How Women Dismantle and Destroy Nations

Hmm. Maybe it wasn't the Vandals and Goths at the door after all. Never heard of him. But since tens of -thousands- of people have studied "entire civilizations and 86 primitive tribes (sure it wasn't 89?) over 5,000 years of history" and found correlations between all manner of social trends, that's not surprising. You didn't respond or answer what I posted in any meaningful way, referring to the works of some single, obscure scholar without elaboration isn't a response. My point was that the power structure in place between elites and commons is far more dispositive of human history than the quest to control and stave off the mating behavior and instincts of women, loosened or otherwise.

The point was that cultural factors like feminism impact political behavior far more than biological instincts, and not the other way around.

Whatever, my prior posts are clear, and I'm well aware of the claims stated in the videos. I pointed out the suffragettes -and antisuffragettes- to emphasize cultural over instinctual motivations.

You persist in half-addressing half-versions of what I've posted. When you attempt, via a couple of puerile youtube videos, to argue that women as a group and not as individuals, destroy nations due to instinctual behavior they are incapable of countermanding with rational thought, you open the door for the most noxious, inaccurate generalizations feminism makes about the instincts of men as a group, and not as individuals (see "toxic masculinity" for example). The debate then becomes you, some internet cranks and PUAs, two youtube videos, and not much else, versus tens of thousands of volumes of bogus feminist works in the exact same vein but from the other side. They will win that battle of junk scholarship statistically, numerically, factually and handily. Better not to travel their same erroneous, fallacious path from the other direction. It's their wheelhouse.

My claim is that -elites- of both genders were the historical locus of power, not "men" as a group. Since you ignored my example about Marie Antoinette's maids, I'll make another. The wife of the village reeve had 10x the social and political power of any of the common men in the village.

Tunnel vision. Does the video show how there were just as many, if not more male collaborators in Vichy France? Does it acknowledge that women who fear for their lives may have sex with men who might kill them otherwise? Seems to be more of a comment on -male- instincts. Do you and the videos REALLY want to hinge some condemnation of female instincts re "nation destroying" on Nazi conquests? Irony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

1. You attempted the point that JFK won women due to sexual attractiveness (he did, no debate... among weak-minded women). 2. I introduced Barack Obama's lack of same, yet he defeated a war hero and a more attractive, wealthier man. 3. Whatever "social waves" are, that doesn't address the point. If you are claiming that Obama was attractive due to media manipulation, that's one of my points in an earlier post. Culture precedes instinct, not the other way around.

 

Ha... you can try and put me back in a box

 

You are not sophisticated enough to see The Emperor's New Clothes.

 

How does this in any way invalidate my comment?

 

For me at least, western civilization is based upon centuries of political thought, the trial and error of societies that have attempted to free themselves from the old order of feudalism and try something new; namely democracy, civil libertarianism, capitalism and secularism. Those are the pillars of western civilization, in my reading of history anyway; the culmination of centuries of trial and error with some moments of great leaps forward , but mostly the slow, difficult march of progress.

Within democracy I believe is the essence of fairness and adaptability to societal change. Within capitalism I believe we achieve meritocracy and the greatest producer and distributer of massive wealth and improved living circumstances for all. Within civil liberties we can all clearly see freedom. And within secularism we safeguard reason, empiricism and benefit of the fruits of the scientific method. I want none of these in the extreme, but they are the foundations of our society and must be protected for western civilization to survive and continue to flourish.

Nowhere do I see a place for racism or sexism. Those ideas for which more primitive societies depended upon for the social order are antiquated and unjust. The most dangerous threat to our society that I see presently from within is the extreme of capitalism and how it perverts our democracy: as in the reversal of the New Deal economic order wherein labor and capital struck a fair balance in a regulated but open marketplace; and the perversion of democracy by the forces of extreme of capitalism that require members of our legislative branch to have to spend far more time raising money for re-election than for actual governing, and when it is their time to govern, they are beholden to monied interests with little incentive to uphold their duty to look out for their constituents and for the general welfare of the American experiment.

I think you; and many others in this thread, fail to see those as the most dangerous problems in America and misdiagnose what maligns the country in the same way that so many before you have in times like this throughout the history of great nations; i.e. by getting caught up in the scapegoating of racial groups, feeling threatened by the empowerment of women and react by seeking refuge in a ‘glorified past’ that you fundamentally misunderstand.

In short, leaning too hard into Laissez faire capitalism while invading and attempting to democratize two countries in the Middle East has seen America balloon the debt, lose our global hegemony, damaged our international prestige, stagnated and shrunken the middle class and, most importantly, shaken our national confidence. In times like this nativism, racism, fear of change and the ideas of an idealized past become popular.

The country needs to sober up and face facts; your tribe included.

 

I did. They don’t clearly advocate any solution. So what’s the solution?

 

He's not "obscure" just because you never heard of him. And if you watched the videos like you said you did, you would have heard of him, as he was cited multiple times.

It's funny how you act like I need to take your unsourced, unsubstantiated arguments very seriously and reply to each point you make to the letter of the law, yet you easily and quickly dismiss actual historical scholars like Unwin. I guess I'll let others decide if you are more of a reputable source on the topic. I have my own opinion.

This topic explores how those biological instincts are failing society.

Yet you don't understand how that supports the argument made in the videos, that women follow what is dominant, regardless if it is in their ingroup's interests or not.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging traits that are common in groups of people. The video is pretty clear that what he is describing doesn't reflect on all women, and that individuality is still important, but overall, you will find commonalities between women as an overall group. The same can be said of men. You can make generalizations about certain races as well. Only someone beholden to ideas of radical individualism would disagree with this.

So when women couldn't vote for the leaders of the country, that wasn't an example of men having a dominant power in society?

In the context of the arguments made in the video, it makes perfect sense why many women in Allied countries found themselves in relationships with their German conquerors. The same thing can be seen in history when an invading force conquered a land. Women adapted to the new group.

Many white Western women found Obama attractive, but what really attracted them to him was the idea of voting for the "first black President". Obviously against McCain, this was an easy decision. Against Romney? You had an existing President versus a wannabe President. Couple that with the social push for Obama versus Romney, and it's not hard to see why women as a group went for Obama.

 

That's the view you have. That the only way for a man to respect a woman, or be in a relationship where he doesn't have a problem with women, is if he adopts the social revolutions of the last 70-80 years. As if men never respected women or had relationships with them without problems prior to this point.

It's ridiculous.

 

The social experiments and revolutions of the past century are what is destroying Western civilization. The West was growing strong up until that point, and it's been in decline ever since. Hopefully once this house of cards collapses something better can be built in its place.

 

Are you in the habit of placing your words into the mouths of others...actually, upon review it is clear that you are. Admittedly I am a product of the equality and respect instilled by my parents and society over the years and have adapted accordingly. I'm weird that way and actually live in this century...not the last one.

 

You just proved my point. Someone has to accept all of the left's social changes within the last 100 years in order to love America, respect women, etc.

 

Well...it certainly helps if we wish to be accepted by todays society....otherwise we end up a bitter reject.
That must truly suck.

 

Your left-wing forefathers actually went against the status quo. Today's left-wingers are maintainers of the status quo, because it's their status quo.

 

Enjoy your long and lonely walk.

 

1. He is obscure as a matter of fact.
2. "never heard of him" was meant to include an implied "before" as in "before I watched the videos"...which I did... and "before I read the very short wiki page on him"... which I also did... and which was the basis for calling him obscure in the first place. I think you know that.
3. I didn't claim that he was obscure just because I hadn't heard of him, and this type of response from you is repetitive in the thread. It is the Nth straw man, irrelevancy or non sequitur you have answered my points with when you don't skip my main points entirely, as you did with respect to my factual claims about Vichy France and many other places in the thread, so am done with this.

The OP videos remain just as fallacious as the worst anti-male Marxist-feminist propaganda from the 70s and 80s. Identity politics, whether it is based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, wealth, gender instincts, or whatever, is a toxic, fallacious doctrine that should be torn down, not bolstered. It is the true "dismantler and destroyer of nations," as its real, not theoretical or predicted, headcount in the 20th century proves.

 

Enjoy going along with the crowd and basing your standards on public acceptance. I hope it's really fulfilling for you.

 

Calling your opinion a "fact" doesn't make it so.

This just confirms that you believe he is obscure because you've never heard of him before. Do you really think you're that important? Something is only well-known if "Sanskrit of the internet" is familiar with it?

I address the points that I believe are important for the discussion, which is what you are doing, as illustrated in this post, which only quoted the first sentence of my last post. You literally ignored my entire post except for the first line. That is much worse than any "ignoring" I've done in this thread.

Like I said earlier, this is a great example of boomer conservatism, and is indicative of how the left was able to railroad the entire society while "conservatives" were asleep at the wheel, for decades. Identity politics work, and it's how they have been able to gain so much over such a short period of time. Instead of using them to benefit you and yours, you'd rather take an imaginary high road that they constructed for you to follow. While you travel on to a dead end, they will take all the land underneath the highway you're on for their own. Have a safe journey.

 

I very much enjoy it, Beautiful wife, fulfilling friendships and general happiness and My standards are based on fairness/ equality and kindness....you should try it.

 

No thanks, Marxism is wrong.

 

To each their own...good Luck!

 

BS. Instead of actually making an argument as to why the person is a credible authority whom we should pay attention to, and posting it here, you persist in trying to force me to meet a burden that does not exist on my end. You refer to some "works" of an irrefutably obscure "scholar," then when called on it, instead of meeting your burden, not my burden, to demonstrate why we should take anything the guy has/had to say seriously (ooo a youtube video references him ) you repeat the above type of stuff. Disingenuous.

More of the same fallacious bullshit with a projection to boot. YOU, not ME want us to accept the guy as if he's Darwin. Instead of making your case, you take potshots at me? LOL. Do you think that is fooling anyone? Nah.

More BS. 1. You dishonestly skip points that are inconvenient and that you can't answer. Then, if you do attempt an answer, most of them are either tangential, irrelevant, or out and out non sequiturs, mostly just repetitive of "it's in the video..." Derp. 2. The reason I only responded to the first line is that I was done with this pointless exchange, as clearly stated... until your next post managed to compound the dishonesty and take it to a new level. So congratulations on trolling me back for one more reply (EDIT: he would make whatever response to the above all about "I'm not trolling" and skip the rest, without this edit... may still do it anyway).

You, nor anyone in the thread, has grounded "boomer conservatism" as a thing, just tossed it at me as a label... surprise surprise. Apparently Richard Spencer, who wants the revival of the Roman Empire among other hilarious notions, uses the term. Otherwise it looks made-up. If there were generations that were "asleep at the wheel" they were the ones who put FDR in office four times. By the time the boomers came along, the die was cast.

Yes, identity politics work. So do ovens. The one inevitably leads to the other, as a headcount in the hundreds of millions in the 20th century, having nothing to do with women spraying pheromones around, demonstrates. Whether it's white v black, Jew Zionist conspiracy v Euro culture (or Aryan), party v dissident, or men v women, all lead to the exact same heinous results that all MARXIST faux victimologies based on fallacious victim and oppressor groups lead to. You often post about cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School. You have apparently learned nothing from that and are proposing your own variation of it in this thread.

But believe what you like, enjoy your variation of Marxism, it's of course your prerogative to do so. With that I am truly done here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

 

Aldous Huxley referred to JD Unwin's work "Sex and Culture" as "a work of the highest importance". Let me guess, you haven't heard of Aldous Huxley either, so he is therefore "irrefutably obscure"?

His work speaks for itself. Instead of trying to dismiss it based on nothing (because it doesn't agree with your feminist preconceptions), why don't you find something that rebuts his arguments?

I see, so you can skip arguments I make because you're "done with this pointless exchange", but if I ignore one of your tangential rantings about some shadowy "complex", it's because I can't answer?

Get used to that term.

LOL, and we have a Godwin!

Marxism needs to be untangled from the societies that were caught in its web. You can't do that unless you know how it happened. Then, and only then, can deconstructing it happen. Boomer conservativism wasn't able to do this. It got led astray by controlled opposition towards dead ends. Now it's up to another group to fix all the problems of the last 50+ years. Enjoy that comfy retirement, though. You guys earned it.

 

Now here I disagree. The most prominent use of reason in humans is rationalizing hidden animal urges, defending long held prejudices from conflicting evidence and similar mistakes.

"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do. " -- Benjamin Franklin

 

I have outline/defined my reading of the arc of western civilization.

You say "social experiments" and "revolutions" are ruining the West and that "The West" was growing strong up until that point; and "has been in decline ever since".

Elaborate. I'm not asking for a dissertation; but you've got to be more specific than that.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/why-the-west-hates-and-is-destroying-itself.516433/