Friday, May 10, 2013

The End of MAN-kind Part 5 by AHB

The dots you weren't supposed to connect.

The following is mostly conjecture, however it does make absolute sense. I am about to tell you what they probably don't want you to even consider. Perhaps the big beneficiary in all this are the elites and big business for several reasons.

Consider the following, our workforce has grown exponentially since WWII, where women were largely involved in wartime manufacturing. They were on assembly lines and in factories making everything from uniforms to airplanes and tanks. It was still very hard work, however with more modern tools, and modern machinery it was worlds safer and easier than say the Ford Rouge was. Circumstance and now technology had given women a shot at the male dominated workplaces, and they performed with almost no production consequences to speak of. After this point, women would not be excluded from mass manufacturing.

Big business wins for 2 reasons, the first one is now they can hire female workers for their volume made goods. The catch is, most women did not have experience that matched men, so they typically started out on the lower rung. More serfs to do their bidding. The second of course is now with women working, they are gonna wanna spend that money, so now they have more customers. It is a vicious cycle, you need to work to buy more shit, you want more shit so you have to work. Admittedly this did not really take off until sometime in the 60s when widespread consumerism rocketed. Technology only got better and better so it became easier to leverage human input.

The effects of technology on women cannot be understated, whole industries such as television and mass media in general have made it their job to cater to women. A pretty surprising statistic of our modern day life is that for the most part women are the deciding factor in 80% of all household purchases. This is not an accident.

Now we come to the point of the elites. Feminism has strong roots in marxist/socialist ideologies. The basic premise is that government can fulfill the role of a man in a woman's life, and in return all a woman has to do is vote for the fucking socialist. The government won't inconvenience her for sex, or respect, and yes it wont even demand a blood sacrifice from her like it would a man. Nope... all she has to do is vote for the socialist, sugar daddy government candidate and all the benefits of a man are yours with none of the costs.

It is a form of subversion to try and mass feminize our society. The likelyhood of us being able to rebel against tyranny is greatly diminished if the common man has a boot heel on his neck at all times and you cut the support of the common woman away from him. Search out a few quotes about how women are discriminated against and flip the script, and see how absolutely ASININE it is.

For instance, here is a quote from Jersey's hero: "Women can do anything that the boys can do! And do it better! And do it in heels!" - Barack Obama. Flip the script.

"Men can do anything that the girls can do, and do it better, and do it in dress shoes!" -No one who wants to get elected

Lesser women eat that shit up. Women who want power, authority, or respect but do not want to earn it, or sacrifice for it, they want it handed to them from on high, because they deserve it, and by the gods they will get it. They don't want to be janitors, or construction workers, or infrastructure linemen, or coal miners or front line infantry... they want pathways to power, let some other poor slapdick oppressor of a man do that grunt work, they are above that, they are ladies.

Funny how they want equality, but don't want equality. To women who read this: Don't be blind to the injustices that will befall your sons if this is left unchecked. They are trying to convince you that your fathers, and your grandfathers were nothing but rapists and oppressors... who gives a shit if they fought in a war, they were men, they were the enemy. To men who read this: Wake the fuck up and do something.


Jersey McJones said...

Jack, you're scaring me. You're starting to sound like Glen Beck.

"Socialist/Marxist" my ass. Women are more RESPONSIBLE than men. Voting Obama/Biden over the Old Idiot/Psycho Bitch ticket was the RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO. As was Obama/Biden over Truly Elite Mormon/Randian Scumbag.

"Socialist/Marxist" my ass.


Anonymous said...

Well I have just about had it with your constant derision when it is obvious you know nothing about what you speak of. Sorry if the following offends.

Feminism and especially modern feminism does have it's roots in marxist ideologies sir.

You know who Betty Friedan was yes?

Women are more responsible than men? What is your yardstick for such a comment, other than they helped vote Obama in which is something you like?

I don't know if you saw the 2012 political map where they had it all broken down by county...

If this was a land grab Mitt Romney would have won by an insane margin. Meanwhile you think nothing of dirty political tricks, such as obamaphone... anything for a vote eh? even lying your ass off.

I don't think it is a big coincidence that Obama won big in places where there is a lot of poverty/crime, or in areas that are so irreversibly democrat they don't even consider voting republican.

What that map shows me, is that a dozen or so cities have dominion over the entire country, so if that is your idea of a fair system, so be it. I think the states could govern themselves way more efficiently because they understand the local situation better than some scrub on capital hill who doesn't want guns in HIS town by god, so he is going to convince everyone or bribe everyone to vote his way.

To me, personally, I don't care if the president was General Buttnaked as long as he was consistent and rational. The sheer fact that everywhere in the media there is this notion that the president runs the country is just preposterous. The President may be the most powerful single individual, but he does not run the country, he runs 1 of the 3 branches. If you think the country would have been run vastly different under Romney, you are delusional. The message from the top would have been different, but the results mostly would have been the same.

I get a kick out of liberals. I can defeat every grand idea you have because you think the government can do a better job at running your life than you can. It never occurs to you that there are no top down solutions, only trade offs. We cant afford health care now with the doctors, the hospitals, the cost of medicine, and the cost of education... so surely we will be able to afford it when we have to pay for the doctors, the hospitals, the cost of medicine, the cost of education AND a fucking bureaucracy to run it all. Never crosses your mind.

Here is something else that never crosses your mind, human beings are flawed, and our systems are flawed. Work in and around those flaws to try and make the world a better place, don't try to tell me that only a select few people, devoid of flaws apparently, know whats best for everyone. Thomas Sowell calls this the "Vision of the Anointed" and he is fuckin right on the money.

Look at our congress... how is that a representation of our country? Everyone in our country is a lawyer? Everyone in our country went to Cornell, Columbia, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton?

Where are the engineers, the polymaths, the inventors, the CEOs, the Tech Gurus? You know, people of actual quantifiable intellect?

Another thing, people get so bent out of shape over Obama being half-black or whatever... where are the Asian-Americans on capital hill? That's a vastly underrepresented faction as well, but I don't hear too many people rallying for that to change.

I don't know why I bother to try to educate you, you can't even tell that isn't Jack.

Always On Watch said...

From what I know of the equal-rights-movement for women, it was never supposed to be so skewed or so activist.

Or maybe it was, and many of us -- young at the time that we became aware of this movement -- just didn't see what was coming.

Often, a movement, regardless of its ideological origins, has a kernel of something good in it. But that kernel gets choked out and corrupted when all the weeds start growing around the plant. [end of metaphor]

Jersey McJones said...

More Glenn Beck conspiracy nonsense.

Whatever the personal political leanings of feminism's early titular thinkers (pun intended), the movement itself is pretty mainstream. The vast majority of people who call themselves feminists are most certainly not hardcore socialist or Marxist ideologues. All they ask is reasonable redress and an equal footing. They've made a lot of progress, but to forget it or get rid of it would be stupid, as these recent posts here make evident.


Jack Camwell said...

God damn Jersey. Why do you keep insulting ME for something AHB has written?

Anyway, AHB said that the movement has origins in Marxism/Socialism. We're not talking about conspiracies here.

Until I see all feminists advocate for adding women to the selective service, then I will never believe that they truly want equal footing.

Also, AHB has not called for taking away women's rights. But you wouldn't know that, because you either haven't been actually reading his posts, or you simply cannot comprehend what he has been saying up to this point.

The fact that you can't even distinguish between his posts and my posts--when his fucking NAME is in the God damn title--casts serious doubt on the things that you say.

Yes, that's ad hominem, but Jesus fucking Christ--don't insult the guy who didn't even write the fucking article, and then expect everyone to view your thoughts as credible.

Anonymous said...

Explain one thing for me then.

Why is it the government is seen as the only solution for the policies that have given women "Equality"... is that not degrading to women that they needed the government to "give" them permission to be equal? Who is the real sexist when I say that women can stand alone on their own merits, and feminists say that not only can females not stand alone, that men are the problem... then they turn around and appeal to "the patriarchy" that they need help.

That defeats their own argument? If men truly were unquestionably iron fist rulers, how did women ever get even a hint of power or freedom?

When in our country did women as a group have it as bad as say... blacks as a group during the peak of slavery? That was true oppression.

You don't get the government to give you hand outs and run your life by electing Libertarians... no you get sugar daddy government by electing the socialist/communist.

Anonymous said...

Also, AOW... I agree.

The humanist aspects of feminism and women's rights movement were hijacked by radicals and turned into this.

I mean, it is becoming blatant censorship at this point, I can't even say a statement like "There are violent women too" without being labelled a misogynist.

Groups like NOW put on a good show, but they are no better perpetuating the myths or perpetuating the outright lies to get their way.

Always On Watch said...

My "feminist" friends in college (1968-1972) withdrew their support from NOW a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

haha, that is not a surprise. Have you seen what they are about?!

Always On Watch said...

Just now, I took at look at the NOW web site. I fail to understand how most women would identify with most of the agenda there.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, for instance look at their site... "We need to change the culture of violence toward women in the military"




Forgive me for being insensitive, but I guarantee you that men see a thousand times more violence in the military than the women do.

Anonymous said...

Femunism, when it was in the hands of Suzanne B. Antony and Lizzie Caydee Staunton and that Pankherst gal over in Englund was probubly necessary. Women ain't stupid, but after the gals got thair basick rights, guess who moved in? Lezbean Jooooze! After that the thing turned Femanottsy, and that the cuntry turned Pukesville.

Lola Paloozuh