Wednesday, October 07, 2015

The Family Plot: The Future (Civil Unions & Shared Parenting)


The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!

But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.

Have you ever asked yourself “why”?

A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
Click Pic for "Peer Reviewed Research: The Holy Grail of Truth?"
There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at the urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being feminists' entire raison d'ĂȘtre is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct,” (therefore women are discriminated against because they are treated differently while being born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way. These arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter the family unit into something completely new.

(Read More Here)

Monday, October 05, 2015

The Family Plot: The Present (No-Fault Divorce & Hypergamy)

R.I.P. Marriage 1.0 (Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarcy")
Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970’s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic. As I pointed out in The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy, this is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860’s and 1870’s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Year’s Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm. This voided one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place - which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society.

It’s not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates – it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century.

Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970’s was not that difficult. Marilyn Monroe divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while Elizabeth Taylor had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was introduced there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to “find fault.” Of course, with “fault” divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual “fault” had occurred. There were many things which constituted “fault,” including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called “cruelty.”

(Read More Here)

Saturday, October 03, 2015

The Family Plot: The Past (Their Oppressors Are Children)


Sometimes I have to laugh at mankind's arrogance, to be sitting here on this tiny planet, in our not so significant solar system, in one of an infinite number of galaxies... that we dare to even argue about the nature of the universe and what is True or not.

It makes me think of being born on some tropical island out in the Pacific, then declaring the whole world is made of coconuts, sand and water.

How on earth could someone in that situation even conceive of the Grand Canyon or Mount Everest? We are in the same situation - so long as we are stuck way out here on good old planet earth, we too cannot possibly even conceive of all the workings, patterns, systems and forces that are at play in the "greater scope of things."

(Read More Here)

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess

A mistake I think many "conspiracy theorists" make is trying to account for every single event as being some sort of manipulation. It doesn't really have to be as complex as that - there are really only certain pivotal arguments that need to be won, so that the general direction will turn. For example, giving women the vote, due to their more security-based psychology (as opposed to men's individualistic psychology) pretty much guaranteed that government would turn socialist and begin to grow. This has been explored by John Lott and Lawrence Kenny's study titled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"

In the same way, if parental authority is undermined by "children's rights," I can pretty much guarantee that there will be untold havoc created in people's families. Making the hierarchy upside down naturally causes problems. The private cannot lead the general. The employee cannot lead the employer. The child cannot lead the parent. Take any of these situations and reverse the hierarchy, and it's pretty easy to see how they will naturally canabalize themselves until they are utterly destroyed. Some arguments are more important than others - because they can set off a chain reaction of further arguments in the future.

(Read More Here)

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Cultural Pillars and Critical Theory

"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." -- Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rhenische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
Immediately after Russia's October Revolution of 1917, Lenin withdrew from fighting in World War One, although the formal end of Russia's involvement wasn't until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.  The Great War in Europe had all been predicted by Marx and Engels decades earlier and it appeared things were going exactly as they should. The next event that should have happened was for the common-man (the workers) to throw off their chains and unite under a new, global system of Communist Utopia. 

Of course, it never happened. This was a pivotal and confusing moment in the world of Marxism. Obviously, since the global revolution didn't appear as predicted, Marx and Engels had gotten something wrong. It is from here that "Marxism" goes from being strictly an economic theory and into the realm of cultural theory.

(Read More Here)

Sunday, September 27, 2015

It's Not Marxism Because...

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

One of the most common arguments I see made against the notion that feminism and Marxism are one in the same goes something like this:

"Feminism and Marxism aren't related because Stalin's policy of xyz was certainly not feminist!" (or Mao's, or Pol Pot's or Gorbachev - take your pick).

Another common argument goes like this:

"Russian women aren't raving feminists like American women, therefore, Marxism and feminism aren't related."

Well, all these things may be true, but, one must also realize that Marxism is kinda like Christianity in that while it has a large over-riding ideology, there are many different denominations with varying beliefs. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism was one such type, called Leninism, and when Stalin took over he interpreted Marxism in a different way - over-riding some of Lenin's beliefs - and thus becoming "Stalinism." Mao as well interpreted Marxism differently from Stalin, and this became known as "Maoism." So, just as it is false to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they don't have a Pope and never go to confession, so is it false to say that Marxism and feminism are unrelated because of reason XYZ during Boris Yeltsin' s vodka soaked tenure at the helm.

Mostly when people such as myself assert that Marxism and feminism are one in the same, it has a lot to do with the philosophies behind Marxism, such as the oppressor vs. victim class, the use of the Marxist dialectic to manipulate the population, the "end-goal" of Marxism & feminism being remarkably similar, and most of all it comes from Engels' own words (Marx made a few references to liberating women, but Engels really got into it).

(Read More Here)

Friday, September 25, 2015

The Powers That Be

Is "someone" or some "thing" behind all of this monkeying around with our culture?

It's natural to seek someone to point a finger at, to try to explain how this could have happened to us. There are many different opinions and there are certainly enough pivotal events in history which are shrouded in mystery or lost knowledge to fuel many a conspiracy theory.

I can see two reactions amongst my readers as I say this. The first is going, "Well thank, goodness! I was wondering if he had the balls to bring that subject up." 

The Cervelati (33rd Order of the Salami)
"Et Tu, Brute?" My other reader's eyes roll back in their heads as they begin supress their gag reflex, "Oh no! Here comes the talk about the Illuminati and the Protocols of the Elders Zion. Or wait, maybe this guy believes it's the Rothschild's... and he's going to link both Hitler and Marx to the banking elites and the Bilderberg Group... or perhaps he'll tell us about the Masons, the Skull and Bones and the sex-party initiations at the Bohemian Grove."

Well, not really - although I would like to briefly address some of these ideas to illustrate where my general position is on the matter and how it actually helped me understand the concepts of "truth" found within these pages.

(Read More Here)

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Feminizing the Decline (Hypergamy and Birthrates)

“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subway buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970

(Read More Here)

Monday, September 21, 2015

The Fraud of Modern Marriage (Women as Chattel)[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?


Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

(Read More Here)

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Father Custody and the Legend of the Selkie

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191
The Corollaries to Briffault's law:

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).


Some years ago, through the usual discourse of mindlessly arguing with people on the internet, I met a woman online who went by the handle of “Selkie.” I had no idea what a selkie was, so I typed it into Google and discovered an interesting legend that I believe is directly about human sexuality.

The mythological selkie is similar to a mermaid, except the selkie is a seal which can shed its skin and transform into a human being. The selkie can be either male or female, but most are female. Once they are in their human form, if their seal skin is taken and hidden from them, they are unable to turn back into a seal and thus cannot return to their home in the sea.
Click for "The Wife of Noble Character"
Now, as the legend goes, female selkies make great wives when in their human form and so men would hide the skins of selkies so they would stay with them - for if she found her skin she would right away put it back on, abandon her human husband and escape to the sea to seek out her male selkie lover/husband.

There is an interesting twist though, in that even after she abandons her human husband she will return from time to time to visit the children which she had while with him.

(Read More Here)

Thursday, September 17, 2015

The Suffragettes versus The Truth

In an odd sort of way, I'm excited to tackle the next three points of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments, for this is the culminating moment of an underlying theme found throughout this book: The Truth, how it differs for men and women, and why it matters very much which one leads the other.

Click Pic to read The Declaration of Sentiments in full.
Points 13 to 15 of the Declaration are as follows: 

13 - He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

14 - He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

15 - He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.


"When the Cow Rides the Bull, 
Priest, Watch Your Skull!" 

"Women can sing to more than one tune. What good were the Perihermeneias, the Elenchi, divided into several branches, the Prior and Posterior Analytics, logic, or the mathematical sciences to Aristotle? For a woman surmounted all of these in mounting him and conquered the master of logic. She placed a bit and headstall on his head and he was dragged into solecism, barbastoma, and barbarism. The hussy used him as a horse and spurred him on like a female ass. She lifted her crotch far too high when she rode the male. The governor was governed and the roles of the sexes reversed, for she was active and he passive, willing to neigh under her. . . ." -- Woman over Wisdom, The Lamentations of Matheolus, 1295AD


First, let's be clear here. In case you haven't noticed, I am an unabashed sexist. I absolutely do not believe Gender is a Social Construct. I think there certainly were social constructs society once endorsed, but they were based upon our biological differences - and it was more or less correct to structure society as it once was because of them. Our civilization has endured for millenia - proof of its viability under defined gender roles - while in the past century we've been tripping over ourselves to commit cultural suicide. The Bible, whether you believe in God or not, is the "blueprint" for our civilization - it is the key to how our cultural and social mores developed. It has proven itself to be a "Book of Life" because the structure of the society it puts forth certainly endures, grows and succeeds.

(Read More Here)

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

The Suffragettes versus the Marketplace

Let's continue our examination of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments with points 9 to 12 done briefly, as these issues will be addressed with greater detail later in this chapter.

Click Pic to read "The Declaration of Sentiments"
9 - After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

10 - He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

11 - He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known

12 - He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.
To show that I am not a horrible cretin of a misogynist, I'm going to grant Elizabeth Cady Stanton her point number nine. I wholeheartedly agree that a woman who owns property while single should be allowed a voice if she is being taxed upon the property. This was the basis for men having suffrage too, and indeed, this is how women slowly on began getting more access to the vote - especially since women who were widows owning substantial property holdings left behind by their husbands paid hefty taxes indeed. Most of society thought this reasonable as well, which is why women in such situations were soon allowed to vote by proxy - they could send a man in their stead to deliver their vote. (Women were sometimes given the vote in various states or municipalities long before 1919).  Back in those days, voting was quite often violent, with union leaders trying to intimidate voters and riots erupting at the polls. So, instead of sending these women into the dragon's lair, they arranged for such property-holding women to vote by proxy rather than in person.

Touché, Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

However, I'd like to remind her that Sparta fell because, according to Aristotle, its faulty inheritance laws resulted in women owning 2/5 of the land - so, there's what we think is fair, and there's what works. The two need balance. I suspect women not holding property outside of marriage, as addressed in point six, would suffice to keep this in check in our civilization because it would keep the number much smaller than that which Aristotle claimed as the cause of Sparta's plummeting birthrates. (How much of the population were widows and single women back in 1848? Not that much.)  Keep in mind this is a legal right, not an "unalienable" one, which has been established earlier. Legal rights are about making society "function."

(Read More Here)

Sunday, September 13, 2015

The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy

Click Pic to Read "The Declaration of Sentiments"
In the last section we examined points 1 to 3 of the Declaration of Sentiments and how the suffragette movement's demand for the "unalienable" (inalienable?) right to vote was against the concept of the Republic formed by America's Founding Fathers. America was never intended to be a democracy but adhered to principles which were the political embodiment of the masculine principle and the ordering of truth as put forth by John Locke.

As we carry on through the 16 sentiments made in this document, which is obviously based upon the United States' Declaration of Independence itself (since its preample is almost a word for word copy of it) we are presented with the 4th sentiment:

4 - Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

When I looked at this point, I struggled a bit whether to include it in the last section, which was about the nature of the State and the difference between inalienable rights and legal rights, or whether it should be included in this section - which will deal much more with the notion of "equality" in society. It belongs in both because we first must clarify what is exactly meant by this statement.

Although the first three points of the Declaration of Sentiments are in regard to the vote, and this is what Elizabeth Cady Stanton is referring to as the "first right of a citizen," it's already been shown that voting is not an inalienable right, but a legal one.

The phrase "a stopped clock is right twice a day" comes to mind here, because although she was wrong about the vote, she actually is right to say "the first right is equality" - and in fact, she is perfectly valid when, in the beginning of her drawing off the Declaration of Independence, she only makes the single alteration of inserting "and women" into it:

(Read More Here)

Friday, September 11, 2015

The Suffragettes versus The Republic

Feminism started as an organized movement in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention on Women's rights, which had an attendence of around 300 people. It was here that the Declaration of Sentiments put down the foundations of women's demands. It's principle author was Elizabeth Cady Stanton and it was signed by 100 people: 68 women and 32 men.


Despite being later known as the "suffragettes," at the time of the Declaration of Sentiment's signing, "the vote" was considered the most controversial of the sentiments, in-so-far as it even made some of the signers hesistant to endorse the document in its entirety.

I can see people's reactions already,, "Aha! Proof of the misogynist old days!"   
No, it wasn't really "misogyny" that was behind it - not entirely anyways. You have to keep in mind that this was 1848 and America's War for Independence had finished only 65 years earlier. It was about as fresh in the minds of the people as the Second World War is to us in the modern day. Many people's parents had lived through the American Revolution and their grandparents had fought in it. The people of that time were quite aware of the principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the nature of their rights under the framework of a Constitutional Republic.

(Read More Here)