect worse-bred illegitimate grandchildren from their sons and daughters.
Cucks are basically moral nihilists incapable of either leading other men or being loyal followers of any alpha male who takes on the burden of leading them. What alpha male other than Donald Trump would risk his status and privileges by standing up for the beta male victims of feminism who are infamous for their degeneracy, treachery and shiftlessness? Is there anyone to replace him after he has come and gone? Is Trump the dead cat bounce of Western civilisation?
Wednesday 14 February 2018
Tuesday 13 February 2018
Why nationalism is impossible without patriarchal moral values
Morality comes from religion. Morality is about obtaining group solidarity. British men cannot cooperate because their lack of male solidarity makes it impossible for them to cooperate with each other to solve problems.
They lack male solidarity because Christianity has failed.
Once they realise they cannot cooperate with each other to solve problems they will pretend the problem cannot be solved and ignore obvious solutions because they have lost the will to fight. Once they reach this conclusion, they will deny truth and the operation of logic and morality. That is why no senior male politician will be criticise feminism and leave it to little Philip Davies MP - the only MP in Britain who once dared speak up against feminism - who is now too scared to say or do anything, for fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence.
Feminism operates by bribing men with extramarital sex until they are hooked on it and then accusing them of sexual misconduct.
Being atomised and lacking trust in God or self-belief, they do not think they can individually or collectively do anything to fight the oppression of the matriarchy and feel they can only lie low.
Lacking in male solidarity, they do not trust anyone.
Lacking in inter-generational concern for one another, the elder, wiser and more experienced do not see it as their job's worth to advise and warn the younger. Lacking in respect for the elderly, the young are not disposed to listen to the older generation.
And this is why nationalism will never get off the ground in the West once Trump has come and gone, because he is not going to live forever, is he? How many billionaires are likely to want to give him up their peace of mind and leisure to deal with the burdens of office for the ungrateful, disloyal, unreliable and hateful?
They lack male solidarity because Christianity has failed.
Once they realise they cannot cooperate with each other to solve problems they will pretend the problem cannot be solved and ignore obvious solutions because they have lost the will to fight. Once they reach this conclusion, they will deny truth and the operation of logic and morality. That is why no senior male politician will be criticise feminism and leave it to little Philip Davies MP - the only MP in Britain who once dared speak up against feminism - who is now too scared to say or do anything, for fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence.
Feminism operates by bribing men with extramarital sex until they are hooked on it and then accusing them of sexual misconduct.
Being atomised and lacking trust in God or self-belief, they do not think they can individually or collectively do anything to fight the oppression of the matriarchy and feel they can only lie low.
Lacking in male solidarity, they do not trust anyone.
Lacking in inter-generational concern for one another, the elder, wiser and more experienced do not see it as their job's worth to advise and warn the younger. Lacking in respect for the elderly, the young are not disposed to listen to the older generation.
And this is why nationalism will never get off the ground in the West once Trump has come and gone, because he is not going to live forever, is he? How many billionaires are likely to want to give him up their peace of mind and leisure to deal with the burdens of office for the ungrateful, disloyal, unreliable and hateful?
Wednesday 7 February 2018
Tuesday 6 February 2018
Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury used to be the conscience of the English monarch, Rabbi Sacks is now the conscience of Western leaders
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/henryv_1_2.html
Henry V to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/britains-former-chief-rabbi-behind-pences-biblical-knesset-address/
http://rabbisacks.org/rabbi-sacks-receives-irving-kristol-award-american-enterprise-institute/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/09/american-think-tanks-hired-purveyors-fake-news/
http://rabbisacks.org/rabbi-sacks-national-prayer-breakfast/
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/david-cameron-thanks-lord-sacks-for-middle-east-peace-efforts-1.44156
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/423369/You-have-let-down-families-Chief-Rabbi-tells-David-Cameron
It is time for Rabbi Sacks to discuss feminism, is it not?
My view is that feminism operates by bribing men with fornication and other forms of sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and distracting both men and women from the parenting of legitimate children. This adversely affects the quality of the national gene pool and causes what is know as degeneracy.
Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, all declining, primitive and extinct civilisations are matriarchies.
A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers, a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.
The West is now a matriarchy, and Britain has been a matriarchy since 1974.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron
Keith Joseph, Jew:
I do not see how anyone can deny this, but I wonder if Rabbi Sacks will continue to remain tight-lipped on the subject, perhaps out of fear of upsetting his wife, his two daughters or any granddaughters he may have.
My political activism consists of taking the problem to the person most in a position to address the problem of the West. I had an eureka moment when I arrived on Rabbi Sacks, but perhaps I should go over him and approach his wife, so she will give him permission to discuss the problem publicly and frankly.
After all, in important matters of morality, moral and reasonable men and women should have no disagreement and I have no doubt that the Rabbi Sacks' wife is not only moral, but in fact saintly. It is probably because he knows how blessed he is to have her as a wife that he does not wish to offend or upset her.
Rabbi Sacks discussing female moral development with two Jewesses one of whom is a feminist
The talk was supposed to be about moral education for Jewish women, but even Rabbi Sacks bottled out of discussing it, or the topic was changed at the last minute.
If anyone asks what Jews are for, then the answer must surely be that they are her to set moral standards for the rest of us by reminding us of the Seven Noahide laws. Perhaps Rabbi Sacks will consider discussing how many of these the errant British government has transgressed. It is after all a religious duty of Jews to repair the world under the principle of tikkun olam while Muslims have theirs of enjoining good and forbidding evil or waging jihad against the injustice, evil, degeneracy and dementia of feminist oppression.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-teshuvah-2076801
Why democracy and feminism should be taken out with the trash in conformity with the principles of teshuvah
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5347071/Centenary-votes-women-used-galvanise-fight-equality-campaigners-say.html
How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties and lowered our IQ
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html
Pisa tests: UK lags behind in global school rankings
Christianity is now a moral vacuum filled by the disease of the mind that is feminism that bribes men and women with sexual freedom to distract them from maintaining and defending the patriarchy. For their own sakes, Jews should point out the failure of Christianity and suggest a replacement religion bearing in mind that not everyone is a Jew or is capable of adhering to its high-maintenance practices. The answer seems obvious to me, anyway, just as if it were a mathematical problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enjoining_good_and_forbidding_wrong
Rabbi Sacks and the consequences of his support for women's rights
Nationalist men will always be keener to blame Jews and Muslims than their own treacherous women in positions of influence who don't care about them
What are the limits of Jewish responsibility?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/judaisms-sexual-revolution-judaism-christianity-rejected-homosexuality#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=5a79929bbedf948b&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1
Henry V to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
My learned lord, we pray you to proceed
And justly and religiously unfold
Why the law Salique that they have in France
Or should, or should not, bar us in our claim:
And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,
That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading,
Or nicely charge your understanding soul
With opening titles miscreate, whose right
Suits not in native colours with the truth;
For God doth know how many now in health
Shall drop their blood in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to.
Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war:
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed;
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint
'Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords
That make such waste in brief mortality.
Under this conjuration, speak, my lord;
For we will hear, note and believe in heart
That what you speak is in your conscience wash'd
As pure as sin with baptism.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/britains-former-chief-rabbi-behind-pences-biblical-knesset-address/
http://rabbisacks.org/rabbi-sacks-receives-irving-kristol-award-american-enterprise-institute/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Neocons organized in the American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation to counter the liberal establishment
Arthur Brooks – President of the American Enterprise Institute
Danielle Pletka – Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute for Foreign and Defense Studies, former member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Gary Schmitt – Resident Scholar, Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies and Director of the Program on American Citizenship at the American Enterprise Institute, former Executive Director, Project for the New American Century, Executive Director for President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, White House The Weekly Standard
Frederick Kagan – Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Joshua Muravchik – Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Michael Rubin – Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/09/american-think-tanks-hired-purveyors-fake-news/
Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel.
http://rabbisacks.org/rabbi-sacks-national-prayer-breakfast/
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/david-cameron-thanks-lord-sacks-for-middle-east-peace-efforts-1.44156
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/423369/You-have-let-down-families-Chief-Rabbi-tells-David-Cameron
Sir Paul Coleridge of the Marriage Foundation is mentioned.
My view is that feminism operates by bribing men with fornication and other forms of sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and distracting both men and women from the parenting of legitimate children. This adversely affects the quality of the national gene pool and causes what is know as degeneracy.
Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, all declining, primitive and extinct civilisations are matriarchies.
A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers, a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.
The West is now a matriarchy, and Britain has been a matriarchy since 1974.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron
Keith Joseph, Jew:
The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened. A recent article in Poverty, published by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed that a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mother who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5.
Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches. They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters.
Yet these mothers, the under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us.
I do not see how anyone can deny this, but I wonder if Rabbi Sacks will continue to remain tight-lipped on the subject, perhaps out of fear of upsetting his wife, his two daughters or any granddaughters he may have.
My political activism consists of taking the problem to the person most in a position to address the problem of the West. I had an eureka moment when I arrived on Rabbi Sacks, but perhaps I should go over him and approach his wife, so she will give him permission to discuss the problem publicly and frankly.
After all, in important matters of morality, moral and reasonable men and women should have no disagreement and I have no doubt that the Rabbi Sacks' wife is not only moral, but in fact saintly. It is probably because he knows how blessed he is to have her as a wife that he does not wish to offend or upset her.
Rabbi Sacks discussing female moral development with two Jewesses one of whom is a feminist
The talk was supposed to be about moral education for Jewish women, but even Rabbi Sacks bottled out of discussing it, or the topic was changed at the last minute.
If anyone asks what Jews are for, then the answer must surely be that they are her to set moral standards for the rest of us by reminding us of the Seven Noahide laws. Perhaps Rabbi Sacks will consider discussing how many of these the errant British government has transgressed. It is after all a religious duty of Jews to repair the world under the principle of tikkun olam while Muslims have theirs of enjoining good and forbidding evil or waging jihad against the injustice, evil, degeneracy and dementia of feminist oppression.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-teshuvah-2076801
Why democracy and feminism should be taken out with the trash in conformity with the principles of teshuvah
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5347071/Centenary-votes-women-used-galvanise-fight-equality-campaigners-say.html
How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties and lowered our IQ
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html
Pisa tests: UK lags behind in global school rankings
Christianity is now a moral vacuum filled by the disease of the mind that is feminism that bribes men and women with sexual freedom to distract them from maintaining and defending the patriarchy. For their own sakes, Jews should point out the failure of Christianity and suggest a replacement religion bearing in mind that not everyone is a Jew or is capable of adhering to its high-maintenance practices. The answer seems obvious to me, anyway, just as if it were a mathematical problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enjoining_good_and_forbidding_wrong
Rabbi Sacks and the consequences of his support for women's rights
Nationalist men will always be keener to blame Jews and Muslims than their own treacherous women in positions of influence who don't care about them
What are the limits of Jewish responsibility?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/judaisms-sexual-revolution-judaism-christianity-rejected-homosexuality#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=5a79929bbedf948b&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1
Monday 5 February 2018
Sunday 4 February 2018
Transcript of insane psychobabble about Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman between gesticulating bearded man and gesticulating fragile-looking woman
David Fuller:
You watched the Cathy Newman/Jordan Peterson interview. What did you think?
Feminine Compassionate Fragile Woman "FCFW":
My body contracted [hand touching heart] and I felt so sad for womanhood [nodding earnestly]. I felt disappointed and I could see how the shadow part of womanhood was acting out, I could see how the collective rage was acting through Cathy Newman and this is what happens is that when that is unowned [she waggles a finger at the camera] it is projected blindly to whatever [her whole body moves dramatically in a waggle] it sticks, and it was already clear that she had an agenda and she already had a projection that she was just looking to stick. She was just looking to have that confirmed, and she was trying so hard and I felt that this was just a classical example of feminine manipulation [nodding sagaciously], of the deep shadow manipulation, control, abuse [waggling her head in a circle]. So I felt on behalf of women, I feel sad and disappointed [nodding sadly and in a disappointed way] because we need to have intelligent conversations [inexplicably making motions of twisting something in her hand] that is aligned with the evolutionary dream, that is aligned with creating a future not destroying but finding those values. Have an intelligent conversation. In that sense I would have loved to see Jordan Peterson become present with that in that moment and say OK, I want a time out from the debate that we are having and I want to explore exactly what's going on right here because I can feel you're coming with a lot of anger and I think it's important that that anger gets acknowledged, but that we become real with what's going on and say "It's a projection, I understand why it's there, I would like us to find a way to move through it. This is what we need as men and women instead of blindly projecting our rage on to whoever man shows up for it."
DF:
You said she came in as a victim but under the surface was abuse?
FCFW:
I felt it was abusive that she was manipulating everything that he was saying. She was manipulating into the image she had in her head and she would just twist [her hands demonstrate a twist in case we didn't get what she meant] what he was saying and she would not listen, so it was not a conversation, it was a power game [she nods emphatically and seriously at this revelation], and she was the abuser. I felt cringey on behalf of women that this is not an empowerment, this is not the empowered feminine, this is the underbelly of feminism, this is when feminism goes wrong. This is not the future. This is not the future to blame and project and to persecute.
DF:
Can you explain a bit more about what you mean when feminism goes wrong?
FCFW:
When feminism goes wrong we allow the collective rage to act out through us. [She makes sweeping stroking motions over her body as if inviting her interviewer to think of stroking her body to calm her down.] So we see every situation, we see every man, we see every encounter with the lens of the victim and we are so angry about it and it's boiling in every woman right under the surface and [snaps her fingers dramatically] so she will quickly snap if there is a reason or an apparent reason because it's so strong it hasn't discharged, it's in the collective and that rage needs to discharge but it needs to discharge in an intelligent way, not in an unconscious way.
DF:
And you said before that that rage is often directed at men not showing up [for dates?]?
FCFW:
I'd say it's two way because yes it's targeted at men not showing up [for dates?] or they are causing but it's very often projected out to men that are trying to show up, that is actually engaging with women and actually talking about these things so that's when we bring up this topic and it's so easy for women to tap into that collective pool of rage and it just comes out.
DF:
And it's also difficult as well because one imagines that combative attitude is something that has served her well in the past and something that maybe she felt forced into because of the nature of the society that she is operating in, so it's a kind of Catch 22 situation for many successful women because they are pushed to be more masculine and then when they are more masculine they get judged for being more masculine.
FCFW:
It's very sad and I can see that dynamics being played out absolutely but the only thing we can do is to take responsibility and say OK, I'm doing that. Do I really want to compromise my femininity? [makes gestures and posture suggesting femininity] Do I really want to compromise my integrity? [makes gestures and posture suggesting integrity with a pained expression] Do I really want to compromise my gender? Is there another way I can be powerful without being aggressive, without playing a power game but resting in my natural power [her eyes dart across the room as if trying to locate her natural power], resting in my natural dignity, resting in that deep-rootedness that we both have in our genders that when we are at peace with it and when we acknowledge it in our selves [very emphatically], it's there as a natural thing. I don't want to make this personal about Cathy Newman because that potential is in every woman but it is because we are persecuting our own femininity. What's being played out there we are doing to ourselves because we don't trust that it's good enough to be a woman. We don't trust that it is good enough to have conversations that come from a felt embodied perspective, we don't trust that we are connected to truth because these masculine ways have been very strong and women have been denying their own power.
DF:
This is not specific to Cathy Newman. The fact that that interview has resonated with so many people, that it's been so popular, shows that something archetypal was going on in that interaction and I think as well why it's gone viral is that a lot of people watching it recognise the dynamics. I've been in conversations like that. I've been in this conversation when nothing I say works, when nothing I say gets through so there's something fundamental about the masculine feminine dynamic going on in there. What do you think that is?
FCFW:
I think Jordan Peterson. he's everyman. Cathy Newman, she's everywoman. I can tap into this rage like this [making a motion of snapping her fingers without snapping them]. I know it in myself and women who say they don't are denying this because it is in the collective. So in that sense it just highlighted what's there. It's wonderful because here we really get to look at why this is so important, [making a gesture that suggests that she is holding a new born infant that she is about to sacrifice to the deity of feminism] why it is so important to really listen to a thinker like Jordan Peterson and take it seriously and say "What can we do with it?" It's just so obvious that it's needed [looking down at the infant she is about to sacrifice on the altar of feminism], because if this is where we are, if this is society, if this is our ability to have an intelligent conversation, we are in trouble.
DF:
In the interview I had with Jordan Peterson he said the animus-possessed woman, which is the woman in our masculine side. the kind of defence for the feminine side sees every man or projects on to every man the patriarchy
Cut to Jordan Peterson spewing psychobabble.
and the way of out that is to see it from a Jungian perspective that the masculine archetype has both sides. The masculine archetype is both the tyrannical senile king and the benevolent father at the same time, and so they are multi-layered and see either side in any man [seems to suggest by his hand gestures that he is holding a transparent ball containing a man who is both a tyrannical senile king and a benevolent father and looking at him from different angles] but the animus-possessed woman sees only one side, and that is patriarchy and that is the tyrannical system, that is something that just needs to be destroyed. Does that make a lot of sense to you?
FCFW:
[As if receiving an expensive gift from him] I feel that that is precisely what's going on, it's a blind projection that makes every man and situation, it makes it into an image, and that image is where all the rage can go, so I would absolutely agree with that, but another thing I want to say is that that rage that is waiting for an outlet also is important information in the sense that it needs to be heard, it needs to be acknowledged and it is also there because women haven't found a way to be in our power which is not necessarily the way of the mind and the way of having an intellectual conversation about something. It's about coming back to the body and about coming back to feeling the energy of what's going on and really trust that we know in our body a deep truth that cannot necessarily be met or acknowledged in an intellectual conversation and because women have not been able to articulate that deep truth, that deep wisdom, that deep power, that's also where the rage comes because we know that deep down there's something that hasn't been seen or acknowledged by men and we're so angry about that and just forget that we have to start with ourselves, and to say "OK, I feel something is going on here. How can we address this is an intelligent way that is not just pure philosophy and not just a pure intellectual conversation, but it's in touch with what's real, it's in touch with life, it's in touch with co-creating illusion, co-creating consciousness and we can't do that only in an intellectual conversation where we are just arguing against each other's shadows [shaking head sadly], it's not real.
DF:
It's a disembodied ideological conflict. That reminds of something I've heard before, that men test ideas and women teste men, and there's some truth in that from what you're saying because women know on a deeper level than men [as if holding his heart and offering it to her] and women know when men are out of alignment on a deeper level than men often do and so there is something about women's embodied way of knowing and a genuine [as if making a grab for her breast with his right hand] ... It's essential for women to test men, so how aligned are you? [his hand darts out again as if to grab her breast] and that is what I think is playing out on the wider culture. The excesses of feminism you could say are men being tested on an epic cultural level to show up, to grow up, to acknowledge our shadows and be present, and that the evolutionary step that we need to see also but then you're saying women also need to acknowledge their shadows as well.
FCFW:
[All the while she is nodding earnestly and rhythmically in response to his words and gestures as if they were two birds conducting an elaborate dance or mating ritual with their words] But I think that was playing up perfectly in the interview in the sense that Cathy she just got more and more angry and the reason why, what was missing out was the masculine being present with her and feeling her [she says the last two words in a husky whisper as if in invitation to DF to feel her] instead of meeting her with the mind because that is only going to feel overpowering if you're in your motions and in your body, instead of being really present and saying "I feel your rage, I understand it" so that's where we can start moving on because the feminine will feel seen, it will feel respected in that embodied truth, because, yes, women have something to be enraged about, for sure, and we need that to become real and not just to become a power battle, so, yes, women test men to call them into presence and embodiment and just an intellectual conversation is not enough, it's going to keep stirring up the rage, so we need to find a way to have that conversation where both the body, the deeper wisdom, the deeper intelligence and the mind is there present on both sides. That's what I mean about having an intelligent conversation. It's not just a conversation of the mind, it's a conversation about what's real, what's aligned with life, and that's a whole different conversation. It's a different way of communicating. [She seems to be saying that Jordan Peterson could have either turned Cathy Newman on to him either by making her want to have sex with him or by agreeing with her to stop her from becoming upset at him by winning the argument.]
DF:
So what Jordan Peterson could have done better in that interview was to have said "I can feel where you're coming from"?
FCFW:
I think that could have changed the whole energy and dynamic and it could have moved it forward, but it's impossible to move it forward when we're both in battle mode and so, yes, I really feel that there is this collective subconscious rage [slowing down and emphasising with hand gestures the last three words and even looking a little angry in case we miss the point] that is just boiling in women and it's coming up in so many ways we see in the media and what's going on is this unknown rage that comes up in many different ways. On the one hand, it needs to come out, we need to clear it, it needs to be expressed, it needs to be acknowledged. On the other hand, it's not enough. This is only breaking the ice so that the next step of evolution can, you know, consciousness can start coming through, and that's what lacking in women. We need to take responsibility for what we do as women in our manipulation, in our seduction, in our control, and it's so easy for women to say "But that's just because we're angry and men did this and patriarchy", but that's such a lack of responsibility, and this women really need to know.
DF:
Because we could say look at me too which has been kind of ongoing for a long time and still a massive force and we can say it's brought up a lot of male shadows, it's shown up a lot of male behaviour that is just inexcusable, should not happen and it certainly started as a positive thing but then there is perhaps a danger of it flipping into a very simplistic narrative of men as only aggressors and women as only victims. Is that something you are worried about?
FCFW:
I am very worried about that because what it feels like is because it has displayed the male shadow, but who talks about the female shadow, the rage that women are expressing blindly and projecting on to whichever situation and whichever man that they can. This is where women need to step up and take responsibility and stop blaming men, it's pointless. We need to transcend this, we can't solve this problem from the same level [makes levelling motions with her hands] and look at how I am adding to this dynamic as a woman because we are, we are co-creating it in perfect harmony. If women are angry, we absolutely need to take responsibility for getting ourselves to another place.
DF:
I mean, that's the kind of shadow work, the acceptance that we all have shadows that men certainly have a shadow, there is a shadow around masculinity, but there's also a shadow around femininity while part of the cultural conversation now is toxic masculinity and everyone knows what you mean by toxic masculinity, if you talk about toxic femininity, everyone still knows what you mean, but you can't have that conversation. It's interesting what's allowed to be said and what's allowed not to be said at the moment and that I think is very dangerous that certain topics, certain conversations are off limits.
FCFW:
And this is where we see the victim persecutor dynamics activated [makes twisting motions with her hand]. Women become the victims, we make ourselves the victims and we persecute men but in that aggression, in that rage and when we are the victims, we are in perfect control [sic]. We become the persecutors because we say ... it's all about blame. [nonsensically] Men did this and men need to take responsibility, but in that we become the persecutors.
DF:
It's also a problem with the media because the short attention span of the media wants to polarise things. It's a very straightforward narrative - victim perpetrator - and yet the true dynamics needs something more than just the short analysis or a soundbite. It needs to be unpacked over time and it's easily taken out of context, which is why it is such a hot potato for the media to handle.
FCFW:
[Nodding vigorously in sympathy] It's also a very old story about you cannot say to a woman in a public debate take responsibility for what you are doing, take responsibility for the role you're playing into and I want to talk for a moment about the Presidents Club. I don't know very much about the details, but I think women in this country when we enter the room we have an absolute right to put up a boundary [her eyes dart around as if looking for this boundary] and the ability to put a boundary and say "I'm not going to play this game, I'm not going to co-create this antagonism between men and women and I'm not going to co-create this patriarchal structure and be a victim if I work in a bar somewhere and someone is groping me, [looking at her own body as if to imagining where she might be groped], I have the responsibility to say "Stop it right now" or to my manage "Have that person kicked out" or walk out of the room. No one needs to be a victim and this is what women just simply don't want to hear. They don't want to take responsibility for we are co-creating it, we like being the victims, we like blaming men instead of doing our own work and say "What am I getting from this whole seduction control manipulation?" I get power - the power of the victim - and it's the easy power, it's the cheap power and it's not long-lasting. We really need to have this conversation in a balanced way.
DF:
Cos I started teaching men's work maybe a year ago or so and the biggest reason for that was that I could see a need for it individually and among a lot of the men I know but because also culturally it felt like a time when men are being challenged to step up to evolve as men, to integrate our shadows and be confronted with negative traits in masculinity and to integrate them and move forward, but some people might look at men's work and say "It's divisive. What you're doing is perpetuating the patriarchy" for example. What do you think of that as a criticism?
FCFW:
It's a really good question because in my experience when I work with men and women, for me it's very obvious that women really relate to self-development and to going deep emotionally in themselves where I feel men are more vague or not as on it and it might be that I am a woman and men want more kind of safe environments where there's only men to do that, but I feel that men have been somehow lacking in really engaging with their own personal development, really taking personal responsibility for their belief patterns, for their emotions for how they show up in the world, and in my work I feel I am going deep in womanhood. What does it mean to be a woman? This is what interests me. This is what I am passionate about. It's about the deep feminine and women are drawn to that, so many women come to me and say "Thank you for showing up in the world like this now" I'm getting a sense of something that hasn't ... I haven't had it modelled. You know, in my therapy practice we talk a lot about childhood and how were your parents and so few women have modelled a healthy feminine, so that's what I'm passionate about, but in that work I feel I have gotten to a point in my life where I am thinking "Where's the men?" I don't know about men [waggling her body dramatically to signify ignorance], I don't know what's going on with men, I don't feel them, I don't feel they are showing up, and I'm talking very general but this is what I feel, it's a lack of willingness to show up with a woman that is present, and this is what I'm missing, this is why I feel men's work is so important because women are trying to do their work and there's a lot to do still - I really want to admit that - but men need to show up and right now there's one man here [pointing to an imaginary man in the room] and there's one man there [pointing to another imaginary man in the room] but most men out there are boys still, and I'm sad to say this but that's what I feel, and most women are girls, so on both sides we have so much work to do.
DF:
I always found men's work really helpful. I've done a lot of self-development work and really found that the men's work was that landing in my masculinity, landing with other men [makes hand gestures indicating he means his sex organs], feeling comfortable in myself around other men healing those wounds then really allowed me to meet women [dramatic big hand gestures suggesting that he was embracing the women he met big time] from a much more grounded place and I found my relationships with women improving with the amount of men's work that I had been doing and so I wanted to start leading men's work and bring that kind of work to other men [and thereby get more pussy] and then my background as a journalist because I have always been interested in following the media and then I saw the same dynamics playing out in the political sphere. The Trump/Hillary election was just so clearly from my perspective that we're so clearly desperate for genuine masculine values and so missing them that somehow some strange caricature and facsimile of genuine masculine values people are voting for and suddenly this guy who's a boy pretending to be a man is the most powerful man in the world so these dynamics are playing out in all of our lives and then on the wider scale. It's quite astonishing to see that.
[As you can see, David Fuller is not a Trump supporter.]
FCFW:
I think that was perfectly highlighting the sickness of Postmodernism [the Disease of the Mind that is Feminism?]. We needed to smash the values so Postmodernism is a good thing, but we cannot stay there. We've smashed the values. No one knows what it is to be a man and no one knows what it is to be a woman. And we see these caricatures. We seem someone stepping up and doing something and "Oh let's go that way" because we have lost ground. Men have lost ground, women have lost ground. We're calling for a more empowered feminine that's all in the world and old patriarchy, now we need to call in the deep feminine, but what about the masculine? We seen an absolute caricature of a man being so powerful in the world because it's exactly where we are. If we don't change, this is what we get so it's a very very healthy lesson for the world to see if we don't start changing this is our future, we've arrived to our future. What are we going to do about that? [The more feminazi the feminazis get, the Trumpier Trump and his supporters will become.]
DF:
And also I think it is important to say that what I'm talking about and tell me if you think this is what you're talking about as well about going back to the old masculine feminine dynamics. It's not saying men have to be stereotypically masculine, women have to be stereotypically feminine. It's going through this kind of gender neutral space and re-embracing the sort of our masculine and feminine essence and playing those roles out more consciously. For me, it's like an evolutionary step.
FCFW:
I absolutely agree. We need to go through this, we need to pull everything apart, but we need to put it together again and say we never have the truth. Where is the truth? The truth is always changing. We are in a stream of evolution. We never arrive at that place, but we need to keep questioning and we need to put together those pieces that create solid ground for us that creates these [making snakelike movements] maps, so that we know where to go, so we have role models, we have people, we have values that we resonate with so we are not just lost, and we see that - I'm from Scandinavia. Scandinavia is one of the places in the world where we have the highest amount of gender equality, but what also happens is that we see a somehow gender neutral space where men and women are the same and it's so important to move through that, but especially ...
DF:
[interjecting inexplicably] Great friends and bad sex!
FCFW:
[equally inexplicably] Yes, exactly! Men are completely losing their identity and losing their power and losing the essence of their masculinity and women are somehow taking that over and getting bitter and resentful about it, so at the surface it looks like a really equal society but in terms of relationships [makes shimmying motions with her shoulders] and in terms of polarity, it's not working very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Mujahid answers some of my 23 questions for Muslims
https://t.co/il73UjGO1X — Koranic Secularism (@Book_of_Rules) April 25, 2024 2:00 Feminism is the corruption of the morals of women bribi...
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
