How to explain the dysfunctionality of the media? They have expanded into the vacuum created by the collapse of Protestantism. The media are now as powerful as the Church in the Dark Ages. In a Democracy, the government responds to the popular will, and the media fix the popular will. So they have power without responsibility.
To complicate matters, the media are under a brain-frying degree of Jewish control. The media are solidly 20-30% Jewish, mainly in terms of editors and talking heads. And the remaining 70-80% are a heterogeneous collection of individuals, who individually cannot fight that enormous Jewish over-representation, but are defeated by it and must collaborate with it. And that is the prevailing mindset today; not just in the media but in public life generally: a defeatist collaborationist mindset. The Jewish element is passively anti-social; the scabs are actively anti-social. The scabs are trashing the West to please the Jews. Or to get the Jews in trouble. Same difference.
Now let's calm down and take stock of the situation. Throughout this blog, we keep running into conflict between reality and symbol. Which is the ruling consideration? Which is to prevail? And the media focus on the symbol. The power of the media rests on their ability to determine symbols and block out reality. Women's Equality means equal coverage for women ski jumpers in the Olympic Games. It does not mean ballet events for women, and ski jumping for men. It does not mean Olympic Games for women separate from the men's games: like the paraplegic games. It does not mean women competing with men as equals (which would mean the end of women in the Olympics). No! Women's Equality must and can only mean the same coverage for women in copycat events. We must not remark the similarity in grace between a male hurdler and a gazelle, and a female hurdler and a hippopotamus. The public must not see any special virtue in male athletes, as representing an ideal for men: that male athletes glorify sex and life, while female athletes strive for sexlessness: the comparable ideal for women being some kind of pregnant Marilyn Monroe. Ask the media!
For the sake of argument, let us assume the media are honest: that responsible people cannot function in the media and only stunted anal types remain, who cannot conceive of double concepts, like a breadwinner and homemaker marriage. In anal thinking, a breadwinner is one thing, and a homemaker another thing: two things, not one. The media are obsessed with Number One, and a breadwinner and homemaker are not two Number Ones. Each does not aspire to completion in itself but in a compound with the other. And that is beyond the media. The anal intellect grips an aspect, and shuts down: 'Sunbathing increases the risk of skin cancer. Sunbathing is bad for you. Don't sunbathe!' The argument is the conclusion, in anal period thinking. The aspect is the idea.
(One of my problems with a homemaker allowance is the linkage with working couples and survivor's pensions, which are integral to a solid concept. That's too much for the linear intellect. No wonder none of you signed my petition!)
HOW DO THE CORPORATIONS, THE MEDIA AND FEMINISM CONNECT?
Let's try you to the max. Subject to qualification in future blogs, let's just say: the Feminists are the shock troops of the corporate New World Order. Fighting men cannot fight women. And corporate types utilise this instinct to subjugate the alpha males. Before Feminism, the Old World Order was based on men as breadwinners and women as homemakers in single-income homes. Alpha males were empowered: They had a right to high wages. But the 'corporations' detest empowered working men; and determined to use women as black labour to break the unions essentially. And Feminism was music to the corporate ear. The Feminists denied the men's right to high wages. The media shove Feminism in our faces. And the rest is Herstory.
If you saw the Noam Chomsky film Manufacturing Consent, you will recall him railing against the media, the New York Times in particular, which he saw as the locus of a conspiracy to rig the agenda and subvert Democracy. I see the behaviour as more pathological than conspiratorial. Famously the media have been compared with a flock of starlings: One lands on the wire, they all land on the wire: One flies off, they all fly off.
You see how reasonable I am!
I have just experienced a flash of insight. Next blog!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
I Don't Believe In Symbols!
When I read about the petition to try Willie Pickton with another 20 murders (on gopetition.com) I checked it out, and found a left brain/right brain quiz; which I completed; and scored absolute 0 zip 0 zero for belief in symbols.
People believe in Women's Equality as a symbol in a manner of which I am incapable. To me, reality is everything. Meaning and value attach to reality NOT the symbol. We are faced with a choice between two realities. Do we want working couples? or single-income marriages? Promoting the one involves marginalising the other (see below). That's how my brain is hard-wired. A fireman's wife is the equal of a fireman. A lady firefighter is a wannabee. She is not some glorious realisation of symbolic Equality; as the media would have us believe.
Do I believe in Women's Equality! As a symbol, No! In reality, Yes! I am convinced a woman homemaker is the equal of a man breadwinner. I am effectively sure any woman can take the place of any man in almost any group activity. A team of ten men and one woman is as cohesive as a team of eleven men. A pregnant woman is as beautiful as a prime male athlete. That's how I relate to women's equality. A woman who makes a false accusation against a man is as repulsive as a man who resorts to violence against a woman. We are equal. We don't have to turn the world upside down.
Whereas Feminists would destroy men and women in order to make us equal. They are infatuated with the symbol and have no regard for actual people. Female eunuchs would desex everyone to make us equal.
I am trying to be nice. I am trying not to say that people who believe in symbols are anal freaks. (You could try harder than that!) Being nice to women is the first rule of life. But you draw the line at giving away the farm. With Feminism, we gave away the farm. We went from independent farmers to peonage.
I sometimes think I am the only person who actually thinks women are the equals of men in reality. We must get our act together. If women pull blindly against men as equals, we'll get nowhere. Breadwinner and homemaker marriages are the answer.
People believe in Women's Equality as a symbol in a manner of which I am incapable. To me, reality is everything. Meaning and value attach to reality NOT the symbol. We are faced with a choice between two realities. Do we want working couples? or single-income marriages? Promoting the one involves marginalising the other (see below). That's how my brain is hard-wired. A fireman's wife is the equal of a fireman. A lady firefighter is a wannabee. She is not some glorious realisation of symbolic Equality; as the media would have us believe.
Do I believe in Women's Equality! As a symbol, No! In reality, Yes! I am convinced a woman homemaker is the equal of a man breadwinner. I am effectively sure any woman can take the place of any man in almost any group activity. A team of ten men and one woman is as cohesive as a team of eleven men. A pregnant woman is as beautiful as a prime male athlete. That's how I relate to women's equality. A woman who makes a false accusation against a man is as repulsive as a man who resorts to violence against a woman. We are equal. We don't have to turn the world upside down.
Whereas Feminists would destroy men and women in order to make us equal. They are infatuated with the symbol and have no regard for actual people. Female eunuchs would desex everyone to make us equal.
I am trying to be nice. I am trying not to say that people who believe in symbols are anal freaks. (You could try harder than that!) Being nice to women is the first rule of life. But you draw the line at giving away the farm. With Feminism, we gave away the farm. We went from independent farmers to peonage.
I sometimes think I am the only person who actually thinks women are the equals of men in reality. We must get our act together. If women pull blindly against men as equals, we'll get nowhere. Breadwinner and homemaker marriages are the answer.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Corporate Colonialism
I'll tell you what troubles me. There is a similarity between the western world today with the collapse of Protestantism, and the Indian world in the 1700's with the collapse of Moghul rule. The unifying force has gone. The centre cannot hold, leaving a void into which all manner of illicit elements are drawn. India came under the sneaky control of the British East India Company; and the West today is coming under a similar kind of illicit corporate control. There is a troubling similarity between corporate rule today and Company rule in India.
The big issue~certainly as far as this blog is concerned~is the use of women to antagonise the men: a favourite trick of colonial regimes. The British Empire virtually bred sexually-non-performing women to interface with the natives. Fighting men cannot fight women and~let's call them~beta males can utilise this instinct to overthrow the alpha males. The normal male instinct is to protect and provide for women; whereas runts hide behind women. Warrior males fight for women: They fight each other, and compete, and struggle, and work for women. So when Feminists demand parity with warrior males, our fighting men are clueless. Their existence is negated. The Pheminists phuck the alpha males off the phace of the earth, and the runt males can't stop sniggering: Yippee for Pheminism!
That is the context in which I see a homemaker allowance. It is a means of stopping the corporations from exploiting our women as black labour.
* * * * *
A government programme need not be perfect to be worth doing. The solution to the great depression of the 1930's was unemployment insurance. 'Pogey' didn't solve anything: It didn't mean an end to unemployment, but a limit to the waste and disorganisation and accompanying sense of impotence. It empowered people whether or not they ever collected. Like the old age pension, UI expresses the kind of people we wish to be in the kind of world we wish to live in. It acted as a nucleus around which thought and action could aggregate. So you may object a homemaker allowance will not solve anything, but it should give us a handle on our problems of irrelevance, selfishness and infantilism induced by nice homes among other things.
The alternative approach would be to legislate first-rate breadwinner and homemaker marriages, and second-rate companionative marriages. Which I find horrible. I would much rather a voluntary, administrative partial solution.
I feel like someone in the 1740's advocating an income tax. Public finance was a shambles: In England, we were taxing windows. And the answer was some kind of direct tax on incomes. For a hundred years, the idea was kicking around; but the nobility wouldn't hear of it. And it wasn't until the war of the French Revolution that the measure was finally introduced. The second thing the French did, after chopping off the nobles' heads, was to introduce an income tax, enabling the Revolution to mobilise the full potential of the French nation. And England and the rest of the world had to follow suit to keep up with the French: the income tax emerging as one of the great ordering principles of society.
Curious thought: Under the ancien regime, anyone could advocate an income tax undermining noble privilege. Under today's corporate regime, with a government guaranteed right to freedom of expression, nobody may mention the breadwinner and homemaker marriage ??because it threatens the privileged new class of two-income govt worker households?? Which is more important? Freedom of expression~Or freedom of the media to censor expression?
The big issue~certainly as far as this blog is concerned~is the use of women to antagonise the men: a favourite trick of colonial regimes. The British Empire virtually bred sexually-non-performing women to interface with the natives. Fighting men cannot fight women and~let's call them~beta males can utilise this instinct to overthrow the alpha males. The normal male instinct is to protect and provide for women; whereas runts hide behind women. Warrior males fight for women: They fight each other, and compete, and struggle, and work for women. So when Feminists demand parity with warrior males, our fighting men are clueless. Their existence is negated. The Pheminists phuck the alpha males off the phace of the earth, and the runt males can't stop sniggering: Yippee for Pheminism!
That is the context in which I see a homemaker allowance. It is a means of stopping the corporations from exploiting our women as black labour.
* * * * *
A government programme need not be perfect to be worth doing. The solution to the great depression of the 1930's was unemployment insurance. 'Pogey' didn't solve anything: It didn't mean an end to unemployment, but a limit to the waste and disorganisation and accompanying sense of impotence. It empowered people whether or not they ever collected. Like the old age pension, UI expresses the kind of people we wish to be in the kind of world we wish to live in. It acted as a nucleus around which thought and action could aggregate. So you may object a homemaker allowance will not solve anything, but it should give us a handle on our problems of irrelevance, selfishness and infantilism induced by nice homes among other things.
The alternative approach would be to legislate first-rate breadwinner and homemaker marriages, and second-rate companionative marriages. Which I find horrible. I would much rather a voluntary, administrative partial solution.
I feel like someone in the 1740's advocating an income tax. Public finance was a shambles: In England, we were taxing windows. And the answer was some kind of direct tax on incomes. For a hundred years, the idea was kicking around; but the nobility wouldn't hear of it. And it wasn't until the war of the French Revolution that the measure was finally introduced. The second thing the French did, after chopping off the nobles' heads, was to introduce an income tax, enabling the Revolution to mobilise the full potential of the French nation. And England and the rest of the world had to follow suit to keep up with the French: the income tax emerging as one of the great ordering principles of society.
Curious thought: Under the ancien regime, anyone could advocate an income tax undermining noble privilege. Under today's corporate regime, with a government guaranteed right to freedom of expression, nobody may mention the breadwinner and homemaker marriage ??because it threatens the privileged new class of two-income govt worker households?? Which is more important? Freedom of expression~Or freedom of the media to censor expression?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Who was worse? Hitler or Woodrow Wilson?
After 800 years of expansion, starting with the Crusades around 1100, the European world imploded in a vast War To End All Wars, 1914-1945: The War of the British Succession, as AJPTaylor called it. Who was to succeed Britain as ruler and prime beneficiary of the world economy? And America succeeded Britain. That was her destiny all along. Like Fortinbras, America need only show up for the kill.
Feel free please to submit this entry to the Guiness Book of Records as the weirdest blog ever. Our warrior males are defeated in my view: They cannot defend society from the anti-social. They lack a coherent world view. A good appreciation of the Thirty-One Years War may put some backbone into them.
An avalanche is caused NOT by the dislodged pebble but by the instability of the slope. Murder in Sarajevo just triggered the avalanche: The collapse of sloppy old Europe was caused by the overgrowth of the Russian and British empires. They were unsustainable. They had to go. And they have gone. Now we can breathe.
Russia gratuitously launched a major European war in 1914. Britain gratuitously turned it into a world war. Austria, France and Germany fought in self-defence: because they were attacked essentially. Britain and Russia were not attacked: They fought to protect their place in the pecking order. Italy intervened again in her interest: sacre egoismo. And most problematic was the American entry.
When you consider the Second World War and the Holocaust were the direct result of the American intervention in the First World War, which reversed its outcome, the issue starts to focus.
THE JEWISH FACTOR
The British Empire was always an alliance between the English, Scots, Irish and Jews. The Scots were the professionals: the doctors and engineers. The Irish were the military: the protestant landowners were a born officer class~our Junkers~while the catholic tenantry provided the empire's stout-skulled soldiery. Little effort was wasted motivating the Irish to fight! The English provided the navy, the administrators, and the political and legal framework. And the Jews took care of business: the financial side of the British Empire was disproportionately Jewish-run.
To digress for one paragraph: The British empire got underway with Oliver Cromwell in the 1650's. England was totally militarised during the civil war in the 1640's: every able-bodied man was under arms. So when Cromwell came to power, he found himself in charge of an enormous military capability, which he lost no time in putting to use. First, he beat up the usual suspects, the Scots and the Irish. Then he turned on the Dutch and the Spanish. Europe had just come through the Thirty Years War. Spain was exhausted, so Cromwell could easily rip off Jamaica. Holland meanwhile had grown rich during the Thirty Years War: She had stayed neutral and attracted the money crowd, largely Jews fleeing the Inquisition. Amsterdam was now the financial capital of Europe; and Cromwell lusted in his heart. He re-admitted the Jews into England, and whumped the Dutch in the First Dutch War. The money crowd spotted England as a potential winner, and covered their bets. And the British Empire was off to a flying start.
But it was their stewardship of the financial side of the British Empire that gave the Jews their role and power in the world: that created world Jewry as we have known it this last 300 years. The Jews rode the British Empire to fame and fortune, and when we foundered in World War One, they switched horses, and clambered on board America.
to be continued
Feel free please to submit this entry to the Guiness Book of Records as the weirdest blog ever. Our warrior males are defeated in my view: They cannot defend society from the anti-social. They lack a coherent world view. A good appreciation of the Thirty-One Years War may put some backbone into them.
An avalanche is caused NOT by the dislodged pebble but by the instability of the slope. Murder in Sarajevo just triggered the avalanche: The collapse of sloppy old Europe was caused by the overgrowth of the Russian and British empires. They were unsustainable. They had to go. And they have gone. Now we can breathe.
Russia gratuitously launched a major European war in 1914. Britain gratuitously turned it into a world war. Austria, France and Germany fought in self-defence: because they were attacked essentially. Britain and Russia were not attacked: They fought to protect their place in the pecking order. Italy intervened again in her interest: sacre egoismo. And most problematic was the American entry.
When you consider the Second World War and the Holocaust were the direct result of the American intervention in the First World War, which reversed its outcome, the issue starts to focus.
THE JEWISH FACTOR
The British Empire was always an alliance between the English, Scots, Irish and Jews. The Scots were the professionals: the doctors and engineers. The Irish were the military: the protestant landowners were a born officer class~our Junkers~while the catholic tenantry provided the empire's stout-skulled soldiery. Little effort was wasted motivating the Irish to fight! The English provided the navy, the administrators, and the political and legal framework. And the Jews took care of business: the financial side of the British Empire was disproportionately Jewish-run.
To digress for one paragraph: The British empire got underway with Oliver Cromwell in the 1650's. England was totally militarised during the civil war in the 1640's: every able-bodied man was under arms. So when Cromwell came to power, he found himself in charge of an enormous military capability, which he lost no time in putting to use. First, he beat up the usual suspects, the Scots and the Irish. Then he turned on the Dutch and the Spanish. Europe had just come through the Thirty Years War. Spain was exhausted, so Cromwell could easily rip off Jamaica. Holland meanwhile had grown rich during the Thirty Years War: She had stayed neutral and attracted the money crowd, largely Jews fleeing the Inquisition. Amsterdam was now the financial capital of Europe; and Cromwell lusted in his heart. He re-admitted the Jews into England, and whumped the Dutch in the First Dutch War. The money crowd spotted England as a potential winner, and covered their bets. And the British Empire was off to a flying start.
But it was their stewardship of the financial side of the British Empire that gave the Jews their role and power in the world: that created world Jewry as we have known it this last 300 years. The Jews rode the British Empire to fame and fortune, and when we foundered in World War One, they switched horses, and clambered on board America.
to be continued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)