Table of Contents - Glossary

.
". . . The fact is that males and females are like two substances combined in different proportions, but with either element never wholly missing. 
 











We find, so to speak, never either a man or a woman, but only the male condition and the female condition. Any individual is never to be designated merely as a man or a woman, but by a formula showing that it is a composite of male and female characters in different proportions." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character
.
Chapter One: Introduction
Part 1: The Masculine Principle 
Part 2: Generalizing in a Politically Correct World 
Part 3: Peer Reviewed Research: The Holy Grail of Truth? 
Part 4: The Truth About Misogyny
Part 5: A Guide to Birdwatching
.
Chapter Two: Sexuality
Part 1: Male and Female: Equal But Different
Part 2: Sex Sells (Hypergamy Explained)
Part 3: Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers
Part 4: The Garden of Eden, Empty Vessels and Relative Truth
Part 5: The Myth of Tiresias and the Ten Pleasures of Sex 
Part 6: You're Such a Tool! (Briffault's law)
Part 7: Rites of Passage - Making Boys into Men
Part 8: Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager In The House?
Part 9: The Amazon Women (The Science of "Why Males Exist") 
Part 10: Testing, Testing... 1, 2, 3... Testing
.
Chapter Three: The Gender War
Part 1: The Fish and The Bicycle
Part 2: Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue With Women
Part 3: The Suffragettes versus The Republic  
Part 4: The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy
Part 5: The Suffragettes versus The Marketplace
Part 6: The Suffragettes versus The Truth  
Part 7: Father Custody and The Legend of the Selkie  
Part 8: The Fraud of Modern Marriage (Women as Chattel)
Part 9: Feminizing the Decline (Hypergamy & Birthrates) 
.
Chapter Four: The Pillars and the Plot
Part 1: The Powers That Be 
Part 2: It's Not Marxism Because...
Part 3: Cultural Pillars and Critical Theory 
Part 4: Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess 
Part 5: The Family Plot: The Past (Their Oppressors Are Children)
Part 6: The Family Plot: The Present (No-Fault Divorce & Hypergamy) 
Part 7: The Family Plot: The Future (Civil Unions & Shared Parenting)  
Part 8: Following the Masculine Principle is the "Right Way"
.
Chapter Five: Conclusion
Part 1: Work With the World; Don't Fight Against It
Part 2: The Liberation of Men 
Part 3: The Want of Men Was Their Ruin
Part 4: One Man's Kingdom
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Glossary 

- Fitness Test (aka Shit Test)

- FRA - Father's RIghts Activist 
- FRM - Father's Rights Movement

- Game - The Art of Seduction

- Hypergamy
- I.O.I.('s) - Indication of Interest

- Mangina - A man who supplicates to women to gain their favour

- Manosphere - The Online Men's Issues Community

- MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way

- Mig-Tow - MGTOW 2.0

- MRA - Men's Rights Activist

- MRM - Men's Rights Movement
- MM - Men's Movement

- N.A.W.A.L.T. - Not All Women Are Like That 

- P.U.A. - Pick-up Artist

- Rotating Polyandry

- Shit Test (aka Fitness Test)
- SJW - Social Justice Warrior
- SMV - Sexual Mating Value
- White Knight - A man who defends a woman no matter her behaviour
. 

The Masculine Principle

The Masculine Principle is a philosophical concept that is described in the beginning of Otto Weininger's Sex and Character. Throughout the book, Weininger refers to "The Male Principle" or "The Female Character" in a way that

Click Pic for "Sex and Character"

means "The Absolute Male" or "The Purely Female." In reality however, there is no such thing as a 100% masculine male or a woman that is completely female. What is present instead is an over-riding "principle" that dominates a man or woman's character in varying degrees.

". . . The fact is that males and females are like two substances combined in different proportions, but with either element never wholly missing. We find, so to speak, never either a man or a woman, but only the male condition and the female condition. Any individual is never to be designated merely as a man or a woman, but by a formula showing that it is a composite of male and female characters in different proportions."
-- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, "Males" and "Females"

For example, the average man is not "purely male," but instead something like 80% male principle and 20% female principle. Therefore this average man is influenced mostly by the male principle, but also to some degree by the female principle. Another man standing next to him might be 60% male principle and 40% female principle, which still makes him dominated by the male principle, but he takes on more female characteristics as well. Females obviously are dominated by the feminine principle in the opposite but corresponding way. Thus, the name of the book - Sex and Character.  

This philosophical concept can be visually observed with the diagram of the Yin and Yang. Men and women are two sides of the same coin, but those sides are not the same. They are starkly distinct from eachother. Also, in each side can be found a dot of the other - but they are still distinct from eachother. The dots aren't an androgynously melded grey area, but rather distinctly represent the characteristic of the opposite side - white or black.  

This manifests itself both physically and psychologically.

In a newborn baby boy, for example, a few drops of milk might secret from his nipples. In fact, the rudimentary biological structure is in place within the male's nipple to secret milk just as in a female's - it's just not as developed in the male's body, but the female element is still present. Conversely, women have facial hair just as men do, except theirs is finer and does not grow in as thickly as a man's. This is the male element present in a female's body. And, when observing that some women have more facial hair than others, we can say that in regard to that specific characteristic, one woman has a greater degree of the masculine element, say 20%, than the woman with less facial hair, who exhibits 10% of the masculine element. In both cases, the women are dominated by their female characteristics, but display characteristics of the other sex to a varying degree. Some men have wider hips than others, but they are still "men," and some women have less developed breasts than others while still being "women."

Click Pic for "Hardwired Differences Between Male and Female Brains...""

In the same way, men and women have different psychological characteristics which form their mental character - and while no-one is fully of the male psychology or the female psychology - when detached and in the concept of an absolute "principle," it becomes much easier to define what is "male" and what is "female."

Thus the title of this book, The Masculine Principle.

The following pages explore what the masculine principle actually is, and of course, how it relates to and compliments the female principle - and vice versa. Why is it that marriage has produced, throughout all of recorded history, a synergy that is a greater force than merely the two opposite parts? Would there be any synergy at all if both halves were androgynously grey?

In the corporate world, mergers and acquisitions are motivated by synergies - they seek to add new companies into the fold that compliment eachother, rather than merely to grow into a larger corporate blob of the same nature. eBay, for example, purchased PayPal several years back not because it was a competitor of theirs, but because they wanted to enhance eBay's performance as a company and speculated this could be accomplished with adding PayPal's unique payment system to eBay's existing structure. Well, that was the idea anyway - not just to "grow" but to create a synergy that made a combination of the two worth more than they would be separately. Both had a role to play - eBay to sell the product, and PayPal to collect the money. What they did not do was buy PayPal and try to turn it into a competitor of theirs. 

A man and a woman can create such a synergy within the family, if they compliment eachother rather than compete with eachother. An example might be how fathers traditionally have been the authority figure in the household - a position that needs clearly defined principles of right and wrong to be established and enforced. The father will generally make it known that his daughter should not come home pregnant, for that would clearly be wrong. The mother, however, by following the female principle, has a more diffuse concept of right and wrong and is motivated by her compassion to forgive her daughter's transgression and help her rather than punish her - to show mercy, as it were. But, it must be noted, one cannot actually show mercy unless it has first been established that the daughter did, in fact, do something wrong. Mercy without the principle of right and wrong is not actually mercy. It needs justice for it to exist as a concept, otherwise it is merely blind emotion and instinct - which is how animals exist in their brutal and harshly uncivilized world.

In this case, the synergy is created by the masculine principle establishing right and wrong, but being made into something mercifully forgiving by the influence of the feminine principle. Together, the two principles combine to create something better than they were separately. The father should not kick the daughter out of the house, but instead ought to show her mercy. On the other hand, the mother should not be so overwhelmed with compassion that she refuses to even acknowledge the daughter did wrong. If it is not first established that a wrong was committed, then what is to stop all of the rest of their daughters from coming home pregnant as well? Together, these principles combine to create a system of justice that is capable of showing mercy, and the offspring of the man and woman will fare much better as they attempt to survive in the world because of it. A synergy has been created because the man's character and woman's character complimented each other rather than entering into competition with each other.     

Click Pic for "The Truth About Misogyny"

Be forewarned, however, that what we are about to explore is not a politically correct topic. This subject is one that exposes many of the falsehoods people like to tell themselves for the lies which they really are. Over the past couple of centuries - and especially in the past few decades - our society has become increasingly influenced by the feminine principle - to the detriment of the masculine principle and the synergies created by its combination with the feminine. One of the effects of this has been the over-riding of the objective truth with the subjective truth.

Truth must be ordered for it to be a functional benefit to humans. America's Founding Fathers borrowed heavily from John Locke's system of ordering, which he derived from the "philosophical position" of God and the Bible - from "The Absolute."
.
This, by the way, has nothing to do with whether God is real or not, but rather what God philosophically represents. Buddhism as well acknowledges The Absolute, as do countless other religions and philosophies. In a functional sense they are all interchangeable because philosophically they all represent the same thing thing: Absolute Truth. For the sake of keeping things simple, however, I am going to refer to Christianity and the Bible here, because it is the religion most of us are familiar with, thus making it far easier to use as an example than a religion or philosophy which is more obscure.

In the Bible, when God refers to himself it is usually in the form of a riddle:

"I am who I am."

"I am the beginning and the end/the Alpha and the Omega."

"I am the TRUTH!"

Every riddle God gives in the Bible to his identity is also synonymous with "Absolute Truth."

"God" is Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth existed before we were here, and it will exist after we are gone. The Absolute Truth just “is” – It is what it is (I am who I am) – the Absolute Truth doesn’t need to explain nor justify, it just IS. The Absolute Truth exists on a different plane than we do, therefore, whether we figure out the true nature of Absolute Truth or not, does not in anyway refute the existence of said Truth. It exists externally from humans, even though elements of it are found within us.
.
The ordering of Truth, therefore, with Absolute Truth at the top, is as follows: 
.
1 – God’s Law/Absolute Truth

2 – Natural Law/Apparent/Objective Truth

3 – Civil Law/Relative/Subjective Truth
.
It works like one of those Russian matryoshka dolls where the one fits inside of the other, in order to contain the wild malleability of the human mind (We can justify anything if we really want to, ie. Relative Truth – Jail is full of self-claimed "innocent" people).

If a Civil Law/Relative Truth contradicts a Natural Law/Apparent Truth, then the Civil Law/Relative Truth is a false one, and so forth. In this way, the “lower truths” are contained by the “higher truths,” and thus we are provided with a philosophical framework that anchors us to reality.
.
Now, some things that were true yesterday are no longer true today. Changes to medicine and technology can indeed change what is true. 200 years ago, I would have said it is absolutely true that man does not have the ability to fly, let alone propel himself faster than the speed of sound… but today, the truth is different – the truth evolved. Also, sometimes things we once assumed were true, like the earth being flat, are illustrated to have been false. Thus, we need something “higher” than apparent truth - because we are not omniscient. We can't be 100% rigid in our beliefs in apparent/objective truth after the Absolute Truth has revealed itself to us. Once
we acknowledged the earth was in fact round, we had to adjust our objective thinking to accomodate this newly known fact - it changed our thinking of the sun, moon and stars. Further down the chain of truth, we had to alter the subjective truth and stop believing we would fall off the edge of the earth if we sailed out too far, and therefore, any laws preventing us from doing so were obviously false laws and had to be removed from the books.

This ordering of truth works as a hierarchy and it can't work in reverse. You might be saying, "Well, duh!", but the Soviets illustrated how this can happen by the way they ordered their farmers to plant crops according to a scheduled date on the calendar, rather than to the actual rythym of the seasons. This left their farmers sometimes planting crops into frozen ground. The resulting failed harvests led to starvation for the people. Somehow the bureaucracies in charge convinced themselves that the seasons could be legislated, rather than their legislation having to accomodate the seasons. This happened to them because they un-ordered the truth. 
Absolute Truth is purity. It controls all other truths. It is without fault. It is never wrong. It is enduring, it never changes. It couldn’t give a rip if we understand it or not. It is eternal, and it exists on an entirely different plane than us, and often, our understanding. That we thought the earth was flat had no effect on the physics that ruled the earth and the solar system. On that level, our understanding is irrelevant. Absolute Truth trumps all, no matter what we conjure up in our brains.

I think, after a while of studying this whole malaise we are in as a society, eventually one gets exposed to the changing philosophies of mankind, such as how a change of thinking about fraternity and equality arose out of the French Revolution and this led to a philosophical change in the way society viewed the reality about us. It is often pointed out that this philosophical change is what led to the birth of Marxism and feminism, which are both based upon "the Relative Truth Uber Alles."
.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth"

It is these concepts that will be explored in this book. The Masculine and Feminine Principles and what they are sexually, biologically, and psychologically. How do they interconnect with each other? How do they relate to the structure of our civilization and to the philosophical nature of "The Truth." What is it that separates us from the rest of the animals and makes us human? Could it be the concept of Truth itself?

The following pages will attempt to speak clearly without regard for personal feelings - we are seeking the Truth and trying not to perpetuate falsehoods simply out of politically correct fear. Sometimes the Truth hurts - but it's still neccessary to have it.

Click Pic for "I Stand Alone Today"

There  are certainly anti-feminist sentiments to be found here but make no mistake, this isn't a social justice warrior's treatise trying to foment some men's movement to counter feminism. Movements, like herds and harems, are the domain of the Feminine Principle. It would be anti-thetical to the Masculine Principle to attempt to counter the Feminine Principle by mimicking it - that's where androgyny comes from, a condition I completely abhor and reject. The Masculine Principle must be masculine, and one of its features, which will be discussed later on, is its ability to seek the Truth so we can better understand the structure of the world about us. It's something men have been doing since the beginning of time, and this book will attempt to continue in that ancient, masculine tradition.  
.

Index / Next

.

.

Generalizing in a Politically Correct World (NAWALT)

.
Possibly the most consistent argument one is faced with when discussing politically incorrect subjects is the knee-jerkingly reflexive, "You can't generalize like that!" This is usually followed with an anecdote about someone's friend's cousin who lives next door to a lady located in a neighbouring town - ten years ago. The purpose of telling this story is that it "obviously proves" the politically incorrect premise is wrong. It is the trick of personalizing an individual characteristic over a group characteristic - which, by the way, indicates the person giving the annectdote has already lost the plot and is not arguing in good faith. 

Any logical person will soon realize that when discussing macro-issues in regard to society and its trends, not only can you generalize but in fact you must generalize. To fail to generalize is to demand all things must only be regarded one-dimensionally and in terms of the lowest common denominator. A more complex and proper way of thinking is that “there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups.”
.

For example, saying something like “women have larger breasts than men” is a sweeping generalization. But it's a true one – even though some women have smaller breasts than some men. In the collective group of “women” there will be some individual women who have small breasts, while in the collective group of “men” there will be some porky men sporting a set of man-boobs. But only a simpleton would try to cherry pick a flat chested woman and stand her next to a
man-boobed male and claim that this is in any way an honest reflection of the physical nature of man and woman, therefore, we should not say that “women have larger breasts than men” anymore. It would be lunacy! The only thing we might be able to learn then is that “both men and women have nipples.”

Wow! Stop everything right there! The Tower of Babel is already reaching into the heavens! What more could we possibly learn?

Generalizations are absolutely necessary in order to learn anything about macro-issues and societal trends.
.
Of course, what a person cannot do is take one individual and generalize that the entire group resembles that individual. Take Marc Lepine, for example. Feminists have been screeching for over twenty-five years now that Marc Lepine is “proof” of the murderous hatred men harbour for women. Now that is pure bunk. The actions of one man is in no way a reflection of the mentality of the 15,000,000 other men who live in Canada. That is a wrong generalization.

But, to say that men are taller or heavier than women? Yes, this is a proper generalization, because the majority of men are taller and heavier than the majority of women – even though in some individual cases, you will be able to see a taller or heavier woman than a man.

We generalize that “birds fly.” But oh my gosh! You can’t generalize like that! Don’t you know that Emus, Ostriches, Kiwis and Penguins don’t fly? This is such a lame argument and it ought to be obvious that any biologist worth his salt must necessarily generalize that “birds fly.” Look up, grasshopper… not down!

In fact, generalizing is very beneficial and is used quite successfully in many areas of society - such as when the insurance industry analyzes the average frequency of an event (ie. a housefire) in order to offer protection to the individual homeowner while still reliably turning a profit. The government generalizes as well when they pass such laws as speed limits with fines for punishment. It is fully understood that not all of the people will reduce their speed, but most of them will and therefore, it works to keep most people driving at a reasonable speed and makes the roads safer - which is the positive result that is being sought.

Another example is that if we can see that men politically vote 60/40 for principles extolling freedom versus those which promote socialism, while women tend to vote 30/70 on the same issues, then there is little doubt that over time the government will become less freedom oriented and much more mired in socialism - as has been explored by John Lott and Lawrence Kenny's study titled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"   

Many of the arguments that get put forward in regard to sensitive issues (like the War of the Sexes) automatically get dismissed with the intellectually dishonest statement, “You can’t generalize like that.”

Nonsense.

In fact, no-one is going to figure out anything if they fail to generalize. Ignoring the similar actions/traits/situations in 80% of the cases because 20% of the cases do not coincide… well… that is not going to help us at all in analyzing the world as it unfolds about us.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are individual groups (ie. men and women), and there are individuals within those groups.

The way to learn something is to recognize that the trait of the group follows in “this” direction, even though there are individual exceptions which follow “that” direction.

It’s time to stop looking for the lowest common denominator.

There are individual groups, and there are individuals within those groups. 
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Click Pic for "The Wife of Noble Character (Would Make Me a Sandwich!)"

"Meanwhile, as long as there's one honest woman living at the temple atop Mount NAWALT in Tibet..." -- White Knight
.
--------------------------------------------
. 
Mathieu of Boulogne (1295) on NAWALT

From “The Lamentations of Matheolus”

"Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one's general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, "Who could find a virtuous woman?" The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What's more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she's doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don't need to look for further proof. That's enough logical demonstration.

My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has - and there is ample evidence of this - deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belfort Bax on NAWALT

It seems not much has changed in a century, but this is a beautiful reply (Notice how he only responds to male feminists? Lol!):

The Fraud of Feminism - Belfort Bax, 1913 pp24-26

"At the time of writing, the normal person who has no axe to grind in maintaining the contrary, declares the sun to be shining brightly, but should it answer the purpose of anyone to deny this obvious fact, and declare that the day is gloomy and overcast, there is no power of argument by which I can prove that I am right and he is wrong. I may point to the sun, but if he chooses to affirm that he doesn't see it I can't prove that he does. This is, of course, an extreme case, scarcely likely to occur in actual life. But it is in essence similar to those cases of persons (and they are not seldom met with) who, when they find facts hopelessly destructive of a certain theoretical position adopted by them, do not hesitate to cut the knot of controversy in their own favour by boldly denying the inconvenient facts.
.
One often has experience of this trick of controversy in discussing the question of the notorious characteristics of the female sex. The Feminist driven into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair play among women in general.

The afore said peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only dis-puted by those persons--to wit Feminists--to whose theoretical views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. Of course these characterisations refer to averages, and they do not exclude partial or even occasionally striking exceptions. It is possible, therefore, although perhaps not very probable, that indi-vidual experience may in the case of certain individuals play a part in falsifying their general outlook; it is possible--although, as I before said not perhaps very probable--that any given man's experience of the other sex has been limited to a few quite exceptional women and that hence his particular experience contradicts that of the general run of mankind. In this case, of course, his refusal to admit what to others are self-evident facts would be perfectly bona fide.

The above highly improbable contingency is the only refuge for those who would contend for sincerity in the Feminist's denials. In this matter I only deal with the male Feminist. The female Feminist is usually too biassed a witness in this particular question."
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

Peer Reviewed Research: The Holy Grail of Truth?

"It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to pursue her. Indeed it would be strange if they were: a persevering devotion to truth, a nice sense of intellectual honour, cannot be long maintained without the aid of a sentiment which Gaius and Titius could debunk as easily as any other. It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so." ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

I've read once that when Harvard University was founded back in 1636, its original mandate was to be "Protectors of the Truth." Back in those days, Western Civilization had a clear concept of Absolute Truth because most of its citizens were Christian and many of its customs and laws were based directly upon the Bible. 

Pretty much all civilizations that have ever existed have had a religion at its base or in its historical founding. What religions tend to do is make a large group of people more "functionable" because they all share the same belief system. For example: Driving on the left-hand side of the road or the right-hand side doesn't really matter - both sides are equally valid in every way. What does matter, however, is that everyone understands which side of the road is the "correct" side to drive on. Without such "moral values," the road system just wouldn't work. It doesn't really matter which religion it is in this functional sense and it's for this reason that when anthropologists and archaeologists study a culture they focus so heavily on trying to understand their religion - it reveals much of the culture's structure and helps explaining its history, its laws, its traditions, and so forth. 

The reason why Atheists, despite all their allegiances to science, have never created a successful civilization (it's not like this is the first time abolishing God has been thought up!), is because they are ignoring the scientific facts presented to them: 

"If God did not exist, it would be neccessary to invent him." -- Voltaire

We obviously can't decide "which side of the road to drive on" completely of our own volition - that each side of the road is equally valid and therefore it is of no consequence. No matter how smart you think you are! We must all follow the same system or it just doesn't "work." Religions do this to large parts of the human population. Richard Dawkins does not.

Western Civilization obviously has Christianity and the Bible as its core founding religion and it's for this reason I often will refer to Biblical concepts. In order to study our own culture and what has happened to us over the decades, centuries and millenia, we must start at our culture's founding religion. This is not an attempt to be a "Christian apologist" or to try and convince you to go to church twice on Sundays. I only go to church for weddings and funerals myself and if we were studying a culture from the East, we'd probably be focusing on Buddhism or whatever religion that culture adhered to. In fact, it is from this very observance about how religions form cultures - and sometimes great civilizations (while other times not) - that we can start to map out a "blue-print" for what it takes to create a successful culture. For example - What features were present in Greece and Rome that helped them build such magnificent civilizations, while so many ancient African and North American cultures remained at what was essentially the Hunter-Gatherer stage?

Well, one significant feature of Western Civilization is its philosophical attachment to Absolute Truth through the Bible and its mono-theistic God, or, One Truth. The authority of the Bible, for example, was used to reign in the power of the king with the signing of the Magna Carta. Not even the king with his "divine right" could contradict the Bible. This concept of Absolute Truth in Western Civilization was present right from its beginnings up until the early 19th Century, when G.F. Hegel's "Hegelian Dialectic" philosophically over-threw it. 

Back in the first section of this chapter, we discussed how John Locke and the American Founding Fathers had an "ordering of the Truth." It was based upon the Bible and went like this:

1 - God's Law/Absolute Truth
2 - Natural Law/Objective Truth
3 - Civil Law/Subjective Truth

Hegel's dialectic, however, posited that "The Truth is Relative." What he did was make all three of the above truths "subjective truths," or the lowest and least to be revered of the truths as put forth by Locke. 

Therefore, we can see what was meant when Harvard University was originally mandated to be "Protectors of the Truth" back in 1636 - they were to protect the higher truths from being torn down by lower truths. Further, we can understand how by 2005, Larry Summers was forced to resign as the President of Harvard University for merely speaking the Truth (let alone protecting it): That there are innate differences between the sexes. 

Now, let me ask you, if the president of the most prestigious university in the Western Hemisphere cannot speak the Truth about gender without getting so much grief that he must resign his post, what chance do you think either you or I have of getting the Truth from that university's studies, or for that matter, from all the less prestigious institutions of "higher learning" that have created the modern body of work on "gender?" If you were a researcher where people higher up the chain of power than you lose their job for making mere politically incorrect - yet truthful - remarks, would you really risk requesting a research grant "to find out the Truth" about a particularly unpopular subject? (Here's a good example: Lynched by the Sisterhood by Jeffrey Archer)

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think all studies and research should be thrown out and ignored. Often times I will refer to this study or that study throughout the following pages - but they should always be taken with a grain of salt and sifted through for what is true and what is, quite frankly, bullshit. 

However, it would be foolhardy to simply assume that because a study has been "peer-reviewed" that it is unquestionably and reliably "the truth," because academia no longer encourages the free thinking that lends credibility to peer reviewed research! Even the so-called STEM subjects are incredibly infected with politically correct thinking. We may as well be living in Nazi Germany and asking a Jew to prove he is discriminated against by only using Nazi Reviewed Research. 

Reason, commonsense, mankind's natural curiosity and desire for the truth should always trump academic research. In fact, over the years I have found so much faked research used for activist and propaganda purposes, that it motivated me to start seeking answers on the subject of "the sexes" from other sources - like ancient history, religion, myth, and those dastardly misogynists of old.

There is really only one example that needs to be given for why "peer reviewed research" has absolutely zero credibility in the issues of which we speak and write of.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth"

The fundamental basis of feminism is that "gender is a social construct;" that we are based upon "tabula rasa," the Latin for "blank slate." It is upon this foundation that all else of feminism's ideology and victimology is based upon. Since we are essentially the same, the only reason that women did not figure prominently in history, or science, or music, or philosophy, or pretty much anything else, is because of the innately evil and misogynistic nature of men (which already refutes tabula rasa in itself). Therefore, women are institutionally discriminated against by the very fabric of civilization and society itself, thus affirmative action and breaking down gender barriers is completely justified.

Click Pic for "The Family Plot: The Future (Civil Unions & Shared Parenting)"

.
However, walking across the hall in our ivory towered institutions, we can attend courses in Queer Theory where the fundamental basis for it all is that homosexuality is a normal, biological condition - that gays are "born that way." This is 100% the opposite of feminism's fundamental premise of "gender is a social construct." Queer Theory argues that since their LGBT "gender" is natural and biologically based, they are therefore discriminated against by virtue of their birth, and suffer socially and in numerous other ways because of something over which they had no ability to control.

Take your pick. If you support gay rights you are a cretin of a misogynist - a sexist, really, for believing that the sexes are different by virtue of their birth. However, if you support women's rights and equality based upon the blank slate, you are a homophobe (a hate-crime in Canada), because then you'd also believe that gays could be "cured" of their homosexuality through laws and social conditioning in the same way that feminism has been trying to "cure" men of their masculinity for the past 50 years. I mean, if the male gender can be cured of its masculinity and made more feminine, why can't gays also be cured of their homosexuality and morphed into heterosexuals? Because, you know, equality.  

These two positions are 100% completely and irrefutably in direct opposition of each other. This is just simple common-sense. You cannot be walking east and west simultaneously. Yet, both Women's Studies and Queer Theory have panels of academics judging whether the studies each puts out are "the truth." In other words, they are both peer-reviewed and found to be satisfactorily representing the truth. Well, the truth cannot possibly be the same for both of them, so at minimum one of them must be completely wrong.      

Not only does the above example prove that something is wrong with academia's "truth,' but the idea of Evolution itself is incompatible with with the sexes being a "blank slate." In fact, scientifically speaking, the entire purpose of sexual reproduction is to create "a difference". The differences helps us overcome environmental adversity. If we did not need this difference, we would most likely be reproducing asexually.

Therefore, our universities are knowingly and willingly promoting falsehoods, and simply should not be trusted as reputable sources of "truth."

And I don't need a peer-reviewed study to prove it, do I?

*** 

“‘This is not to be wondered at,’ said Goethe; ‘such people continue in error because they are indebted to it for their existence. They would have to learn everything over again, and that would be very inconvenient.

“‘But,’ said I, ‘how can their experiments prove the truth when the basis for their evaluation is false?’

“‘They do not prove the truth,’ said Goethe, ‘nor is such the intention; the only point with these professors is to prove their own opinion. On this account, they conceal all experiments that would reveal the truth and show their doctrine untenable. Then the scholars — what do they care for truth? They, like the rest, are perfectly satisfied if they can prate away empirically; that is the whole matter.’”-- quoted from Johann Peter Eckermann’s conversation with Goethe, Feb. 1, 1827.

Previous / Index / Next

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: "... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal study on this?"

A: "Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports. Despite this scientific evidence, the prevalence of smoking in elite athletes is actually many times lower than in the general population. The reasons for this are unclear; however, there has been little to no effort made on the part of national governing bodies to encourage smoking among athletes." – PLOS
.   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Did you know that Albert Einstein did much of the groundwork for the Theory of Relativity not while at a university, but rather while working at a patent office? He also got mediocre grades when he was in school.

Did you know that neither of the Wright Brothers graduated from high-school? Yet, they proved all of the academics of the day's "lift equation" to be, obviously, wrong. They also both never married. Smart men indeed!

Did you know that Thomas Edison was considered to have an "addled" brain because his mind wandered while in school? He likely would have been given Ritalin today. He was pulled out of formal schooling after three months and taught by his mother at home.

Did you know that Louis Pasteur was ridiculed by the medical community for his "Germ Theory" and suggesting that surgeons should wash their hands before cutting people open?

Did you know that the cure to scurvy was discovered in the early 1600's by Samuel de Champlain, when his ship was ice-locked for the winter and Indians brought the crew pine-needle tea which was rich in Vitamin C? When he told of "the cure" back in Europe, he was scoffed at by the intelligentsia for a cure from "savages." In 1753, James Lind first proved citrus could cure the disease through experiments he described in his book, A Treatise in the Scurvy, although, even then it took several decades for people to believe him and implement the use of citrus on ships. In fact, there were still a variety of other techniques the "intelligentsia" believed to be correct instead of Vitamin C, causing people to suffer and die from scurvy right through World War One and beyond, until it was definitively proven to be a vitamin C deficiency in 1932.  
.
Did you know that in the past, before we had universities, the intelligentsia were mostly to be found in religious institutions such as the church or its monasteries? When we talk of the religious persecution of those such as Galileo, it is just as fair to claim the intelligentsia persecuted him (and other discoverers) as it is to claim religion did. In fact, you can see this phenomenon everywhere. Rarely does the intelligentsia discover anything or even really "do" anything except for defend their position, while adding little of significance to it, which real mavericks already paved the way for.

Academics have a vested interest in telling everyone that which they have learned is 100% correct, and discrediting all those opposed to them. After all, they tend to look really stupid when grade eight drop-outs demolish their beliefs after they've spent a decade of time, tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, and a lifetime of building a social reputation based on academic "achievements" which really, someone else achieved, and they only parrot and teach.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Further Reading: 
Do We Need Gender Studies or Women's Studies Departments or Programmes? -- Science Files
.
The Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty -- ROK

Can You Trust Academic Research? -- Angry Harry  
. 
Major Medical Journal Retracts Numerous Scientific Papers After Fake Peer-Review Scandal
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

The Truth About "Misogyny"

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

“For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals.” – Henry James

Many people who read the following pages within The Masculine Principle will reflexively be uncomfortable with what they find. "Why, it's misogynist! The author must be living in his parents' basement and has probably never been laid in his life! He must have a small penis! He must be a dead-beat dad! He's just bitter! He certainly doesn't understand women very much!"

Well, no, no, no, no, no and no. I live in a nice little one bedroom condo. I have slept with the mid-double digits of women and even lived with a few of them, so while I am no stud, I am no virgin either. My penis is average sized. I have luckily never been married and I have no children. The only thing I am bitter about is how the Truth has been hidden and manipulated to bring harm to men, women and children, and I understand women and sexuality well enough to have compiled this "book," rather than just fling about emotionally charged insults.
 
I started studying this subject back in 2004 and when I fell ill in 2005, I found myself with a lot of free time while I was going through treatments. I decided that I could either watch TV, or I could put the time to use and learn something instead. At that point I started reading and researching in earnest, often spending eight to ten hours a day on it. Originally my doctors figured it would take around six to eight months to get through the treatments and to the other side... but it took much longer. Three and a half years, to be exact. So I got much deeper into this than I had originally intended, and afterwards, well, I just kept at it. It had become a habit, I suppose. Or perhaps it is better described as being unable to look away from a horrific train wreck. I am now well over a decade into my studies on this subject.
  

Click Pic for "Generalizing in a Politically Correct World"

“It takes a man a lifetime to find out about one particular woman; but if he puts in, say ten years, industrious and curious, he can acquire the general rudiments of the sex.” – O. Henry, Heart of the West (1907)

There's a difference between how a married man knows women and how a bachelor comes to know them. The married man, through the course of spending his life with the same woman, will naturally come to know her individual quirks and personality flaws. We all have them, and so does his wife. The married man therefore believes that Not All Women Are Like That.

The bachelor starts out from the same place as the married man. He falls in love with a woman, discovers her quirks and flaws, and as the relationship spirals out of control he thinks to himself, "I must have just been unlucky and ended up with a faulty one." And so off he goes and finds another, thinking that she will be different. When the second love ends the same way as the first, he starts to doubt himself. Maybe he is the problem. After all, he is the constant factor in this equation. And so, off he goes through life until he loves yet another, and this time he focuses on changing his behaviour. Then he loves another, and another, and still, they all end up being remarkably similar experiences - often even down to the very words she says when in the same situation. 

Click Pic for "Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess"

Finally, he comes to the amazing conclusion that yes, something is wrong with them! All of them! And thus, with enough notes to compare from various women he has known intimately, a pattern begins to emerge, and once he begins to identify it and map it out, he starts to see it everywhere. Further, as he ages and his old friends disappear into the void of marriage, he begins to hang out with more and more bachelors, and as they compare stories he discovers they've had similar experiences as him throughout their lifetime too, which begins to solidify his conclusions. 

Marriage hides the nature of women while bachelorhood exposes it as life goes on. I've read before that if a man reaches the age of 38 without having married, the likelihood of him ever marrying is negligible. This is why. He's figured out "the game" in ways that not even men who have been married multiple times ever will, and he knows it is all an illusion - one that does not operate in his best interests. Marriage hides the true nature of women as a sex from men, while bachelorhood exposes it. The feminists have indeed destroyed "The Feminine Mystique" in their bid to free women from men by destroying marriage. The more men that remain bachelors, the more women will fall from the pedestal they've traditionally been placed upon by men. 

Andrea Dworkin Reincarnated???

It is not hatred to recognize the true nature of woman any more than recognizing that tigers are carnivores instead of herbivores means that I hate tigers. It merely means that I recognize the Truth and will act accordingly. What will make me hate tigers however, is thinking they are playful little kittens and getting my arm chewed off every time I dangle a piece of yarn in front of one because I don't understand their nature and why they behave that way.

Misogyny versus Misandry
 
Much of feminist theory is based on the belief that misogyny is inherent in men, and thus the dreaded Patriarchy is a natural extension of this inbuilt negative attitude towards women which men possess.

But ask yourself, is this really true? Is it true that men are naturally misogynistic towards women? Is it true that most of the men you meet think negatively of women? Is it true that when in the locker-room the men conspire to hold women down? Is it true that businessmen would secretly conspire to throw away their profits by paying men 30% more wages than women, simply to keep women from reaching their true potential? Is it true that 1 in 4 women will really be raped in university, and therefore by extension that 1 in 4 men are rapists? Do you really believe that 25% of the men you know are secretly raping women? Really?

Click Pic for "A Guide to Birdwatching"

None of this rings true for me. In fact, what I see are enormous amounts of men tripping over themselves to praise women. I see men worshiping women as some sort of goddesses. I see men apologizing for the most nonsensical and trivial things simply out of fear of offending women. I see our world leaders praising women while shaming men in order to win votes. I see men trying to one up other men, proving to women that not a smidgeon of misogyny exists in their souls. I see men constantly believing that it is other men who are treating women badly, but certainly not his enlightened, sensitive and equitable self. And those other men? Well, they also believe they are more enlightened than the rest of those misogynist men out there!  

A few years back Dr. Helen did a couple of interviews with Richard Driscoll, author of You Still Don't Understand. During the interviews, Dr. Drisoll cited a survey which illustrated that 14% of men were resentful or almost always resentful of women. However, the same survey also illustrated that 34% of women were resentful or almost always resentful of men. That is nearly two and a half times more women that are resentful towards men than is conversely true of men being resentful of women. 
.

Yup, it's definitely Dworkin reincarnated!!!

Misogyny, as men are routinely accused of, simply is not as rampant as society claims. In fact, the hatred of men is far more prevalent than the hatred of women. "Misandry" still gets underlined by my spell-checker because it is a concept that hardly exists, even though the evidence of it is all around us - if we only cared enough to look.

It is not in men's nature to be harmful towards females. Just the opposite. Men work like slaves to provide for them and often will even sacrifice their lives for them. Does that seem consistent with some inherent misogyny found within males to you? 

One of the most significant things I learned in studying this subject was about "all-female" populations in the Animal Kingdom and "the reason" why males exist. For example, there are certain species of lizards where there are females, but they have somewhere in the past stopped producing males (or have never produced males to begin with). Females "are" the species (in all living things) because they are the ones who control reproduction. If there is only one sex, it must be female or the species will die out. Further, the reason why a species either creates or stops creating males, is in relation to what the females want. They create males to do things they cannot do or are unwilling to do themselves. In other words, on a very basic level in nature, the entire purpose of the male is to serve "the species," which is by default female. 

Click Pic for "The Amazon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)"

And this goes even deeper yet, down to our genetic and evolutionary level. These all-female populations can only exist and thrive in ecological niches. As soon as they have to compete with a species that has both males and females, they get run over and die out because they have little ability to adapt. It is the male that mostly evolves the species, because the male has far more variability. What happens is that mutations in the species mostly happen to the males, and when a positive mutation happens, the female breeds with him and "saves" the evolution. So even on that level, you can see that the male serves the female. 

What is really amazing is how this exists in every living thing on earth, and a biologist will confirm it is so except that the same biologist will deny it exists in humans as he or she reflexively believes that it is men who hold all the power rather than women. Although, in their defense, it is somewhat true, because while we are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We are humans and we have the ability to live at a higher level than animals. What we did somewhere in the past was we re-ordered this, the only creatures on earth to have done so, and we rose up from being beasts in the field. But even so, on a very deep level of our existence, males are still serving the needs of the females. The question becomes (or was in the past), are we going to serve women as animals, including all the harshness that comes with that brutal world, or will we do it as humans, and enjoy all the benefits that civilization bestows upon us?

Misogyny in Religion, Myth and History

Click Pic for Atlan.org's Free Articles about the Legend of Atlantis

A long time ago now, I found myself reading a website about the Legend of Atlantis. This was not a wierd, way-out-there site, but rather it argued that Atlantis and the Garden of Eden were one in the same. In fact, it argued that all religious paradises and many of our ancient myths and legends were essentially about the same story: that all of our human ancestors had experienced a global, cataclysmic flood at the end of the Pleistoscene Ice Age, some 13,000 years ago, and all of our religions and mythical stories about paradise lost and a flood (or sinking land) are a "twinkling remembrance" of what happened to the humans who lived through that time. Thus, it explored many of the similarities between various religions and myths that existed around the globe. There used to be a nice forum there where the author of the articles (and book) hung out and discussed various theories of "The Fall of Man" and how it related to the earth's history geologically. It was a fascinating place, but unfortunately, Prof. Santos - who had spent over twenty years studying this subject as a hobby - passed away suddenly from a heart attack, and the forum kinda fell apart after that.  

But it was one of those experiences that just "clicked" in my mind, and I began to see things in a different way after reading it. For example, I started thinking, "If I were the last adult alive amongst 100 children and given the responsibility of passing on 'what I know today' to them - while also recognizing the human trait of wishing away inconvenient Truths - how would I go about this so it would last them for centuries into the future?" Well, I would write it down in an unchangeable religion. 

Shortly after, I watched a video of a university lecture which had a fellow who had studied the ancient Hebrew language and texts, and as he was interpreting parts of them, he noted the misogyny that was found in them. In fact, he was so embarassed by it that he offered an apology to those in the lecture hall. Some of the things he pointed out were that Sodom and Gomorrah, the two most wicked cities in the Bible, are the only two cities from the entire region which are referred to in the feminine. (As in, how French has masculine and feminine in their language). He further mentioned that the most evil of demons were always portrayed as female.

Click Pic for "The Garden of Eden, Empty Vessels and Relative Truth"

There is also the story of Adam's first wife, Lilith. (Not all of the Ancient Hebrew Texts are in the Bible). There are two accounts of how humankind was created. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time, on the sixth day:

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. -- Genesis 1:27

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' -- Matthew 19:4 

In the Hebrew texts, Adam and Lilith were equals and as such, she often challenged Adam's authority and rebelled against him. She would even complain to him during sex that she had to lie beneath him - which she didn't think fair because they were equals. Eventually Lilith left Adam, but from her sexual union with him she spawned many demons which went forth to plague mankind. 

When we get to the second story, that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Eve was created after Adam - from his rib - and when God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden, he told her when he cursed her that her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her, thus, completely the opposite of the equality that Adam and Lilith had shared. 

Click Pic for "The Wife of Noble Character (Would Make Me a Sandwich!)"

"...But for Adam no suitable helper was found. ²¹ So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. ²² Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

²³ The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

²⁴ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.²⁵ Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." -- Genesis 2: 20-25

These things were, of course, all very interesting. But what I found most interesting were the professor's profuse apologies for "misogyny." It made me step back and ask, "But why is that misogyny in there? Doesn't anyone ever ask that question?" And apparently, no-one does! We just continue writing it off to men's innately evil, misogynistic character - even though, as I pointed out earlier, if we opened our eyes and actually looked at the world around us, we would see that men are far more prone to practice irrational and blind love of women than misogyny (Known as the equally obscure term to Misandry, as "Philogyny"). And, just as the men of the modern day always think it is other men who harbour misogynist attitudes towards women, we also believe our modern, enlightened selves are better than those other misogynistic men who existed in the past.  

But, what do you do when Greece and Rome arise as two of the premier civilizations in history? And yes, you can point out their "misogyny," but you can't deny their excellence. It is said that when Alexander the Great was handing King Darius III of Persia his ass, Darius lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." In other words, they embraced androgyny - and this is true, if you examine how their customs changed over time. 

And look at what comes from Rome but the same warning we find about Adam and Lilith's equality: 

Click Pic for "Testing, Testing... 1,2,3... Testing"

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor (There's a story similar to modern "Slut Walks" found in that link, by the way).     

I have also read of the effects of hypergamy and Briffault's law in Rome, as it related to a woman's dowry and how it changed over the course of history in relation to divorce laws. At first, when a divorce occurred, the husband would keep the dowry, and divorce was low. Then the laws changed and after divorce, the bride's father would have the dowry returned to him - and divorce rose. Finally, after divorce, the wife kept possession of the dowry herself, and from there we find that in Rome they said, "Women marry intending to divorce, and divorce intending to remarry." (Sound familiar? Ever heard of "starter-marriages?"). Thus, they had to pass draconian laws trying to force men to take them on as wives because the men wanted nothing to do with them and their birthrates declined to a point where it was a jeopardy to the state. 

We find the same tale in Aristotle's Spartan Women, except in Sparta they further undermined hypergamy and Briffault's law through their inheritance laws:

.

Click Pic for "Feminizing the Decline"

And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.
.
We see the same thing over and over again. In fact, some eight decades ago, "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin, chronicled the rise and fall of over 80 cultures and in each case he found that "misogyny" was present at the beginning and rise of the culture, while equality and the feminine principle dominated the decline and the eventual collapse. 

I believe one of the reasons we only find this sort of "misogyny" in religion and myth is because, first of all, books like the Bible are unchangeable because they are philosophically based in Absolute Truth. They are further found in myths and legends because men, somewhere in the past, must have figured out that women will never allow the Truth about them to be openly discussed, so they pass it on in different ways - through the "twinkling remembrance" of our ancestors. 
.

Click Pic for "A Guide to Birdwatching"

“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654) 
.
After all, when looking at the concept of All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom, which we discussed further up, can't you see its relationship to the legend of the Amazon Women?

"There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth." -- Spinoza

And can you see it further in some of our great feminist "thinkers?"

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female
.
What happens throughout history is that women censor all of the negative observations about them into oblivion, and men, in their desire to serve and please them, will enable them. The only way to get things "through" and passed the burning desire of the male to please the female is to enshrine it in something absolute like the Bible, or hide it in myth or legend.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth"

Is the Truth Misogynist?
 
The term "misogynist" is one that indicates emotion. It means a hatred or dislike of women. The academtards with subversive social agendas have been trying to rejig the English language by insinuating that misogyny means someone who doesn't believe in equality, or voting rights, or whatever other feminist jargon they tack onto it - basically insinuating that anyone who doesn't support their political and social agenda is misogynist. But this is nonsense. Just because someone doesn't believe children should have equal say as their parents does not mean they hate children.

The "misogynists" of old, such as Otto Weininger or Arthur Schopenhauer or Aristotle or the Bible don't hate women. They disagree with the feminist agenda, for sure, but there is no "hatred" in what they say. They are merely trying to reveal the Truth.

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"

The Truth has no feelings. It does not feel love or hatred.

The Truth has no agenda - unlike the multi-billion dollar feminist industry.

The Truth does not assign blame, nor does it concern itself with hurt feelings.  

The Truth just is.

Often in the following pages you will see me refer to a "hierarchy" that goes like this: 

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children.

Click Pic for "Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House?"

This "hierarchy" exists on many levels and does not indicate any particular superiority, although those who believe in the religion of equality are instantly incensed by it. It also works backwards in much the same way that it works forward. For example, children are considered more valuable than adults, and women are considered more valuable than men. Further, children are at war with their parents, but parents are not at war with their children. Women are at war with men, but men are not at war with women. Men are at war with God/Truth, but God/Truth is not at war with men. And it descends from here as well. Only when man is in proper relation to the Truth, can he expect woman to be in proper relation to him. This is something hard-wired into our biology and it has been with us from the beginning.

Our civilization is a "machine" that harnesses our sex drives and life forces for the good of us all. I don't really believe that men are any more superior than women, but I don't believe we are "equal" in all things either. I believe we both have strengths and weaknesses. I believe that men and women possess different kinds of power. I believe that men make very poor women and women make very poor men. I think androgyny is the most destructive notion we've ever unleashed on our great civilization, and I don't support the feminist movement's agenda to further destroy us by brainwashing more of this androgyny into society.

If the Truth is misogynist by modern definition, so be it. I'll stand with the Truth proudly.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Related:
Lilith - Demon and First Wife of Adam (Video - 10min)
.