Paul Weston - COOL WAR - WARM WAR - HOT WAR (Part 1)
Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 12:42PM The latest essay from writer Paul Weston.
If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war, but - as an added bonus - also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it. Such a paranoid outlook of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.
They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this; notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself - to name but a few.
In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei” the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.
It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one time allies of the Communists, those moral free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.
What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” - manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism - inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.
A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.
The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture/civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic/immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”
THE CULTURE / CIVILISATION WAR:
The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching it’s peak in the attitude of not only the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.
On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arraigned in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.
Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.
Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of Aids victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim “Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!”
The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.
No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:
“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and – in contrast with Islamic countries – respect for religious and political rights.”
Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam - a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?
But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.
Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.
The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to "unlearn" racism, young Westerners’ have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history – or more succinctly, the very essence of their being - is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.
This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed - as they say they are - of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.
Some may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing, that it will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.
As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged - nee forced - to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with it’s inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”
Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:
‘There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts.”
Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:
“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable – providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”
Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”
This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West - but it gets worse. When little boys’ rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.
Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mindset that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.
This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it - “girly men” - little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.
As the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the 2,000 mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.
If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,” but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.
One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.
A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result - for the first time in the history of womankind - we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.
Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West - which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.
Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men - brainwashed into Dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it - have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word – extinction.
If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types – if there are any left – for their defence.
And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.
It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.
What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WW11, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women and blow them up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:
“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”
As a final note; what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.
To be continued.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (42)
This sentence provided some great mental pictures - all of which left me with a serious case of the giggles.
"Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics."
On a serious note, nice piece of writing Paul.
Well said, Paul.
The feminisation of boys is also responsible, in part, for the increasingly brutal nature of British society. Boys and young men are naturally energetic, competitive and aggressive. These are qualities we have because our survival depends on them. However, suppress them, deny boys their urges, and they'll come out at times and in ways which are destructive.
I commend Kim du Toit's first class essay:
THE PUSSIFICATION OF THE WESTERN MALE
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/41/
We were once civilised with marriage as the accepted way of raising children and stern, moral laws. Fathers and older work colleagues (when the working class took pride in work) could channel and control their sons' and young colleagues' behaviour.
This is a base instinct of all men and vital to an ordered society.
So of course, the war on men went together with the extremely successful war against marriage and fatherhood. Men have their own hierarchies whose functioning is a pre-condition of civilisation. Marriage was decried as 'a ring on the finger' or 'just a contract'. Opponents to the new order, of course, were cowed with Stalinist methods by those who learned well from their ideological heroes.
To defend marriage as the only acceptable way of raising children, to defend fatherhood as vital to a boy's upbringing, is to invite derision from polite society. We now have lesbians close to winning the 'right' to become parents and feminists openly boasting that men will soon become obsolete with the advent of synthetic sperm. Yet it is those who would oppose such unnatural and genuinely hateful ideals who are damned.
These people are at the very heart of our civilisational decline. Unless we rediscover our patriarchal balls it will soon be terminal.
Not at all lateral. The usual 'feminists have an agenda' and all think the exact same way, Paul.
The laughable notion that women are being forced to take jobs and have forgotten to have children is nonsense. If you are going to generalise then it is young men who far from being 'feminised' are being hyper sexualised. A cursory glance around the internet, entertainment and games will show you that much. The latest movie buzz is torture porn.
Women do want families and can balance career and motherhood. More and more young women are taking time off to start families - and businesses create the time and space for it. Its just happening later than before and the balance between work and private life is that much harder. The cost of living is also a factor in how many kids people have.
The lack of interest in marriage comes from young men - not women, who have always prefered the benefits of security that marriage affords for raising children.
The issues around lack of commitment from the male quarter are well documented to the point of being a running joke. Its a pity that there is a lack of a mere mention on this point in your piece.
Your starting point is off and this is another (rather creepy) attempt to suggest the future of mankind hangs in the balance because women are refusing to comply with traditional values. None of which is true.
The issue you raise about penetrative sex and men hatred was via Andrea Dworkin who whilst quite alarmist herself (like you) was badly misquoted on the issue. She also joined forces with the religious right in the 70s to challenge the pornification of culture off the back of the sexual 'revolution'. Even in that respect i doubt many women would argue that all of that was negative. Being able to voice an enjoyment of sex and speak up with your partner isnt ALL a bad thing. There is an element of truth in what she opposed - as our culture focuses only on sex it has all been cheapened and 'mass consumerised'. This in turn as a knock on effect with the perception of 'traditional values'.
Daphne, yes, it also reminded me of how Charles Manson discovered the Beatles and the impending apocylpase in Revelations Ch 9.
"And the four angels were loosed, that had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, that they should kill the third part of men."
(The music of the Beatles would inspire US Blacks to revolt and kill one third of the population).
7 And the shapes of the locusts ::and their faces were as men's faces.
And they had hair as the hair of women,
(Beatles' effeminate hairstyle).
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron;
(Their guitars)
and the sound of heir wings was as the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to war.
(George's guitar playing and Ringo's drumming, I suppose)
And as if there wasn't enough Charles Manson in the above..
>>It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one time allies of the Communists, those moral free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.<<
When was the Nazi party the allies of the Communists?
And how exactly does the motto of the EU echo "the sloganeering of genocidal regimes"?
Is "E Pluribus Unum" also a sinister echo of fascism?
>>The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women<<
But isn't it strange that the one case of mass rape in Europe since WWII has been European Muslim women being raped by European Christian men!
Alison -
The lack of interest in marriage comes from young men - not women, who have always prefered the benefits of security that marriage affords for raising children.
Yes, I agree. Women had the whip hand over men in this respect. Men are sexual creatures whose urge is to recreate far and wide, let's say.
When we were civilised the shame of pregnancy outside marriage was a stern support for women to resist the urges of men until they committed to marry her. If a man wanted sex, he had to do the honourable thing first.
But then women threw this advantage away. They fought for the right to put it about and they got it. Why would a man marry when the next girl will give him what he wants?
They got the pill and virtually removed the shadow of shame and disgrace that pregnancy would have brought. By doing this they actually liberated men far more than women ever dreamed of. Not even men would have to worry about pregnancy of the woman was taking care of things.
When are you women going to realise that you had the advantages, you had the whip hand over men, and you chucked it all away?
Noel Cunnigham -
When was the Nazi party the allies of the Communists?
Well there's the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Nazi Germany and Stalin agreed a non-agression pact between themselves whilst wiping out Poland between them.
But isn't it strange that the one case of mass rape in Europe since WWII has been European Muslim women being raped by European Christian men!
Do you mean in the Balkans? No doubt the communist Serbs did commit mass rape against Bosnian women.
But you're not strictly correct in your assertion. After the Red Army raped a couple of million Polish and German girls and women in 1944-45 they carried on raping a few hundred thousand German women for the next couple of years.
The Soviet leadership only put a stop to it with the realisation that so many women were violated and sometimes also murdered, the Red Army was severely the alienating the East German population.
Don't your Left Wing history books tell you this?
Noel
"When was the Nazi party the allies of the Communists?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
Signed in 1939, otherwise known as the Hitler/Stalin Pact, an agreement on who got what in Eastern Europe. National Socialists and International Socialists doing what comes naturally, although the Communists did ultimately out-genocide the Nazis.
Broken by Hitler in 1941 when he launced "Operation Barbarossa" against Russia.
Did you really not know this elementary fact?
Pete
When are men simply going to grow up? The selfish cutely sexist attitude you outline above so precisely demonstrates the issues at hand. Women always have to make you feel better about yourselves and pursuade you in order for you to simply do the basics eh?
Women did not 'throw this advantage away'. The pill gave an advantage in that it allowed women to have and enjoy sex without the worry of endless pregnancy - this affects both men and women including in a family environment when deciding how many kids you want. And of course the cruel attitude towards women who fell pregnant outside of marriage spurred along the need for changes of the time. You reap what you sow - and so progress inevitably goes.
One of the heroes of the time was Hugh Hefner who championed sexual freedoms all round - most especially for men. It wasnt women who forged the status quo. No sooner had women gained some ability to enjoy sex without worry, when along comes another pillock to stamp his bootprint all over the nice potential and ensure that sex unfolds exactly as men want it.
Its very simple really. Marriage is a commitment to one another and to raising children. It isnt hard for men to simply get on board with that. And many in fact really do manage it. And guess what - they aint "metrosexuals"!
The sooner those of you who still have this anger at a 'feminist agenda' the vast majority of women couldnt give two hoots for (apart from some obvious basics), relent and get stuck in - the sooner you will learn responsibilty in relationships and towards family values is simply better all round. It aint tricky.
Women meanwhile can enjoy all the sex they want and then do themselves an enormous favour - refuse to shack up with limpwristed males in place of marriage.
>>Did you really not know this elementary fact?<<
Of course I did, but you got it wrong. It was not a pack between the Nazi Party and anybody, but between the states of Germany and the Soviet Union. I would have thought you'd know that. Actually, I thought you could have been referring to the ad-hoc coordinatin of strikes between the Nazis and KPD in 1932.
Second, the August 1939 deal was merely an undertaking that neither side would attack the other while they dismember Poland;it was in no way an "Alliance", nor had any of the cooperation, exchanges one would expect from one.
If you want to look for Nazi's allies you will, as usual, have to look a bit closer to your ideological home. The Nazis were in constant alliance with the nationalist, conservative and anti-semitic forces on the German right. It was they that first gave the Nazis credibility, they that shared power with them at local levels well before 1933, and they that ultimately made Hitler Chancellor.
Pete,
>>No doubt the communist Serbs <<
LOL, you must have been looking the other way if you think Mladic and his henchmen, or Milo in Belgrade for that matter, were anything like Communists! They were nothing but extreme right-wing nationalists, who believed in one people in one nation in one state, the absolute ethnic-racial imperative, and stuff like that, you know?.
>>Don't your Left Wing history books tell you this?<<
Well, actually I don't think any history book will tell me that. But maybe if you have one, you can quote me how the Red Army "carried on raping a few hundred thousand German women for the next couple of years" after WW2.
And if you can't, we'll all know that you just made that bit up too.
By the way, lads, I'd prefer if we continue this historical debate elsewhere as I don't want to get in the way of the important points Alison is making.
Gloria Steinem led the fight for women's right to be just like men -- to work, to have sex freely without guilt, to be considered "equal" -- -- little girls are now trained to play champion soccer, and to apply to medical school.
Men, being men, responded with -- Yay! Free sex! No responsibility!
I think Feminism has done great disservice to men and women alike. Feminism jumped off the deep end with its hyperbolic and strident emphasis on getting women "out of the kitchen." With its denial of feminine side of women, and its demonising of masculinity.
Because most women LIKE to raise children, to nurture, to be the OBJECT of someones affection. And most men LIKE to protect the women they love. Men like to provide for and to protect their familiies, to keep the wolf from the door.
Pete Moore: "When are you women going to realise that you had the advantages, you had the whip hand over men, and you chucked it all away?"
I don't know if "whip hand" is the right term -- because I think the Feminist Agenda to obliterate the Patriarchal Nuclear family hurt men as well as women -- but obviously, women -- who by nature like to be loved and like to nurture children -- really screwed up (no pun intended) when they insisted on promiscuity, and financial independence.
(sarc on) Thanks alot Gloria Steinem and other agenda driven feminists!
Thanks alot for devaluing a mother's job, and for tearing apart the social fabric!
Now women get to juggle work and family! Fun! Fun! No longer protected by loving, loyal and adoring men! Great idea! (sarc off)
Alison wrote that "The laughable notion that women are being forced to take jobs and have forgotten to have children is nonsense.
Alison, how many children do you have?
Single women, like single men, are entitled to enjoy sex with whom and when they choose.
And dangling the promise of sex on the end of stick to lure men into marriage is one of the most absurd, and ill-advised, ploys imaginable. It didn't work like that 100 years ago and it's certainly not going to work now.
There still far too many grown men with a 14-yr-old's attitude to sex. The belief (excuse) that we are "sexual creatures whose urge is to recreate far and wide" has caused, and will continue to cause, countless problems through broken marriages, unwanted pregnancies and rape.
Men are going to "grow up" and conform to the Feminist Agenda when the song "Kubaya" works to conjure up universal peace.
The problem with the Left is that it is "pie in the sky" based -- as opposed to "reality" based.
Pie-in-the-sky = men are going to ditch their basic nature and service the agenda of Feminism.
Reality = Men are going to remain men.
Conclusion: Women should ditch the feminist political agenda and learn to love and enjoy men because men are awesome.
It's not rocket science: If a woman acts like a lady, she will be treated like a lady.
Noel Cunningham -
I'll direct you to where you can read of the Red Army's use of rape from 1944-48 another time.
In denying man's urge to procreate far and wide you're denying a widely recognised biological fact. We not only have survivalist instincts, but also the instinct to pass on our genes.
In the name of political ideology, is there nothing you Leftists aren't willing to deny?
Marriage constrains these urges. We straightjacket ourselves for our families. This, by definition, is good for a civilised society. By definition also, this is bad for Left Wing political prospects. Hence, the absurd and perverted war against marriage.
Alison -
If you accuse a man of being sexist (which I am and freely admit to) it's best not to make your very next sentence:
Women always have to make you feel better about yourselves and pursuade you in order for you to simply do the basics eh?
Excellent comments Alison!!!!!
From the start feminism has been a force for good for women and opened up opportunities - but it is not an agenda and individuals take responsibilty for themselves.
Too often men (and women - see above) use it as a stick to bash this notion that men are incapable - incapable of seeing equality in a positive light for both sexes where they can take a positive natural role alongside women with regards family and responsibility.
'enforce' not bash. New to this ;)
I find the whole thing a little off the wall, the only reasoned and sane voice I can read here is Patty.
The Suffragettes were needed in the last century to address the the lack of legal equalities between the sexes in the last century. It was a just an valid ideal that needed to come to fruition.
However those ideals were corrupted over the century especially in 60s. The equality for women movement was seized by the feminazis and twisted into an anti-male, anti-family agenda. They achieved half of their goal.
They achieved the anti-family side, the anti-male side never won out the majority. It has fostered a promotion of gay and bi-sexual peer presure onto todays young women but thats about all on that side of the coin.
We can thank the feminazis for the destruction of the family unit. Their stance on totally independant women combined with the gay/lesbian agenda and the socialist policies that the feminists suport (wellfare) have destroyed the family unit. In large sections of my country. 80% of black children in the US are born out of wedlock and raised by single parent families.
That is directly the cause for 80% of the people in our prisons being black. When you are raised without the influence of a father you have a better statistacle chance of becoming a drug addict or a violent criminal.
Thats what we can thank the "feminists" for.
The Troll: Good points re: the sexual "revolution" and the effects on black families.
I'm so tired of Feminists speaking for me -- They pretend to represent "the majority of women" and yet they represent only a very small percentage of women.
Through their bullying, relentless tactics, they have managed to change the shape of the family, and the relationship between men and women.
>>Women should ditch the feminist political agenda and learn to love and enjoy men because men are awesome.<<
No. Some men are no doubt "awesome", some are pathetic fools and some are somewhere in between.
"It's not rocket science: If a woman acts like a lady, she will be treated like a lady. <<
Wrong. Many women were acting like ladies when they were raped.
>>We not only have survivalist instincts, but also the instinct to pass on our genes.<<
We have many instincts, and most of us learn to control them, or live with them, joke about them and sublimate them when we are growing up. No big deal.
One area where the biological-instinct argument is a bit dicey, however, is precisely sexuality. Human sexuality takes a whole range of forms; mostly little or nothing to do with the procreativity. Human sex is too much linked to what makes us more human - and less animal -, too connected to our dreams and emotions, our sense of aesthetics and cultural norms, to be explained in straightforward biological terms.
As regards the tired arguments being put forward here, I can only draw your attention to Scandinavia.
There the people are honest with themselves and others about their sexuality, they have a relaxed and generous attitude to sex, and as a result women there are much safer from the risk of rape by a countryman than in more straight-laced and repressed societies like the Anglo-Saxon and Southern Europe, MiddleEast, etc.
A pity that a decent essay on the hollowing out of Western Civilisation in preparation for moslem domination has been hijacked in the threads by an argument on the relative merits of feminazism.
Katy
"Excellent comments Alison!!!!! From the start feminism has been a force for good for women"
Ah yes, but has it been a force for good for children?
If you read Steinem, Friedan, De Beauvoir or Greer (all closely linked to the Communist Party by the way) you will find many passages containing womens rights, womens empowerment, womens choice, etc etc.
What you will not find are references to children. Feminism is a selfish ideology.
This article was supposed to be about war, and the effect women's lack of replacement level breeding has in it's inevitable reappearance.
Alison has not argued the point that the West is slowly filling with anti-Western peoples as a direct result of a dearth of Western babies.
Alison, if you would like me to write an article arguing that feminism is one of the most destructive, selfish, subversive and political issues of our time, I will gladly oblige.
I have read all the feminist authors, but have also read Phyliss Schlaffly's "Feminist Fantasies" and Carolyn Graglia's "Domestic Tranquility."
I therefore read both sides of the argument before coming to a conclusion. I suggest that if you want to make a debate out of it, you do too.
If you promise to read them then I will engage you in debate. Until then your utterances on this thread are merely brainwashed verbiage, suggesting that you are probably not very well-read, young and suggestible to fashionable fads.
Noel: "No. Some men are no doubt "awesome", some are pathetic fools and some are somewhere in between."
Sure, there are always a few bad apples -- but as genders go, I find men incredible. The older I get -- and the further I get from the Feminist Agenda I was raised with and that despicable slogan "women rule, (men drool)" -- the more I appreciate, admire, and love men.
I love their strength, their comraderie, their loyalty, their silences, their seriousness, their humor..their obsession with women.. life without a man would be incomplete.
From Noel:
"As regards the tired arguments being put forward here, I can only draw your attention to Scandinavia.
There the people are honest with themselves and others about their sexuality, they have a relaxed and generous attitude to sex, and as a result women there are much safer from the risk of rape by a countryman...."
But Noel, Norwegian and Swedish women are being raped, and in increasing numbers. Guess WHO is doing the raping?
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html
Mr Smith and Paul Weston:
I don't think it is really a hijacking of the thread to discuss Feminism in the context of the hollowing out of the West, and the demographic suicide in process.
Feminism is in many ways the cause of many of the problems we see. As a housewife and mother I am constantly in a position of explaining why I don't work - a paycheck, not a family, is the determiner now of a woman's worth - and this is thanks to feminism.
So, women go to work now not only for a paycheck but because they are shamed if they don't . One of the reason families in the West are so small.
"Alison, if you would like me to write an article arguing that feminism is one of the most destructive, selfish, subversive and political issues of our time, I will gladly oblige."
Paul, what about if I were to request said article? I think it would be very timely reading.
Paul, one of the factors for declining "white" birth rates can be attributed to the lengthening of childhood status well into a persons 20's in the West. As a result people are marrying later and delaying children until women are in their early to late 30's - at that age point getting pregnant can be more difficult and with a smaller window of opportunity left for childbearing, one or two babies may be all they have biological time to accomplish. The Third World is still marrying and reproducing in their early 20's - more time for more babies.
ALLAN@OSLO;
>>Norwegian and Swedish women are being raped, and in increasing numbers.<<
I don't deny it, but not by their countrymen, as I said.
>>Guess WHO is doing the raping?<<
Well, Norway evidently lets in a lot of people from more sexually repressed places.
>>a paycheck, not a family, is the determiner now of a woman's worth - and this is thanks to feminism.<<
Patty, what on earth makes you think Feminism is to blame for that?
Life has been commercialised and rendered more materialistic in hundreds of ways - which BTW mostly came in on the wing of Rightist ideology - and this has been going on for some time. It's absurd to say Feminism caused it!
Troll. Feminism has nought to do with serial monogamy among blacks in the US. It occurs right across Africa too.
helloo Katy
Hope ATW suits and you stick with it ;) I agree with with your point also.
Paul
Ive read both sides of the argument and many books on the issues. Ive taken the time to research and read and have enjoyed this topic for many years. I dont though subscribe to many of the feminist spokespeople you cite. Greers support for the burqa was one such instance when she talks nonsense. Her summary of Princess Di on the other hand was very accurate.
Its easy enough to speak to this issue because it concerns ordinary people - the sexes. This makes more sense than broadly summarising the nonsense you have in your post and assuming people are stupid enough to consume the likes of 'Gloria', 'Greer' or other spokespeople with various points to make with questioning it - since it affects the very relationships they will form. Or that women dont want families or feminists were central to the destruction of the family unit. Young men are supposed to be responsible adults - if commitment is too much for them that is as much their contribution to the larger issues at stake.
The idea to add to this that all women who believe in equality and feminist basics somehow 'hate men' or are 'made to hate men' is hysterical. Or that they dont appreciate manly qualities and manly roles - how silly.
If some of us women have an inate in-ability to admire people for their individual qualities regardless of sex then more fool them. Or denigrate their own to prove a point - well frankly thats very bizarre. But women are their own worst enemies. I truly believe we owe as much to men in helping us attain equality.
At the moment i have enormous respect and admiration for women in Iran whose constant challenge to mysoginy is a reminder of how it isnt true to say all good things apply to one sex alone. Their courage, temperance, strength, honour and self respect in the face of such a challenge is wonderful. Historically Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth I embody the kind of feminist spirit without the nod to any 'agenda' that characterises womanhood, individual spirit and ostensibly a libertarian mindset that is a credit to their ancestors.
Sexual liberation in the 70s gave women the courage to enjoy sex and speak up about it. Nevertheless this was already being challenged, along with the strictures of marriage as it was back when Mary Wollstonecraft was alive and writing Vindication of the Rights of Women. In it she makes mention of the dreadful Mohamedian mindset. She was already way ahead of you! .
Socialist feminists, Radical feminists and Libertarian feminists were distinct groups each of which contributed in some positive way to womens rights. Not all of it good not all of it bad. Like anything else in politics and philsophical thought it can be flawed or debatable and has many contributing factors - including the behaviour of men!
All that aside a balance has to be struck in order to ensure family life. It requires 2 people, 2 individuals. Usually two with enough mutual respect for one another that the family is key and responsibilities shared. Many people can and do achieve this. I havent met many women who dont want to start a family and in my peergroup it is entirely relevant to your central point.
"Many women were acting like ladies when they were raped"
Such a true and concise point and so well put Noel
In addition to the idea that a woman in her 20s might like to enjoy a career she has been educated for, there are huge financial pressures on people wishing to set up home and raise a family as responsible parents in the west. Mortgages are crazier than ever and there is the real prospect of dishing out schoolfees if you want to dodge the lottery that is state education in the UK. Increasinly one paycheck is no longer cufficient
Noel: At my side is the WSJ, 11/19 with a whole article, with photos, titled: "The 50 Women to Watch in 2007"
Are they housewives? Are they mothers?
NO!! They're CEO's and entrepreneurs!!!
Wifes and mothers are not worth watching....out of the kitchen! into the workforce!
Because of need? Suddenly, it takes 2 people to raise a small family? In America!?! This was not so during the Depression. It's not about need. Unless, 2 cars, a large house etc. are "needed." It's because a woman's worth now comes from her "career" -- not the successful raising of a family and a happy husband.
But, born contrarian that I am, I am bucking the tide -- which means I have to go back into the kitchen and baste a turkey for today's lunch. ASAP.
Until later.
Alison
If I may veer back to the topic of this article.
Italy has 1.1 women per mother. Within 2 generations there will be a quarter of tax payers compared to today.
The EU is intent on replacing these non existant bambinos with jihadbinos, this will lead to war.
If you want to argue that this won't lead to war then I would like to hear your rationale.
If you think it will, then the fact that women can now have state approved multiple orgasms pales into insignificance.
>>Guess WHO is doing the raping?<<
Well, Norway evidently lets in a lot of people from more sexually repressed places.
Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 05:08PM | NOEL CUNNINGHAM
Indeed Noel, which supports the argument of Paul Weston - the west is allowing in huge numbers of people from sexually repressed places (we know where!) who are incompatible with liberty, especially that of women.
Who is holding the door open to these regressive incompatibles? 'Progressive' liberals, that's who.
A state approved multilple orgasm. Hmm. Ive never been lucky enough to have one of those Paul. Are they handed out free on the NHS?
War eh? Well good luck then. Im sure with your convincing argument women everywhere will be handing in their Oysters and rushing to find men who hold them in such high esteem. I can see it working as a chat up line now.
"No seriously. You need to get over your commitment issues. There are jihadis behind every rock and the future of Italy is at stake!"
I think you should be careful and not mix Nationality with Religion.
e.g. 'Muslim' 'Jew' are Religions, 'Serb' 'Croat' etc are Nationalities'.
It used to send me into a fit of rage during the wars in Yugoslavia when news broadcasts talked about Serbs and Muslims.
Serbs are mainly Christians and i presume Muslims are Serbs too?
Good post though.
"If you think it will, then the fact that women can now have state approved multiple orgasms pales into insignificance"
Were you hitting the bottle when you wrote this Paul?