Category Archives: Feminism

When Feminism is applied to nature

Posted on by

A couple of months ago, we did a post on the nature of feminism as a destructive line of operation against the family. As an illustration we used a video of a particular kind of bird where the female builds herself into a kind of prison in a tree so she can raise her chicks safe from predators while the male brings food to them all and delivers it through a small hole in the mud wall she built. You can see the post here in item 4 from this post.

The video is reposted here below:

It isn’t difficult to imagine what a feminist would say to such a female bird, while ignoring the work and sacrifice of the male bird. The consequence of a ‘liberated’ female bird of this species of course, is their total extinction.

And now, we have a practical answer to what happens when feminism is applied to the natural world in practice:

The attack on the family from both sides of the feminist dialectic

Posted on by

A few months ago, Stephen Coughlin did a very interesting half hour on the Marxist attack on the family we all know as Feminism. He makes the case that feminism was always and has always been a weapon against the traditional Western family.

In previous interviews I have done with specialists in Feminism, a woman who’s name escapes me at the moment, once explained that the original suffragette manifesto was just the Communist manifesto by Marx, where proletariat was scratched out and women was written in its place as the oppressed group.

I am not totally sure how literally she meant it, but the point was well made.

Below is Stephen’s talk for those who have not seen it. If it seems dense at the start, stick with it. The point is worth waiting for and is clear as day.

Let’s have a look at what appears to be a reaction to feminism, but in fact is at least an equally effective attack on the family in a way that could be used to define controlled opposition. In fact even totally unwitting controlled opposition:

There are MANY many men who do this exact thing in different flavours. Each explaining the dangers of romantic relationships with women. And they do so to the great satisfaction of men who have been brutalized by a now Marxist legal system. One so lopsided that women would probably have a great deal of difficulty not taking advantage of their enormous power within it.

These videos, (and I don’t mean to pick on this one man below. There are many but it is these two examples that inspired me to set it to paper) why men should never commit to women in a relationship. More on that after the examples.

One might even wonder why something that appears to be so anti-women would be allowed on YouTube. And the hundreds or thousands of other videos that are well monetized which also carry the same messaging.

It all makes sense if you look at the net result. The end of love. Commitment. Perhaps most importantly, having character and the kind and amount of character it takes to sustain a loving relationship with someone through the trials and tribulations of raising children and other occasional hardships.

This along with Feminism’s tripling of what is expected of men and explaining to woman that any constraint whatsoever on anything they wish to do is oppression, In other words, to curtail one’s immensely powerful sexuality in all facets is being oppressed, while with men, any expression of masculinity or heterosexual normalcy is oppression. So the creation of videos such as the one above is a clear and logical consequence of the legal and cultural reality of the deconstruction of heterosexual relationships by a century of a Marxist line of operation.

Whether or not the creators of these videos are aware of what they are doing is irrelevant. None of them are doing anything to try and fix the situation. All of them are trying to make it worse. Destroy any residual trust. Increase the inertia of a system that has turned men and women against each other. Their insight is usually limited to the practical results of feminism and what may be the motive for women to take advantage of the system as it is. The word, “Hypergamy” can be heard often. But usually in a context that is negatively interpreted.

Same guy:

In the clip above, he warns men against women who want a traditional life because of a problem that is very likely true in many cases, without offering a solution to the problem. This is an attack on the family whether he knows that or not. And does the exact kind of damage feminism does, but from the other side of the dialectic. The counter-thesis.

And we do know solutions exist. Until recently, marriages mostly lasted till one person died. The surviving partner was usually torn in half by grief. A good indicator that they were well and properly bonded to their partner. Divorce was rare. Now jokes like, “Next time I feel like getting married I am just going to walk up to a strange woman and buy her a house”. Or: “When I go on a date with a man I ask myself, is this a guy I would want my future kids to spend weekends with?”.

The fact that the jokes work are pretty good indicators of where the culture is.

I want this to be short. So no lengthy explanations of how to solve these problems. But the answer lies in the culture, and willingness on all parties develop character. And this means specifically that one uses one’s freedom to choose a path, and then limit oneself in one’s subsequent choices after that initial decision to walk the path in order to achive success and overall happiness.

From a game theory point of view, one tends to value things proportional to the sacrifices you make for them. In no small part this explains our attachment to our children, along with the emotional attachments of course.

Having character means making sacrifices to make a relationship work, for the greater satisfaction and long term happiness that comes with success in that endeavour. So making the sacrifices for a relationship can make one value it more, with the right attitude. Of course, can also make you resentful with a bad one.

Taking issues with these proposed solutions is fine. I don’t pretend to expertise in this area. But the central point is the thesis-counter thesis, solution of feminism and male anti-relationship culture, who’s presence on YouTube makes a lot more sense if one sees it as the other side of the attack on the family, as opposed to criticism of women as an oppressed ‘minority’.

A brief examination of some of the scientism-literature encouraging a Marxist-Postmodern society via feminism

Posted on by

One of the more interesting books I have managed to read in the last several years was The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Montreal born social scientist, Steven Pinker.

Although in interviews with Pinker, he comes across as a soft-leftist, a Trudeau supporting (Pre-Covid anyway) kind of archetypal Canadian, his book The Blank Slate is pretty much an examination of three concepts he claims are the source material for an attempt to move the West from a science based Socratic model to a Marxist based scientism one. And frankly it’s an awesome read.

The three concepts he cites which are responsible for the transition are, The Black Slate, The Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine.

The concept of the blank slate is pretty much a marxist axiom. Marxists need to believe that all people are innately the same. That differences in outcome with humans have nothing to do with talent or any other kind of genetic adaptations, but differences in social circumstance leading to advantage or “privilege”. That humans are a kind of blank slate upon which, anything can be written. Therefore, any infant if removed from their parent’s preconceived values early enough can be sculpted into anything. Pinker’s book details how using both genetics and examples from many other species, this is distilled nonsense. And well refutes the examples used in the animal kingdom to ‘support’ the notion of the blank slate by demonstrating the behaviours cited. as in fact innate to the species listed. Pinker also explains the true mechanism of neuroplasticity, often used to try and prove that human behaviour is infinitely malleable, when in fact, it is an adaptive coping mechanism.  In other words, when the brain suffers an insult to one area, another area may in a limited way compensate for the damage, but if the part of the brain which interprets visual data is destroyed, the part of the brain which processes audio data will never reshape itself to allow you to see again. The brain, Pinker explains, is a stack of gadgets. This by the way, explains a great deal about us.

The Noble Savage is something especially Canadians are bombarded with as a kind of moral cudgel on a daily basis. The idea that humans are all born as good and Western society corrupts them, and we can see this by examining aboriginal people. Which if anyone actually does, may come up with a different image.

The Ghost in the Machine is the idea that there is self separate from your biological container so to speak. That reasoning and consciousness is separate from brain. This could be foundational to the notion being pushed on children that “they are born in the wrong body”. A metaphysical notion that would make most religious philosophers giggle, if not outright angry. As an interesting related aside, the Steven King Horror film, Pet Cemetery had as its main focus, a child that underwent a process which fundamentally changed his nature. The character’s name was Gage, which I assume was cleverly named after a real-life case of a man, Phineas Gage, who in the course of his daily work building the railroad, had a tamping iron penetrate his skull and go right through his brain. He lived, and was healed to physical health, but everyone who knew him said he was not the same man. Once you have cylinder of metal go through your brain, it just doesn’t work the same way.

And now, Erin Byrd on Sex at Dawn.

Those who have made it through the 3 hour + Maj. Stephen Coughlin video interview with myself and Sam Dubé, may recall a segment where Coughlin explains how Plato had explained that women should all belong to all men in common, and no woman is to live privately with any man. And the children… well read it below. It is from book V of Plato’s Republic.

Screenshot

In very much the same spirit as Steven Pinker, enters Erin Byrd.

We have posted one of her videos before on feminism and its real origins and purpose. The reasoning and presentation was so good, I was gently admonished by a friend for not posting more or her material as well as explaining how people can see more of her.

In this video she takes on another book in very much the Steven Pinker style, although probably without familiarity with his work, called, Sex at Dawn”. In this video analysis, she explains how incorrect the scientism in the book is, which leads the reader to believe in the destruction of the family and a total sexual free for all, which the book claims is natural and healthy for humanity.

In other words, Sex at Dawn is very much like the literature Pinker takes on, which appears to be scientific in nature, but in fact is replacing reason and science with scientism and conclusions which are destructive to all existing human systems of culture and organization short of communism.

We here at Vlad, would argue that the book, Sex at Dawn is an attempt to move us to the Platonic model as described in The Republic book V, and which is all part of the same effort to deconstruct humanity as it is, and remake it as something utterly alien, and which always, always, fails.

 

A few items suggesting the dialectical revolutionary nature of feminism from roots to trans

Posted on by

1. Has Feminism been a dialectical effort from its inception? With Fourth Wave Feminism (dialectical revolutions never stand still but are always working to destroy the previous order) being the current ‘Trans-movement’?

2. Stephen Coughlin’s Marxism’s War on women

3. Let’s see. The UK Labour party is 100% a product of The Fabian Society. The Fabian Society is a communist project to destroy the UK and remake it as a communist polity through subversion as opposed to violent revolution. Hence the logo, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Labour just ‘won’ an election and their policies and views are starting to be made known and manifested.

Banned interview of BC Father where the state has taken control of his daughter’s medical treatment and sterilized her

Posted on by

Laura Lynn who also interviewed this man was in court and fined yesterday for doing and publishing her interview with this man.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s controversial speech about the dangers of modern feminism, English subtitles

Posted on by

This video is a list of good and at this point, courageous observations. But misses the big point. And that is that Feminism has been hijacked, if it wasn’t created in the first place for this purpose, by Marxists as a weapon of attack on Western culture, peoples and thought overall.

To understand how this works, watch pretty much anything produced by Netflix. Communists have been steadily hijacking and repurposing every legend, myth and story of the West, understanding the power of a narrative far better than we, and repurposing these stories to incept the communist dialectic negation of all things Western.

The Gay Jesus story is a top of the heap example. But we see it in and through everything like a virus hijacks a healthy cell.

To be blunt, she, like most people who understand what is going on, in a way become controlled opposition. Because they see a tactic but not the strategy. This means they can be negated easily because they do not point the light quite in the right direction.

Feminism is one of many institutions if you will, that has been repurposed. Much of the Catholic Church, entire Churches like the Unitarian are nothing but a Lenin’s beard.

Reform Jewish temples, most of major media, all now are agencies of repurposing existing truths to force a Neo-Marxist agenda.

I used to ask why various groups, African-Americans, Feminist etc. etc. did not make their own legends and stories but instead had to create Ghostbusters 3 and ruin our own existing cannon.

The answer is obvious now. Because the purpose was not to create new legends with politically correct plots and characters, it was literally made to destroy our own. Not to make a good movie, but to ruin good movies of the past. To Winston Smith the culture. Put the classics and genius of the past into the incinerator and replace it with the new horrible and unwatchable replacements but push the ‘right’ message.

We were never at war with Oceana.

We have always been at war with Oceana.

non-blurred video with sign and translation

Posted on by

WARNING: Nudity

The woman in the middle of what appears to be a large crowd of leftists and muslims starts out with a sign that says:

“Blasphemy is a right of (those who live in) the Republic of France”

It isn’t until people took her sign away that she went for a message that was harder to ignore.

“Do not sell secularism cheaply”.

This event appears to be a major march against “islamophobia“, that took place in Paris today. This is likely a prelude to a new anti-free speech law in the guise of hate speech. We are seeing this all over the Western world now.

Janice Fiamenco on contemporary feminist attitudes towards men

Posted on by

It would be fun to list the contradictions in feminist thought, although time forbids a complete one. A couple of obvious ones for fun though. Modern feminist gender theory (4th wave feminism) claims gender doesn’t exist. That there are no differences between men and women and the terms probably shouldn’t exist. So if there are no differences, what makes men so bad? The second one might be if there are no differences and men are so bad why are females being encouraged to get surgery which mutilates them in a way to make them vaguely resemble males? And the reverse of course.

The answer lies in postmodernism. This branch of Neo-Marxist thought eschews reason and logic altogether. Therefore any contradictions in the writings and thought of leftists do not matter, as they deny logic altogether so logical scrutiny cannot apply.

To get this more clearly, should such be possible, to those of us hopelessly raised in systems of thought that actually yield results and which possess predictive value, read or listen to the book, Explaining Postmodernism by Steven Hicks.

H/T PC

FEMEN does their stupid thing at a VOX rally

Posted on by

Just a thought VOX.

Why not hire some strippers to hang around behind the scenes with pro-VOX slogans, and when FEMEN tries this nonsense next time your own girls can come out and dance around to a blazingly loud version of “Im just a love machine”.

Actually all you need is the music really but weaponizing your own strippers might be funnier,. Pretty sure FEMEN will arrest themselves just to get away from there once the music makes them look like supporters.

 

 

BBC, or Monty Python

Posted on by

H/T Henry. (I was gonna spell it Hxnry but don’t know him well enough to know if he would appreciate the humour)

At one point, Ava Lon, our hard working French, German, Polish translator, had me convinced this really was a Python sketch. She said the video looked 80s and it just couldn’t be real.

I had to agree.

But then I searched…