It’s a red herring to men to think Feminism is sexual. This is just what will hurt Men the most but the end goal has always been economic dominance. Females have always held the keys to sex. Game gets those keys away but the bitch still has to open her legs. To think feminism is mostly about sexual control is foolish and makes me question if the author is just ill-informed or is a dupe. But I am not familiar with his work so I’ll pick the first one and sense he meant well with his article but did not dig deep enough.
*inhales*....
The author needs to dig deeper. The same elites and oligarchs whom funded Lenin and Trotsky, Hitler funded both sides in the creation of America, are the same ones whom set up feminism, They could care less if a dude gets a nut off or not they just want his money and power.
Quote:Quote:
One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. As we shall see, however, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore we shall see, that the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.
As a broken record I have said many times the only challenge to oligarchs and mega wealthy elite
is a revolution started by and carried out by men. Power, influence, and capital is needed to start this revolution (but the absence of these is usually what triggers them). Feminism was brought about to neuter the male’s capacity to accumulate capital, influence and power. Passing it down to the weak female whom poses no threat to the elite’ and offers
the most lucrative financial opportunity known the human kind (more on that later).
Any legitimate or tangible movement that posed any type of threat large of small to the current political, social and economic order was crushed. From the radical black groups whom we're dismantled in the 70's, to the College movement in response to Vietnam that nearly brought a 2nd revolution to America, to the organic legitimate socialist (outside of establishment control and ideals) Sandinista movement, Lumumba in Congo, Nkrumah in Ghana (and the weakening of the Non-Aligned Movement ) All we're destroyed with the quickness by establishment forces.
Any "movement" know you see left to stay and do their bidding is funded or ran by the very opposition they claim to be against.
Example: Mandela largely championed an organic movement against white oligarchs whom ruled and controlled South Africa. But Mandela was never able to get the purse away from the oligarchs. They made successions and Mandela power, democratic freedoms, and prestige/influence but White oligarchs still controlled the money, and still do to this very day in South Africa. Mandela was faced with a situation where you get something or get nothing. I can't fault him though for any wrong doing, and simply just used his experience as a example for what I am trying to get at.
Anything that exists is meant to exists.
That's basically what I am getting at.
So feminism uses the power of The State to extinguish the economic, power and political clout of males leaving them virtually useless (male unemployment is shooting up higher than females, females dominate post-secondary, male focused jobs in manufacturing and trades are diminished, etc, State roadblocks in court, etc). This has nothing to do with making make ugly females more attractive. They will eventually get there’s own in due time.
Because at the root of it IMO:
If a man can't freely attain wealth, power, and prestige and this be rewarded with proper females to mate with he ceases to be a man.
And on the opposite end IMO:
A females value and sole purpose exists to reproduce and raise children. Without this she ceases to be a woman.
Feminism, and the State have been working to pick off each one of those points. To where... Men cease to be Men (while maintaining and upping the value of the female womb). This has nothing to do with upping ugly females worth, or the restriction of sexual attainment. It is simply setting the stage to secure wealth in one hand and take it in one swoop.
Once wealth is concentrated and the purse is fully in female control the oligarchs will pull the rug from under all females. How so?
As I noted earlier there is only one thing that is worth more than anything, any piece of gold, and barrel of oil, fund, environmental carbon credit, or a fancy diamond. And this is the price of (or power to enable or limit) creating life. Once Men are marginalized females will have to pay to have the ability to conceive children or have access to desirable mates. Birth licences/fee you could call it. These could easily fetch 100's of thousands of dollars a pop (picture a market where more connected women whom simply do not want child auction their licences on an open market just like a stock). And would select only those whom they seem worthy (or have the cash) of attaining them.
Sounds crazy? Let’s find some more soft examples in the real world....
On this forum we have made parallels to the African - American community and how the Male have been largely marginalized. If they are not killed or jailed they only have a mountain to climb with ugly women scattered all around (and even with this Black men do have to date down in some cases but mostly these women sit single and unloved). The Black female complains but largely still lives on mating with a select
few Alphas with The State mostly taking a burden of raising the children. Now simply just place a price on this - this is the main of what I am talking about.
Another example: Presently in the African-American community, the most powerful, influential/prestigious and wealthiest African American
is a female. Oprah. Yet she is basically single and has no chance most likely to have children. In Frost’s argument Oprah should be forced to be desirable. She is far from it! Nobody is clamouring or forced to be with her. I could bet my dollar that Oprah would pay obscene amounts of money to be loved fully and have a child with a dominant Alpha male versus her invisible Beta Speidman whom really just keeps her coffee warm and grabs her take out meals.
I have also made parallels to the livestock industry in previous posts on this forum as well. In commercial livestock Men hold little to know value. You can impregnate a million livestock females with just 5 male animals. When males are born only a few are kept around from a select breeded batch which are deemed superior (Alphas), the rest are simply just killed off. The females spend their lives locked up, drugged up, and working and do nothing more. They are only giving the ability to have children via the farm owners whom profit of their manipulation and control of them AKA the oligarchs. Now flip this over to humans and just slap a fee on this.
So think back and now look at all the obstacles men face in regards to:
Money
Freedom
Power
Education
Health (toxins and poisons in our environment, degenerative disease,)
Law
The system is simply just stacked up against us... but not with the end goal of empowering females to yield power on a sexual level. The promotion of The State and female ideals is purely an economic goal with the direct target of Men. The select few Men whom are able to survive will be left to a life of hell virtually locked up and slaved. As the last thing oligarchs would want is the select 10 million men (whatever number) left to survive crossing paths and organizing to take them down.
This Frost guy is missing pieces in the puzzle Yes you can link Feminsn to socialism but you have to look to whom help start both to see what it’s really going on. Sexual repression is only used as a mean of control, it has no value. But you can extract wealth easily from controlled groups of people though.
...*exhales*
