Table of contents:
- Feminism vs. Marxism
- Conscription as Being “Part of the Patriarchy”.
- Are Women Child-like in Nature?
- The “Pay” Gap
FEMINISM v. MARXISM
Marxism frames capitalism as a system of exploitation and privilege. When accepted by the majority of a population, it can lead to barbaric “us vs. them” behavior including but not limited to assaulting, looting, harassment, stalking, witch hunting, and false imprisonment. This is an inevitability of telling millions that their every neighbor is a thief; a recipient of privilege and nothing more. It becomes tolerable to steal from them, to silence them, and give it enough time—take their lives.
Feminism’s goal is: to define and achieve equality of sexes. They attempt to do this by also framing capitalism as a means of exploitation and privilege. There is no way to “achieve” what feminist’s call equality (which is equity—equality of outcome) without state interference and a lot of it. There is no such derivative of feminism that is not inherently Marxist! Their bourgeoise is the straight, white male. If a feminist rejected Marxism, they would have no reason to be a feminist. They would be forced to recognize that women are where they are in the West of their own volition.
Marxism has an infectious tendency to “get around” in academia. Over time its boundaries have gotten more and more distorted and it has become difficult after awhile for modern Americans to see through its modern skin. All it needs, at any time is a perceived oppressor and oppressed class each.
Dialectical logic was another ace up Marx’s sleeve. It sought to replace the laws of formal logic. What it basically means is: as long as some part of reality corroborates with what I’m saying, then I’m right even if I’m factually wrong. This was the beginning of “feels before reals”, and feminists telling you to “listen and believe”.
Metaphysical materialism: examines segments of society within static, isolated environments. Essentially judging everyone on a case-by-case basis.
Dialectical materialism: states that everything that exists is material, and everything that exists conflicts with the existence of something else.
At the heart of all Marxist thought is envy, a powerful emotion associated with desire. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, strong feelings outlined out and warned of in the Holy Bible to warn everyday people of the societal conflict that would ensue, should they exacerbate them.
- Pride – egotism (unlikeable people)
- Greed – longing for excess (selfish people)
- Lust – promiscuity, infidelity, divorce, etc. (slutty people)
- Sloth – laziness (shiftless reprobates)
- Gluttony – overindulgence (binge eaters/junkies)
- Wrath – malevolence (villainous people)
- Envy – entitlement (I want, therefore I should have.)
Also at the heart of Marxist thought is a pathological obsession with the blueprints of nature.
Reductionism: the concept of things being made up of smaller parts, and those parts being made up of tinier parts, and so on.
Theory reductionism, in particular, is dangerous because it implies that theories don’t emerge to replace existing theories, but to simplify them. This can convince many yet-to-be feminists to “drink the Kool-aid” of feminist empiricism believing it to be an “improved” version of the reality those in the “Patriarchy” occupy.
Empiricism is the idea that knowledge can be obtained only through sensory experience. One needs to see something “for themselves” or have hard data to be convinced of something. One cannot be swayed by heart-warming anecdotes, no matter how charming.
Combine this with feminism, the ideology responsible for “listen and believe” and it’s not difficult to see why “feminist empiricism” is laughably dysfunctional as a concept. If one consciously allows an ideology to consume their experiences and guide their behavior, they’re being anything but empirical.
Reductionism, in general, is harmful though, for it contrasts with eliminativism, the understanding that what we think we know as a species about the larger world around us is false. For instance, an eliminativist would “eliminate” astrology from their set of accepted sciences, disciplines, etc—for there’s no proof that it has any validity and some say is on the brink of total annihilation from the zeitgeist of acceptable belief. There’s no theory out there that a reductionist can “simplify” astrology and assimilate it into. This is why reductionism as a whole, the obsession with it rather—is irrational.
Just because one doesn’t have free will doesn’t mean they have to acknowledge it. Most people never do before they take the red pill. Only a very weak-minded person would react to the apparent illusory nature of free will with fatalistic nihilism. If one has been relatively successful and happy their whole life, but such news sends them spiraling into depression, they’re not seeing the bigger picture. Everything they’ve done with their life thus far has worked out for them. If they truly wanted their lives to remain the way that it is, they would embrace determinism.
Determinism is a position based on empiricism, and that our brains are in fact, made of stuff. Fatalism is an irrational position based entirely in emotion, that because we don’t have free will, we should forgo from now on the consideration of consequences—when in fact, we can consider the consequences. Fatalists just don’t want to because they’re likely high in Neuroticism, to begin with.
That’s what it all comes down to. The common Neo-liberal likes to toot its free will horn a lot, but not so much when talking about systemic discrimination. Then their whole “pulling yourself by the bootstraps; you can do anything you set your mind to” mentality kind of goes south and we get more of a soft-spoken, altruistic poet out of them. The modern left is the embodiment of hypocrisy and evil.
To reiterate, if one is feminist, one is to believe there is a need for feminism (meaning that women are “oppressed”). Thus in the person’s mind, there exists an oppressor and an oppressed class. An us, and a them. That’s. Marxism!
CONSCRIPTION AS BEING “PART OF THE PATRIARCHY”
Feminists making the argument that men making up most of the Fortune 500 CEO’s in America makes a case for patriarchy—is somewhat understandable. What absolutely strains incredulity though is when they claim conscription to be part of that “system”. They’ll remind you constantly how bad women had it 60 years ago. But do they care that also 60 years ago, 350,000 men were killed in Vietnam and over 1.1 million injured (most of them draftees)?! Moreover, do you think they care that the potential for that to happen yet again persists? Obviously not. This country’s been choking on feminism for more than half a century now. Women are miserable, boys get their genitals mutilated at birth, and men still go into the meat grinder if need be. Feminism’s not empowering to women, nor does it look out for the interests of men, at all. It’s about state dependency and nothing more.
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” –Hillary Clinton
Is this where men truly stand as people to the Queen of the American Left? Are we completely disposable tools to this woman? Objects to be misplaced, or replaced inevitably at some point—but to cuck and maintain their function like good little lapdogs in the meantime. “But, she said that in 1998.” Yea and she was 51 years old. Oh, but she can probably “profit from experience”, right? Not like Trump though. Everything bad he’s ever let slip in the past matters!
If women are oppressed, why aren’t they drafted? Why aren’t all draftees women? They have to do what we tell them to, right? So why are we doing all the killing and dying? I get the killing part! Not so much the dying part. Feminists like to sweep that part under the rug. The fact that men are taken out of their homes if need be, to go die for our “freedom”. As if that very fact doesn’t shatter the idea of a “patriarchy”.
First thing, women cannot be cucks. Women have the ability to make babies and the legal freedom to leech resources from whoever’s gametes they use to make them. The term ‘cuck’ is all about the female power dynamic in multicultural, democratic societies, and the way in which women think. Holding that particular way of thinking up on a pedestal, as though it’s superior to the usual “toxic masculinity”. A man that thinks like a woman is a cuck.
Secondly, not all married men are cucks. Some men arrive at the marriages of their own volition, through a series of sound decisions. But most married men in America end up where they are because when the opportunity to have sex arrives for a man, more often than not, he jumps on it, regardless if he’s prepared, and women are “giving it up” more often now and “lowering their standards” just to get laid, because it’s not only cool for women to be slutty now. In many sororities, it’s a requirement.
Finally, the term “cuck” isn’t meant to condescend. The purpose is to get the person to wake up. To realize that they’re unhappy. They’ve merely convinced themselves they’re happy because they’ve been made to believe that they had no choice but to live the life they so reluctantly do. They have forced flimsy rationalism into their head to justify this lifestyle, which has in turn only made them more obviously miserable.
A cuck is a man that should have been born a woman. They are the tomboy equivalent for men. They are hyper-aware of others to the point where it often interferes with their self-awareness and reasoning. If you ever catch them indulging in something, chances are they were given permission to do so; maybe even had to be encouraged. These are the kinds of men that “aren’t afraid to cry” and to wear pink because they “know” it’s the manliest shit ever. The problem with these types of men is that men are supposed to take charge, to keep their emotions under control, go the distance, and cling to opportunity. Whiny, emotional, beta males are the kind of men who are going to be out of the door first if a bad person breaks into their house to harm their families. These kinds of men do a disservice not just to their fellow man, but all of society—much like women that choose foolishly to work. Gender roles exist for a reason. Men do stuff. Women care!
Everything Ayn Rand taught the world about Objectivism, cucks reject, often without realizing it. Objectivism is simply empiricism (the notion that knowledge can be obtained only through sensory experience) turned into a philosophy. To have an objectivist mindset (which is not common among cucks), one must accept the following axioms.
- Reality exists. There is no point in questioning it. Yes, if we were not here, reality still would be. — Solipsism and Objectivism do not mix.
- You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it’s in your best interest. One must use only reason to guide themselves and consider all the consequences of their actions, before making a decision. — Gluttony and Objectivism do not mix.
- Your happiness is your ultimate goal. You have no obligation to “help your fellow man” until you have achieved self-actualization. To do so would be unhealthy and would only slow down self-actualization, if not prevent it entirely. That’s not to say you shouldn’t help friends and family. For that would be in your self-interest. However, sacrificing yourself for strangers will only get you and those you attempt to help—so far. — Altruism and Objectivism absolutely do not mix.
- Free market capitalism is the only just economic system. All instances of economic turmoil, be it big bully “robber barons”, Wall Street, the Great Depression. They all occur because of our altruistic tendencies to fiddle fuck around in business, putting down regulation after regulation. Bad things simply cannot happen in a free market. To suggest otherwise is lunacy. If something’s bad for the market, it will not thrive. It may have a slight chance though depending on how much red tape and overbearing socialistic regulation one has put forth.
So, why are cucks the epitome of everything opposite to this philosophy?
Well, cucks often have their cake 24/7 and eat it impulsively. When a cuck is presented with an opportunity that might stimulate him temporarily, but damage or slow him down in the long run, not only will they often say to hell with the consequences and just do it; often times—they outright overlook what’s at stake.
A cuck’s happiness is far from his main priority. If it were, he would wait for a woman he really loves, instead of settling for one that will take him now. He would not stick around for a child (especially one that isn’t his own), knowing that he’s never even considered having a kid. A cuck wouldn’t even be looking for a partner until their needs have been met. When someone asks for a favor, expecting nothing in return but the gratitude of having assisted them, cucks don’t question it; they obey.
When a cuck does a “good deed”, it’s hardly ever because he wanted to. Rather there’s been a societal effort to pussify him into thinking he should do these things. That it’s not up to him. That these tiny acts of altruism are some form of civic duty. That failing to do these things makes him (and this is the key here) less of a man.
There’s always something a cuck wants to be doing, but their wives/girlfriends won’t let them. But will they lift one finger if their partner does something that irritates them? Nope. They’re just gonna go for a drive or a walk. Get away from their house, and try and convince themselves they’re just “overreacting”.
But the nail in the coffin, the ultimate proof of their cuckery if you will, is their rationalization of or wishy-washy attitude towards communism, which is a system of a government based entirely on state power. Men are not supposed to be so frightened of society and the broader world around them, that they vote away basic civil liberties and freedoms just so Uncle Sam will pat them on the head and tuck them in every night. This kind of man if you can even call it one is a product of the modern female left and it constitutes an overwhelming majority of the men “in power” unfortunately.
To recap, the common cuck:
- Beats his children.
- Doesn’t beat his wife.
- Rationalizes having mistreated others.
- Rationalizes wife being angry over him doing nothing.
- Has little, if any, impulse control.
- Is overweight or underweight.
- Doesn’t take charge, preferring that his spouse take on the dominant role instead.
ARE WOMEN CHILD-LIKE IN NATURE?
If you’ve ever talked to a psychologist, you may have heard them at one point bring up OCEAN. It stands for Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. OCEAN’s used with heavy accuracy in modern psychology to determine personality types, traits, characteristics, patterns, etc.
Of those five factors, the two most commonly associated with women (based on survey data) are Agreeableness and Neuroticism. To be generally affectionate and welcoming towards everyone is to be agreeable. Neuroticism is the tendency to think negatively; to be possessed by timidness in the face of adversity and be hypersensitive to situations that aren’t proportionally as threatening, if at all.
It’s not difficult to notice a parallel between those traits and the mindset of most children. Children are often scared of fantastical creatures, figments of their imagination, and of course—the unknown. They’re also by in large really sociable and tend to follow the group in early developmental years.
Neuroticism in women may very well explain why so many women seem concerned as to whether or not they’re getting paid “the same” as their male “counterparts”, so much so that it ironically interferes with their job performance. You think most men spend all day sulking about potentially being paid less than Susie who does the same work? No. They work, and that’s why they “get paid” more. If they’re not satisfied with their position in work, they change it. They don’t make signs, sit outside of the “establishment”, and demand “proper treatment”. In fact, isn’t that something a—child would do?
This isn’t some “fuck you” to women by nature, by the way. It’s an evolutionary advantage. If women think like children, they are more likely to get along with their children while their husbands are out getting resources for the tribe. They’re more inherently collectively minded than men are, as to make cooperation with other women in the tribe smoother. This is partly why women tend to be more group and people-oriented, and thus more often than not, left-leaning.
They are vastly more willing to conform to the group than men. This is because back then, women in newly conquered tribes would likely be killed if they didn’t assimilate, quickly and convincingly. Women have practically no group loyalty, whatsoever for this reason.
Members of a sexually dimorphic species are prone to submission to gender roles, whether they like it or not, and this is for the sake of that thing leftists use all the time to gain the “moral high ground”: children. Kids—that did not ask to be brought into this world by you, deserve at the very least—a father, and a mother. The mother must be kind and nurturing (though, not an enabler), and the father should have this thing called: testicles. Honestly lacking in American society nowadays thanks to feminism. Tap into your nutsack, harness your inner asshole, and make sure both your wife and your kid have their healthy dose of Vitamin-N.
This is also why giving women the vote inevitably leads to Orwellian leftism in democratic societies, especially if they comprise over 50% of the population. Most women end up voting left, and many men vote with their dicks as well, so it’s not surprising that in these kinds of societies, right-wing viewpoints of any kind are looked down upon.
THE “PAY” GAP
I love the pay gap myth. It truly is the gift that keeps on giving. Did you guys know that women get paid less than men, and apparently the solution to that problem is a law that says you can’t pay men and women differently. The problem with that proposition is that in 1963, such a law was established and has been in place for over half a century now. So, color me suspicious. I think maybe, just maybe—women aren’t getting paid less. Perhaps. Roll with me here. Maybe they’re earning less.
Think about it. What do women do?
- They raise children.
- They choose occupations that sound interesting (not lucrative).
- They’re not as extraverted as men, so even if they wanted a raise, they by in large don’t even bring it up.
- They also not only leave work long before men do so they can go be with their families; but with mothers in particular: frequent fiddling with a cell phone for the sake of communicating with their child is a must. I’ve seen women take all kinds of shit off of their bosses, but fucking snap—when they’re trying to talk to their kids on the phone and get told to hang up.
- Oh, and here’s probably the biggest factor. Get this. Women. Don’t. Fucking. Work, and they shouldn’t. It’s not an area in life where they excel at, nor is parenting something men can typically do on their own. Gender roles exist. Get over it.
I’m not saying you can’t deviate from the standard. I wouldn’t want you to think I was oppressing you, oh God no. Anything but that. But if you think there’s no standard to which not only society, but nature itself compels us to follow as members of our “assigned” sex, then I’ve got one question for you. Have you been blind since birth or what? I’m not trying to be mean here. It’s just that women have tits. Guys don’t. Very simple differences between us, ya know. Wider hips for women, broad shoulders for men.
I just figured that if there’s differences that obvious about us—differences that are external and able to be noticed by strangers, surely there’s differences between us mentally, perhaps even in areas we have yet to discover. How in the fuck can you challenge that? Obviously we’re different. Obviously!
Whaaaaaa? We live in a free society where people can self-determine and one group of people makes more money than another? Tooootally didn’t see that one coming. I thought if we just let everyone do their own thing, everybody would do what I wanted them to do.
In post-structuralist, especially feminist, theory: a structure or style of thought, speech, or writing (often considered as typical of traditional western philosophy, culture, or literature), deconstructed as expressing male attitudes and reinforcing male dominance; phallocentrism implicitly communicated in or through language.
Phallagocentrism is self-refuting. If everything in society is the result of “maleness”, then that includes the very attitudes and belief systems held by the people who bring up the term. By their own axiomatic assertion that “maleness” affects everything, they’re admitting to everyone that their own perspective on the matter is not to be trusted or entertained, for it was manufactured by patriarchy, kyriarchy, or whatever you wanna believe. Get it? By claiming society to be “phallagocentric”, one is saying, “everyone and everything in this society is very androcentric. Not me though. I’ve managed to obtain a higher level thinking than everyone else.”
Don’t you “post modern” types reject science, logic, and all of that? So you’re not exactly qualified to tell me about male attitudes or “deconstruct” any of my arguments, huh? This is just another word like “problematic” and “misogyny”, where if you hear them nowadays, it’s probably being used wrong, and by a feminist or beta cuck.
Everyone in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and every American that continues to vote these parties into office are feminists. They might not believe in feminism. Hell, they might think they hate it with all of their heart. But actions speak louder than words. Feminist hysteria has poisoned both of these parties.
Until you children start believing in logic, science, and reality again, I think we should put you all in a zoo and just let you fling shit at and fornicate endlessly with each other. “We don’t believe in logic and reason, man. It’s part of the patriarchy. Now allow us to use logic and reason to try and get you to understand that.”