In my bones I know this to be true.
Come and get me, Ladies!
You realize, of course, that this is just an illustration of Gramsci's theories from the '20s: destroy the pillars of a society, the family, public morality, national identity.....and chaos will be the inevitable result. Remember the America of the '50s?
Say, I've got a great idea! How about we get their kids hooked on the notion that acting like low-class blacks is the way to be hip and get girls. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Let's see what happens in 50 years or so....
Seems a bit quiet around here. Crickets....
Since Eve and the apple women have been the authors of their destruction, taking men along for the ride. The presentation, despite the narrator's thorny Canadian brougue, presents a scholarly summary of a premise I have sought to complete since the third grade: Be a nice guy and the reward is sharp elbows or, at best cool indifference. You won't even get a pity BJ. Nice guys do finish last, and the parallels in social interaction and politics are too strong to ignore.
Put my money where my mouth is and went out today to buy a humidor and two dozen of Fidel's best.
"A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke."
Thouhtcrimes can breed crickets.
So vote for Hillary. I can smell the burning flesh already.
Hey don't look at me. I'm one of em and I don't think they should have given women the vote. Well, almost.
I am a stay at home mom, who has homeschooled my children. I cook and clean and garden. I raise my girls to be strong and pretty and smart. One will be married next month and I expect the babies will follow. Tell me I am doing it wrong..
As a distaff individual, I confess I despise third wave feminism but guys must bear some responsibility as well for the current sorry state of affairs. I would suggest it was not suffrage but a break down of societal strictures that brought about the sexual revolution. How many men are indifferent to or contemptuous of socon politics? How many cheered no fault divorce? How many freely enjoy or enjoyed in their salad days the fruits of no-strings-attached slutdom? How many approve, encourage or even pressure their wives to work outside the home for that sweet, sweet second income? As for the appeal of bad boys, yeah, there's that, in fantasy or for fun, but in a serious relationship not so much. Plenty of betas manage to marry and form families when they are willing to pursue less than 10's. It's all women's fault? Nah, not buying it.
Still working my way through the video. But, there's a lot of stuff in the Bible about controlling women's sexuality and how it causes problems when out of control. So this doesn't really surprise me.
While I like to be able to vote and am a property holder, I'm coming down against women's suffrage. Women tend to vote from emotion (all those votes for Rubio because he's "cute"). And so many of these young women are clueless. They are poorly educated, undisciplined and immoral, incapable of taking care of a family or house. (And saying that there are also some truly admirable women that I follow online. They just seem outnumbered.)
I am with Priscilla, you men cannot have it both ways. It is a hard road that leads to a good life. Women really only want one thing- to be loved. It is as easy and as hard as that. No matter what it is, it is work. May God help us.
Dante's "comedy" does not even touch the abortionist's knife. Our gracious god loves life, and we don't anymore.
"O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths." Isaiah 3:12
Reason and accountability is not something women understand.
Nor apparently simple, forthright 18 minute videos.
I guess men have no agency, all the way back to Adam and Eve.
@Leslie, as Tina Turner said some 30 years ago, "What's love got to do with it?"
You have to like a person before you love them and there is no other way.
If you skip step 1, step 2 will fail, every time.
Charlie Anderson said:
"No, no. You just said you loved her. There's some difference between lovin' and likin'. When I married Jennie's mother, I-I didn't love her - I liked her... I liked her a lot. I liked Martha for at least three years after we were married and then one day it just dawned on me I loved her. I still do... still do. You see, Sam, when you love a woman without likin' her, the night can be long and cold, and contempt comes up with the sun."
One way or another, we appear to be headed for The Great Pus Eruption. There's a whole passel of Unmentionables building up pressure in the system.
What the progressives don't get is that the longer it's all repressed the nastier the reckoning is going to be.
All that stodgy, boring, repressive Western 'Tradition' which has been thrown out with the bath water was in fact the result of thousands of years of social experimentation and evolution. One can't speak of an end result for this because it wasn't totally static. But one can say that the tendency was towards long-term social stability and utility.
What have we got now? A brief ~100 year flowering where any man with the cognitive ability to make more than subsistence money in the modern economy (that would be say 5% of us) can enjoy the company of educated and witty strumpets. Nice while it lasts, but was it worth what comes after?
One might ask the same question of Maupassant. Was that amazing creative spurt worth the Tertiary Syphilis when the devil came for his due?
I bear women no ill will. A lot of this is men's fault for allowing it to happen. No idea how we get from here to where we need to be.
He's telling men to "man up"
Since women are interchangeable and have a limited shelf life, why support your civilization ?
Since the role of being a wife, mother, and homemaker isn't valued, but her ability to make money is why should she take the harder traditional path ?
I think a lot of men have taken the easier beta path too.
What the video left out was that the availability of the birth control pill was a triggering event that help spark the womens lib movement. Without that, things would have evolved much more slowly in this direction.
I live in a military town; and yeah, the desire of women for a "strong" man is so much on display here. Very ugly women and very fat women are married (or cohabitating) with military guys. The "pretty" ones are bar maids or pole dancers and can't figure out why they can't get a man to like them.
Oh and in answer to the goofs that think the video is "only" bashing women....watch the video again; the fella specifically states that western men are also to blame.
Indeed, men are mentioned as complicit, but the title "How WOMEN Destroy Civilization" and the bulk of the argument puts the Kali-esque onus pretty squarely on women. Sorry, but I find the more extreme elements of the alt right manosphere as excruciatingly annoying and idiotic as third wave feminism and similarly reeking of bitterness. Case in point: the sidebar, Mannerbund 101, women as property. Seriously? I detect a theme. We must be controlled! How about some self control for both parties and we all simply return to the Christian ethos of sexuality, marriage and sacrificial love? Oh, that would be too difficult.
My wife and I had 5 beautiful blue eyed girls together. When I watch videos of how the west doesn't have a replacement birth rate, I laugh. I did my job so it's you all's fault. Get to work!
"Kinch, you jejune Jesuit!"
Can anybody give me a link for the live leak video about the invasion of Europe? (In this video, portion of it appears at 13:30)
I've said it elsewhere. Everyone of us who participated in the sexual revolution is to blame. Straight, gay, man, woman, rich fraternity kid, or bed-hopping denizen of a trailer park... it doesn't matter. This is our mess.
The rise of Islam is caused more by the trillions of dollars of oil money they've been getting than by feminism in the West.
Modern feminism is a result largely of modern technology that made the bearing of 10 children obsolete, and made the hours and hours of hand labor of women obsolete. Women have more free time.
The "Feminization" of society might well be due to the reaction against the horror of WWII and the atom bombs used. Large-scale violence is no longer supportable, so all violence goes out of style.
Women's Liberation has its downsides and society is still adjusting to the change, but the film overstates the point, probably by a lot.
"Women really only want one thing- to be loved." Sad that you believe that. Chris Rock had a great clip about how men and women differ. Women never go down the status ladder, always up. Women who go after men with big, loud, fast cars do so, not because they like big, loud, fast cars, but because that is a marker, signaling that man can provide, and has been successful.
"... or even pressure their wives to work outside the home for that sweet, sweet second income?"
Rich. If you would go back to comments from the time, stay-at-home moms had more scorn from working moms than they had from their husbands. Once the gates were open women rushed headlong into the workforce. This mainly benefited upper-class white women than any other group.
Men cannot have it both ways.
Absolutely-- but the creature formerly known as Bruce Jenner and her/his/xyr fellow MTF transitionals sure seem to think they can. Can't help wondering whether the filmmaker considers Caitlyn J. "woman" enough to destroy civilization.
"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."
There is a place for "Y" chromosomes who think this way. Join ISIS or Boko Harum. There you can work out your hatred of the female of the species and beat, rape and kill females to your heart's content. Wanna screw a one year old girl to death? You can do that and just throw the corpse on the garbage heap when you join up with your buddies in ISIS or Boko Harum.
It's the perfect place for you guys.
Dear Milwaukee, while it is true that society at large has devalued stay-at-home mothers since feminism's inception, I personally know many young women who would gladly trade the cubicle for raising their own children. Alas, oftentimes family funds do not permit or sacrifices are not willing to be made. The husband usually has a very strong voice in this decision. There are still young women who want to keep their marriages happy and intact and defer to their husbands, believe it or not.
Nahanni: Thanks to men who don't think "that way" + many but not all women, pretty soon you'll be able to be raped and killed in the comfort of your own home by the Delightfully Diverse Other. At least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you're sticking it to Whitey as you go down in flames.
Frankly nobody cares if you personally have a death wish or not, but some of us would like to keep our civilisation intact.
Lots of talk about women working outside of the home. If you knew anything about farm living, which is what 90%+ of all people did before the last 100 years, you'd know that there was plenty of female labor going on in the bad old days. Modern women who stay at home today have it EASY compared to their foremothers, and the taxpayers fund their childcare for years of their lives while they kick back on easy street. That's why we got universal tax paid "education" required of all children when women got the vote. That and to indoctrinate the children with state approved values.
One can read every hurt inflicted by the other sex in these comments.
Long ago I came to the inescapable conclusion that most women, at least of my experience,operate with emotion as the lens with which to view, evaluate and react to events.
It is a rare woman whose the default setting is not emotion first and foremost. This is true even with educated women, especially so with the university educated womyn.
Women feed on emotion, they seek they crave emotion - ups downs sideways, doesn't much matter. Constant emotion - it is why fat ass oprah has such a following, and dr phil, and so on. Cheers, tears, heartwarming nonsense - with commercial breaks - why they feel part of a club. Special. Another emotion.
This has always been so, from the first woman. Eve was vulnerable to Satan appealing to her emotion, vanity. For some reason Adam wasn't in the immediate area so that she might resist,
if not with reasoned argument then defiance or violence against the serpent. And as man was not complete without woman, woman without man is incomplete. A vacuum of sorts.
Womyn have been taught to despise themselves and their role in life, and that the only path to absolving themselves of self hatred is through creative self destruction, while destroying society through outright rejection of traditional roles and acceptance of what is promoted to be an alternative, the path to true enlightenment. And, like most lies it does contain a germ of truth, that truth being that enlightment will occur, not at 20 or 30, but at 40/50/60,when it is impossible to reverse course. And then the self loathing and hatred of all others who did not choose the alternative will hit overdrive.
Two things really stand out from the video clip, one the blonde early on attempting to contort her lips into a pucker - why, that looks like a dogs' ass. Two, that picture of Mz Cyrus - quite possible the most revolting, repugnant, repulsive,hideous pose in history, and she has her tongue lolling about like a dog fetchin' to lick its' anus.
Women, ya'll got a choice to make. Don't look to Mz Cyrus or a Kardashian for inspiration. Focus on reason. Not emotion.
Since we're slaughtering sacred cows right left and centre, interested readers might like to google the late philosopher David Stove's essay titled "The Intellectual Capacity of Women."
Leslie: Yes. there's an element of that.
Which raises another point. Women are legally empowered, nay encouraged to hurt men in present day society. Men resist or retaliate at the risk of financial ruin plus some enforced diversity and ass-rape behind bars.
Even in a remote Himalayan village of philosopher kings things would deteriorate fast if one segment of society had cost-free carte blanche to kick the other half with high positive expectation of social approval and financial reward.
Moral Hazard. It's real, and few can resist the temptation to get away with what they can. Somehow women find themselves in this position today in the West. It's not good for them in the long run and it's certainly not good for men, and it's death for civilisation as we know it.
Just throwing this out there for interested readers.
"The Intellectual Capacity of David Stove" may be dowloaded here.
I would take issue with another point in the video. Did women volunteer for the harem? It seems counterintuitive that the female of the species would prefer sharing a high status male to cleaving to a lower status husband. In my experience, women seem rather averse to sharing their mate. They rather appear to frown upon that sort of thing and it makes sense from a biological standpoint. After all, a man has many seed to broadcast, but a woman has only a few precious eggs over the course of a lifetime. Why would she want to share her resource for conceiving and caring for her offspring with others? Despite the notion of "Sister Wives", I can't see many women being happy with that arrangement.
Just one more point.
"Of those who report their rapes, around 4–5% also describe experiencing orgasm. But the true numbers are likely much higher. In a 2004 review paper, a clinician reports, "I (have) met quite a lot of victims (males) who had the full sexual response during sexual abuse…"
4-5% is not a very high figure and I am sceptical of these studies in the first place.
Priscilla: The thing to understand is that women are drawn to males with the most resources.
It was notorious during WWII that English women would do anything for a pair of silk stockings (unobtainable in the UK at the time) but dime a dozen in the US. It's one thing fornicating with the invader per the French experience, but something similar happened in UK and Australia. The local women did NOT particularly cover themselves in glory - having a good time with US servicemen (access to money and far better rations and PX goods) - whilst *their* menfolk were away fighting or in POW camps.
As for harems... women seem to have no trouble attaching themselves to high net worth men as one of several mistresses. Any emotional angst about 'sharing' is easily dealt with by the time-honoured Birkin Bag Therapy.
It's all about access to male resources. If it's two low status women fighting over a working stiff in a rust belt town, of course it's going to get nasty and catfightish. It's a winner take all situation, no such thing as win-win.
For all the complicating influences, the position of the video is really fairly simple. If you are going to arrange a government around democratic rule, the first demographic that must be excluded from suffrage (not the only ones) are women. He made his case. It is unattractive because it is formed of experience and not fairness.
Democracy is not exclusively synonymous with freedom, or trust, or civility, much less liberty. When anything goes (and it increasingly is) the first to lose are women...as Camille Paglia noted.
Indeed. Clearly women must be disenfranchised. Male suffrage should be limited by property ownership and net tax payer qualifications at the very minimum. I'd be inclined to admit military veterans to the franchise without these qualifications.
Once these measures were taken there would still be the small matters of public morals and Republican Virtues to be dealt with. Much, much easier said than done.
There would definitely need to be a form of Cursus Honorum signposted with the rights to contest various ascending levels of public office as one progressed along it.
We have fallen very far. All of us. Not just women. But they have to go back in their box first before these other repairs can be contemplated.
Christ A'mighty, Gerard! You set off a firestorm with this one.
A simpler, more comprehensive explanation for a civilization's decline is inadequate intelligence dealing with growing complexity.
Where existing intelligence is deliberately misused for the elites' personal gain, we have grand-scale stupidity [neglect of a society's best interests] at motivating action.
A fundamental law is, Stupidity x Complexity = Chaos, Decline and/or War.
Coupled with the 1st Law of Louts, Greed x Power = Cruelty, the remainders are easily derived.
Leaders' greed, power-pursuit, prejudices, simple or complex ignorance of essentials, epitomize stupidity.
Followers' naivete, greed [something for nothing "welfare"], need to assuage feelings of uselessness or worthlessness or shame or inferiority are stupidities which feed the Leaders' turpitude.
Love among men, women and children is most civilizing.
Let's not confuse mob mentality for power
Teach your children well.
The fact is that this (radical) form of government was constructed under the assumption that women would not vote, so, it is for that reason alone unsuitable under universal suffrage. It is entirely reasonable to believe that if it were understood that women would vote, either the men in Philadelphia would have abandoned the experiment or constructed a different form of government. Although it is painfully clear that we are doing the same thing over and over again while only digging a deeper hole, it still seems too high a bar to imagine that this is a type of government that does not need change, but an expiration date.
It's not what you have but how you use it.
As a ring of gold in a swine's snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.
There are only two things more beautiful than a good gun: a Swiss watch or a woman from anywhere.
“When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.”
― Fulton J. Sheen, Life Is Worth Living
Has nobody here read Shopenhauer's great essay "On Women" he wrote in the 1800s?
I did about 20 years ago. It was the beginning of my enlightenment. Now with 3rd-wave feminism everywhere it only serves as a testament to the truth.
He nailed it.
Schopenhauer was gay, wasn't he? Just sayin'.
Oops, my mistake. He just explored homosexuality in his writing and ended up the 18th century male version of a cat lady. "Schopenhauer settled permanently in Frankfurt in 1833, where he remained for the next twenty-seven years, living alone except for a succession of pet poodles..."
Make that 19th C.
"It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful."-Schopenhauer,"On Women"
Obviously not physically attracted. Need one say more?
"As a distaff individual, I confess I despise third wave feminism but guys must bear some responsibility as well for the current sorry state of affairs. "
"I am with Priscilla, you men cannot have it both ways. It is a hard road that leads to a good life."
I think the video was pretty clear about that. Men don't bear "some" responsibility for this situation; men bear ALL the responsibility.
Women have the freedom and liberty that they have today because men allowed it. It's as simple as that. Had men simply said "no" and had been willing to enforce that decision by any means up to and including violence (as occurs in the muslim world) women would still be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and without the vote, education opportunities, ownership rights, etc.
The title of the video was deliberately chosen to be controversial in an effort to get attention, but the video makes it pretty clear that this is the fault of western men.
"I guess men have no agency, all the way back to Adam and Eve."
Not what the video was saying. Men chose to abdicate their responsibilities because it was easier than to fight it and because there were short-term benefits; you even mentioned some of them in an above comment.
Men took the easy road. Surrendered. Gave in to both avoid/end an unpleasant conflict and also to gain fleeting, selfish benefits. And as a result, doomed western civilization to failure.
I believe we can thank cultural Marxism for most of our post modern problems. My question for you: in your opinion, are women innately unworthy of freedom? How do your views of women's role in society differ from Islam's? Is there a fundamental difference or is a matter of degree?
Chivalry. Men "honored" women, and protected them. They didn't enslave them. At least, in theory, not always in practice. I think John and Abigail Adams understood the proper dynamic. He was " the head", but sought her counsel, as he knew it was good. That was power enough for her. Love and respect, with Christ in the center.