Endgame! Part VI

Good morning!!

Previous posts in this series focused on the connections between Plato, Marxism, and Feminism, as well as covered some of the more radical proposals that all three ideologies advocate.

Today we begin our examination of the actual text of the Republic, and how Platonic doctrine is being applied in our present day.

It is my opinion that our grip on liberty is growing more and more uncertain with each passing day.




(Socrates)


Let us move to the actual document. Please note that Plato writes in a conversational manner, and speaks through the person of Socrates as he engages in debate with his intellectual opponents.

Plato, in the following passage is speaking of the qualities and the training of his Guardians, the elite class of the republic whose only duty is to manage the affairs of the State:

“Don’t you think, I asked, that the natural qualities needed in a well bred watch dog have a certain similarity to those which a good young man needs for Guardian duty ( Plato. p. 64)?”

“ We have not noticed that there are natures which combine the qualities we thought incompatible.”

“And where are they to be found?”

“In different kinds of animal, but particularly in the watch dog to which we have compared our Guardian. For you must have noticed that it is the natural characteristic of a well bred dog to behave with the utmost gentleness to those it is used to and knows, but to be savage to strangers?... the kind of character we were looking for in our Guardian is therefore quite a possibility and not at all unnatural… it is annoyed when it sees a stranger, even though he has done it no harm; but it welcomes anyone it knows, even though it has never had a kindness from him. Haven’t you ever thought how remarkable this is (p. 65)?”

“But you know, that we begin by telling children stories. These are, in general, fiction, though they contain some truth. And we tell children stories before we start them on physical training… that is what I meant by saying that we must start to educate the mind before training the body (p. 68).”

“And the first step, as you know, is always what matters most, particularly when we are dealing with those who are young and tender. That is the time when they are easily moulded and when any impression we choose to make leaves a permanent mark… shall we therefore readily allow our children to listen to any stories made up by anyone, and to form opinions that are for the most part the opposite of those we think they should have when they grow up (p. 69)?”

“Then it seems that our first business is to supervise the production of stories, and choose only those we think suitable, and reject the rest. We shall persuade mothers and nurses to tell our chosen stories to their children, and by means of them to mould their minds and characters which are more important than their bodies. The greater part of the stories current today we shall have to reject (p.69).”

Seasoned MRAs will quickly recognize that young, especially female, children are brainwashed [aa][bb] into believing feminist orthodoxy, from a very early age.

They learn such attitudes from their parents and the media, as well as in government funded schools.

As Mr. Marc Rudov explains:

Mothers are raising most of the children in this country -- the average divorce rate is 50% and average out-of-wedlock birthrate is 37%. According to ABC’s John Stossel, mothers get physical custody 90% of the time. As a result, mothers dictate the attitudes, biases, feelings, morals, behaviors, and lives of American children. Consequently, the influence of their fathers is either anemic or negligible.

Not only do children learn to hate and disrespect their fathers at home, they learn it from TV as well. I’ve written extensively about the pejorative portrayal of men on TV -- in sitcoms and countless commercials. The latest offender is Sony Electronics, and its ad agency BBDO, which is promoting its Cyber-Shot camera through a new commercial called “Your dad is not a horse’s behind” (CLICK HERE to view the Sony commercial). Writes AdWeek:

Indeed, it’s a clever and attention-getting way to sell “face detection,” a Sony digital camera feature that ensures faces (not background images) stay in focus. If “face detection” is the brief, we get it, with both a carrot and a stick. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. It’s not subtle, but it sells.

Clever. It sells. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you.

Unbelievable! Is anybody in America awake? Do people not grasp what’s going on here? The marketing execs at Sony and the creative chiefs at BBDO greenlighted this commercial. They had to say, This is good stuff! And, why do they think it is socially acceptable and “funny” to disrespect fathers? Because the viewers feel that way, too. Most divorced fathers, and many married ones, watching this perverse Sony commercial know that it reflects American attitudes towards them.

Can you imagine, in your wildest of dreams, seeing a spot like this on TV with a mother shown, literally, as a horse’s ass? Don Imus was kicked off radio and TV for offending one team of female college basketball players. Who will pay a similar price for offending tens of millions of fathers?

If Bill O’Reilly would expose misandric advertisers and sitcoms with the same vigilance he uses to expose lenient judges, we might turn the tide. Otherwise, disrespect for men, unchecked and unchallenged, will beget more of the same.

Children raised in today’s misandric homes, while witnessing powerful, unfettered public misandry like that in the Sony commercial, will become our next legislators, judges, prosecutors, mayors, governors, presidents, TV and movie executives, newscasters, magazine and newspaper editors, and, worst of all, parents. If you think fathers are irrelevant now, stay tuned.

If the eloquent words of Mr. Rudov aren't enough to convince you that there is a systematic degradation of men in the media, then maybe you might be interested in a book entitled, "Spreading Misandry."

The reviews of this book are quite interesting. For example:

A Good First Step On a Much Needed Path, January 12, 2006

By Dan Herak (Cleveland, Ohio United States) - See all my reviews

Misandry - the hatred or contempt for men - is a very strange phenomenon. Many people have become more aware of a significant uptick in recent years of the denigration of men, usually referred to as male bashing, yet examples of such are so widespread and diffuse that most instances go unnoticed. Many people, especially men, are reluctant to discuss the issue. Doing so not only exposes emotional vulnerability, difficult for many men, but also because those most likely to engage in male bashing are also most likely to ridicule and belittle any man who protests against it.

In SPREADING MISANDRY, the authors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young not only take up the issue, and do so quite well, but also address those mechanisms that prevent the issue from being better recognized and challenged. The result is a very good book that could pave the way for more widespread discussions of the issue.

The authors focus on misandry in pop culture, most notably movies and TV shows but also greeting cards and cartoons. This focus on pop culture is, in my opinion, one of the strengths of the book as it allows the reader to see how misandry has seeped into the larger culture rather than simply exist within some small isolated corner, such as among academic feminists.

The actual analyses of various movies and TV shows is usually pretty good and at times is exceptional. Interestingly, the authors discuss misandry in moral terms and this infuses their take on things. It is pointed out again and again that male characters are not only evil, but intrinsically so. The directors of such movies feel no need to explain why men are evil. This is not so for women characters who, if they behave in a similar manner, are contextualized so that their behavior is seen not only more sympathetically but usually as a result of mistreatment by men.

Nathanson and Young also focus in on one of the more typical tactics to promote misandry: the one-sided interpretation. This is especially useful in historical pieces as it allows women to be portrayed as having had their choices severely constricted in the past while not pointing out that the same was true for the overwhelming majority of men as well. Producers of such material then defend their pieces by pointing out, well, women did have their choices constricted. But it is not the truth of such a portrayal that is of interest here but rather that men are portrayed as being far, far more privileged than was actually the case. This allows for the male-privileged/female-oppressed dichotomy to flourish in a more subtle manner than overt trashing of men...

Another interesting take on this subject is relayed to us via the Masterful Save the Males:

PsyOp: GM Castrates Men Using Feminist Ad

By Henry Makow Ph.D.
May 17, 2007

I am old enough to remember when the word "Cadillac" was synonymous with success. It was the ultimate masculine status symbol.

A recent Cadillac commercial sells cars to feminists as a symbol of their success in degrading and humiliating men.

It's part of an ongoing Psychological Operation waged by the London-based central banking cartel designed to destroy heterosexuality and the family. The bankers perceive real men as a threat to their plan for world government tyranny. General Motors and other multinationals are all singing from the banker's homosexual/lesbian songbook.

The commercial (entitled "Khakis") depicts white males scurrying like mice at the appearance of the office cat. To a chorus of "Here Comes Success" a young woman strides confidently through the office intimidating the young slackers who are in various states of idleness.

In one office, a man smells his armpit. Another man is doing Tai Chi. Another takes his feet off his desk. Another is eating. Another throws up his arms in submission. There is no way to impress her; she is unattainable. While they include minorities, there is not one women in the ranks of these slackers!

The young goddess finds herself alone in an elevator with a male co-worker. When she says, "Hi Chris," the pen in his pocket spurts ink, suggesting he cannot contain his excitement. Premature ejaculation = impotence.

The goddess notices and smirks. In the next scene, she is driving away in her Cadillac. She thinks about Chris and laughs triumphantly. It is not enough that she is "successful"; the satisfaction is in lording it over men...

So what does all of this have to do with Plato?

Before I answer the question, I would like to make a few points that will help frame my argument.

1) Firstly, the widespread, negative portrayal of men is not accidental.

As we can see at the Fascinating blogspot Subliminal Control (check his 2006 material for the best examples), experts (especially in the Marketing discipline) are well aware of how the subconscious mind works; and there is a large body of knowledge that explains how to manipulate our basic desires in the quest to sell products, or to instill ideals.

Furthermore, we know that corporations and government have conspired (there's that darn word again!) to manipulate the public conscious for quite a while. Such is the art of politics.

2) Feminists, Marketers, and other groups, operate using a system called Just Noticeable Difference[1][2], coupled with a concept known as the "long march through the culture[3]".

In order to do such a thing, the minds and attitudes of the people have to be changed, so that opponents come to accept, and then internalize your views, making them their own.

This must be done little by little. Too much change, too soon, will cause your subjects to reject the new programming you are trying to instill in them.

The D/s (Dominance and Submission) players know how to train people, from knowledge obtained from works such as The Control Book.

Managers have a plethora of materials out there to help them complete their daily task of directing and controlling people.

In other words, it's no secret that there are methods of getting people to submit to your will. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that political movements seek to control beliefs, attitudes, and moral values of people.

For example, if the goal is to neutralize the opposition of a specific segment of the population, then an effective way of doing this is to subtly demonize and belittle the target group, as was done to the Jews in Germany, Blacks here in the United States, housewives and stay at home mothers throughout the West, and in our day, the Falun Gong religious group in China.

When we understand that male hatred in the West is an organized effort with a specific purpose, then we can see that...

3) Misandry is nothing more than a massive propaganda campaign.

Before we go any further, let's examine what propaganda is.

According to Wiki:

Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: patriotic flag-waving, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to "jump on the bandwagon" of a particular point of view.

Sounds like Misandry to me.

So then, getting back to Plato, we can see that he was one of the earliest proponents of propaganda, agreeing to its use in order to achieve the desired outcome, the creation of the ideal State.

And, as we have seen in my Tyranny of Tolerance posts, anti-male propaganda was used as part of a multi-step plan, in which men were separated from their ancient role as steward and patriarch of the family unit; and to indirectly indicate that the future rights of women to be mothers to their own children was now subject to the pleasure of the State [4].

Women are parenting on borrowed time.

Let us not forget that the "second wave" of the establishment of the Platonic state was the absolute destruction of the family [5], which would see children taken away from both their fathers AND THEIR MOTHERS and raised by the state. This would be necessary of course, for even more effective mind-molding of the next generation.

Please note:

“The second wave, concerning the abolition of the family, is likewise implicit in the educational scheme of Book 3, a scheme that replaces parental control over education with public supervision of its every detail (cf. Nettleship 1951, 165; Barker 1961, 213). The rulers who supervise this education are to penetrate the soul of each child and place him or her at the proper position in the city, with exclusive attention to merit (p. 658)”

A strong family unit, consisting of a husband and his wife (or wives [6]) would be more than able to resist the tyranny [7] inherent in the communist State that our featured philosopher advocated as ideal [5]. This is why it is essential for Leftists and Elitists to take over as the sole provider and educator of children.

We will stop here for now. It is my hope that my readers will begin to see how these words, written three hundred years before the Advent of Christ, are being played out today in our modern world.

Next time, the Republic and the mis-education of the children in the schools.

Kumogakure.