Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rikard's avatar

So picking one gilded straw from the stack of golden ones, this stood out to me:

"I don't think the feminists are really thinking this through to the logical end."

Let me unravel that one.

1) Feminists do not think, they feel and associate their way to truth. Everything they say and do support this claim. Look at how feminism define sexual assault/rape: if the woman (if victim, not if perpetrator) claims it happened, it is so, because her feelings about an alleged event are truth.

(Here, sadly, one always need the disclaimer that any claim of a crime committed is simply an allegation unless proven so; which is really just another point serving to show that people afflicted by feminism cease to think andinstead only feel-associate according to conditioning.)

2) "Thinking through2 means having or developing both the ability and will to think in more steps than the immediate one in front of you; if you only use reactive/recursive emotion-association patterns as per your conditioning, you will only ever be ever to escalate and to arrive at preporgrammed conclusions. Witch-trials being the most obvious parallell here, where the accusation is itself tantamount to sentening. (In the actual historical witch-trials, women were virtually always the accusers and the driving force behind the hysteria, while the male clergy and secular powers tried desperately to put a stop to it. Then as well as now, the women egging it on used children as truth-wintessess" to shield themselves from criticism and accusations of malicious slander.)

A more modern parallel is psychiatry, where there is always the danger of pathologising the patients words and behaviours as proof positive of the diagnosis.

3) Logic is inherently non-emotional, and given the above, logic therefore presents a problem for feminists as logic simply does not yield to emotion - being its own thing (in the Kantian sense) it must be understood by first submitting to its nature. Since willing submission or apprenticeship in order to learn and master takes a conscious will, a little humility and also willingness to be proven wrong - well, compare those conditions to the typical feminist personality and it should be obvious why they hate logic with a passion.

A personal anecdote: when I did basic level logic (as in, the "learn how to crawl"-level of it) our professor used very simple day-to-day material examples. Such as this: "A competely red object can never be blue".

Cue the class feminists, bedecked in parkas, DMs, weird hair, palestine-style shawls, et cetera - your basic campus dumpster-hippie - piping up: "But what if it's blue on the inside?"

Prof: "Well no, because then it wouldn't be [completely] red would it?"

Fems: "But maybe it is blue to me1?"

Prof: "No, you can't make up your own defintions post hoc just to " Here he was interrupted.

Fems: "Maybe it is blue in a different way and you just can't see it?"

The feminist coterie then descended in self-affirming babble of more of the above.

This was not last year. This was in the mid-1990s. Reading the wife's books, I came to understand that that kind of thinking (?) has been central to feminism since the 1920s.

4) Being by nature both progressive and static, feminism/-ists have no end in sight. All progressivism always must fall victim to the paradox of always having to complete half the remaining distance before being able to reach the goal. This is so because the theoretical goal is a static state of being: a utopian society. if it is perfect it cannot change, but since becoming perfect means changing into the state of perfection and perfection being a static state, it can never happen.

Like a salmon not able to jump, all it does is it expends resources until the salmon dies, without proecrating.

Apologies for errors, my keyboard is breaking down.

The Last Nabataean's avatar

Regarding the AfD and "our democracy" we must understand that when our rulers invoke "our democracy" what they mean is progressive liberalism, not democracy.

I concur that the AfD will be declared an illegal organisation and there is precedent not just in Greece but also in Belgium where Vlaams Belang was leading in all the opinion polls before being declared unconstitutional and, effectively, banned. What will happen afterwards? Nothing. It worked in Belgium, it worked in Greece and it will work in Germany too. To some extent, it has worked in the USA too, where Donald Trump is going to be dragged through the lawfare system in order to curtail any future possible challenge from him (not that he was actually a challenge but they perceive him to be one and that's enough).

There is no way to fight back through electoral politics because every lever of power is controlled by the enemy class and they will never, never, ever simply acquiesce to the public will or allow power to slip from their grasp voluntarily.

The weakness of the populist movements lies in the fact that their votaries actually believe in democracy while their enemy class protagonists merely believe in power.

35 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?