By Herbert Purdy: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was born on August 27, 1770, in Stuttgart, in the Duchy of Württemberg in southwestern Germany, and he died on 14th November 1831. He was a divisive figure, but his philosophical ideas have towered over Western politics ever since. In particular, his Hegelian principle – or Hegelian dialectic – describes the dynamic behind a process of social change that has been at work for many centuries, and is increasingly the weapon of choice for politicians and social engineers, and particularly feminists who would conform us all to their ways.
Simply put, the Hegelian principle is: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Someone, or some group, puts forward an idea, or set of ideas, which they want society to take on as its guiding principles – this is the thesis. The intention is to provoke a reaction by way of an antithesis – a set of ideas that stand in opposition to the thesis – then, through a dialectical process of discussion, dialogue, and argument those who promoted the original thesis force their opponents to take up a new position – a new social order – passing it off as an apparent reconciliation. This is the synthesis of the two opposing views.
One of the key techniques used by those who have used the Hegelian dialectic to significant effect to change society in the past, is the cynical process more commonly called ‘problem – reaction – solution’, which manifests like this:
Two thousand years before that, the Roman Emperor Nero did something very similar. He ‘fiddled while Rome burned,’ leaving the conflagration to rage and traumatise the people, blaming it all on the Christian sect. The atmosphere this created was all he needed for the wildfire of persecution which he unleashed on the Christians. Even today, we see the same principles at work when governments constantly remind the people that they are under attack, and seek wider powers, far beyond normal peace-time powers, to protect the people’s freedom, even though those powers actually take away their freedom. Thus, one form of totalitarianism is replaced by another.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that this is what is happening in the name of women’s rights and equality. The evidence lies in the fact that anyone who speaks against any of it is immediately named as a misogynist or sexist and subjected to an hysterical whirlwind of social reaction, often resulting in character assassination, premature career termination, or social ostracisation. For decades, feminists have peddled their false narratives about women’s oppression and men’s patriarchy, etc., and, having succeeded in embedding these ideas in key nodes of our society, they are now whipping up moral panics about rape and domestic violence, and creating widespread suspicion of men – even fear of men – in many sections of society, particularly millennial women who have been indoctrinated into it in their universities.
Feminists have long been called ‘feminazis’, a term coined in the 1990s by Rush Limbaugh, the American TV talk show host who first used it about prominent feminists such as Gloria Steinem, Susan Sarandon, Christine Lahti, and Camryn Mannheim, and their fascist utterances about abortion. And, given the current social situation in the UK in which power is held almost entirely by radical feminist women, we are seeing that term become a reality.
The net effect of this is that men are invariably deemed to be at fault in domestic violence situations – as in the long discredited4 5 Duluth model,6 which is Women’s Aid’s and our government’s driving ethos – and summarily dispossessed of their home and their children, often on the simple say-so of a vindictive wife who is immediately believed by our once dispassionate police who automatically call in Women’s Aid to guide the woman and prevent any possibility of reconciliation. The man is then thrown upon the not-so-tender mercies of our now ideologically-driven criminal justice system (also in bed with Women’s Aid)7, and our formerly admirable courts, all of which believe women are utterly innocent victims of men’s patriarchy, in line with Women’s Aid’s, and feminism’s, standard party line.
This institutionalised feminism has created a draconian régime in family law in the false name of equality for women, and men are its victims. Men no longer stand equal before the law, which is one of the fundamental principles of a free society, and it is all part of the Hegelian process that is being used to move us to a new form of society in which men become legally subjugated, and women rule.
After thinking about it long and hard, I believe men now need to put clear blue water between them and the powers that are being ranged against them, because those powers are now embedded close to the beating heart of the state, and the state has irresistible power over individuals.
Passive resistance is the most powerful resistance known to man. It is an even more powerful force for social change than Hegelianism, and it is rapidly becoming the only rational response left to men. Just like the French, Belgian, Dutch, and Danish resistance in World War II, men need to go underground. They need to drop off the social radar and go to work behind the scenes, refusing to grant the sanction of the victim, as Ayn Rand put it in her seminal and prescient novel Atlas Shrugged, which should be required reading for every man today.
From the first page of that novel, Rand has her characters ask ‘Who is John Galt?,’ and it is not until the last third of the book that she reveals his identity. John Galt is the central character who leads the wealth creators, innovators, entrepreneurs, medical specialists, etc. – all of them men – in what amounts to a strike from an oppressive, restrictive, increasingly totalitarian society which seeks to exploit their strengths and talents in order to favour those who have none, leaving it all to its dystopian destiny.
If men eschew committed relationships with women: if they refuse to marry or get into situations where they can be used as cash machines for children they don’t get to see, and open cheque books for greedy women who game the divorce system for all it is worth; aided and abetted by lawyers who do the same; and by the state that gains by dividing society so it can rule it. If men leave the state to pick up the tab for the social brokenness, and refuse to fund it and their own oppression. If men refuse to defend the society that attacks them and takes away the rewards of that sacrifice, which is their freedom. If men take responsibility for stopping the endless damage to children that women and a feminist society is perpetrating on those innocent victims, by refusing to sire them, and the birth rate plummets even more than it already is doing. If men create their own social spaces and tell women to stay out.
I mean, who needs it for god’s sake? Go MGTOW – go Galt – get a life. Live long and prosper!
Source
One of the key techniques used by those who have used the Hegelian dialectic to significant effect to change society in the past, is the cynical process more commonly called ‘problem – reaction – solution’, which manifests like this:
- Identify an alleged enemy group and marginalise it by implying that the rest of society is in danger from it
- Create a climate of fear, casting the enemy group as the source of that fear
- Use the fear to rally support, presenting your ideology as the answer to the problem, and pointing out that powers will be needed to deal with the problem, even though that might mean that people have to give up long-held values or freedoms
- Use the power you have falsely gained to oppress and eventually stamp out the ‘enemy’ group
Two thousand years before that, the Roman Emperor Nero did something very similar. He ‘fiddled while Rome burned,’ leaving the conflagration to rage and traumatise the people, blaming it all on the Christian sect. The atmosphere this created was all he needed for the wildfire of persecution which he unleashed on the Christians. Even today, we see the same principles at work when governments constantly remind the people that they are under attack, and seek wider powers, far beyond normal peace-time powers, to protect the people’s freedom, even though those powers actually take away their freedom. Thus, one form of totalitarianism is replaced by another.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that this is what is happening in the name of women’s rights and equality. The evidence lies in the fact that anyone who speaks against any of it is immediately named as a misogynist or sexist and subjected to an hysterical whirlwind of social reaction, often resulting in character assassination, premature career termination, or social ostracisation. For decades, feminists have peddled their false narratives about women’s oppression and men’s patriarchy, etc., and, having succeeded in embedding these ideas in key nodes of our society, they are now whipping up moral panics about rape and domestic violence, and creating widespread suspicion of men – even fear of men – in many sections of society, particularly millennial women who have been indoctrinated into it in their universities.
Public opinion has been wound up to such a degree that the feminists’draconian seizure of power over men in order to rule them, is rapidly becoming a walk in the park.And all of it is being actively aided and abetted by the feminist fifth column in the media, the National Union of Students, Rape Crisis, and Women’s Aid who offer their feminist solutions to the ‘problem’ with men, and who seek more and more government money and intervention for their activities, ‘working together until women and children are safe’, according to Women’s Aid’s strap line.1
Feminists have long been called ‘feminazis’, a term coined in the 1990s by Rush Limbaugh, the American TV talk show host who first used it about prominent feminists such as Gloria Steinem, Susan Sarandon, Christine Lahti, and Camryn Mannheim, and their fascist utterances about abortion. And, given the current social situation in the UK in which power is held almost entirely by radical feminist women, we are seeing that term become a reality.
The degree of power feminists now have in our land is astonishing, and they are using that power to put the finishing touches to the feminist totalitarian state of their dreams, brought about through the Hegelian process, which they have used to remarkable effect. That process is now very near to complete, and the dangers men as a class now face in their interactions with women – and with the feminist driven state – are extreme.You just need look at the way that the law on sexual offences and rape has been reengineered to victimise ONLY men; how men, young and old, are being falsely accused and put through the mill in what amount to show trials, their names placed in the public domain, while their accusers enjoy legal anonymity for life, no doubt pour encourager les autres. We see it in new, far-reaching laws on domestic violence hidden inside the Serious Crimes Act 2015,2 which mainly deals with the confiscation of assets for drug dealers, money-launderers, and organised crime, in miscellaneous, catch-all provisions in which we find a small section entitled ‘controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships’, using wording that bears a striking resemblance to that used by Women’s Aid,3 which has long enjoyed a seat at the top policy-making table next to our current Prime Minister, Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary; and who has clearly slipped these laws in through the back door, without fanfare or open public discourse.
The net effect of this is that men are invariably deemed to be at fault in domestic violence situations – as in the long discredited4 5 Duluth model,6 which is Women’s Aid’s and our government’s driving ethos – and summarily dispossessed of their home and their children, often on the simple say-so of a vindictive wife who is immediately believed by our once dispassionate police who automatically call in Women’s Aid to guide the woman and prevent any possibility of reconciliation. The man is then thrown upon the not-so-tender mercies of our now ideologically-driven criminal justice system (also in bed with Women’s Aid)7, and our formerly admirable courts, all of which believe women are utterly innocent victims of men’s patriarchy, in line with Women’s Aid’s, and feminism’s, standard party line.
This institutionalised feminism has created a draconian régime in family law in the false name of equality for women, and men are its victims. Men no longer stand equal before the law, which is one of the fundamental principles of a free society, and it is all part of the Hegelian process that is being used to move us to a new form of society in which men become legally subjugated, and women rule.
No matter how much men’s rights activists speak out, in classic Hegelian fashion, feminists are just playing them like fish on a hook, inexorably moving them to the place they have always wanted them to be: new men, soft men, emasculated men, men who stay at home and nurture children while women, liberated from men, and the social and biological obligations of motherhood, pursue selfish self-fulfilment.Feminism’s thesis is not assailable by common sense, or decency, or truth, because it is being driven by a latent jealousy of men in women, and by a politically motivated desire on the part of increasingly powerful women to take over society from men. It is a classic Hegelian ploy, and engaging with it, and the a state that is besotted with it, is playing straight into its Hegelian hands. Men’s rights activists must wake up to this and realise that the time for trying to counter the hypocrisy with rationality – with essentially male arguments, using facts and truth, in the hope that sense will prevail – is not going to make any difference to the relentless feminist long march on men. Neither is it sufficient to be simply keyboard warriors: a cyber-age equivalent of the Samizdat press of the communist era. Keyboard warriors don’t change society. Nor is cooperating with feminism: going along with its relentless creeping ooze, rationalising its outrageous propositions, buying into them and trying to see it all as progress. It is not progress, it is regress, and all it amounts to is men being enticed to their certain ruin, like turkeys voting for Christmas.
After thinking about it long and hard, I believe men now need to put clear blue water between them and the powers that are being ranged against them, because those powers are now embedded close to the beating heart of the state, and the state has irresistible power over individuals.
I believe that in the current climate of hostilities, men going their own way (MGTOW) is the only viable strategy for men’s safety and prosperity. Like Brexit, men need to bail out and go it alone, freeing themselves from the systematic assaults on them by the feminist-dominated totalitarian state, taking back their autonomy, reasserting their personal freedom, reclaiming their lives, which are being systematically dominated and diminished.In my view, MGTOW is not just men simply walking away, refusing to buy the bum deal that is on offer, making the only rational response to the inevitable disempowerment, subjugation, and enslavement that feminism has to offer them. It is not a sullen response, it is an empowering and freeing re-assertion of manhood, and it has a strategic value too. Rather than men simply proposing an antithesis to feminism, MGTOW is a counter-thesis. It is turning the tables on feminism, breaking the Hegelian dialectic, and laying down its own thesis – to which feminists and society will be forced to respond.
Passive resistance is the most powerful resistance known to man. It is an even more powerful force for social change than Hegelianism, and it is rapidly becoming the only rational response left to men. Just like the French, Belgian, Dutch, and Danish resistance in World War II, men need to go underground. They need to drop off the social radar and go to work behind the scenes, refusing to grant the sanction of the victim, as Ayn Rand put it in her seminal and prescient novel Atlas Shrugged, which should be required reading for every man today.
From the first page of that novel, Rand has her characters ask ‘Who is John Galt?,’ and it is not until the last third of the book that she reveals his identity. John Galt is the central character who leads the wealth creators, innovators, entrepreneurs, medical specialists, etc. – all of them men – in what amounts to a strike from an oppressive, restrictive, increasingly totalitarian society which seeks to exploit their strengths and talents in order to favour those who have none, leaving it all to its dystopian destiny.
After all, feminism, which is cultural communism, has always been about destroying marriage and the family by creating the ‘legalised community of women’. You can read that in the Communist Manifesto 1848. 8 Why not just go along with that?This is what I believe MGTOW is, and what men now need to do. Men need to ‘Go Galt’, and in my book, I develop the relevance of Atlas Shrugged to men’s situation today, discussing Ayn Rand’s ideas and relating them to the practical outworking of MGTOW – particularly for young men – whose futures are now very much in danger in the current culture.
If men eschew committed relationships with women: if they refuse to marry or get into situations where they can be used as cash machines for children they don’t get to see, and open cheque books for greedy women who game the divorce system for all it is worth; aided and abetted by lawyers who do the same; and by the state that gains by dividing society so it can rule it. If men leave the state to pick up the tab for the social brokenness, and refuse to fund it and their own oppression. If men refuse to defend the society that attacks them and takes away the rewards of that sacrifice, which is their freedom. If men take responsibility for stopping the endless damage to children that women and a feminist society is perpetrating on those innocent victims, by refusing to sire them, and the birth rate plummets even more than it already is doing. If men create their own social spaces and tell women to stay out.
If men re-assume that once-admired and independent status of bachelordom, creating and getting on with their own lives, working for themselves in all meanings of that expression: ‘counting all men, but none too much’, to paraphrase Kipling9 who was very much a man of that era. If men concentrate on enjoying for themselves the fruits of their own labour, refusing to let those fruits be used and abused by anybody, then men can have a good life.Through a simple unilateral declaration of independence, men can free themselves from the shriek of it all: from the demanding, nagging, unwomanly competitiveness – from the greedily aggressive, entitlement ridden, special snowflakes that women have become. Women have totally lost the social and biological plot because they have stupidly allowed themselves to be used as useful idiots, duped into believing that centuries of social progress, built on millennia of evolutionary development, can be turned over by an upstart ideology called feminism.
I mean, who needs it for god’s sake? Go MGTOW – go Galt – get a life. Live long and prosper!
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment