Saturday, April 7, 2007

Prequel: The Tyranny of Tolerance.


The formal introductions will come later. First up though, I need to lay some groundwork.

These are the writings of a MRA who wishes to remain nameless. The book that both he and I will be covering is the Tyranny of Tolerance, a hard hitting read for every serious Men's Rights Activist or Truthseeker.

Time's A-wastin'! Let's get to work.

Some young MRA wrote:

... “ There can be little doubt that, at the time of the foundation of the Republic, the law regarded the nuclear family as the cornerstone of civil society. Indeed, the Christian family, composed of husband-father, wife-mother, and children of the marriage, had been the template for civil society in England from earliest times, forming at once the basic unit of society and the locus of succession of property ownership. As one of the greatest of English legal historians puts it, “the sanctity of inheritance as the great safeguard of family security is a theme which runs continually through the history of property.” Whatever inheritance rules were applied, marriage and children of the marriage were of crucial important (Tyranny of Tolerance, Dierker, p.52).”

Dear reader, this is an important point.

We need to remember that it was PROPERTY and FAMILY that was the main target of Marxist (and Platonic, as we will see later) revolutionaries.

As I posted previously:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon"

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan"

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW"

One has to ask himself...

Why is it necessary to destroy marriage in order to advance feminism?

My answer:

So long as man and woman lived together as man and wife, feminism had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

Remember, that women are impressionable beings, and easier to manipulate than the average man.

Be it feminism, Oprah-ism, or religion, the vast majority of women are quite easy to indoctrinate; much more so than men.

It is written:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Divide and rule, sayeth the feminists.

And that is exactly what they have done. A woman without a man is exceedingly vulnerable, be it physically, financially, or spiritually.

Everyone knows this... feminists most of all.

Now Marx, in his infamous Manifesto, identified family and property as the enemy:

“…Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists.

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.

The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime.

And consider this:

... the planks of the Communist Party… My readers will recognize that many of the goals of the Manifesto have already been achieved…

… 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We must understand, dear reader, that the destruction of the family, along with the abolition of privately held property, was the recommended course of action of both Marx and Plato.

This is all part of the master plan; 2307 years in the making (more on this later).

So why destroy the family, and abolish all rights of inheritance?

The good Judge explains that:
“As the American welfare state evolved under the superintendence of the illiberal liberals, the continuing primacy of the family became a threat to the omnipotence of the government. The best way to attack that threat was to destroy its favored position in the law. To do that, it was necessary first to attack the “sancitiy of inheritance,” and then to attack the essential terms of the marriage contract itself, by destroying the rights of men and unborn children in the relationship (p.52).”

Is the full horror of the Cultural Marxist scheme becoming apparent yet?

Are you beginning to wake up from your daydream like existence, to see what is really happening all around you, every day?

Marx said that the first steps of glorious revolution were to abolish inheritance, and to destroy the family. And lo and behold, the family and inheritance has been all but utterly wiped out, save a few hyper rich families.

The family unit is still alive only through the great will and perseverance of those who still believe in it.

The government has long since withdrawn its support for these ancient ideals.

And at this point, you might be asking yourself, how did all this come to pass?

M- has a simple answer, and you probably have never heard of it.

It’s called...

Just Noticeable Difference (JND).

According to Wiki,

“In psychophysics, a just noticeable difference, customarily abbreviated with lowercase letters as jnd, is the smallest difference in a specified modality of sensory input that is detectable by a human being or other animal. It is also known as the difference limen or the differential threshold…

…The jnd is a statistical, rather than an exact quantity: from trial to trial, the difference that a given person notices will vary somewhat, and it is therefore necessary to conduct many trials in order to determine the threshold. The jnd usually reported is the difference that a person notices on 50% of trials. If a different proportion is used, this should be included in the description—for example one might report the value of the "75% jnd".

Jnd as a concept is used heavily in modern business advertising. For example, those who remember the fiasco with “New Coke” will recall:

“New Coke was the unofficial name of the sweeter drink introduced in 1985 by The Coca-Cola Company to replace its flagship soda, Coca-Cola or Coke. Properly speaking, it had no separate name of its own, but was simply the new version of Coke, until 1992 when it was renamed Coca-Cola II.

Public reaction to the change was devastating, and the new cola quickly entered the pantheon of major marketing flops. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula led to a significant gain in sales. Although the company insisted, and the historical record suggests, it was an unplanned reaction to the perceived rejection of New Coke, many urban legends and conspiracy theories continue to circulate the claim that this reversal was a plan engineered before the production of New Coke began.”

The reason it failed, according to marketing textbooks, is that Coke tried to make too many changes too soon. New Coke far and away exceeded the jnd threshold, thus provoking intense and widespread negative feelings.

New Coke, and radical new ideas, such as the Men’s Rights Movement, are similar in that they cross the currently accepted status quo… their jnd ratio is simply too high.

However, if one was to make small changes, using Coke as an example, changing the packaging, or slightly modifying the taste, sugar levels, etc, it would pass below the average consumer’s jnd threshold.


“The goal of a new product is profit and that means market dominance, or a reasonable substitute, as soon as possible. What an enterprise does not want is an Airflow Chrysler, New Coke, Edsel or Spruce Goose.

These errors were exactly in inverse proportion to their desirability. Most design mistakes are on a smaller canvas and do not get much attention from the public. When introducing a new product and taking it through design (or redesign), manufacturing and marketing, we are piling unknown upon unknown, or literally stacking the deck in favor of being struck very hard by Gumperson's Law.

The famous industrial designer, Raymond Lowey, had a theory that in the development, or redo, of a product, it was important to observe the "just noticeable difference." By this he meant not to go too far in the design and, at the same time, not to come up short. It is somewhat similar to staying within the perimeters of a Pareto chart. Too far off and quality fails. It is a case of walking a tightrope.”

So what does all this have to do with family law?

Leftists knew that attacking Western civilization in general, and the bastion of the American family in particular, could not be done all at once. Communist revolutionaries the world over had tried to usher in the New World Order by fire and bloodshed.

They failed utterly.

And so, they attacked the foundation of the family... slowly.

One step at a time.

While they were screaming about “fairness”, “privacy”, and “the right to choose”, they were operating under the jnd level of the average American citizen.

Mixing truth with falsehood.


Consider typical feminist tactics:

“How do feminists conceive that men will not defend patriarchy? In fact, men did not defend it, but instead of fighting amazingly surrendered almost to the last man (Mansfield, Manliness, p.148)…For in the manner of its attack on patriarchy we see why one can speak of womanly nihilism. The feminists knew more of the nature of women than they cared to admit, and they relied on womanly devices (p.148)...”

Rather than by violent revolution, feminism undertook to bring on the gender neutral society by raising consciousness. Unlike the manly suffragettes, who broke the law and demonstrated scandalously in public places, the feminists, who in their writings dispensed with morality and claimed to be ready if not eager for polymorphous perversity in matters of sex, were so law abiding in their behavior that none of them spend a moment in jail (p.149)...”

“Raising consciousness was intended to make women and men aware of how much society is prejudiced against women… raising consciousness by substituting gender neutral pronouns would excite the ambition of women and induce men to welcome the change (p. 150)… by working through changes of language, feminists were able to correct social prejudice without having to demonstrate or even argue for reform. How could one answer them that the impersonal pronoun of “he” did not favor men or that women were not equal to men (p. 150)?”

Just Noticeable Difference.

Americans are being led like sheep to the slaughter.

Judge Dierker continues:

“This modern attack on the family as the fundamental prop of society surely began with the employment of the liberals’ favorite tool, the equal protection clause.

This weapon was used to attack the very essence of the family, the idea that children of a marriage occupied a status at once different from and superior to illegitimate children. (Oh, by the way, the modern, politically correct law school profs don’t use the term “illegitimate,” since that term is obviously “insensitive” and even worse, “normative.” The old law frankly used the term “bastards,” but now we use the phrase “nonmarital children,” so that we don’t imply that bastardy carries any sort of taint.)

In the 1968 case Levy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that barred unacknowledged illegitimate children from filing actions for the wrongful death of the parent. Delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice William O Douglass wrote: “[W]e have been extremely sensitive when it comes to basic civil rights and have not hesitated to stike down an invidious classification even though it had history and tradition on its side.” This is liberal law in a nutshell. History and tradition count for nothing; the language of the Constitution itself counts for little; the only criterion is whether a ruling will advance the liberal agenda (p.52-53)."

One will note the creeping effect the decision on bastardy (which I am one, by the way, so don’t get all offended). If one were to argue that the children of unmarried parents should be called Bastards, they would look like Darth Vader stealing candy from babies.

And yet, the concept of children born in wedlock, vs. children born outside of it is of crucial importance to a host of legal, moral, and philosophical issues.

Just. Noticeable. Difference.

More to come.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Giving women the vote and legalising abortion can hardly be described as Just Noticeable Differences. There probably is a jnd effect in the development of feminism but it is only one of many. Technological improvements, medical developments, the extra capacity to wage war (provided by e.g. factory women), the material benefits of cheap labour and the inevitable contraction of moral scope in an increasingly diverse society were and are powerful influences.