The Hidden Knowledge of Heterosexuality

Originally posted by paganini
not only was this homophobic it is trying to claim the evil Illuminati has its hands in feminism?

the things people believe

Of course somebody is responsible for changing women's beliefs. Do you really believe that mobile phones, computers and other technological advances are the reasons why the western nations have changed their morality? Does driving a car to work instead of hopping on a horse 100 years ago somehow change morality? The truthful answer is no, it does not. Women and men fight today for their "right" to kill an unborn baby because something else within society has changed, and it's not that we went to the moon or anything else, but rather our beliefs have been changed - our morality has been changed. Somebody has redefined an unborn baby as a mass of cells or a fetus, yet for thousands of years it's been considered life and a baby. Heterosexual husbands today are portrayed on television as buffoons, especially in kids shows. Why? What indoctrination and message does this send to every kid watching such a distorted view of reality? If a Christian family is portrayed on television, it is always as a hick family or as the 'uncool' family somehow damaging their children. Why? What indoctrination and message is imparted to people who constantly watch this subliminal message? If the gay guy is always portrayed on tv and in films as the loveable and funny hero, yet the heterosexual male is seen being violent, the subliminal message is picked up AS A BELIEF.

Feminism is yet another example of indoctrination. Housewives in the fifties are always portrayed as sexually frustrated, a slave, barefoot and pregnant and dominated by men. Why? To indoctrinate the next generation to reject it. But ask most of our grandmothers and they would say they they were happy and healthy. These are all examples that clearly demonstrate that our beliefs have been purposely changed by the media. Hitler did it with His Ministry of Propaganda & Indoctrination - he changed the ideology of the youth. There is NO DIFFERENCE to what we have been subjected to. But why? To utterly blind you to the time in which we live, the time fast approaching the return of Christ Jesus. Scoff all you want to, but until God Himself opens your eyes to the reality of HOW the last generation was brainwashed to accept evil relabelled as "good", then you are presented with two choices. 1) seek out the truth of what this article says, in which case that truth will make you cringe that somebody gave you a different morality on purpose, or 2) ignore the evidence that you've been brainwashed your entire life and accept because it feels so right. The Holy Spirit tragically states that most will choose the latter because they learned to love the evil more than truth, and in so doing, they chose their spirit's fate. It can say this because God sits outside of our time and therefore knows exactly how it ends. God is truth, and all who earnestly seek Him will have their eyes opened. Jesus healed the blind and the deaf so that they could SEE AND UNDERSTAND. He did this because He loves us. Those changing our morality through all forms of media don't, they do it solely to have as many reject the Lord and Saviour, the very ones their ancestors killed. In their minds then, they weren't about to give up their temporal power on Earth - EVEN TO GOD. There is nothing new under the sun, what was will be again. The Nephiliam children succumbed to the exact scenerio as we see today - the rebellious belief in the mind of millions that REFUSE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THEIR OWN CREATOR. Man is going to gear up to fight God, and it's so easily seen today on this board alone. The seething rage demonstrated against anyone who stands firm with God is palpable. That rage was created and is nurtured by the ingesting of propaganda. You are what you eat.

Originally posted by paganini
not only was this homophobic it is trying to claim the evil Illuminati has its hands in feminism?

the things people believe

Virtually nobody currently living has a single thought inside their heads, that the cabal has not put there.

You are supposed to scoff at the very idea that you have been brainwashed by them since birth. That is exactly what they want you to do.

And yes, feminism is very much a product of the cabal. This can be easily verified by looking at how savagely some feminists treat people. As Christ said...you can know them by their fruits.

“You see, the problem with this completed person, this 0, that both people think they have reached, is that it has taken two people to make this one whole person, one supplying the female energy and one supplying the male. This one whole person consequently has two heads, or egos. Both people want to run this whole person they have created and so, just as in childhood, both people want to command the other, as if the other were themselves.

This kind of illusion of completeness always breaks down into a power struggle. In the end, each person must take the other for granted and even invalidate them so that they can lead this whole self in the direction they want to go. But of course that doesn’t work, at least not any more. Perhaps in the past, one of the partners was willing to submit themselves to the other-usually the woman, sometimes the man. But we are waking up now. No one wants to be subservient to anyone else any longer.”
-- James Redfield, Chapter 8, The Celestine Prophecy

Originally posted by paganini
not only was this homophobic it is trying to claim the evil Illuminati has its hands in feminism?

the things people believe

Communism is indeed at the root of a great deal of early feminism. Betty Friedan herself was involved in communist party activities and was married also to a communist party operative. (If you didn't know who Betty Friedan is, she is the author of the renowned feminist book, "The Feminine Mystique").

In a new book, "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique", Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation) establishes beyond doubt that the woman who has always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on her groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind. In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the publication of "The Feminist Mystique" launched the modern women's movement.

Although Horowitz, the author of the new biography, is a sympathetic leftist, Friedan refused to cooperate with him once she realized he was going to tell the truth about her life as Betty Goldstein. After he published an initial article about Friedan's youthful work as a "labor journalist," Friedan maligned him, saying to an American University audience, "Some historian recently wrote some attack on me in which he claimed that I was only pretending to be a suburban housewife, that I was supposed to be an agent."

writing.upenn.edu...


This is also why Progressive feminists have scoffed so viciously at Sarah Palin, because she represents the true female who may not rely on men, but still has the love of a man, and she represents conservative values and not their favorite leftist themes.

Maybe the author of this article should leave women to decide what's best for women.
Or maybe he should be the strong tough male he is talking about accept that times have changed and women enjoy having a choice of how they spend their lives.

If you have to sacrifice part of yourself (such as your ability to think) in order to acquire love, then i feel sorry for you because that is not love. Love in its proper form is something that enables both partners to grow spiritually, how can you grow when you have given away your right to make decisions for yourself?

The "perfect" marriage he describes only works when one party subjugates the other. It restricts growth. motherhood IS rewarding for many women and i personally feel that more women should have that option but lets recognise that a womans skills are not limited to home-making.
There should be women in the workforce.
There should be women in politics, business, health, education, science. I am not suggesting that they should simply be placed there either, let them prove there metal and show the contribution they make to society as a whole.

Silly articles such as this undermine the FULL value of women. This is yet another case of a man trying to dictate to a women exactly where her place is - Why dont you shut the hell up and let HER decide?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This is also why Progressive feminists have scoffed so viciously at Sarah Palin, because she represents the true female who may not rely on men, but still has the love of a man, and she represents conservative values and not their favorite leftist themes.

(Emphasis mine)

So female heterosexuality is anti-feminist, is it? Yep...that's actually more or less what I've always tended to suspect.

reply to post by MagesticEsoteric



I completely agree with most of that article,

its true but some will disagree.

Originally posted by petrus4
You are supposed to scoff at the very idea that you have been brainwashed by them since birth. That is exactly what they want you to do.

And yes, feminism is very much a product of the cabal. This can be easily verified by looking at how savagely some feminists treat people. As Christ said...you can know them by their fruits.

I have a question, what are the fundemental differences between brainwashing a child with YOUR values and feminism brainwashing adults with THEIR values?

Would you not agree that people should be left to decide their own values without other's trying to imprint their own "life-truths" upon them?

reply to post by petrus4


Well, no that wasn't really my message. I just observed how Progressive feminists dissed her so horribly, when she represented such a strong female character, as a governor, yet with children and a loving husband who supports what she does and even defended her and protected her while she was out campaigning. She has hobbies such as hunting. Alaska is quite the rugged frontier. She also has books published, and a tv show, as well as appearances on Fox.

The problem is that Progressive feminists hate anything conservative. They hated her conservative politics. They hated her pregnancy. Need I explain why they hated that?

I just know the writings of Henry Makow and I know that he exposed the communist connection, not that he was the only one, of course, because David Horowitz also exposed it.

Primarily, Makow is right when he talks about how women are now expected to go out and be a successful career woman, and how homemakers can actually be considered drudgery amidst the landscape of all the exciting women who are now news anchors and so on. There are issues surrounding the rearing of children, as they are carted off after only a few weeks to a baby sitter or day care to be raised by others.
But look at how our economy has made it so that we require a two person paycheck now, unless someone is a lawyer or doctor or some high powered exec. But even then, baby goes to daycare, and goodness only knows what might happen there. The role of mother is not revered as it once was.

With a very casual google search, here is a wiki entry on Marxist feminism and how it relates to the family.

en.wikipedia.org...
During the 80's and 90's we saw a rise in a new kind of character, the Supermom. She was the one who did it all, had a career and children husband hobbies did the PTA cooked etc.

Supermom finally has a meltdown though when she realizes as much as she wants to do it all by herself, she needs help. Then came Superdad, the guy who had a job but spent many hours tending to the children while his wife embarked on her other mission in life. Some men are completely fine with that. I say, as long as there is harmony in the family unit....

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by petrus4

 

I just know the writings of Henry Makow and I know that he exposed the communist connection, not that he was the only one, of course, because David Horowitz also exposed it.

Marxism is an attempt by the Illuminati, to falsely formalise and codify, the naturally occuring/ecological impulse towards altruistic/mutually supportive behaviour. Said altruistic phenomena was documented by Kropotkin in Mutual Aid.

The fact that I know that, is the reason why I am not against altruism in economic terms. It's important to understand, that what is usually described as mutual aid on the Left, is largely identical with what Rand identified as enlightened self-interest, on the Right. Kropotkin and the proto-Leftists took it a bit further, perhaps, and Rand uses radically different terminology, of course. Your average Left anarchist also doesn't support the concept of individual property at all; but such are minor details, if applied judiciously.

This is also why I can make threads on here which have been applauded by fans of people like von Mises, even though strictly speaking, I don't personally go as far as von Mises did, where personal property is concerned. Finding the commonality between Right and Left really isn't difficult.

As part of said false formalisation, the Illuminati and the Fabians started associating a lot of things with Marxism which weren't originally there; things which they knew would be sociologically destructive, which was their goal. Read The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; the cabal's goal is the 95% extinction of the human race, and subjugation of the 5% who are left.

Makow is correct when he says that things like the popularisation and evangelism of homosexuality are extremely conducive to the cabal's goal.

Makow however does still suffer from the same problem as a lot of conservatives; namely, he isn't looking for integration, and he throws the baby out with the bathwater. There's a big difference between seperatist lesbianism on the one hand, and a woman being barefoot and chained to the kitchen sink on the other.

The other issue with Makow's marital model, is that if they were honest about it, it really isn't popular with men themselves. The 50s/Victorian style male breadwinner model, means that a man has to take a lot of individual responsibility; more than the majority of males are willing to.

If as a man, you want a woman who is willing to stay at home, raise the kids, be sexually submissive and available on our terms more than her own, etc, the tradeoff is that we are literally her Alpha and Omega. You have to be able to provide literally everything for such a woman, logistically and psychologically. Most contemporary guys are nowhere near up to that sort of challenge. We've been deliberately and specifically trained not to be.

The flip side is that such a lifestyle is not good for a woman either. Female intelligence might be somewhat different, but women still have brains, and they still require intellectual stimulation, and a sense of accomplishment in their lives, which isn't purely related to breeding like an animal. Humans are better than that.

But look at how our economy has made it so that we require a two person paycheck now, unless someone is a lawyer or doctor or some high powered exec. But even then, baby goes to daycare, and goodness only knows what might happen there. The role of mother is not revered as it once was.

Feminism came before the two person paycheck, though. Ever notice that?

As a man, my own most defining (and most negative) experience with feminism occurred on IRC in the early-mid 90s. I found groups of seperatist lesbians who harboured the most intense, savage hatred that I've ever seen, towards my own gender, yet were equally nurturing and compassionate towards their own.

It is important to understand that, at its' most extreme, feminism does not seek equality with men, or even dominance of them. Feminism does not fundamentally recognise the male right to exist at all.

Those lesbians described above, are where my avatar came from. I began to feel very strongly that I had been born a member of the wrong gender. World of Warcraft gave me the vicarious opportunity to become a member of the three demographics which Marxism and my upbringing had taught me, that I was fundamentally unacceptable for not having been born a member of.

a] Indigenous. I'm white.
b] Female. I'm male.
c] Military. I'm a civilian.

As a result, Mirshalak is my own answer to George Sand. Through her, online at least, I can become who I wasn't born as, offline.

reply to post by MagesticEsoteric


I really don't like Makow, that PhD is in English Literature by the way...he is very talented in taking a grain of truth and rolling it around in nicely worded bull-poo. At least he isn't pushing Holocaust Denial as much as he used to, but still, he has a very clear agenda which encompasses a very narrow world view.

Originally posted by Biliverdin
reply to post by MagesticEsoteric

 

I really don't like Makow, that PhD is in English Literature by the way...he is very talented in taking a grain of truth and rolling it around in nicely worded bull-poo. At least he isn't pushing Holocaust Denial as much as he used to, but still, he has a very clear agenda which encompasses a very narrow world view.

I won't argue with the suggestion that he is a fascist; but the point is that from his perspective, he has good reasons for being one. Again, that doesn't mean that I'm advocating his perspective.

My primary issue with conservatives like Makow, is that they tend to get stuck on only one side of the argument. His position is an example of one extreme end of the political spectrum, adopted to the complete exclusion of the other. People complain about the Hegelian dialectic, but the reality is that most of us do live somewhere between the Left and Right, even if we want to view both as being produced by the cabal as a result of their initial geometry, based on the square root of two.

The point is to not to live at either end of the spectrum, but to get off it entirely. You can do that by recognising that within certain measure, each end has its' own strengths to contribute; but that ultimately, integration of both is the only way out of the trap. Reconcile the conflict between Left and Right, and the conflict ceases to exist.

In Makow's example here, to me that would mean that a woman would have the right to get an education and a job if she wanted, but that ideally she would balance that by society getting rid of the two person paycheck requirement, and bringing back the 40 hour (or possibly even less) work week. Another usually Leftist idea, the living wage, would also create a scenario where economic necessity was further lessened. The man could be the primary income generator if the couple were happy with that, and the woman could get a part time job, which enabled her to balance child raising with an entirely legitimate desire for professional accomplishment as well.

That way, both parents would have time to give adequate attention and care to their children. A woman could get home in time to cook, and Makow or a similarly conservative husband would have ample time to play the conservative Father Knows Best routine with brandy, pipe, and slippers in the evenings as well.

reply to post by MagesticEsoteric


There is so much about that article that is disturbing. It is generalizing women as subservient slaves to the patriarch painting women as passive and completely dependent. Once again we see a play on 'power' where the women's natural disposition is supposed to be passivity and 'fear'.

Throughout history this was the societal dynamic that continued throughout the ages. Modern civilization however has divided both male and female roles and destroyed family as we knew it. Few know what their natural disposition is anymore with regards to a relationship or what roles to adopt.

There are many issues associated with such an article depending on what side you are arguing from. As for me I resent that just because someone is born a women they automatically have to be breeders, nurturer's and passive. There isn't a passive bone in my body and I've never been inclined to breed. Everything in our culture is disposable including husbands and wives. This is not the time to be passive and so dependent on someone that you don't stand a chance should you be disposed of. We have become each other's competitor's in the struggle to survive.

We live in a world where men and women have lost their identities through the loss of family, nature and successfully demolished healthy relationships. We are now a people who need to survive on our own terms because there is no 'norm' anymore. Personally speaking I have deep issues with the patriarchal model that seems to diminish the strength and indepenance of women, only to make them subordinate slaves.

Shouldn't a partnership be based on reciprocity, nurturing one another and equally taking care of all the needs because they share together in the very same life. A real man will love the strength of his woman and serve to make him stronger and vice versa. Both should thrive on each other's strengths.

Last thought is not meant to be an insult to men or women but where are the 'real men' and where are these 'real women'? I don't believe that either have any idea anymore what that means.

Originally posted by Egyptia
reply to post by MagesticEsoteric

 

There is so much about that article that is disturbing. It is generalizing women as subservient slaves to the patriarch painting women as passive and completely dependent. Once again we see a play on 'power' where the women's natural disposition is supposed to be passivity and 'fear'.

I didn't see an appeal to keeping women in fear, there.

Another thing worth pointing out, is that legitimately (i.e., not as a result of abuse) submissive women do exist, as do legitimately submissive men. Women whose personalities aren't like that themselves, however, generally don't want to acknowledge that, because they think it weakens their own argument.

It doesn't. How restive a given person is, is a totally individual characteristic. Some people are passive, others are the opposite. It's just like some people being short, and others tall.

Another group I spent time with on IRC in the 90s, was the online BDSM community. So to take this subject totally out of contact with the gender-based generalisation, (which is the main source of the problem) we can say that Makow is a dominant guy, who wants a submissive woman. There are plenty of submissive women around who'd be entirely happy with that. (Assuming his dominance didn't translate to actual physical abuse or violence, of course; but a lot of women will even put up with that)

Likewise, however, there are large numbers of sub men around, who absolutely want a strong woman who is going to take them in hand, as well.

The real problem here, is if Makow gets up on a soapbox, as he has possibly done here, and says that everyone should have the same preferences he does, or society is going to fall apart. I don't think feminists should try and force every woman to be spirited or aggressive, any more than Makow should claim that every woman on the planet should submit to their man.

Both are generalisations, and both are going to cause problems as a result.

We live in a world where men and women have lost their identities through the loss of family, nature and successfully demolished healthy relationships. We are now a people who need to survive on our own terms because there is no 'norm' anymore. Personally speaking I have deep issues with the patriarchal model that seems to diminish the strength and indepenance of women, only to make them subordinate slaves.

The reason why we've got rid of the old norm though, is because contrary to what people like Makow claim, it wasn't working. We still don't know what the new norm is; we're currently flailing around and trying to find it, right now. That's why things look as chaotic and destructive as they do, at the moment.

Patriarchy where women are held hostage, is not going to work. Likewise, however, man-hating, seperatist lesbianism where guys are not considered to have the right to exist, is certainly not going to work either. We need to find a middle ground.

Well if one takes a historical look at homosexuality and heterosexuality they will discover that ALL major civilizations employed the practice of heterosexual marriage.

This is because of the desire of women for Alpha-males and Beta-males then not being motivated to work to better society because they do not have a chance to propagate. Women seek alphas and have historically had little problem being part of that alpha's harem.

Modern societies have provided women the ability to leave any man that does not meet her standards to pursue all the alphas she pleases and leave the any alphas that are no longer alpha enough for that woman.

With the rise of feminism one would think women would be more happy than ever as they can support themselves and pursue their own interests and sleep around all they like.

However, . . .

Women more unhappy than ever
www.slate.com...

Women are unhappier than they have been in 35 years. So suggests a study released earlier this week by the National Bureau of Economics. Two economists at U Penn conducted an exhaustive study of happiness and found that women's "subjective well-being" has declined, "both absolutely and relatively to men," as they put it. In fact, though women have historically had higher self-reported levels of happiness than men, today women are "reporting happiness levels" that are "even lower than those of men." (Men's happiness has dropped, too, but not as much as women's.) Now, happiness is notoriously difficult to study - as I noted a few years back when I wrote about progressive women and unhappiness for Slate - but the findings are nonetheless noteworthy. Though women have made gains in every area over the past 35 years - from education to their place in the work force - these gains do not appear, by the study's measures, to translate into actual contentment. Nor do women's gains in the marketplace translate into zero-sum declines in happiness for men, as some have speculated.

Desperate Feminist Wives
www.slate.com...

University of Virginia published an exhaustive study of marital happiness among women that challenges this assumption. Stay-at-home wives, according to the authors, are more content than their working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and "emotional work" men contribute (or are perceived to contribute)

Women by empowering themselves and demonstrating that they will leave any man when they are no longer alpha enough for her liking have merely allowed men to pursue sex only relationships.

They have destroyed the whole point of men committing to women.

The vast majority of homosexuals I have met are quite promiscuous which extends to other areas of life outside of relationships as well.

To be blunt I have never seen a gay civilization go beyond a single generation for the simple fact that they cannot reproduce which should be a big hint from mother nature that it is a dead end (no pun intended).

Simply the hidden knowledge of heterosexuality is that it fosters commitment which supports all other areas of civilization.


The Misandry Bubble
www.singularity2050.com...

The Cultural Thesis

The Myth of Female Oppression : All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women. In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.

Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?

Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.

As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights than men were given in even 0.1% of historical instances, falls flat.

This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.

reply to post by petrus4


I agree, there are all types of personalities and generalizing any is wrong. Trying to put a certain sex into a role just based on whether they were born a male or female is also wrong. We each have varying gifts that we can contribute into a relationship. That is not to say that there aren't differences because we are born a male or female. There are significant differences with gifts on both sides that work to compliment one another. We simply should not denigrade or make submissive on account of the sex we are born into.

I don't agree or adhere to feminism either because I feel that as well has contributed largely to the demise of the family and some very good norms that no longer exist. In all of this what we lack are a return to healthy morals.

I have struggled with the Biblical Model for years. I'm not saying that in the true design of balance (without a screwed up world) it is wrong at all. Just that it excludes people like me who by no means fit the description in any way, shape or form. If I lived back then I'd be the town renegade and probably killed because I would be the famale diguised in men's clothing/warrior duds, running around with a sword and a Bible.

Yeah I'd be stoned.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Well if one takes a historical look at homosexuality and heterosexuality they will discover that ALL major civilizations employed the practice of heterosexual marriage.

This is because of the desire of women for Alpha-males and Beta-males then not being motivated to work to better society because they do not have a chance to propagate. Women seek alphas and have historically had little problem being part of that alpha's harem.

The word "alpha," when applied to men, is a euphemism for a psychopath. Harems aren't effective in anything other than purely Darwinian terms. Being human beings, women need emotional gratification, just as men do; and if there are a group of women all competing for the attention of a single man, some of those women are inevitably going to miss out.

Modern societies have provided women the ability to leave any man that does not meet her standards to pursue all the alphas she pleases and leave the any alphas that are no longer alpha enough for that woman.

The system is exceptionally biased in favour of women, I'll grant you. I can't remember the last time I heard about a woman who had to continue paying child support, as the result of a divorce. Of course, the feminist response to that will be, that it's because it's always women who end up raising the kids in question, while the father inevitably disappears. From what I've been reading though, that stereotype apparently doesn't match the reality quite as much as feminists might like.

With the rise of feminism one would think women would be more happy than ever as they can support themselves and pursue their own interests and sleep around all they like.

However, . . .

Women more unhappy than ever
www.slate.com...

I'm inclined to believe that this is because feminism represents a case of expecting the majority, to live like the minority. As politically incorrect as this might sound, I don't primarily associate feminism with heterosexuality, personally. As a result, gay women are going to want different things, and different lifestyles, to what an inherently straight woman will. Attempting to force the entire female population to conform to lesbian norms, is just as wrong as telling the lesbian minority that they need to force themselves to become straight. In fact, it's arguably more wrong, because it affects more people.

Women by empowering themselves and demonstrating that they will leave any man when they are no longer alpha enough for her liking have merely allowed men to pursue sex only relationships.

That's one way of reacting to it. Celibacy has been my own response. I won't be sexually immoral; and a big part of the reason why, is because I know that sex without emotional gratification will not give me what I need, anyway.

At the end of my relationship with my sole sexual partner, in 2007, I listened and sang to this song for probably two weeks.



I never counted on this
guess that's the way that it goes yeah
you used to be someone I knew
somebody I could understand but
now I don't know what to do
and I don't know who you are no
all those things I hear you say
you talk that way you're a stranger and I

I don't know where to begin
don't want to hear it again
I don't believe anymore
and this is all I know
I know I've heard it before
I don't believe anymore

and I remember your voice
before this happened to us
and I could see and I was sure
and everything was young and new but
we lost it too many times
and that's the way that it is
lovers come and lovers go
when you think you know it just isn't true oh

I don't know where to begin
don't want to hear it again
I don't believe anymore
and this is all I know
I know I've heard it before
I don't believe anymore
I don't know where to begin
don't want to hear it again
I don't believe anymore
and this is all I know
I know I've heard it before
I don't believe anymore
don't believe anymore
don't believe anymore
don't know where to begin
don't want to hear it again
don't believe anymore
and this is all I know
I know I've heard it before
don't believe anymore
oh oh oh
don't believe anymore

-- Icehouse, I Don't Believe Anymore

I know the cabal have wanted to destroy love between men and women. They did a good job with me.

reply to post by MagesticEsoteric


Great post, M.E. I read the linked article, and agree with it pretty much entirely. The point I would like to make to some of the aggrieved feminist types is this- it is NOT that the woman must submit to the man, rather that BOTH partners submit to the whole, the family. Equally, but differently.

Originally posted by petrus4
That way, both parents would have time to give adequate attention and care to their children. A woman could get home in time to cook, and Makow or a similarly conservative husband would have ample time to play the conservative Father Knows Best routine with brandy, pipe, and slippers in the evenings as well.

If that is what some people want then fine, for them. I know just as many men who enjoy cooking, or who are better with the children than the women are. We are all different and have different strengths and weaknesses, few of those are bound purely by gender stereotypes. I think that the lesson here, is to choose a partner who suits you and your values if parenting is on the agenda, but not to force those values on others who don't share them but are able to succeed and thrive within different lifestyle structures.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Well if one takes a historical look at homosexuality and heterosexuality they will discover that ALL major civilizations employed the practice of heterosexual marriage.
This is because of the desire of women for Alpha-males and Beta-males then not being motivated to work to better society because they do not have a chance to propagate. Women seek alphas and have historically had little problem being part of that alpha's harem.

First and foremost since we are generalising, women do not compete for men. and secondly, many will not compete with each other for a man.

Modern societies have provided women the ability to leave any man that does not meet her standards to pursue all the alphas she pleases and leave the any alphas that are no longer alpha enough for that woman.

Women dont leave men for not being "Alpha enough" the reasons are varied and the one you have listed doesnt even come in the top 10.

With the rise of feminism one would think women would be more happy than ever as they can support themselves and pursue their own interests and sleep around all they like.

Prostitution is the worlds oldest profession, men have been sleeping around since the dawn of time, married or not.

However, . . .
Women more unhappy than ever
www.slate.com...

A lot of women i know are quite happy thank you.

Women by empowering themselves and demonstrating that they will leave any man when they are no longer alpha enough for her liking have merely allowed men to pursue sex only relationships.

Like i said, prostitution the worlds oldest profession, men have been cheating since the dawn of time! Married or not!

They have destroyed the whole point of men committing to women.

Long LONG history proving over and over again of men NOT committing to women, even kings openly had women on the side! (But thats okay because they were men right? )

The vast majority of homosexuals I have met are quite promiscuous which extends to other areas of life outside of relationships as well.

The vast majority of human beings ive met are quite promiscuous, should we start shooting people for wanting sex?

To be blunt I have never seen a gay civilization go beyond a single generation for the simple fact that they cannot reproduce which should be a big hint from mother nature that it is a dead end (no pun intended).

Sex may be useful for making babies but its not its only use. Sex is bonding with someone else, its spiritual, its invigorating, uplifting and special when with the right person. Your far to narrow in your thoughts of it. Sex isnt love, but it is a small part of it. Its not just about making babies and if you cant understand that then im sorry that you haven't evolved spiritually yet.

The Myth of Female Oppression : All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women. In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.

EVERY WOMAN was EXPECTED to risk death giving birth. Rape within marriage used to be LEGAL. up until the 19th century women were seen as stupid, couldn't even get a book published because "There place was in the kitchen" Many at the mercy of their husbands, killed for not producing male heirs, beaten because there was truly no one to protect them and openly bought and sold as property from father to husband - without a say. If that is not oppression then i dont know what is.