Endgame! Book V.

Greetings!

Before we get started, please be advised there is some nudity. So this post is 18+ years or older, aiight?

We begin our examination of Book V of Plato's Republic.

My goal with this Endgame series is to argue that many of our Leftist movements, such as Communism and Feminism, have drawn upon the writings of Plato for thier ideas. Furthermore, I hope to make a reasonable case that we can look to the writings of the Republic as a "Playbook" of sorts, as many of these organizations seek to move the unsuspecting populace into a Quasi-Platonic state.

To this end, let's move directly to the text. Please remember that Plato presents his ideas in the form of a philosophical debate between Socrates and some of his fellows. My commentary will come in between passages.

According to Book V:

“yes but here, as is so often, what is right needs explanation. What sort of holding “in common” do you mean? There are many possibilities; so let us be told the one you mean. We have been waiting for you to give us some idea of how the Guardians are to produce children, and bring them up when they are born, and how this whole business of community of wives and children is to work; for it seems to us that this is a matter in which it is vital to society that the right arrangements should be made. You were just going on to other forms of constitution before dealing adequately with it, but, as you heard just now, we resolved that we would not let you do so till you had discussed it as fully as everything else (p.158).”

Plato rises to the challenge:

Ought female watchdogs to perform the same guard duties as male, and watch and hunt and so on with them? Or ought they to stay at home on the grounds that the bearing and rearing of their puppies incapacitates them from other duties, so that the whole burden of the care of the flocks falls on the males?

‘They should share all duties, though we should treat the females as the weaker, the males as the stronger.’
And can you use any animal for the same purpose as another… unless you bring it up and train it in the same way (p.160-161)?”

Notice the comparison of Plato's Guardians to mindless beasts. As I read the Republic, the callous indifference that the philosopher exhibts towards the innate desires of the human heart strikes me. This is a man that knows that he is utterly superior to all other men, due to his mental gifts. It's also interesting to note the heartlessness of those that support Plato's more radical ideas [1][2].

People are not animals. People are beings made in the image and likeness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and are to be respected as such. However, it appears that our dear friend didn't get the memo!

Plato surmises:

We shall have to train the women also, then, in both kinds of skill (physically and mentally), and train them for war as well, and treat them in the same way as the men (p. 161).”

Seasoned MRAs already know that pushing women into frontline combat is a major pet project of our feminasty friends [a][b].

For the record, Kumo is not adverse to women serving in war. Sometimes, the best man for the job truly is a woman, and it is foolish to limit one's options when faced with an aggressive foe. On the flip side, it is also foolish for feminists and their lackeys to demand that women be placed in combat situations that they are ill qualified for.

The author continues:

“Then if men or women as a sex appear to be qualified for different skills or occupations,’ I said, ‘we shall assign these to each accordingly; but if the only difference apparent between them is that the female bears and the male begets, we shall not admit that this is a difference relevant for our purpose, but shall still maintain that our male and female Guardians ought to follow the same occupation (p.164).”

If I dare say so, this is yet another flaw in Platonic philosophy. There are significant differences between the sexes [3], and these differences must be taken into account, especially with respect to the governance of the state.

“There is therefore no administrative occupation which is peculiar to woman as woman or man as man; natural capacities are similarly distributed in each sex, and it is natural for women to take part in all occupations as well as men, though in all women will be the weaker partners (p.165).”

Allow me to share with you, dear readers, a very pertenant example of Platonic philosophy in action:

Why women should pay less tax

Published: April 18 2007 03:00

Normally, free-marketeers and those who are worried about the efficiency costs of taxation are in opposite camps from those social activists who believe you need extensive government intervention to achieve a range of social goals. Here is a policy proposal that should make the two camps agree: reduce income taxes on women and increase, by less, income taxes on men.

As surprising as it may look, this can be done while keeping total tax revenue constant and reducing average tax rates. Thus, this policy would at the same time reduce overall tax distortions and increase women's participation in the labour force. It would achieve similar goals to affirmative action policies, quotas or subsidised childcare and could substitute for those policies. It would also make gender discrimination more costly for employers and would be fair because it would compensate women for bearing the brunt of maternity and for the fact that the possibility of having children can negatively affect their career prospects.

How is it possible to achieve the miracle of raising taxes on men by less than the reduction on women while also holding tax revenue constant? The answer is well known to any graduate student in public finance.

The supply of labour of women is more responsive to their after-tax wage, so a reduction in taxes increases the labour participation of women substantially. Men's labour supply is more rigid, so an increase in taxes does not reduce their labour supply by much, if at all. Ergo, for a given tax cut on women, with a smaller tax increase on men, one maintains the same total revenue with fewer tax distortions. This is simply an application of the general principle of public finance that goods with a more elastic supply should be taxed less. Our computations, available in our working paper, Gender Based Taxation*, suggest that the difference in tax rates across gender that would be implied by our proposal - based upon different labour responses to wages - could be quite large, especially in countries where the labour participation of women is not as high, such as the -Nordic countries.

Since we are talking about people and not goods, one needs to worry about whether such a policy undermines other social goals. In fact it does not, and this is why social activists should favour it as well. Increasing the labour participation of women is an explicit goal of the European Union's Lisbon agenda. It sets a very ambitious target for female employment, especially in southern Europe, where women tend to stay at home more. Reducing the cost of working for women (ie their taxes) is the simplest and most direct way of achieving that goal. Concern over the discrimination against women in the labour force underlies many policies of "quotas" for women or affirmative action. A lower tax on women would lower their pre-tax wage and increase their after-tax wage, making it relatively cheaper for an employer to hire women. Discrimination would then become more costly. As for pollution, it is easier and more effective to tax the undesirable activity (ie make it costly) rather than prevent it by regulation or other forms of government activism.

Often those who care about women's work emphasise the policy of supporting it with publicly funded childcare facilities. A higher take-home salary for women created by our proposal would allow them to buy more childcare at market prices and, since childcare facilities employ mostly women, they would also benefit on their costs. Moreover childcare subsidies target only women who have children; the problems of gender discrimination and low female labour force participation are more general. Not all countries will want to subsidise fertility directly.

In the long run, gender-based taxation may contribute to changing the traditional division of labour within the family, which currently encourages men to work more in the market and women more often at home. If and when a change happens (and many social activists consider that a desirable goal), the response of male and female labour supply (their "elasticities", in technical terms) may become less different from each other then they are today. At that point, one may need to reconsider the differences in tax rates, precisely as the basic principles of optimal taxation suggest.

In conclusion: would it be unfair for the fiscal authority to treat women and men differently? We do not believe so. There is nothing more hypocritical than to invoke equal treatment in some areas (taxation) for those who are not treated equally in many other areas (the labour market; sometimes in the family allocation of tasks, such as rearing children or caring for elder family members). We already have a host of policies that are not gender neutral. We could eliminate many of them by adopting a simple differentiation of tax schedules for men and women. And do not forget that a large part of the redistribution of the tax burden implied by this proposal would occur within the same family: the husbands of married women who choose to work would also benefit from their wife earning a higher take-home salary.

The writers are economics professors respectively at Harvard University and the University of Bologna

Nevermind the fact that this ponzi scheme flies in the face of the ideal that all are equal before the law, taxation or otherwise... I would like to know who in the hell these "social activists" are and why are they so damn insistent on dragging women out into the workforce by taxing them into submission?

Is a woman's decision to work part-time or not at all not to be respected? If I didn't know any better, I would think that they were inspired by the Republic, too much of that green weed, or both. I leave it to you, dear reader, to draw your own conclusions.

While many feminists would label me a sexist, I say that it is people like Plato, and those that follow in his footsteps, that deny the innate desire of most women to be feminine, take care of business at home, and make up their own minds about these sensitive issues, that are the real sexy pigs!!

But I digress.

Continuing on, we find the REAL motivations behind this entire nefarious operation:

“We must therefore pick suitable women to share the life and duties of Guardian with men, since they are capable of it and the natures of men and women are akin (p.166).”

“Our women Guardians must strip for exercise, then – their excellence will be all the clothes they need. They must play their part in war and in all other duties of a Guardian, which will be their sole occupation; only, as they are the weaker sex, we must give them a lighter share of these duties than men. And any man who laughs at women who, for these excellent reasons, exercise themselves naked is, as Pindar says, “picking the unripe fruit of laughter (p. 167)…”

So much for modesty. Not only does Plato advocate the destruction of the family... he also wants to see women excercise naked!!!

Yep! Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get over on Ol' Kumogakure...



(Ye old school Gymnos, where men traditionally trained naked.)



(Tha new school Gymnos. Plato would be proud!)


Women and the Family

And now, ladies and gents, we get to the good stuff.

Maybe you have heard of waves to describe political movements, such as the Third Wave, or the various waves of feminism.

Please understand that the term wave, as it is used in this context, is a Platonic idea. Yet another link between our man hating friends and the Greek philosopher.

What you are about to read is shocking, but this is what the man wrote, and I reproduce it here faithfully. Take note, dear readers, that this is indeed the feminist, communist, socialist, elitist (whatever the hell you want to call them, because they are all the same gang) Endgame.

'Well, then, we’ve escaped one wave without drowning, and have dealt with the regulations about women. We have laid it down that our men and women Guardians should both follow common occupations; and we’ve proved without inconsistency that our proposals are both practical and advantageous (p. 168).’

'Yes, and a pretty big wave it was.’

Plato then warns us that:

'You won’t say that, when you see the next one.’

“… our men and women Guardians should be forbidden by law to live together in separate households, and all the women should be in common to all the men; similarly, children should be held in common, and no parent should know it’s child, or child its parent (p.168).”

Hmm... where to begin?

So instead of a woman (or women) having their own husbands in their own happy homes with those cute white picket fences, she would be at the beck and call of the fastest and the strongest. She would basically be a whore in service to the State.

The male Guardians would have easy access to the female ones. Wham bam thank you ma'am!! But, as we look around us, aren't we as a society moving in that direction anyway?

Is it not true that most women are sleeping around like never before, with no intentions of getting married [1][2][3]?

Now don't get me wrong... Kumo tha freak doesn't mind if young, pretty, and smoking hot women want to sow their oats but... there was a time when a girl traded hot sexx for the promise of marriage, and the security and whatnot that came with it. At least she tried to ensure that she knew who the father of her child was, so forth and so on.

As I see how the womenfolk are getting played, it reminds of the saying that goes something like, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

Unfortunately, women think that they have picked themselves up. But the reality is that women as a group have been set up to get knocked the funk down!

Right, wrong, or indifferent, gratutious promiscuity among women is running rampant. If one considers the growing number of women who commit adultery, then we get to the place where mostly all women are "in common," just as Plato and the feminists desired.

It ain't no secret that all of the above objectives have been plainly stated by feminists for decades now [aa]. Marriage, healthy relations between the sexes, and the rights of Men to their children and their marital rights... all of these have been targeted for termination by the femms, and they have largely succeded. In the political area, it's easy to see that Leftist organizations such as the Femocratic [cc] party benefit the most when women remain unmarried, and with the rise of the Welfare State, luring women into the Democratic fold hasn't been all that hard to do.

Ironically, Leftist leaning governments have already begun the process that I predicted they would do once government bodies such as the Supreme Court of the United States terminated the rights of men to their offspring; 'liberating' mothers from their own children [dd][ee][ff] (Kudos to the former Eternal Bachelor for his work on this subject).

The process has already begun. Little by little, an unchecked government will "persuade" the ever-growing class of single mothers that, "Daddy Government knows best."

Women thought they had a pretty good deal... free assistance and a child support check to boot! But as time passes, and as our power players behind the scenes move forward with this Platonic scheme, women will find themselves forced out of the parenting business. Maybe then, the women will recognize the perdicament they are in, and appeal to their natural allies, men, for help.

Unfortunately, it will be too late, as too many bridges have been burnt. It will take literally generations for Western women to win back the trust, affection, and respect that they once had.

Ladies, you have to understand that the power-mad really don't give a fuck about you, and they never have. This whole "ladies first" treatment is nothing more than a massive transfer of power from the citizens to the hands of the Ruling Elite.

Money, power and respect.

Moving on with the Republic:

“As law-giver, you have already picked your men Guardians. You must now pick women of as nearly similar natural capacities as possible to go with them. They will live and feed together, and have no private home or property. They will mix freely in their physical exercises and the rest of their training, and their natural instincts will necessarily lead them to have sexual intercourse… But … it would be a sin either for mating or anything else in a truly happy society to take place without regulation. Our Rulers would not allow it (p. 169).”

Plato goes on to give an example of “hunting dogs and game birds (p. 170),” and how breeders of these animals take great care to make sure that they, “breed from the best of them (p.170).”

The philosopher sums it up by saying that, “We must, if we are to be consistent, and if we’re to have a real pedigree herd, mate the best of our men with the best of our women as often as possible, and the inferior men with the inferior women as seldom as possible, and bring up only the offspring of the best. And no one but the Rulers must know what is happening, if we are to avoid dissention in our Guardian herd (p.171).”

Infanticide? Lies? Manipulation? Eugenics?

Do you get it yet?

THIS SHIT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT! THIS WAS WRITTEN BY A MAN TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO, AND CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE ARE MAKING DAMN SURE THAT HIS IDEAS MATERIALIZE INTO REALITY!

Our very disturbed writer continues:

“And among the other honors and rewards our young men can win for distinguished service in war and in other activities, will be more frequent opportunities to sleep with women; this will give us a pretext for ensuring that most of our children are born of that right kind of parent (p. 171).”

“Each generation of children will be taken by officers appointed for the purpose, who may be men or women or both… these officers will take the children of the better Guardians to a nursey and put them in charge of nurses living in separate part of the city: the children of the inferior Guardians, and any defective offspring of the others, will be quietly and secretly disposed of (p.170-171).”

Dear Readers,

I have to say that this line of research troubles me greatly. I would like to think that there aren't people out here that would support evil like this. I would like to hope that those that support feminism and other such movements are mislead and naive.

Unfortunately, all the evidence points in the opposite direction. It is, in my mind, quite clear that some groups of people have latched onto this aspect of Platonic philosophy, and are doing their damnest to bring his "ideal state" to fruition.

Wake up, and recognize that we as a society, are taking a long walk on a very short pier. We are going to hit the Endgame in a New York Minute, and many won't even realize what the hell happened to a society that once stood for liberty, justice, and all that is good.

Our Greed, Lust, and Selfishness will be our undoing.

Kumo.