Atlantic.Com: As Goes the Family...

Greetings Earthlings!

While surfing the web, I found this gem about how Black folks aren't keeping up with the Joneses, and how the rest of America is (obviously) not too far behind:

Why are African-Americans more likely to be downwardly-mobile than non-blacks? Probably because of two inter-related factors: The weak cultural capital afforded by the black community's disastrous family structure, which in turn reinforces the black-white wealth gap that's a legacy of slavery and segregation.

Now consider that the first factor, the decline of marriage and the rise of illegitimacy, is increasingly visible in white and (especially) Hispanic America as well. This raises the possibility that what's true of African Americans today - that they have a hard time making it to prosperity and a harder time staying there - may be true of the rest of working-class America further down the road. The United States as a whole has a higher same out-of-wedlock birth rate at present - around 37 percent as of 2005 - that black America had in the 1960s, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan first sounded the alarm about family dissolution in the African-American community. If that number inches higher, or even if it stays constant, it's going to be harder and harder for working-class Americans to compete in the global economy, and harder, as a result, for them avoid stagnation and downward mobility at home...

Beautifully written, and reflects my thoughts exactly.

I've said many times on this blog that marriage is the premier wealth generating institution on the Micro (individual) level, for a host of reasons that any Economist can relate to.

Specialization, Distribution of Labor, and Economies of Scale are all reasons why marriage matters; not to mention that the married family of a husband and wife (or wives, as Polygamy was and is the default form of marriage in Africa, although this is changing due to modern, Western influence) is the best and most efficient environment for cultivating the most important renewable resource, Human Capital.

A single parent who is struggling to make ends meet, and by extension, her children, simply can't compete with a two parent family in most cases [i][ii]. Children of single parents (in the black context, single mothers) start out life, in all but a few instances, with huge spiritual, economic, and sometimes physiological disadvantages.

I know this, because I am the child of a single mother.

And, as the author said, if we move to a single-mother-and-government-as-father social model, this country will not survive for very long as a World Leader in anything. As a matter of fact, our upcoming economic crisis will, in my view, bankrupt the United States of Socialism, and our weakening family structure will have much to do with it.

I think that without a transition period to get folks off the government rolls, a whole lot of people are going to get hurt, and I don't want to see that happen. The realist in me (as one that depended on Food Stamps to eat when I was a youngin') understands that sometimes in life, people need a limited, temporary amount of help.

And while I totally understand the Ron Paul position that private organizations can do a better job than the government can, I am not entirely sure that ALL welfare should be eliminated, at least, not eliminated under the circumstances that we may be reading about in the newspapers in the next two to three years.

And my people, my poor, long suffering people, are neither prepared or anticipating the financial nuclear winter that is about to engulf all of us. We are too weak and divided to really do much of anything to prepare ourselves.

Feminism and the laws and policies it has championed have criminalized and demonized Black men to the point of no return. As in Hurricane Katrina [a][b], the Black women and children will be, more than likely, on their own.

It's sad that I even have to say that, but it's the God honest truth.

It should be noted, however, that this situation didn't appear overnight. It takes a long period of time to train a man not to be concerned with or even respectful towards his (former) helpmeet.

As an exhibit, here are a few modern "sonnets" concerning the feminist courts of injustice:




(Eazy E)



(Three Six Mafia - Yes, I know what the 3 sixes are all about!)




(Bone Thugs: My all time favorite Rap group. MIDWEST BIYOTCH!!)



Be it doing time for failing to cough up enough child support, getting arrested for alleged domestic violence or failure to obey a restraining order, or "empowering" unscrupulous Black women with the sole prerogative to evict the father of her child should he not live up to her standards, it's come to the point where it simply makes no sense, morally or legally, for a Black man to try to "do the right thing."

It's pretty pointless, unless you find a damn good woman with some common sense, to become husband and father and provide the children with the spiritual and moral guidance that children so desperately need. Granted, men aren't perfect beings either, and sometimes, they do things that cause women to do what they have to do in order to leave the situation. I have no qualms with that. However, statistically and on the street, everyone knows that women do the majority of the relationship ending, because they know that both the law and the culture is 100% on their side.

When the bedroom becomes a battlefield, is it any wonder that the spiritual and moral progress of young Black folk becomes severely retarded? The fact is that angry young Black men, who are feared by the larger society, broke, unemployed and unemployable, with few options, assets, and even less sympathy, who are viewed as potential rapists, sexual deviants, and batters by their own women (and quite a few other folks, in their heart of hearts), and are strung along by blind men at both the top and the bottom of society who ain't hip to what's really going down their damn selves, WILL take their rage out on themselves and the rest of society.

Is it any wonder that so many drop out of mainstream society and hustle just to get buy? Get involved in criminal gangs and commit illegal acts? End up in jail due to the triple whammy of ignorance, bad decision making, and a justice system that perceives all men (especially black men) as the enemy?

In no way am I excusing violent criminal acts. All I am saying is that if we don't want these kinds of events to take place, then we need to understand the root causes of these serious social issues. Otherwise, a new generation of Hispanic, Asian, and White thugs will join their Black cousins in an unprecedented spree of murder and mayhem.

For those who know their history, the way that many Black men, sons of Ancient Ethiopia and Kemet, live today is nothing like the way they lived long ago. In fact, the Black man was highly respected in the Classical Period for his sense of Justice, and his loyalty to God.

According to Addis Tribune:

The Ancient Greeks

The first Europeans to employ the term Ethiopia were the ancient Greeks, who used the word to designate all dark-skinned people south of Egypt. The classical authors of Greece made many references to the country. Homer, in the 9th. century BC, wrote in the Odyssey of the Ethiopians as eschatoi andron, or the most remote of men. In Book I of the Iliad he makes Zeus, the king of the gods, leave heaven for twelve days, with all the other gods, to visit the "blameless Ethiopians", while the goddess Iris goes to their country to participate in sacrificial rites to the immortal gods. In the Odyssey the sea god Poseidon is likewise said to have "lingered delighted" at one of the feasts of the Ethiopians.

Almost half a millennium later, in the 5th. century BC, the Greek dramatist Aeschylus had Io, the wandering woman of Prometheus Bound, travel to "a far-off land". It was inhabited by "a nation of black men", who lived near "the fountain of the sun" and the "river Aethiops".

Later again, in the 1st. century BC, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus observed that the Greek hero Hercules and the Greek god of wine Bacchus were both "awed by the piety of the Ethiopians.

"Loved by the gods"

Later once again, in the 7th. century AD, the Byzantine writer Stephanus Placidus reiterated that the Ethiopians were "loved by the gods because of their justice, and adds:

"Juniper frequently leaves heaven and feasts with them [the Ethiopians] because of their justice and the equity of their customs. For the Ethiopians are said to be the justest of men and for that reason the gods love their abode frequently to visit them".

Black men do not live as they do because we are genetically doomed to become natural born killers, rapists, dope dealers, and other such nonsense. It is because, for the most part, we are MOLDED and SHAPED, by various institutions and cultural norms, from the earliest of ages, to act this way. How can it be that you blindfold a man and expect him walk a straight line?

Make no mistake, I believe that racism is still very much with us. And, I also know that our present Urban Gangsta culture is leading some of us to the road of ruination. But most of all, in the year 2007, it is the DESTRUCTION of the Black family, which is solely the fault and responsibility of our modern system of Welfare State Femi-Platonism, that is MOST responsible for the sad state of affairs in the Black community.

Once the power of Organized, Political feminism is broken, then we as Black people can begin again. But until that day comes, expect Black America, and all America, for that matter, to descend into chaos and barbarity.

Kumo X.

Matriarchy Kills.

Dear Readers,

I made the claim in a post entitled the Art of Discipline IV:

... If we ignore the well documented fact [4][5][6] that these various [Domestic Violence] statutes are written and enforced in such a way as to violate the Natural Rights of men, there is still the question of the unintended consequences of such legislation, and if this is a policy that the public truly wishes to live by...

And if this line of questioning is outrageous to some, what I am going to say next is going to really be shocking...

Matriarchy Kills.


You might have seen this very tragic article (from CBS):

Cops: Dad Killed Son Over Child Support

Man Accused Of Murdering Toddler To Avoid Paying; Earlier Claimed He Had Been Kidnapped

Comments 105

NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 3, 2009

(AP) A man who initially told police gunmen kidnapped his 2½-year-old son was arrested Saturday, accused of committing an "extremely hideous" murder because he was ordered to pay child support, Police Superintendent Warren Riley said.

Danny Platt confessed, told police where to find the child's body and has been booked on a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Ja' Shawn Powell, police said.

"He had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support," which he recently had been ordered to do, Riley said.

Riley said he did not know the amount of child support and would not describe how the boy was killed, saying the coroner would do that after the autopsy was complete. The coroner's spokesman did not immediately return a call.

"The mother is in a safe place," Riley said.

Although he had visiting rights, Platt, 22, of New Orleans, had never visited the boy until he picked him up Friday, Riley said...

A shocking, sad story to say the least.

It goes without saying that no situation or injustice can justify killing one's own flesh and blood, as this man is accused of doing. Even if all the power of the Matriarchy is upon one, the children are innocent and should be protected from the injustice of the Feminist machine as much as humanly possible.

Writer Jarvis DeBerry, adds more detail to this tragic tale:

... I read that Danny Platt claims he had "a whole bunch of reasons" for slitting the throat of his 2-year-old son Ja'Shawn Powell and allowing the toddler to bleed to death.

"I'm sorry about killing my baby," Platt reportedly said on his way to jail Saturday night where he was booked with first-degree murder. "I had a lot of pressure on me." Then, he made his preposterous claim that his reasons for killing his child were numerous.

But apparently Platt's reasons did not include the $4,000 in child support he owed the boy's mother, Daniella Powell. "No, sir," Platt answered when he was asked Saturday night if he killed the boy to avoid paying child support.

She was entitled to it, of course, but Powell says she wasn't deliberately seeking it from her child's father. She had applied for food stamps and for Medicaid for Ja'Shawn, and when she listed the father's information, the state government rightfully sought payment from him. The state was deducting about $100 from each of Platt's weekly paychecks. But we have Platt's word that the forced deduction was not what Ja'Shawn's murder was about.

Even if it wasn't about paying back child support in particular, it's clear that he was trying to get back at the baby's mother in general. There is nothing Ja'Shawn could have done to his father to make Platt kill him.

In fact, to hear Ja'Shawn's mother tell it, the boy adored his mostly absent daddy and, despite Platt's infrequent visits, considered the man his protector and his enforcer. "I'm going to tell my daddy on you," was Ja'Shawn's threat to cousins who had crossed him. Such a threat indicates the faith Ja'Shawn had in Platt, a faith betrayed when his father knifed him to death...

Many who are commenting on this case are dancing around the real issues. Tired mantras such as "use a condom if you don't want to pay child support," "a real man takes responsibility for his child," or, like Mr. DeBerry states repeatedly, a woman deserves, at all times and without merit, child support from a man are uttered over and over again until they lose all meaning and border upon the ridiculous.

The State, after all, is right to seize the fruits of a man's labor (and his loins, in most cases) in order to enforce feminist public policy. A woman is automatically entitled to child support; no matter what the circumstances.

Let's review what public policy is and why it is so important:

... as I stated in my previous post on The Law, the issue of whether men have constitutional rights that should be upheld even in the face of bigoted, misguided, and ill-informed opposition has long been settled.

Allow me to state my position once more: MEN IN THE FEMINIZED WEST HAVE NO NATURAL RIGHTS. PERIOD.

Men are allowed to have rights so long as they do not go against what the Mob declares they should have. Our Democratic system, on many occasions has stated this to be so.

Indeed, feminism and anti-male hatred is a matter of public policy, to be upheld at all times and in all circumstances.

So what is public policy?

>A principle that no person or government official can legally perform an act that tends to injure the public.

Public policy manifests the common sense and common conscience of the citizens as a whole that extends throughout the state and is applied to matters of public health, safety, and welfare. It is general, well-settled public opinion relating to the duties of citizens to their fellow citizens. It imports something that fluctuates with the changing economic needs, social customs, and moral aspirations of the people. Public policy enters into, and influences, the enactment, execution, and interpretation of legislation.

Notice how the ideal of public policy directly contrasts with the Republican idea that men are entitled to fundamental, inalienable, natural rights which cannot be set aside or violated in any cases whatever.

Understand that we live in the Mob Rule of Feminized Democracy, and not in a Constitutional Republic as many of us have been led to believe.

Now some may ask, is feminism a "third pillar" of American public policy?

I would say that it is. Firstly, one must consider how whenever feminist family values and claims of equal protection and due process come into conflict in American courts of law, feminism almost always trumps any and all of its challengers.

Even if feminist policies violate the most sacred and time honored concepts of right and justice, it doesn't matter. Feminism, By Thunder, must not be harmed! The privileges of women must be upheld, no matter how great the injustice!

And how does our "Justice" system enforce feminist public policy?


Let's turn to the unflappable Baskerville for his perspective on the multi-headed Hydra of the divorce, child support, and domestic violence Regime which has wrought terror to countless souls:

... Unilateral divorce (and the feminist inescapably involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life.

By far the most serious consequences involve children, who have become the principal weapons of the divorce machinery. Invariably the first action of a divorce court, once a divorce is filed, is to separate the children from one of their parents, usually the father. Until this happens, no one in the machinery acquires any power or earnings. The first principle and first action of divorce court therefore: Remove the father.

This happens even if the father is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and is simply sitting in his own home minding his own business. The state seizes control of his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) falls on the father to demonstrate why they should be returned.

Though obfuscated with legal jargon (losing “custody”), what this means is that a legally unimpeachable parent can suddenly be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. Following from this, he can be arrested for failure or inability to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means (and which may amount to most of his salary). He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired.

The New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell.” Take the case of Marvin Singer, who was jailed without trial for not paying an attorney he never hired $100,000—only half of what the court claimed he “owes.” In Virginia, one father was ordered to pay two years’ worth of his salary to a lawyer he also did not hire for a divorce he did not request. Once arrested, the father is summarily jailed. There is no formal charge, no jury, and no trial.

Family court judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell: “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating,” he told his colleagues at a judges’ training seminar in 1994. “Throw him out on the street. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Generated Hysteria

Why do we hear almost nothing about this? Aside from media that sympathize with the divorce revolution, the multi-billion-dollar divorce industry also commands a huge government-funded propaganda machine that has distorted our view of what is happening.

The growth of the divorce machinery during the 1970s and 1980s did not follow but preceded (in other words, it generated) a series of hysterias against parents—especially fathers—so hideous and inflammatory that no one, left or right, dared question them or defend those accused: child abuse and molestation, wife-beating, and nonpayment of “child support.” Each of these hysterias has been propagated largely by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, whose federal funding is generously shared with state and local law-enforcement officials.

The parent on the receiving end of such accusations—even in the absence of any formal charge, evidence, or conviction—not only loses his children summarily and often permanently; he also finds himself abandoned by friends and family members, parishioners and pastors, co-workers and employers (and he may well lose his job)—all terrified to be associated with an accused “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.”

It is not clear that these nefarious figures are other than bogeymen created by divorce interests, well aware that not only the public generally but conservatives and family advocates in particular are a soft touch when it comes to anything concerning irresponsible behavior or sexual perversion.

Christians are especially vulnerable to credulity about such accusations, because they are disposed to see moral breakdown behind social ills. Moral breakdown certainly does lie behind the divorce epidemic (of which more shortly), but it is far deeper than anything addressed by cheap witch-hunts against government-designated malefactors.

It is also largely credulity and fear that leads Congress by overwhelming majorities to appropriate billions for anti-family programs in response to these hysterias. The massive federal funds devoted to domestic violence, child abuse, and child-support enforcement are little more than what Phyllis Schlafly calls “feminist pork,” taxpayer subsidies on family dissolution that also trample due process protections. Family law may technically be the purview of states, but it is driven by federal policies and funded by a Congress fearful of accusations that it is not doing enough against pedophiles, batterers, and deadbeats.

In fact, each of these figures is largely a hoax, a creation of feminist ideology disseminated at taxpayers’ expense and unchallenged by journalists, academics, civil libertarians, and family advocates who are either unaware of the reality or cowed into silence. Indeed, so diabolical are these hysterias that some family advocates simply accept them as additional evidence of the family crisis.

But while sensational examples can be found of anything, there is simply no evidence that the family and fatherhood crisis is caused primarily or even significantly by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Irrefutable evidence indicates that it is driven almost entirely by divorce courts forcibly separating parents from their children and using these false accusations as a rationalization...

And just so we can keep things in perspective, I would invite you to watch these videos to see what we do to men who disobey the Matriarchal State.

And guess what... you might be next.

Now it should be noted that I have written much about the destruction of the black American family. It is a dead institution; so ancient and forgotten that it has become the stuff of myth and legend. Tourists flock to museums where artifacts related to it are on ready display, drawing huge crowds...

Sorry, sorry. I'm getting a little carried away here. My sincerest apologies.

Anyway, the feminist Matriarchal regime has done a thorough job in grinding the Male led African-American family into the dust. And, thanks to a host of child support, domestic violence, vice and divorce laws, the chances are extremely high that a black man (or any man for that matter) who attempts to express his fundamental biological imperatives to mate, procreate, and marry will be severely punished for doing so.

Let us count the ways:

"Doing the Right Thing" and getting married + American woman in the Feminized West = Eventual trip to Divorce Court.

Avoiding marriage and the Divorce Courts + having children out of Wedlock in the Feminized West = Eventual trip to Child Support Court.

Failure to keep up with Child Support payments = Poverty and Imprisonment.

Living in close proximity with a woman in the Feminized West = High probability of ending up in Domestic Violence Court (for violations both real and imagined, mostly imagined).

Paying a woman for no-strings-attached sex = High probability of ending up in a criminal court. Poverty and Imprisonment soon follows.

Smoking a little Bud to cope with the stress brought on by marriage, being a father, or living with an American woman = Extremely high risk of Poverty and Imprisonment.

So it really doesn't matter how a black man chooses to relate to the opposite sex in the Matriarchal West... his probability of running afoul of feminist public policy is ridiculously high. And once he does, his honor, his livelihood, his children, and his liberty will most likely be confiscated by the Regime.

So what's the point of trying to form stable relationships and families? Why do the right thing when all of the institutions in society are set up to work against you? Why is society so hypocritical, urging young men to mate, marry, and procreate, and then punishing them when they do?

How is the average man supposed to deal with all of these contradictions? How can a man accept that society has basically set him up for failure?

What would you do if you found your entire world crashing around you? How would you cope if you all of a sudden found out that the entire world is against you? Accusing you of being a wicked, evil, frightening, or malevolent person? Discriminating against you simply because you had the terrible misfortune of being born a man?

What would you do?


WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I'm not saying that anyone is in the right if they commit violent acts, like Mr. Danny Platt is accused of doing. Indeed, if Mr. Platt is guilty of murdering his son because he refused to pay child support, he will find that God will punish him greatly for violating the Universal Law in so heinous a way.

However.

We need more information here. Was he pushed to the edge? Did he act out of desperation? Is there more to this case than meets the eye? Did the mother of the child use the boy as leverage to dominate, humiliate, and control Mr. Platt as so many mothers are apt to do these days?

Did the overwhelming onslaught of the feminist Matriarchal Juggernaut get the best of him? Did overzealous Child Support Enforcement workers decide to loot Mr. Platt's pockets until nothing but lint was left in them?

Maybe we will never know all the answers to these questions. But it is obvious to me that we need to go deeper into this mystery.

Our Matriarchal feminist public policy has very serious, sometimes deadly consequences. Our feminist experiment has unleashed unintended outcomes that have cost our society dearly... financially, morally, spiritually, politically, and socially.

We need to start asking why shocking stories like these are coming to light more and more often. We should be asking ourselves the question:

What would make a man commit such a violent act against his own seed?

A critical and honest search for the answer to this question leads directly to feminist public policy; a harsh and hypocritical system which has stifled all dissent and suspended all attempts at rational examination.

Again and again, I submit that this public policy is hateful, biased, untrue, and useless. Society does not want what feminism has wrought; however most are too ignorant to see that the corruption comes from Fiat Financed feminist public policy. They have been brainwashed into defending a corrupt institution that creates the vast majority of their familial ills.

The herd doesn't see the predators nipping at their heels, until they feel the invisible and irresistible jaws of feminist public policy upon them.

And without any aid or comfort from their fellow sheep, they fall into the abyss.

We cannot excuse violent behavior, such as murder. We must arrest on probable cause, try according to Constitutional principles, and sentence those found guilty by a jury of their peers to the maximum penalty the law allows.

However. We must also examine the causes and motivations of violent acts. If we find, during the course of critical, honest, and open examination, that our institutions and culture create favorable conditions for criminal conduct of this nature, then we must act and purge the evil from our midst.

Failure to remove laws, policies, and institutions that contribute to tragedies such as these place all of society, and all of our children, at risk.

End Feminist Public Policy NOW.

Toku.

Dear Mr. President.

Gang,

The following the text of a letter I recently sent to President Obama.

Enjoy!



Gyokko writes a letter.



Dear Mr. President,

The AP recently ran a story about Fatherhood and your thoughts on the subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fatherhood

As a 32 year old black man (and a father of a very handsome five month old son), I can definitely understand your feelings, as I too grew up without my father. I can related to the black hole (spiritually, financially, etc) of emptiness that fatherlessness can create.

I too have searched for answers to this problem, which has reached epidemic proportions in the black community. The outcome of my research, however, has led me to believe that government, via programs such as Welfare (that only pays benefits if fathers are out of the picture), and more importantly, the vast infrastructure of laws and policies on the books, contribute more to family destruction and the discouragement of marriage that anything else.

Please visit the following sites for more information:

http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/

http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/08/10/missing_men/

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/

Mr. President... it is my conclusion, based on a mountain of evidence, that government is the main source of our current epidemic of fatherlessness. It sounds counter-intuitive I know... but that is the reality.

As President of the United States, and a servant of the People, you have the ability to raise awareness and lobby for true equality, and for meaningful change on this issue. We should work to create a framework of laws and customs that buttresses and supports the family, instead of undermining it at every turn. This also means that groups such as feminists and others have to understand that men AND women have equal rights, complementary roles, and equal RESPONSIBILITIES. To simply say that the problem is "irresponsible men" is an intellectually dishonest oversimplification of the real issues at hand.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that men are still involved in family matters IN SPITE of official public policy, not because of it. Indeed, official policy has led to a very active movement to discourage men from even marrying in the first place.

In any event, I know you are a very busy man, and that there are certain political realities that might prevent you from making the radical changes that need to be made in order to save fathers and families. However, it is your duty to examine all of the facts and to champion reforms that promote the general welfare of the nation.

In the case of Ancient Egypt (the land where you saw your image in stone), the King had a duty to uphold Ma'at... which means to uphold justice, right and order, and to destroy Isfet (evil, disorder and chaos) wherever it may be found. Our public policy generates much more chaos and disorder than it prevents, and this must change.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ams2OPbmHMUC&pg=PA104&dq=kemet&lr=#PPA31,M1

I recognize that what I am sharing with you is 360 degrees from the common wisdom. But as a finance professional, I can tell you that the truth of things is found not with the masses, but in the margins. What I am asking you to do is to examine the above information and bring it into the mainstream.

Since you and I are basically on the same page when it comes to the outcomes of fatherlessness, I urge you to have your aides look at the linked websites, gather more information, and do whatever you can do to encourage and strengthen (in a positive and correct way, not in the current punitive and incorrect way of doing business, i.e. involuntary divorce, impoverishment and imprisonment) marriage, fatherhood and families.

Otherwise,

America can never regain its previous position as the most powerful, prosperous, and influential nation on the face of the earth.

From one father to another, please look at the information presented, and do whatever it is that you can do to turn this situation around.

Respectfully,

Gyokko.

Endgame! Part II

Howdy!

When I was researching this particular topic, I did not find any phrase that stated:

"For the sake of world domination, we must bring Plato's nefarious scheme to fruition!!"

Subsequently, in order to appreciate the importance of Platonism to our modern day leftist movements, we first must establish that he was an inspiration to the Marxist and feminist thinkers that came after him.

Starting off, we examine Plato’s Republic and Feminism by Julia Annas:

…”I shall maintain what may surprise some: that it is quite wrong to think of Plato as ‘the first feminist’. His arguments are unacceptable to a feminist, and the proposals made in Republic V are irrelevant to the contemporary debate. The idea that Plato is a forerunner of Women’s Liberation has gained support from the fact that in Republic V Plato proposes not only that women should share men’s tasks but also that the nuclear family should be abolished. This idea is put forward by some radical feminists today as an essential part of any programme for the liberation of women (Annas p. 307)… ”

This short paragraph yields tons of useful information. By informing her readers that her thesis would be surprising, it is clear that thinkers that move in the same circles as our author hold Plato as "the first feminist."

We find book V of the Republic mentioned as a concrete set of proposals that some have undoubtedly taken seriously, to the point where "radical feminists" have called for the destruction of the family unit as a whole.

For the doubters out there, I have turned to the illustrious Men's Wiki, who have listed the following feminist quotes:

"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

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

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

A footnote on Annas’s paper reads:

“Plato justifies the abolition of the nuclear family solely on the grounds of eugenics and the unity of the state… and there seems no reason why these grounds should not hold even if women were not full Guardians and had a subordinate status…(Annas p. 308).”

Eugenics?

Hmm... what famous feminist was one of the most vocal advocates of Eugenics in our time??




(Margaret Sanger)



Ahh that's right. Margaret Sanger.

According to Men's Wiki:

"The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67).

According to Black Genocide.com:

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

Just in case one believes that only Sanger was a supporter of the Platonic ideal of Eugenics, the ever helpful Men's Wiki notes that:

In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

So we can see that Plato and the feminist movement agree on the point of eugenics, and by extension, abortion on demand. The matter of dispute, according to Annas, is not whether or not "selective breeding" is wrong or immoral, but whether or not the status of women will be improved as a result of the act.

The author continues:

“ Of course Plato is not bound to be interested in the psychology of women, but his complete lack of interested underlines the fact that his argument does not recommend changing the present state of affairs on the ground that women suffer from being denied opportunities that are open to men.

His argument has quite different grounds, in fact. The state benefits from having the best possible citizens, and if half the citizens sit at home doing trivial jobs then usable talent is being wasted. Here Mrs. Huby gets the point exactly right: ‘There was nothing worth while for a woman to do at home; she should therefore share in man’s work outside the home (Plato and Modern Morality, p.23). Plato’s sole ground for his proposals is their usefulness to the state; the point is repeated several times.

Of course there is nothing non-feminist about this argument. But Plato’s argument gains rather different significance from the fact that this is his only ground. His argument is authoritarian in spirit rather than liberal; if a woman did not want to be a Guardian, Plato would surely be committed to compelling her to serve the state (p. 312).”

“…since it is also a consequence of the fact that Plato justifies his proposals solely in terms of benefit to the state. The proposals for women are not a matter of their rights. There is nothing in Republic V that one could apply to the question of women’s right; the matter is simply not raised (p. 313).

Indeed.

I have believed for some time that feminism, and the leftist ideology that drives it, is selfish, grasping, and cruel.

And yet, I am amazed by how many women will defend feminism to their last breath, even as it corrupts their bodies and destroys their souls[aa][bb].

This is a point that I will be making again and again as we go forward...

CULTURAL MARXISTS AND FEMINISTS CARE NOTHING FOR YOU, OR THE PEOPLE YOU HURT!

And speaking of insensitivity, we read on the ifeminists.net site that:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."





(Simone de Beauvoir)



That chilling commentary comes from fem-socialist Simone de Beauvoir, in her famous 1974 interview in The Saturday Review.

So what happens when the radical feminist agenda becomes the law of the land?
That is not a mere hypothetical question. It can be answered by turning the pages of history back to the tragic early days of Soviet Russia.

When Lenin's Bolsheviks seized the levers of power in 1917, Lenin faced the daunting challenge of jump-starting agricultural and industrial production. So he cast his eye on a vast, untapped workforce: peasant women.

Parroting the Marxist line on female oppression, Lenin incited women to action at the First All Russia Congress of Working Women: "The status of women up to now has been compared to that of a slave; women have been tied to the home, and only socialism can save them from this."

In short order, Lenin pushed through laws assuring women equal pay for equal work and the right to hold property.

But as Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, many women would be tempted to go back to the old ways to tend to hearth and home. So the traditional family would need to be abolished. Lenin understood that fact, as well.

So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries, and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce simplified.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law."

For all the talk of equality, equal rights and slavery... what did the Russian people get out of the experience?

I'll allow you to check into that for yourselves.[a][b]

When you are done with that, read about how women fared back in the good ol' days when they worked outside the home.

To be sure, de Beauvoir isn't alone in her agreement with Platonic thought.

Consider:

"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." --Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

Moving on to the next piece, we have Plato’s feminism by Harry Lesser.

Mr. Lesser, a man, takes Annas, a woman, to task for her criticism of Plato. It becomes clear that “feminism” is actually a very clever form of male domination after all.

The irony.



(La Servante de Harem, or, your typical feminist handmaiden)



Feminism, is not the main enemy here. Feminist thinkers are but mere handmaidens to the real power-brokers, such as the mysterious money men, "Third Wave" types as exposed by Mr. Farrell, the men who run Big Business and Government, academic elities such as Mr. Lesser, and others.

This is an important point that should not be forgotten. It is my view that our social experiment is nothing more than a modern day application of "Divide and Rule."

As we shall soon see, although women enjoy special privileges at the present, the groundwork has already been laid down for them to be stripped of their natural rights, just like the fellas.

Totalitarian governments are equal opportunity after all.

Mr Lesser writes:

“Plato did believe in the superiority of men over women; and his argument for sexual equality is based on the belief that it is in the interests of the community. Nevertheless, what he says can still be used to knock down any attempt to build a case for sexual, class or racial discrimination. When Socrates asks (Republic V, 455) ‘Do you know of any human occupation in which the male sex is not superior to the female’ and Glaucon replies that ‘No doubt many women are better at many things than man men, but taking the sex as a whole it is what you say’, this does not introduce a fatal flaw into the argument, but paradoxically makes it more powerful… the true claim that men are physically stronger than women is just as irrelevant as the false one that they are more rational.

The only difference between all men and all women is that, as Plato puts it, ‘the male begets and the female gives birth’. So once we have pointed out the fairly obvious fact that these differences are irrelevant to the question of what occupations the two sexes must follow, we have done all that is necessary (p. 113).”

He continues:

“To get the best person for a particular job, one has to look at individual capacities: a generalization about the sort of person who is often, or even usually, best is not good enough. For this reason, Julia Annas is mistaken when she writes (p. 310):

'Scientific research into sex differences is an area of great controversy precisely because its results have important social consequences; if men and women did have different types of intelligence, for example, then different types of education would surely be appropriate.'

Even with out limited knowledge we can be confident that such research could only come up with the information that some skills are more often possessed by one sex than the other. This information ought to have no social consequences of any kind (p. 114)…”

This is the voice of the tyranny of tolerance.

The assertion that sex differences have no relevance is why so many people in our modern world are suffering.

A dear old MRA friend wrote the following:

Sex and Character, by Otto Weininger advances an interesting theory with respect to the nature of the sexes.

"In the widest treatment of most living things, a blunt separation of them into males and females no longer suffices for the known facts. The limitations of these conceptions have been felt more or less by many writers. The first purpose of this work is to make this point clear...

... Sexual differentiation, in fact, is never complete. All the peculiarities of the male sex may be present in the female in some form, however weakly developed; and so also the sexual characteristics of the woman persist in the man, although perhaps they are not so completely rudimentary. The characters of the other sex occur in the one sex in a vestigial form. Thus, in the case of human beings, in which our interest is greatest, to take an example, it will be found that the most womanly woman has a growth of colourless hair, known as "lanugo" in the position of the male beard; and in the most manly man there are developed under the skin of the breast, masses of glandular tissue connected with the nipples. This condition of things has been minutely investigated in the true genital organs and ducts, the region called the "urino-genital tract," and in each sex there has been found a complete but rudimentary set of parallels to the organs of the other sex.

. . . The fact is that males and females are like two substances combined in different proportions, but with either element never wholly missing. We find, so to speak, never either a man or a woman, but only the male condition and the female condition. Any individual is never to be designated merely as a man or a woman, but by a formula showing that it is a composite of male and female characters in different proportions..."

"... Emancipation, as I mean to discuss it, is not the wish for an outward equality with man, but what is of real importance in the woman question, the deep-seated craving to acquire man's character, to attain his mental and moral freedom, to reach his real interests and his creative power. I maintain that the real female element has neither the desire nor the capacity for emancipation in this sense. All those who are striving for this real emancipation, all women who are truly famous and are of conspicuous mental ability, to the first glance of an expert reveal some of the anatomical characters of the male, some external bodily resemblance to a man. Those so-called "women" who have been held up to admiration in the past and present, by the advocates of woman's rights, as examples of what women can do, have almost invariably been what I have described as sexually intermediate forms. . . .

The vast majority of women have never paid special attention to art or to science, and regard such occupations merely as higher branches of manual labour, or if they profess a certain devotion to such subjects, it is chiefly as a mode of attracting a particular person or group of persons of the opposite sex. Apart from these, a close investigation shows that women really interested in intellectual matters are sexually intermediate forms.

If it be the case that the desire for freedom and equality with man occurs only in masculine women, the inductive conclusion follows that the female principle is not conscious of a necessity for emancipation; and the argument becomes stronger if we remember that it is based on an examination of the accounts of individual cases and not on psychical investigation of an "abstract woman...

As has been the case with every other movement in history, so also it has been with the contemporary woman's movement. Its originators were convinced that it was being put forward for the first time, and that such a thing had never been thought of before. They maintained that women had hitherto been held in bondage and enveloped in darkness by man, and that it was high time for her to assert herself and claim her natural rights.

But the prototype of this movement, as of other movements, occurred in the earliest times. Ancient history and medieval times alike give us instances of women who, in social relations and intellectual matters, fought for such emancipation, and of male and female apologists of the female sex. It is totally erroneous to suggest that hitherto women have had no opportunity for the undisturbed development of their mental powers..."

Men and women, are not the same. Also, men and men are not the same.

Think about it. We are all human beings, and yet, we have unique fingerprints. Billions and Billions of people, living and dead, and yet each person's is unique.

So it is with Men and women. Some of us are simply more Manly/Feminine than others.

Manly Dominant women push the status quo. These were, and are the women that seek to be like men. It's just in their nature.

With respect to our FemiNasty friends, it becomes quite clear that these women are Masculine Dominant in thought, word and deed.

That is also why Feminism is a false doctrine... because Feminists assume that ALL WOMEN FEEL AS THEY DO, WHEN THEY DO NOT.

Feminism implies that all women should emulate "Manly Dominant" women, when that is not what the majority of women really are.

One of the central tenets of Feminism is that Men and women are not two distinct biological sexes, but two Genders.

What's the difference between these words?

From Merriam-Webster:

Sex
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus

1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

Gender
function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender -- more at KIN

1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

2 a : SEX b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

So when Feminists say Gender, they don't mean those biological items and functions that separate male from female; they are referring to subclasses in a sexless mass of some grouping. Even the word Gender brings us full circle back to S.E.X.

In other words, Feminists deny femininity itself. And that move makes perfect sense. If you are trying to create the impression that Men and women are exactly the same, using words like the "Female Sex" doesn't really help achieve that goal. A good example of "Newspeak", as Orwell called it...

I read somewhere once that "a lie becomes truth if we stick to the lie forever."
And it might have worked too... if it wasn't for those meddling scientists!!

Check it out:

”ONLY a girl could write The Female Brain and walk away with life and reputation intact. This new book may be contentious, but in fact modern science is merely playing catch-up with what we know intuitively. Girls are different from boys.

Mind-blowing news, huh?

But here's the really brave bit: the unisex brain is a feminist fabrication. Louann Brizendine, an American neuro-psychiatrist, has written a book debunking stubborn notions that girls are different only because society makes them so. It's much more to do with the brain, she says. The female brain, to be more precise.

Here's a snap brain quiz. Which sex uses, on average, about 20,000 words a day, in contrast to the 7000 uttered by the other sex? Who has two-and-a-half times the amount of brain space devoted to sexual drive, meaning they think about sex, on average, every 52 seconds? When their feelings are hurt by someone they love, which sex reacts by assuming the relationship is over? Who has larger sections of the brain for action and aggression? If you answered, in order, women, men, women, men, you've been watching too many Woody Allen movies. Now, science is confirming that Woody was right all along.

While more than 99 per cent of male and female genetic coding is the same, it's the less than 1 per cent of difference that packs a punch in marking out women from men. Drawing upon advances in gene technology and brain-imaging techniques that have revolutionised neuro-scientific research, Brizendine presents a heady cocktail of structural, chemical, genetic, hormonal and functional differences between women and men.

These biological differences explain the most basic female behaviour. For instance, why do teenage girls endlessly talk? Science suggests that connecting through conversation triggers the pleasure centres in the brain. Talking activates what Brizendine describes as the "fluffy, purring kitty ... feel-good brain chemicals" - oxytocin and dopamine - which together deliver "the biggest, fastest neurological reward you can get outside of an orgasm". Maybe that explains why women like to talk during sex, perhaps looking for a double dose of delight.

OK, that last bit is not in Brizendine's book, but there is plenty that will upset the old bra-burning feminists who steadfastly refuse to allow biology to get in the way of ideology. Let's start with how girls choose a mate. According to Brizendine, "our (female) brains size up a potential partner, and if he fits our ancestral wish list, we get a jolt of chemicals that dizzy us with a rush of laser-focused attention".

And that ancestral wish list has not changed much in the past 1000 years. Brizendine points to a study of 10,000 people across 37 different cultures, that reveals women are less interested in how a man looks and more interested in his wallet and social standing. It may not fit the picture of the modern girl fending for herself but Brizendine is concerned with evidence, and not imagery. And the evidence suggests that, for all the economic and social advances women have made, the powerful desire to have and care for children means many women are still interested in finding a provider. It's part of what Brizendine calls the "inherited architecture of the female brain's mate-choice system".

Equality feminists will be even more disturbed by science that confirms what most of us already know: women are more emotional than men. Cutting to the chase, that means girls are more prone to over-reaction than boys. Were we to map the female brain, Brizendine says the connecting routes for emotion look more like super-highways, compared with the country roads you'd find inside the male brain. In a Stanford University study, when volunteers were shown emotional images while having their brains scanned, nine different areas lit up in women. In men, two areas lit up.

The author concludes that "there's no getting around the fact that women have different emotional perceptions, realities, responses and memories than do men, and these differences - based on brain circuitry and function - are at the heart of many misunderstandings". And it's in the hard-wiring of the brain, rather than environment...

…Talking about genetic differences between men and women has long been taboo because, according to feminist orthodoxy, if women were different it necessarily meant they were inferior. But that competition-between-the-sexes business is so old hat these days.

Ignoring the differences, and framing public policy on a pretence that women are something they are not only ends up hurting women. For instance, in the heady days of 1970s feminism, it was assumed that universal child care would free women to achieve true equality with men. We now know that many women would prefer not to outsource the raising of their children. And so we need public policy and workplace changes that recognise that biological drive...”

We need policies indeed.

Lets move on to the next piece, just in case you are not convinced.

The mismeasure of woman
Aug 3rd 2006

From The Economist print edition

”...The sensitivity of the question was shown last year by a furore at Harvard University. Larry Summers, then Harvard's president, caused a storm when he suggested that innate ability could be an important reason why there were so few women in the top positions in mathematics, engineering and the physical sciences.
Even as a proposition for discussion, this is unacceptable to some. But biological explanations of human behaviour are making a comeback as the generation of academics that feared them as a covert way of justifying eugenics, or of thwarting Marxist utopianism, is retiring. The success of neo-Darwinism has provided an intellectual underpinning for discussion about why some differences between the sexes might be innate. And new scanning techniques have enabled researchers to examine the brain's interior while it is working, showing that male and female brains do, at one level, operate differently. The results, however, do not always support past clichés about what the differences in question actually are.

In the past, it was assumed that a female was simply a male with hormones, says Tracey Shors, a professor of neuroscience at Rutgers University. The truth is the exact opposite. Female is the default brain setting. Until the eighth week of gestation every human fetal brain looks female. The brain, like the rest of the human body, becomes male as a result of surges of testosterone—one during gestation and one shortly after birth.

This wash of hormones creates an organ that generates typically boyish behaviour, such as rough-and-tumble play. Behavioural differences appear early. For example, a one-day-old girl will look for longer at a face than at a mechanical mobile; a boy will prefer the mobile. That it is testosterone exposure which causes such preferences is suggested by two sorts of research. Several studies have shown that girls with a genetic disorder which exposes them to abnormally high prenatal levels of testosterone often develop boyish patterns of play. As regards boys, Simon Baron-Cohen and Svetlana Lutchmaya, two researchers at Cambridge University, found that boys exposed to relatively high levels of testosterone in the womb looked less often at their mothers' faces, made eye contact less frequently and had smaller vocabularies than those exposed to lower levels—though this study has yet to be replicated successfully by other researchers."

(It would seem that Mr. Weininger was correct. Men and women possess varying degrees of Manliness and femininity, and the cataylist is varying amounts of hormone exposure.)

"Within a year of birth, boys and girls also prefer different toys. Boys prefer cars, trucks, balls and guns. Girls prefer dolls and tea sets. Although evolution has clearly not had the opportunity to mould a preference for tea sets, there is evidence from another species which suggests that human infants might be predisposed to prefer toys that have particular adaptive significance to their sex. Several years ago, Melissa Hines, of City University in London, and Gerianne Alexander, of Texas A&M University, gave some vervet monkeys a selection of toys, including rag dolls, pans, balls and trucks. Male monkeys spent more time with the trucks and balls. Females played for longer with the dolls.

Obviously, cultural stereotyping is an improbable explanation for this. Nor could male monkeys have evolved a preference for fire engines. The theory put forward to explain what happened—and the similar innate preferences of human children—is that the toys preferred by young females are objects that offer opportunities for expressing nurturing behaviour, something that will be useful to them later in life. Young males, whether simian or human, prefer toys that can be used actively or propelled in space, and which afford greater opportunities for rough play...

The brain is by no means immutable, even in adulthood. In the hippocampus, an area thought to be involved in spatial learning, new nerve cells can be born in an adult and hormones influence their birth and survival. Dr Shors says that her work has shown that the female brain, at least, is very plastic, changing dramatically during life in response to pregnancy and menopause as well as puberty...”

The research speaks for itself.

There are real differences between men and women, and any philosophy, such as the ideas advanced by Plato, and by our author Mr. Lesser that fails to take these differences into consideration is the philosophy of slavery and oppression.

Man and woman are much more than the sum of their parts. God, Blessed be He, made sure of that.

It is interesting, and quite tragic that feminists, male and female alike, presume to tell women how to think and how to feel, even when it goes against their most basic biological and spiritual natures.

Something to keep in mind as we move forward.

Thanks for reading!

Next time, more commentary on Plato.

Endgame! Feminism and the Republic.

“…Plato had little sympathy with democracy as he had seen it in Athens, nor would he have had much sympathy with any regime in which popular approval was an important factor in selecting those who are to direct the workings of society. If government is, as it must be, operated by a chosen minority, then the people’s choice is liable to be a bad choice because the people are so easily deceived. This may show an aristocratic bias; but Plato’s basic preference was not for an aristocracy in the common sense, but for trained expertise. It is true that he thinks this is likely to be provided by heredity guided by eugenics; but expertise and trained ability are the guiding criteria (The Republic, Lee, p.1iii).”

“But Plato, as Sir Karl rightly points out, is a Utopian and a planner; and that approach is more characteristic of the Virtuous Left, as perhaps Bertrand Russell and Professor Fite were suggesting when they pointed to Soviet Russia as the state most nearly run on Platonic principles (p. 1iii).”

Welcome!

For the last forty years, Western civilization and culture has been ravaged by the hate movement known as feminism.

Our degradation didn't happen overnight. It was a slow process, that took place over many years.

While feminists in academia plotted and planned, We the People slept.

While leftists gained control of schools and universities, We the People slept[1][2].

While social engineers abolished the traditional rights of Men in marriage and family life, We the People slept.

While Western women were asked to do the traditional jobs of both men and women, to the point where they as a group are struggling to stay afloat, We the People slept.

Many of today's modern women are either...

1) Highly medicated[3][4]

2) Overweight to the point where it is endangering their health[a][b]

3) Facing uncertain prospects for marriage and children[5][6][7],

Or perhaps for some, dealing with a combination of all of the above. What the feminists have asked the modern woman to do borders on the criminal, and women are literally driving themselves into the ground trying to meet the demands imposed on them from above.

While the Black American family, an institution that survived centuries of slavery and oppression was utterly obliterated[8][9], We the People slept.

While governments have passed, or deliberate passing, abusive acts such as Domestic Violence legislation[10][11], the Patriot Act[12][13], Hate Crime[14][15] laws that threaten constitutionally guaranteed free speech, among other corrosive legislation that, upon its eventual misuse, will threaten our natural and God given rights to life, liberty, and property, We the People slept.

It's time to wake up.

So where are we now?

Where are we going?

What is the endgame?

The endgame, in my view, is the establishment of a State very similar to the entity described by Plato.

Many MRAs who have done the research know about Plato and his influence upon our enemies.

Speaking of MRAs, I would like to give full credit to Steve Farrell for writing the excellent piece entitled, Technology, Sovereignty, and the Third Wave. This is the article that helped me put the pieces of the puzzle together. It is excellent writing, and a must read.

However, many people may not be aware of the connection between Plato and the various leftist movements that threaten to consume what little liberties they have left. And so, this series is dedicated to them.

So that they might understand the scope of the threat, and spread the word.

I will argue in this series that there are people and, I dare say it, a conspiracy of people, that seek to impose on the nations of the world, a "perfect" society as envisioned by a man that lived over two thousand years ago, and wrote his groundbreaking treatise at least three hundred years before the birth of Christ.

Plato, and his book the Republic (and to a lesser extent, his work Laws and other miscellaneous writings) have had an immense and far reaching impact on philosophy and politics that cannot be overstated.

An influence that continues today.

Marxism, Platonism, and the various schools of Feminism do have substantial differences. Feminism in particular, is quite diverse. On the site Plato.stanford.edu we learn that:

Focused as they are on questions about power, those developing fully feminist approaches to ethics offer action guides aimed at subverting rather than reinforcing the present systematic subordination of women. Liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist, multicultural, global, and ecological feminists have each offered a different set of explanations and solutions for this state of affairs. So too have existentialist, psychoanalytic, cultural, and postmodern feminists.

Proponents of these varied schools of feminist thought maintain that the destruction of all systems, structures, institutions, and practices that create or maintain invidious power differentials between men and women is the necessary prerequisite for the creation of gender equality.

Liberal feminists charge that the main cause of female subordination is a set of informal rules and formal laws that block women's entrance and/or success in the public world. Excluded from places such as the academy, the forum, the marketplace, and the operating room, women cannot reach their potential. Women cannot become men's full equals until society grants women the same educational opportunities and political rights it grants men.

Marxist feminists disagree with liberal feminists. They argue that it is impossible for any oppressed person, especially a female one, to prosper personally and professionally in a class society. The only effective way to end women's subordination to men is to replace the capitalist system with a socialist system in which both women and men are paid fair wages for their work. Women must be men's economic as well as educational and political equals before they can be as powerful as men.

Disagreeing with both Marxist and liberal feminists, radical feminists claim that the primary causes of women's subordination to men are women's sexual and reproductive roles and responsibilities. Radical feminists demand an end to all systems and structures that in any way restrict women's sexual preferences and procreative choices. Unless women become truly free to have or not have children, to love or not love men, women will remain men's subordinates.

Seeing wisdom in both radical and Marxist feminist ideas, socialist feminists attempt to weave these separate streams of thought into a coherent whole. For example, in Women's Estate, Juliet Mitchell argues that four structures overdetermine women's condition: production, reproduction, sexuality, and the socialization of children. A woman's status and function in all of these structures must change if she is to be a man's equal. Furthermore, as Mitchell adds in Psychoanalysis and Feminism, a woman's interior world, her psyche, must also be transformed; for unless a woman is convinced of her own value, no change in her exterior world can totally liberate her.

Multicultural feminists generally affirm socialist feminist thought, but they believe it is inattentive to issues of race and ethnicity. They note, for example, that U.S. "white" culture does not praise the physical attractiveness of African American women in a way that validates the natural arrangement of black facial features and bodies, but only insofar as they look white with straightened hair, very light brown skin and thin figures. Thus, African-American women are doubly oppressed. Not only are they subject to gender discrimination in its many forms, but racial discrimination as well.

Although global feminists praise the ways in which multiculturalist feminists have amplified socialist feminist thought, they nonetheless regard even this enriched discussion of women's oppression as incomplete. All too often, feminists focus in a nearly exclusive manner on the gender politics of their own nation. Thus, while U.S. feminists struggle to formulate laws to prevent sexual harassment and date rape, thousands of women in Central America, for example, are sexually tortured on account of their own, their fathers', their husbands', or their sons' political beliefs.

Similarly, while U.S. feminists debate the extent to which contraceptives ought to be funded by the government or distributed in public schools, women in many Asian and African countries have no access to contraception or family planning services from any source.

Surprisingly, some feminist authors have rejected Plato as the "first feminist" because he was not "sensitive" enough to the innermost desires of women.

I will discuss this point later.

However make no mistake, feminists, past and present, have had no qualms with adopting whatever philosophy that would further their goals. Be it Liberalism[16], Marxism[17], or Platonism, they incorporated it as their own, and ran with it.




(John Locke)


However, as we will soon see, Plato is a giant in the eyes of the feminists, towering far above Marx and Locke. Leftists and feminists alike have labored intensively for the fruition of the Platonic state, and even a cursory comparison to the program outlined in the Republic V and the policies and rules advocated by the two groups confirm the truth of this.

The similarities are quite striking, and fortunately of us, the end-game is quite predictable.

While there is no "smoking gun" that directly ties Platonic philosophy to later movements such as Marxism or feminism, anyone who reads Plato's works, and then objectively looks at these two philosophies, can confirm the truth of the matter in their own hearts.

In making my case, I will first present commentary from various authors on Plato in order to prove that Plato's way of thinking greatly inspired later generations of Marxist and feminist thinkers.

Once that this link has been substantially established, I will then move to comparing the ancient words of Plato with the reality of our present day situation, along with commentary from yours truly.

Finally, I will give my predictions of the end-game, or the ideal Leftist-Feminist state, based on Plato's ideals as given primarily in the Republic, and secondarily, in Laws.

Be prepared for a long journey. And where we end up, not even Kumogakure knows.

The game is afoot.

Take care.