Thunderf00t: Why ‘Feminism’ is poisoning atheism (Part 4)

For ‘Feminism’, read ‘Cultural Marxism’.

It seems that the ‘Plus’ in ‘Atheism-Plus’ (A+) quite accurately describes that this is not a form of skepticism, but a list of dogmatic beliefs which just happen to be non-theistic…but no less destructive!

Most recently, PZ Myers (one of the pillars of A+ – and the unquestionable boss of the Orwellianly-named ‘Freethought Blogs’) had smeared the prominent skeptic thinker Michael Shermer with accusations of ‘rape’ and got himself a ‘cease-and-desist’ letter from Shermer’s lawyers.

But, that is just the latest drive-by-smearing to come from that group of Cultural Marxists who are poisoning the atheism movement.  There have been many before…

Thunderf00t has been speaking out against the A+ bullies for a while.  Here is his latest, which, chronologically, pre-dates this latest smear-campaign:

 

 

 

CodeSlinger speaks on feminism

CodeSlinger has some very insightful things to say on the topic of ‘feminism’ – I think they are important enough to deserve a post of their own:

Don’t kid yourself: feminism isn’t about helping women.

It preys on their psychological vulnerabilities and destroys their ability to be happy and participate in a loving, healthy family. Feminism makes women incompatible with men and then feeds on the resulting disappointment and rage.

Feminism is institutionalized penis envy.

It is instinctive for a woman to challenge and test her mate, first by goading him to fight other men, and later by attempting to undermine his dominance. The man who passes these tests will earn her love and respect; the one who fails will get nothing but loathing and contempt.

Normally, this testing eventually comes to an end as the woman matures and the man has proved his ability to remain in calm control. But modern schooling and media see to it that this cannot happen by creating a society of adult children. The females never grow out of the testing stage, and the males never achieve the maturity to pass the tests.

Feminism gives girls, and boys, an arsenal of high-sounding psychobabble with which to rationalize and justify remaining in their state of arrested development, and propagates this pathological state of affairs by demonizing its natural resolution — the male-dominated family. And the loathing and contempt which women feel for men in modern Western society is the predictable — intended! — result.

Furthermore, feminism is the handmaiden of Marxism.

It is not in the interest of the totalitarian corporocratic state for there to be strong families who look to the father for guidance and protection. This tyrannical corporation-state amalgam has arrogated these roles unto itself. Therefore, the father must be undermined and rendered impotent, causing the mother to abandon the family and turn to the totalitarian system in a Faustian bargain for security. And that is the task for which feminism was created.

The totalitarian corporocratic state — by which I mean the incestuously intertwined nest of snakes born of the unnatural union of big government and big business, which oppresses the people by violating their inalienable individual rights, and exploits them by privatizing the profits and socializing the losses of the entire economy — cannot take root in a flourishing Western society based on classical liberal principles and composed of responsible, self-reliant individuals who belong to strong traditional families embedded in healthy thriving communities.

This is why the Marxist revolutions which swept much of the globe a century ago got no traction in the West. In the intervening decades, the undermining of the moral, philosophical, social and economic foundations of Western society has had one overarching goal, and that is to bring the West to its knees in capitulation to the global totalitarian corporocratic state.

Feminism, from its inception, was — and remains — the thin edge of the wedge which is driving us to that point.

Feminism is not about helping women.

Never was, never will be.

CodeSlinger: an insightful comment following the 2012 election

Yesterday, I posted:  ‘A sober thought post-US 2012 election’.

I received an insightful and deeply analytical comment on it from CoreSlinger.  (Plus, he said I was right!)

It is powerful and should stand on its own:

Xanthippa:

I think you have hit the Republicans’ problem squarely on the head.

Many people, who would embrace the small-government, individual-rights, balanced-budget, common sense aspects of the conservative platform are not only terrified of the morally-constipated, holier-than-thou, bible-thumping religious zealots, but also horrified by the damn-those-gooks, war-for-profit fat-cats of the military industrial complex.

By forcing these groups into an awkward alliance and indiscriminately mislabelling them all collectively as “the right,” the Democrats have been able to overshadow the common sense of the true right, and convince large segments of the public that a vote for the Republicans is a vote for intolerance, oppression and war.

This is exacerbated by the fact that cultural Marxist indoctrination is everywhere. It has denigrated all of the strong, benevolent archetypes that people traditionally depended on for reassurance, safety, and security — God, father, and husband. But the deep psychological needs that gave rise to these archetypes in the first place are as compelling as ever, so people are only left with one place to turn to — the state.

The difficulty is that the average person doesn’t have the time or the inclination to really think through the issues. Therefore, a strong belief in God is one of the few things that enable many people to resist cultural Marxism’s gradual but relentless erosion of common sense, common decency, maturity, and self-reliance.

This is why the awkward alliance exists. Those who think independently are too few to stand against the indoctrinated majority alone. The result is and attempt to pit the two branches of the indoctrinated majority — secular Edenists and fundamentalist Christians — against each other.

And this is what has lead us to the spectacle we see today: the Republican party represents a sort of religious national socialism (a paradigm of the left) not unlike Nazi Germany of the 1930’s, while the Democratic party represents a sort of state-capitalistic collectivism (a paradigm of the farther left), not unlike present-day Communist China.

As a result, those of the true right — who want a small, non-invasive, financially prudent government that protects the rights of the individual and the freedom of the market — are left without a voice.

Rightists claim that leftists are fundamentally incapable of reasoning from cause to effect, if the outcome doesn’t please them. Interestingly, leftists accuse rightists of the same thing. The real truth seems to be that the two groups just think differently. In particular, it has to do with left-brain dominance versus right-brain dominance. Right-wingers are left-brain dominant and vice versa.

Interestingly, this is consistent with the way the nervous system is wired: the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and vice versa. It’s also consistent with how the two sides of the brain operate. The left side of the brain is concerned primarily with symbolic processing, language, reasoning and the sense of being an individual. The right side of the brain is concerned with holistic processing, imagery, intuition and the sense of being one with the world.

As we mature, the left brain gradually assumes an increasingly dominant role. The thing is, modern cultural-Marxist-controlled schooling does a very good job of preventing this from happening; instead, it arrests mental development and turns out a population of narcissistic adult children. Paradoxically, the primacy of self is heightened in right-brain dominant thinking. The childish world view is not only “I am part of the world” but “the world is part of me.” It’s not far from there to “the world exists to serve me.”

And this is what we find in the world view of the left-winger. The leftist wants the rightist to be more concerned with the world than with his own family, because the leftist understands that he is not part of the rightist’s family, but he feels himself to be part of the world and the world exists to serve him. This is patently muddled and inconsistent from the rational point of view of a left-brained right-winger, but it resonates pleasingly with the intuitional perspective of a right-brained leftist.

Now, we must remember that almost everyone uses both sides of their brain, but they use them to different degrees, so one side or the other dominates. You could say that left-brain dominant people have feelings about what they think, and right-brain dominant people have thoughts about what they feel.

In summary, it seems that the majority of people want a small, accountable, financially prudent government that respects individual rights and freedoms, but not if it comes bundled with intolerance, oppression and war.

So this is the bundling we must undo.

And to do that we must ask ourselves, how can we frame our message of classical liberalism, based on natural intrinsic morality and inalienable individual rights, in a way that will be comprehensible and compelling to these chronically right-brained left-wingers from both sides of the conservative / progressive divide?

Russian attack submarine sneaks inside the 200 mile territorial limit on the East coast of the USA

This time, it’s no Marko Alexandrovich Ramius trying to defect, either!

From Washington Free Beacon:

‘A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine cruised within 200 miles of the East Coast recently in the latest sign Russia is continuing to flex its naval and aerial power against the United States, defense officials said.

The submarine was identified by its NATO designation as a Russian Seirra-2 class submarine believed to be based with Russia’s Northern Fleet. It was the first time that class of Russian submarine had been detected near a U.S. coast, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of anti-submarine warfare efforts.’

The same article cites something that is potentially even more disturbing:

‘Meanwhile, the officials also said that a Russian electronic intelligence-gathering vessel was granted safe harbor in the commercial port of Jacksonville, Fla., within listening range of Kings Bay.

“A Russian AGI [Auxiliary-General Intelligence] and an SSN in the same geographic area as one of the largest U.S. ballistic missile submarine bases—Kings Bay—is reminiscent of Cold War activities of the Soviet navy tracking the movements of our SSBN’s,” said a third U.S. official, referring to the designation for ballistic missile submarines, SSBN.’

It only gets worse:

‘The submarine deployment followed stepped-up Russian nuclear bomber activity near U.S. borders last summer, including the transit of two Bear-H strategic bombers near the Alaska air defense zone during Russian strategic bomber war games in arctic in late June.Then on July 4, in an apparent Fourth of July political message, a Russian Bear-H flew the closest to the U.S. West Coast that a Russian strategic bomber had flown since the Cold War when such flights were routine.

In both incidents, U.S. military spokesmen sought to downplay the threat posed by the air incursions, apparently in response to the Obama administration’s conciliatory “reset” policy of seeking closer ties with Moscow.

U.S. and Canadian interceptor jets were scrambled to meet the Russian bombers during the flights last summer.’

In other words, specifically in response to Obama anemic projection of woosiness power, Putin’s Russia has placed air, surface and underwater military assets within US territorial jurisdiction…all without any response from Obama’s eviscerated military!

No wonder Putin has thrown his support behind Obama in the 2012 election!

Sure, the Bolsheviks are not in power in Russia any longer, but Obama and his Mensheviks are winning the long-term war in America – and dictators like Putin know how to exploit this very weakness!

 

 

Pat Condell: Violence is not the answer

 

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic: ‘Is PC worse than communism?’

UPDATE:  As the originally linked YouTube channel has been silenced, here are other sources of the videos:  Part 1, Part 2

 

Part 1:

Part 2:

Wired for Religion: guest post by CodeSlinger

It has long been argued that man is an inherently religious creature – that he cannot exist without worshipping something.  And indeed, it seems that many people who eschew religion end up equally fanatical about something else, whether it be the dictatorship of the proletariat, or women’s issues, or global warming, or white guilt.  Or something.

Almost any belief system can give rise to slavish devotion, bloody persecutions and holy wars, as long as it is packaged in a way that resonates in the right parts of the human psyche.

You see, for something to be a religion, it must give rise to religious feelings – that tantalizing combination of epiphany, reverence, and ecstasy that people call a religious experience.  Interestingly, I can recall several women comparing it to orgasm, but I have yet to hear a man make this comparison.  Even so, sexual frustration is more easily turned into religious fanaticism than anything else, as any Jihadi recruiter of suicide bombers can tell you.

But there is more to it than that.  The religious experience is centred in the amygdala and the insula – the same organs which mediate emotional affinity, dominance and submission, sexual desire and fear.  Which is why no self-respecting horror movie is complete without some luscious female, dragged off, naked and screaming, to be punished unspeakably for her hypersexual ways by some vile denizen of hell… and why the media incites a prurient fascination with lurid sex crimes while clamouring for even more lurid psycho-punitive treatments to be applied by a merciless totalitarian state.

These are two modern examples of how such feelings are used to separate people from their money and to deprive them of their freedom.  Motivating belief systems isn’t the only thing these feelings can be used for, but it is the most dangerous.

If these feelings are not triggered – in exactly the right combination – the experience is just not emotionally compelling.  In which case the belief system will go nowhere, and all the sophisticated logic in the world will not help it.  But if the feelings are properly triggered, the experience is addictive, and the formal logical structure simply doesn’t matter.

All the high-level abstractions are just there to keep the neocortex busy and get it out of the way, so the paleocortex can have a party with the limbic system and the mesencephalic dopamine system.  (The former is the so-called reptilian brain, including the brain stem, the basal ganglia, and the hippocampus, which together mediate the instincts, basic drives and urges, and ritual/repetitive behaviours; the latter, including the cingulate and insular cortices, mediate emotion, motivation, learning and perceptions of self/other).

Now, many of these structures, together with the corpus callosum, exhibit intense, synchronized rhythmic activity during epileptic seizures – and, to a somewhat lesser degree, during ritual chanting and dance.  And orgasm.  So it is no accident that epileptic seizures are often associated with spontaneous orgasm and religious experiences – or that ritual chanting and dance are commonly used to induce similar states, especially in conjunction with substances that stimulate the dopamine receptors.

And, since these areas are more densely interconnected in females than males, it is no accident that these states are observed more often in females than in males.  And, in turn, it is no accident that charismatic religious leaders are mostly men who know how to induce these feelings, while their devout followers are mostly women who are addicted to them.

This is one of the fundamental pillars of male power – related to, but deeper than the mere fact that males are bigger and stronger and more aggressive.  But that line of thought takes us in a different direction, leading ultimately to why women derive deep satisfaction from submitting to powerful men, and why the success of feminism leads inescapably to the emotional barrenness of modern women.

As civilization progresses and the frontal cortex gets more involved in daily life, people require ever more sophisticated rationalizations and justifications for exhibiting behaviours and seeking cognitive states which have not changed appreciably since long before we were even human.  So it wasn’t long before manipulative individuals realized that control over when and where and how these drives, urges and feelings are expressed leads to control over people.  And that was bad enough.

But somewhere along the line, someone learned that these drives, urges and feelings are far more susceptible to manipulation when they are repressed than when they are expressed.  And so the ancient polytheistic fertility cults, with their debauched orgies and their blood sacrifices, were replaced by modern monotheistic cults of chastity, with their sterile piety and their neurotic self-mortification.  But they are still obsessed with sex and death.  Only the polarity of the obsession has changed.

Mother, father, reward and punishment fit into this picture at every level in many ways – not all of which are consistent with what the political correctness thought police would have you believe.  The archetypes of mother and father are layered on the same neurophysiological substrates that form the religious experience, in much the same way.

Gods and goddesses are not merely layered on father and mother, they are inextricably entangled with them.  But my point is that there is also a direct connection from our highest religious constructs to our basest drives, urges, feelings and instincts.  Of course, you can’t take mother and father out of the equation, but if you did, you would find that we are still hard-wired for religion.

And this is a root cause of all the trouble we are in today.

You see, by destroying the family, the secular feminist totalitarian state does exactly that: it takes mother and father out of the equation.  But we just saw that you can’t eliminate the archetypes.  So the removal (or even worse, the emotional distancing) of the real mother and father leaves a huge, gaping, undefended hole that penetrates to the core of the psyche. And this takes the full power of all that deep psychological structure, and puts it right in the hands of the state.  And/or the church.  And/or the corporation.

In the past, the family – meaning a man, his wife, and their children – was the last and best line of defence, limiting the oppressor’s access to people’s subconscious minds, just by existing.  It is much harder for church and state to manipulate the archetypes of father, mother, god and goddess when real flesh-and-blood mothers and fathers are standing in the way.  But now that this last line of defence has been breached, people are left very exposed and vulnerable to manipulation.

Thunder, fire, sun and moon have been robbed of their mystical power by modern science.  But the ancient and unbreakable connection between sex, magic and death is absolutely fundamental, just as Freud and Jung told us. The dynamics of the Id – the structure and function of the collective unconscious – are directly determined by the neurophysiological structure and function of the central nervous system.  Only its expression can be modulated by the environment – and of course this modulation can be very dramatic, to the extent of completely inverting the natural way of being and resulting in an unrecognizably crippled psyche.

And this is what we see in modern Western civilization.

Music and dance have been decoupled from spirituality in a way that renders the induced trance state meaningless.  And everything about the way we live distances us from the true cycles of life and death.  Most of us never see anyone die or be born, nor do we grow or kill our own food.  And those who do loose the ability to connect with the main stream – or, rather, they lose the ability not to go where most others cannot follow.

This is especially true in the cities.  All true paths to gnosis and wisdom have thus been closed, and people are reduced to blank slates, upon which the state may write whatever it wants.  And what it wants is chattel, hopelessly enslaved by their own obsessive-compulsive efforts to satisfy needs they do not understand and whose nature they cannot admit to themselves.

As Nietzsche put it, “destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it a state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.”

The church, the state, and the corporation are locked together in a worldwide dance of cooperation and competition to create this state of unguarded access to the deep structure of the human psyche, and to exploit it for power and profit by seizing control of people’s deepest needs and fears with a scientific precision that has never been seen before.

And the traps they set come in all colours and flavours.  The existing religions are assimilated under the banner of multiculturalism, but it moulds them all in accordance with the goals of cultural Marxism.  And those who think they have broken free of the old traps are lead right back into psychological slavery by collectivist moral relativism and feminist secular edenism.

People are taught that there is no right and wrong, only appropriate and inappropriate – which gives people a way to excuse themselves when they betray each other – and which gives the state a way to justify telling people, do as we say and not as we do.

Nonetheless, the idea of original sin is too useful to give up, so it remains, only now it is called white guilt: if you are white, you deserve to be punished, not for anything you have done, but for what you are.

Women are taught that their husbands are their worst enemies, and they cannot be complete or fulfilled unless they withdraw their devotion from husband and family, and give it instead to an employer.

So the modern white male is angry, and the modern white female is frustrated.

He wants his power back and she wants her sanctuary back, but they are forbidden to admit it.  Most of them have no idea that they want what they want, because they have been taught to fear and avoid every thought that might lead to understanding.

They have been taught that such thoughts are evil.

And into this explosive mixture, multiculturalism introduces neo-fundamentalist Islam – an atavistic religion which resembles nothing more than Judaism in a state of arrested development, frozen in time in its most dogmatic and intolerant form.  But it does have clearly defined roles for men and women, which satisfy instincts they have been deliberately disconnected from by cultural Marxism.

Feminist secular edenism first renders men and women incompatible, and then feeds off their resulting anger and frustration.  And this is what makes Islam so threatening on an ideological level.

Islam promises that, by submitting to Allah, men and women can escape the treadmill of mutual destruction on which the cultural Marxists have trapped them.  As Western culture decays and the war of the sexes becomes increasingly intolerable, the pressure to embrace Islam mounts until they lose sight of the fact that they will only be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

This threat is driving many people back into the fold of Christianity, hoping to escape the trap.  But it is a neo-fundamentalist Christianity which is hardening into its own form of dogmatic intolerance in order to push back against the incursion of Islam.  In doing so, it is shedding the Christian charity and forbearance which were its main redeeming features. And thus it, too, becomes a trap.

Those who think politically correct progressivism will save them are no better off, because political correctness is itself becoming very dogmatic and intolerant.  It is extremely harsh in its condemnation of everyone who is not tolerant of just the right things, in just the right ways.  This is no different from any other neo-fundamentalist belief system, whether it is formally called a religion or not.

And so the clash of ideologies gets more intense every day, grinding Western culture to dust like giant mill stones, and showing us the bitter answer to the question asked by Joseph de Maistre:

“Until now nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.”

‘Consensus-building’ and ‘leadership’

From our schools to our media to our bureaucracies, every aspect of our society is so infested with Cultural Marxism that ‘Newspeak’ has seriously corrupted not just our language, but our very ability to think clearly.  We no longer even recognize it when we hear it.

One such example is the currently popular claim that ‘leadership’ requires one to be skilled at ‘consensus building’.

First, let’s look at the meaning of ‘leadership’ and what constitutes ‘a leader’:

‘Leadership’ is the ‘ability to lead’, fulfilling the role or function of a ‘leader’.

‘To lead’ means to ‘show way by going in advance’, ‘to guide’, ‘to direct’, ‘to inspire’.

So, whom do we, as a society, regard as the greatest leaders of all times?  I did a little bit of googling on this – please, do the same.  While the leaders ‘closest’ to us necessarily dominate our cultural memory, there were some names that consistently keep being mentioned, by educational sites, journalistic/populist opinion sites and discussion boards alike.

In no particular order, these are just some of these names that keep cropping up over and over when people discuss ‘great leaders’:

  • Martin Luther King Jr.
  • Elisabeth I of England
  • Gengis Khan
  • Epicurus
  • Alexander the Great
  • Ghandi
  • Margaret Thatcher
  • Golda Meir
  • George Washington
  • Cyrus the Great
  • Winston Churchill
  • Muhammad
  • Constantine
  • Samudragupta
  • Wu Ti
  • Ivan III
  • Napoleon
  • Thomas Jefferson
  • Abraham Lincoln
  • C. D. Howe
  • Ronald Reagan
  • Bismarck

So, how many of these were known as ‘consensus builders’?

If I may quote from ‘What is ‘Cultural Marxism’?’, a guest-post on this blog by CodeSlinger:

Another example is the concept of intersubjective rationality, developed by Habermas, which replaces the individual process of reaching a conclusion based on the objective criterion that it follows from valid reasoning and known facts, on the one hand, with the social process of establishing a consensus supported by the subjective criterion that the group feels good about it, on the other hand. In today’s schools, those who do the former are maligned for being judgmental and demanding, while those who do the latter are praised for being good team players.

‘Consensus’ literally means ‘coming together’ (con) ‘of feelings’ (senses, sentiments).  Dictionaries typically define ‘consensus’ as an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

In other words, ‘consensus building’ is a form of governance a group of people will resort to when it lacks ‘leadership’.

How does this translate into the political world?  We are constantly bombarded with the message that great political leaders ought to be skilled at ‘consensus building’…

Our ‘Western’ societies have built-in safeguard mechanisms to ensure that ‘governments’ remain accountable to the citizens who elect them.  Perhaps the most important single element in this mechanism is that our elected bodies are based on the adversarial principle.

It is precisely because the political adversaries of those who propose a particular policy or course of action bring public scrutiny to it by publicly pointing out the flaws or shortcomings of this proposal that the issue is brought to public attention and thoroughly examined.  It is certainly not a pleasant process (nor is it meant to be pleasant), but it is one through which at least some light is shed onto what is being proposed – in as much detail as possible – and which engages the electorate in the debate (at least a little bit).

This is the method through which, in our system, we the citizens keep our elected politician accountable to us.  It is therefore important that we do nothing which would minimize this process!

What would happen if, before proposing a new law or introducing a new project, the head of the group that is proposing it went to all the elected representatives and put just enough of an ‘incentive’ into the proposal for each an every one of the representatives to not want to loose that ‘carrot’?

Certainly, any such project would be significantly costlier, because in addition to the core cost, it would now have to also bear the cost of a ‘carrot’ for each of the elected representatives – the bit that got them to ‘go along’ with it.

Of course, any such law or rule would be significantly more convoluted because it would now have to accommodate/fulfill/have exemptions for/’bundle in’ all the ‘carrots’  for each of the elected representatives – the ‘incentives’ that would be built in to it to ‘facilitate the building of the consensus’.

Every ‘quid’ would have a ‘quo’.

All policy would be shaped by back-room deals, where ‘consensus builders’ would be busy building ‘accommodations’ and ‘incentives’ into everything that would placate or mollify any potential dissent….among the elected representatives.

Once this process was done, the product would be presented to the public as a ‘done deal’.  I imagine the ‘dialog’ with the electorate would go something like this:

We have worked it all out, the proposal is so awesome that we all agree on it!

What?  You want to see the details?

Why?

We, your elected representatives all agree on this so this must the best course of action.  We have examined it in detailed and built a consensus – you needn’t worry your pretty little heads about it!

What?  You don’t like it?  You want to vote us out?

And replace us with whom?  EVERYONE agrees with this!

In other words, if there is a consensus among our elected representatives on a proposed course of action, if each and every one of them considers it in his or her best interest to proceed with it as is, it is very unlikely that the voters, the citizens, will have any opportunity to learn much about it before it is implemented.  There is another word for this type of ‘consensus’:  collusion!

In an environment like this, an environment of back-room-deals and political collusion, where there is little controversy which leads to public debate or scrutiny of proposed policies, corruption can be very easily hidden.

In my never-humble-opinion, ‘consensus-building’ among elected representatives is not just anathema to responsible government and an abdication of leadership, it is an active attempt to corrupt our governance structures and eliminate accountability of elected officials to the citizenry.

I would even go further than that:  politicians who tout governing through ‘consensus-building’ are openly admitting they intend to rule through corruption!