Feminism has undergone quite a paradigm shift. The First Wave was the least noxious. Part of their efforts included various social reforms, such as fighting prostitution. Were they right to consider it exploitation? I don’t pay for sex, but I’ve known quite a few who sell it, and I’ll just say that the reality is not too much like Risky Business and a lot more like Requiem for a Dream. These days, according to Fourth Wave feminism, prostitution is “empowerment”. Things were moving in that direction among some currents of the Third Wave, but now it’s gone full retard.
I’ve written before about the commodification of the sexual marketplace. It’s been around for quite a while – often called “the oldest profession” – but Internet technology has given it some new twists. “Sugar dating” is one of these sexual marketplace hacks. As the above-referenced article states:
Courtesans have been around for ages. Now there are websites to facilitate this, allowing the “sugar babies” to maximize opportunities far and wide like women already do with online dating. (If only DARPA had known the interesting ways their civil defense communications network would be used!) The sugar daddies should find a real girlfriend instead of these greedy gold diggers.
Before all this, attractive young women already got lots of freebies, and on average, a pretty easy ride in society. I can’t even blame them for that; utilizing advantages is merely part of human nature. However, now they’re learning to monetize their goodies like never before, thanks to high technology along with the Current Year’s lack of moral standards. Today’s feminists even encourage this, calling it “empowerment”. Unfortunately, things end pretty badly for those who choose to go this route.
All that said, a few days ago, I clued one of my friends into the “sugar baby” phenomenon. I merely told him he should check out the recent Stefan Molyneux video on the subject:
It looks like that turned out to be a major Red Pill for him. I’ll add that up until recently, he was a lifelong atheist, but this seems to be one of the features of Clown World that jolted him to the point of reconsidering. The following is from a couple of emails he sent to his friends, reposted with permission. He’s not an avid Manosphere reader, and again, I didn’t say too much about the subject. All of the following is from his own research and conclusions.
10% of coeds are sugar babies
Feminism is supposed to empower women. Combine that with relative morality of atheism and you end up with millions of young girls in college selling their bodies to middle age men for money. Actually, the lowest bid ebay style auction kind of money.
This email will be very upsetting.
First up. Some internet dating history and who has the power.
The ratio for a women in her 20’s on a dating site is about 100 to 1. That is 100 men try to pursue the 1 medium to very hot women. Of those men, a few of them are actually marriage material. The girl gets to figure out which one. Women have all the power in online dating in their 20s. The men have no power online.
The ratio for a women in her 40s to find a marriage material man is more like 1 to 10 or 10%. The men have all the power when the woman is older and less desirable. This is just reality for a man of high value. The high value man has many women to choose from and he knows it.
Now, the Sugar Baby “dating” websites turn the tables completely around. The men bid on the women with their money and the woman goes on a date with the highest bid.
The 20 year old girl gets higher bid prices than the 40 year old who probably gets no bids. But, the men can bid on multiple women and only actually pay the woman that accepts the lowest prices. Who has the power on the Sugar daddy website? The men who are bidding have all the power. They are usually over age 40 and tend to be profession IT or CEO types.
The 40 year old woman has no chance against the 20 year old woman on the Sugar Baby websites. The men get to choose whoever they want.
Here is the saddest part. About 10% of all college girls are selling their bodies for money to men old enough to be their fathers. Most, don’t have sex, but all of them are being used by much older men.
This rabbit hole goes deeper than you can possibly believe. And it leads straight to Satan’s will. Destroy the family by destroying the most valuable thing a young woman has.
Look at the disgust on the audience faces in this one.
Hundreds of thousands of Sugar Babies in Australia.
Here is a Sugar Baby explaining to other girls how to be a Sugar Baby. If you don’t watch the entire videos, just read the comments.
What Man in his right mind would ever marry a Sugar Baby? I’m not talking about the “Johns”. I’m talking about the used up damaged woman that the “Johns” create. I have a feeling that the fatherless generation has something to do with the rise of Sugar Babies.
Religion was created to teach women to value their chastity as an prize to be gained when a man commits. For thousands of years, it was a bargain where women gave up her body in exchange for the commitment of the man. Now, women give up their body for money and the man has absolutely no reason to ever commit. The woman’s bargaining tool is gone.
What is left is pure hedonism where the easy life choices are preferred instead of the good life choices that actually make a better life.
Feminism is Cancer. We are going back to the indigenous days before religion separated humans from the hedonistic animals.
Followup
One thing. I’m not saying indigenous were animals. I’m was saying that religion created humans, not that humans created religion.
Religion created humans thru stories of how to live a better life. Those stories had to come from God because they are so good. Every successful religion in the world has marriage in it with 1 man to 1 woman. Islam has to be a rich man to have many wives.
Before religion, it was 1 man to 5 women. The DNA shows that. That is the “natural” way humans to live just as the primates do today.
I don’t think that was a better life, because 80% of all the men were INCEL.
My point is that Feminism is returning humans to a life that we hadn’t seen for 10,000 years. I don’t agree.
The other day, I was at home with my number one girlfriend. She gets a spam call and puts it on speaker phone. It’s computer generated, but they’re getting pretty good with this and it’s hard to tell. After the canned spiel is over about all the cool vacations they’re offering us for free, a live agent comes on.
The sales droid says the name of the company. I’m at my nerd box, so quickly I look it up. One of the suggested autocomplete search terms for them is “(company name) complaints”. That’s rather telling… From the list of hits I see, it looks like my suspicions are correct. It’s a timeshare company! With one of those outfits, you enter a lifetime contract to pay a monthly fee, and what you get out of it is an option to stay at one of their resorts for a few days a year, whether you use it or not, and it might very well cost about two or three times more than booking a hotel whenever needed. What a deal, right?
So the sales droid starts trying to get us interested in their Vegas offering. I have to admit, she did a pretty good talk-off, all bubbly and stuff. However, what I said next probably threw her for a loop for the rest of the day.
In the early days, Wikipedia wasn’t much to look at. Over time, this crowdsourced encyclopedia became a vast compilation of knowledge – some articles pretty good, others with mixed results. Sadly, there are those who consider it to be some kind of ultimate repository of absolute truth. It certainly isn’t. There are some major problems with it, and I’d have to write a book to describe it all in detail.
For now, one of the major problems is leftist bias. It’s not supposed to be that way, because of the rules about “Neutral Point Of View”, “Reliable Sources”, “Undue Influence”, “Weasel Words, etc., arbitration policies for disputes, and all the rest of it. So where bias exists, it should be pretty easy to fix it. Still, when push comes to shove, it can turn into a “press of pike” battle. Whichever side has the greatest numbers, and the most amount of idle time on their hands, is at a strategic advantage. If you’re less of a fanatic about it, have fewer other people there who agree with you, or if you have a life and don’t have unlimited time to waste, you’re at a disadvantage. Also, did you know that there are teams paid to edit it and spin things their way?
Wikipedia has its own hierarchy and internal bureaucracy. As any evil deplorable right wing extremist like me can tell you, an institution is only as good as the people staffing it. Therefore, those in charge of keeping things fair and balanced sometimes have considerable biases of their own. That’s why trying to push a dispute up the food chain with their adjudication procedures might not get you too far. Maybe that’s the whole idea. Did you know that Wikipedia gets funding from George Soros? They have plenty of cash already, and whenever they beg for donations, it’s a sick joke.
Exhibit A here is their Manosphere article. This can be edited at any time, so note that I’m using the version in effect as of September 22, 2019. If you like, on the history page, you can look at earlier versions.
Their editors were ignorant from the beginning
The very first sentence is:
The manosphere is a loose collection of predominantly web based misogynist movements associated with the alt-right.
Okay, so according to this allegation, presumably you have to be a misogynist even to want to read any of those websites. “Misogynist” means someone who hates women. (I could describe the root words for that, and even write it in ancient Greek, but why be a sperg about it? Now hold that thought for a moment.) If all that’s overblown and the typical Manosphere reader doesn’t actually hate women, then surely he’s at least a Neanderthal who yells at the TV during football games, then snaps his fingers and shouts “Woman! Beer!” whenever his can of PBR is empty. Got all that?
If the readers are this bad, then surely the writers must be far worse, right? As a matter of fact, I was one of the writers for a website this article discusses. The truth is that I have considerable affection for women. As a straight guy, I can’t help but admire the charm and femininity that comes to them naturally, most especially under normal social conditions. I even remember my exes fondly.
Already that Wikipedia article is off to an ignorant start! I call bullshit on that insulting definition. As for the “associated with the alt-right” claim, that too is rather dodgy. There is an area of overlap, but much of the Manosphere isn’t politically affiliated. Really, it’s much more diverse than how that article presents it.
Note well, my writings did frequently criticize radical feminists and their crazypants rhetoric. Likewise, I poked fun at spoiled brats and THOTs. However, I did my best to make it clear that these were outliers and examples of how not to be charming and feminine, who are the way they are mainly because we’re not living in normal social conditions. I challenge anyone to find anywhere in my 154 articles where I wrote objectively hateful things about all women as a class. How many radical feminists out there honestly can say that they never wrote anything hateful about men as a class?
The second sentence is:
Movements within the manosphere include antifeminism, fathers’ rights, Incels (involuntary celibates), MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), volcels (voluntarily celibates), pick-up artists, the Men’s rights movement, bloggers and commentators, among others.
Let’s rewrite that second sentence, flipping the script and approximating as best as possible:
Movements within the online misandrist community include radical feminists, the divorce industry, bitter single women, lesbian separatists, cat ladies, bar girls, the women’s liberation movement, bloggers and commentators, among others.
Well, golly jeepers, that sounds pretty fair and balanced, now doesn’t it?
Can’t they find any decent citations?
Supporting that second sentence, there’s a big list of citations – remember, these are Reliable Sources – supporting the original assertion:
“The alt-right is creating its own dialect. Here’s the dictionary”. Quartz.
Zimmer, Ben (8 May 2018). “How ‘Incel’ Got Hijacked”. Politico.
“Balls to all that”. The Economist. 16 June 2016.
Dewey, Caitlin. “Incels, 4chan and the Beta Uprising: making sense of one of the Internet’s most-reviled subcultures”. Washington Post.
Southern Poverty Law Center (Spring 2012). “Misogyny: The Sites”.
Pry, Alyssa; Alexa Valiente (16 October 2013). “Women Battle Online Anti-Women Hate From the ‘Manosphere'”. ABC News.
“How the alt-right’s sexism lures men into white supremacy”. Vox.
Dewey, Caitlin (27 May 2014). “Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger”. The Washington Post.
Nagle, Angela (2017). “Entering the manosphere”. Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right.
Now what happened to those enlightened Wikipedia policies to keep articles from being biased? I suppose someone might think of all those lefty MSM articles as “Reliable Sources”, but that’s a pretty big stretch.
However, under no circumstances could you call the Southern Poverty Law Center a “Reliable Source”. That’s a highly partisan leftist foundation. (Does the Wikipedia page about Communism quote the John Birch Society as an authority, without equivocation?) The $PLC occupies itself with compiling shit lists and soliciting donations. I’ll let Pamela Geller – who is a first rate lady and a fine American – tell the story about that one, and there’s lots more where it came from. For that matter, have a look at the divorce papers of Morris Dees, the $PLC’s long-time head honcho, documented down to the gory details. If any item in that bill of particulars is true, the Manosphere considers behavior like that to be reprehensible; who’s the one with bad attitudes about women here?
Am I cherry-picking with the selection above? Absolutely not. I looked over the entire list of sources at the bottom of the page. You don’t see the “pros” and “cons” balanced out. I didn’t notice a single one of the “Reliable Sources” that was pro-Manosphere. There probably isn’t even much neutral content listed about the subject. Instead, there’s a bunch of MSM hit pieces, feminist and gender studies academic papers, and other leftist rubbish.
The confluence of all that certainly doesn’t make for any “Neutral Point Of View”; it’s just a bunch of bias. Sure, there’s a place for hostile sources; those go into a “criticism” subsection, or maybe a standalone “criticism of X” article. However, the entire Manosphere article is nothing but criticism from these hostile sources. In the article’s “history” page, I did see some attempts to fix that problem, but the edits were reverted, quickly cast into the memory hole.
Sperg-o-rama
The “Terminology” section begins:
Manosphere is a neologism, a portmanteau of man and sphere. A related term is androsphere (from Ancient Greek: ἀνήρ, anḗr, genitive ἀνδρός, andros, “man”).
The “Reliable Source” for that is none other than an article by Jason Wilson in the lefty publication The Guardian, “The ‘man-o-sphere’ is outraged about Mad Max? Hand me my popcorn!” Thank you for sharing, Jason, otherwise we might never have been able to figure out the origins of the term “Manosphere”.
Anyway, those two sentences have convenient hyperlinks for neologism, portmanteau, ancient Greek, and the genitive case. Presumably that’s to help someone who doesn’t understand the terminology in this long-winded and unnecessary explanation. Moreover, it features snippets of the original language that I already could figure out despite being almost an utter n00b at Greek.
Since I have better things to do, I haven’t looked up the “Reliable Source” – again, the Guardian article with the snotty title – to see if it actually does delve that far into the etymological archeolinguistics of it. However, I’m guessing that Mr. Wilson also has better things to do than conjugate Greek genitive declensions. One of these activities apparently is to watch a lame feminist sequel of a has-been Hollywood film series featuring a bald has-been actress. Let me give you a tip, Jason – the series already jumped the shark with Beyond Thunderdome, and I’m old enough of a coot to have seen it on the big screen.
All this brings us to another thing that sets my teeth on edge about Wikipedia, almost as much as its leftist bias. It seems that everyone on the planet with obsessive-compulsive disorder edits this thing. These are the people who indeed don’t have better things to do than expound on Greek genitive declensions where it’s utterly irrelevant. That’s perfectly topical in an article about Greek grammar, but why did someone take the time to nerd out about it here? I suspect that those who do this have OCD, or they’re anal retentive. Oh, wait a minute, should “anal retentive” have a hyphen?
They overdo shit like this all the time, trying to sound erudite. I also remember some big Wikipedia argument over the movie Wall-E. It was about whether the dash in “Wall-E” actually should be an interpunct (which is a highfalutin way of saying a dot). Things like this are why browsing Wikipedia feels like I’ve entered the sperg zone. Also, it’s why sometimes I read an article to try to learn about a subject, and I come away not one bit the wiser, or even knowing what the hell they were talking about.
Anyone who suffers from OCD this badly should get that problem fixed. I’ve heard that CBT helps. Be sure to search Wiki for “cognitive behavior therapy”, because “CBT” takes you to a disambiguation page also including the Chicago Board of Trade, computer based training, cock and ball torture (I’m not making this up – they have an NSFW article about all that), and a couple dozen other things.
Donna Zuckerberg’s big spanking session
The “Content” section ends with the following:
The author Donna Zuckerberg writes that the growth of the movement and the more political tone adopted by some of its leaders as of 2016 has led to more adversarial internal relationships, such as between pick-up artists and men’s-rights advocates.
Ooh, another “Reliable Source”, awesome! She’s cited in a few other places too. Who is she, anyway? Well, she’s the sister of Mark Suckerberg, creator of Fakebook. Apparently she lives in Silicon Valley (hopefully she watches her step carefully on the sidewalk). Her own Wiki page begins:
Donna Zuckerberg is an American classicist, editor-in-chief of the journal Eidolon and author of the book Not All Dead White Men (2018) on the appropriation of classics by misogynist groups on the Internet.
Ah, okay, so she’s a feminist! What a big surprise, right? All this is enough street cred to qualify her as a Wikipedia-approved authority about men’s concerns online, is it? Criticism of feminism is one of the greatest common factors of the Manosphere. However, a feminist who very openly opposes the Manosphere gets cited repeatedly, and without any counterbalancing opinion. This is in an online encyclopedia that makes much hoopla about touting its own objectivity. Sweet! It’s time to take her out to the woodshed, so to speak.
The above indicates that her major work was a book about why she believes it’s wrong for the Manosphere to draw inspiration from our ancient cultural heritage. Apparently, in her opinion, we’re not supposed to form our own conclusions about classic literature – what our forefathers, and the ancestors of our kindred peoples, wrote to guide us and convey their wisdom. I have one thing to say to that…
Anyway, she edits the paper Eidolon. (And what is the genitive case for “eidolon” anyway?) Their mission statement begins:
Eidolon makes the classics political and personal, feminist and fun.
“The personal is political” is a well-known feminist catchphrase, made up by none other than one of the Redstockings. Sweet! Even so, the above mission statement makes sure the reader gets the message. So she doesn’t like the Manosphere commenting on ancient literature, but she sure as heck gets to put her own feminist spin on it. Back in college, plenty of times I saw what the classics of our forefathers looked like after getting run through the critical theory meat grinder, and the results aren’t pretty.
Anyway, about the name Eidolon, that sort of reminds me of Barbara Spectre and her “Paidea” foundation. What an odd coincidence, two rootless cosmopolitan types involved in tricky outfits with august-sounding ancient Greek names. What’s the deal with this trend? They need to stop doing that. If only they learned from the positive examples of Pamela Geller and Laura Loomer, then they wouldn’t create all this opposition for themselves which they curiously blame on everyone else. It would be great if we could all just get along despite sectarian differences, but that’s a two-way street.
There are times when a sleeping lion must rouse himself from repose to swat a yapping dog. Such ankle-biters need to learn that it is one thing to throw around malicious accusations, and quite another thing to be faced with a response. In matters such as these, I am not concerned with power or influence–unlike you, Ms. Zuckerberg–but only with my good name, and the meaning and purpose of my work.
We’ve gotten a lot of hate over the past year from politicians, C list celebrities, and female typists, but not from the direct relative of one of the most influential billionaires in the world. That seal has been broken by Mark Zuckerberg’s sister, who turns out is obsessed with the manosphere.
That one is long too, but it’s a laugh a minute, definitely worth a read.
Conclusion
Why would someone consider bias like this to be objectionable in the “ultimate repository of absolute truth”? Now imagine, for a moment, what the Wikipedia page on Islam would look like if it was only written by atheists, fundamentalist Christians, Hindus, and other hostile editors. Nowhere in it is a single quotation from the Quran or the Hadith. Any time a Muslim tried to add something, the change would get reverted by an anti-Muslim editor. Would that result in a “Neutral Point Of View”? This is exactly the treatment the Manosphere article got.
The rest of the page is full of straw man arguments and inaccuracy too, but you should get the picture by now that the thing is a load of crap. The last part includes opinions that try to suggest that the Manosphere made people go off the rails and commit acts of violence. It’s little different from the silly “video games make people go postal” argument. Way classy, guys! Actually, one of the few examples they were able to trot out in support of the argument was – wait for it – a male feminist.
All told, the article was so one-sided that it fails to be informative. The only major takeaway is that the Manosphere is a bunch of scary boogeymen. Instead of being encyclopedic, it’s a partisan hit piece. By contrast, Wikipedia has articles for just about every flavor of feminism that exists. They’re written up in detail, sensitively, sympathetically, and full of their own talking points. The originators of these feminist factions wouldn’t consider any of it to misrepresent their views, or otherwise be objectionable. Overall, one gets the impression that hardly anyone would raise a serious dispute about feminism.
Why not just change it?
I can hear it already. If I don’t like the article, why don’t I quit being a loudmouth and make changes to improve it? I’d be happy to do so, except that it would be an exercise in pissing in the wind. Now look again at the history page. Here’s one of the recent “edit wars”:
23:11, 10 August 2019? Nick-D (talk | contribs)? m . . (23,124 bytes) (0)? . . (Protected “Manosphere”: Persistent disruptive editing ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC))))
23:06, 10 August 2019? AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)? . . (23,124 bytes) (+1,168)? . . (Rescuing orphaned refs (“Dewey 2014” from rev 910230878; “Wiseman” from rev 910230878; “Dewey 2016” from rev 910230878; “Nagle” from rev 910230878)) (Tag: PHP7)
22:45, 10 August 2019? EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)? . . (21,956 bytes) (+24)? . . (Reverted to revision 910124281 by Davey1980 (talk): Restore content; mass editing again… (TW)) (Tag: Undo)
22:43, 10 August 2019? 2605:8d80:403:1b1:4885:749f:6a66:5ae7 (talk)? . . (21,932 bytes) (-4,416)? . . (Edited the misandrist content out.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
16:06, 10 August 2019? 188.146.66.195 (talk)? . . (26,348 bytes) (-31)? . . (Considering whole group misogynistic based on few extremists is unfair. These people exist in every group that does not control who’s joining, but it doesn’t mean everyone out there is like that. This is why I removed it. Placing it here is an assumption that group is sexist at the fundamental level and everyone in it is also sexist.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
14:38, 10 August 2019? 2600:387:3:801::26 (talk)? . . (26,379 bytes) (-60)? . . (??Content: I edited out horrible misinformation) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
13:10, 10 August 2019? 71.37.207.210 (talk)? . . (26,439 bytes) (-37)? . . (Corrected biased misinformation) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
20:39, 9 August 2019? Davey1980 (talk | contribs)? . . (21,956 bytes) (-4,520)? . . (Fixed typos and added correct content) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
22:59, 7 August 2019? Grayfell (talk | contribs)? . . (26,476 bytes) (+17)? . . (Undid revision 909839488 by 103.77.202.130 (talk) How is this a grammar issue?) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
22:57, 7 August 2019? 103.77.202.130 (talk)? . . (26,459 bytes) (-17)? . . (??Content: Fixed grammar) (Tags: Mobile edit, canned edit summary, Mobile app edit, Android app edit)
That might look like just a bunch of computer logs, of course. It all means that some people tried to improve the article and help make it balanced, some others undid their efforts, and finally someone locked it. This sort of thing is hardly unusual at Wikipedia.
Note well, there’s a way someone can get a notification whenever a page is updated. If one or more individuals want to play Internet hall monitor, they quickly can detect any change to an article and revert it if it doesn’t fit the preferred political narrative. That’s how these leftist “mother hens” with too much time on their hands enforce ideological conformity. Sure, someone could push it up the food chain, but whoever does so is then at the mercy of institutional politics. Did I mention that George Soros helps to pay for this thing?
Much like with The Stepford Wives, the Black Pilled channel hit another home run on their propaganda analysis. This next one is called “Soap Operas that Wash Your Mind”. The only thing the creator of these videos could be doing better is making it a little clearer in the titles what show is being picked apart. This one is about The Handmaid’s Tale series.
A brief overview of The Handmaid’s Tale
Originally this began as a novel by Margaret Atwood. It got a massive amount of publicity back in the day. The literary establishment promoted the hell out of it, for the fairly obvious reason that it suited the ideological inclinations fashionable with publishers and critics. I’m not saying it lacks artistic merits or is badly written. What I am saying is that surely it helps that the book promotes certain narratives.
A movie was made of it too. Hollywood spinoffs are one of the side benefits that come from being hugely popular with the literary establishment. Lately the story was serialized and essentially became a soap opera. These spinoffs are one of the ways the MSM can leverage their conglomerates to signal-boost messages they like.
It’s no mystery why feminists ate it up like candy. Basically, the plot happens in Gilead, a dystopian version of the future USA where the evil patriarchy is in control. Their religious beliefs are even more extreme than the Westboro Baptist Church douchebags. Basically, it’s an over-the-top exaggeration, though not too far from what lots of liberals think typical Christians actually believe. They enslave the women because we men are a bunch of dicks. The protagonist was shanghaied and turned into a concubine, which is a common and accepted practice in Gilead.
Why it misses the mark
Dystopias usually have an underlying premise. What if all the wonderful feminist progress since the late 1960s got rolled back suddenly? That seems to be what the theme is driving at. The message is something like, “We’d better be vigilant and put a stop to the Religious Right. People like Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority are dangerous.” The book implies that if people like them get in charge, The Patriarchy will enslave the women and make them concubines. That’s none too subtle, of course, though it’s not too different from what lots of radical feminists actually believe.
The problem with all that is that it’s too hard to take the premise seriously. America in the 1950s certainly didn’t look like Gilead. Neither would it be an accurate portrayal of society in the late 1860s, a time that actually was patriarchal and very devout, and a century before feminism started going full retard. It’s not even a fair representation of the Middle Ages, at least in Western society. Therefore, The Handmaid’s Tale is less plausible than The Hunger Games being an accurate prediction of the future. America wouldn’t turn into Gilead even if Pat Robertson somehow became President – or dictator, for that matter.
All that seemed like an exercise in feminist scarum-shouting about fundamentalists. Although I don’t regard Christianity as the only game in town – much less the Protestant evangelical version – I don’t have any particular quarrel with it. I certainly don’t hate fundamentalists; most of them are nice people. It’s possible to like someone even if you don’t agree with everything he or she believes. I wish more liberals realized that. Most of them are nice people too, but many were conditioned to believe that the rest of us are scary boogeymen.
Moreover, criticism of fundamentalism in practice isn’t always about religion. Sometimes it’s more like a sneaky jab at cultural conservatism without bothering to try to refute it on its own terms. This is just as putting down Christianity (more broadly) is often a proxy attack on Western civilization. Things like that tend to set off the alarm bells with me. I might add further that you don’t have to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago to realize that feminism was a disastrous social engineering project based on flawed utopian premises.
The maker of the following video about The Handmaid’s Tale noted that it actually was based on Islamic treatment of women. This is a pretty good reason why it’s so unrecognizable in terms of Western society. Then why didn’t Atwood depict a heartbreaking drama about a Muslim country where Quran-thumpers do the shit to women that they already do in the name of Sharia law? Then the story would’ve been much more plausible. However, as I noted in Deplorable Diatribes:
[M]odern feminism became a branch of critical theory, including its “academic discipline” of women’s studies. Consequentially, in practice it’s explicitly anti-Western, almost as much as it is anti-male. They criticize our own society bitterly and incessantly, but with comparatively few exceptions, they don’t have much to say about some truly dreadful things that happen to women routinely in many Third World countries. (It’s rather cruel that these downtrodden women abroad mostly are ignored by the activists who could help the most.) Western feminists actually could do a lot of good if they stopped complaining about “manspreading” and instead focused more than a token effort on real problems. However, that would mean admitting that First World women don’t have it so bad after all. Furthermore, calling out Third World societies would contradict their anti-Western agenda, which is more important to them than actual women’s liberation (in places where they actually need liberating). Therefore, their rhetoric is almost entirely pearl-clutching about their own First World problems.
Later I read Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. That one is another dystopian novel, this time about almost-there biotech coming into fruition, vast stratification of wealth, global warming, and some generic New World Order tropes. Actually, it’s a pretty decent leftist critique of globalism. I’ll have to say she mostly was on point with that. However, this doesn’t mean that Atwood has wandered off the plantation. If only she had followed the cookie crumbs a little further, she might be pretty horrified by the globalist shmucks who call the tune in today’s progressivism.
After reading Oryx and Crake, I realized that this one was biting satire. (I write that way too sometimes, though from a rightist perspective.) So at that point, I realized that perhaps The Handmaid’s Tale had more to do with satire than presenting a plausible near-future scenario, though still unfortunately saturated with moldy Second Wave feminism. The problem is that satire should be a caricature, rather than something so distorted that it’s unrecognizable.
The Handmaid’s Tale as a propaganda soap opera
I haven’t seen the series. I could pirate it, but I’ll give that a miss. The Black Pilled commentators did all the analysis. So after my long-winded intro, here it is:
He said the “fast forward” button helped a lot. The series is larded up with perspective shots and melodramatic music. With filler like that, they can drag it out for a long time without taxing their screenwriters too much. The soap opera formula is that it builds up to a weekly finale on Friday, and then throws in a cliffhanger microloop for next Monday to keep the vidiots watching. Worse, it looks like the producers had the indoctrination dialed up to 11.
He recapped the first two episodes. He begins with some meta-commentary, first about what kind of target audience this show has. (For propaganda analysis, that’s a good point.) Going into the details of the plot, the psychological associative conditioning shticks are pretty plain. For a few examples:
If you’re concerned about declining fertility rates, then you’re an evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist
If you don’t like birth control, then you’re an evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist
If you don’t like abortion, then you’re an evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist
One of the scenes showed an abortionist who had been hanged by the evil patriarchal right wing fundamentalist regime. Other invitees to the necktie party were a priest (presumably Roman Catholic) and a gay guy. Way subtle, right? Fundamentalists want to hang heretics!
To digress a bit, what would happen if a reality TV show ever depicted what abortionists actually do, including a picture of the bloody bucket with the baby parts? Every feminist who didn’t suffer from a mind-crippling case of cognitive dissonance would be crying uncontrollably and overcome with horror. That’s why you’ll never see anything like that on the idiot box.
Other than that, the video describes the anti-White bias in the series. It doesn’t state outright how that ties into the depopulation agenda, though the connection is pretty clear. Indeed, this is what the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan is about. At the 22 minute mark, he gets more specific about the target audience, and indicates that the show is geared to women of childbearing age, who are exactly the people they want to brainwash with the depopulation messages. An interesting discussion follows about how the globalist establishment wants to manipulate the human genome to make people more docile, and this soap opera seems to be more agitprop geared to encouraging these trends.
That’s why they’re promoting lifestyles and mental disorders that result in fewer or no offspring from the groups they see as threats.
That’s a great one-sentence summary about the purpose of the degeneracy that’s been promoted for decades, especially aggressively for the last two. It’s all about the social engineering.
Other than that, it isn’t too hard to read between the lines here, now is it? Then the ones pushing this on everyone wonder why they’re so unpopular and keep getting blowback. It doesn’t have to be that way – they should just stop doing that.
Interestingly, this depopulation agenda is almost exactly what the mad scientist character in Oryx and Crake does through genetic engineering. He created a tribe of humans modified to be docile and clueless, and meanwhile he killed off the rest of the world with a plague. However, surely it would take a major epiphany for Margaret Atwood herself to put together the pieces about how the globalists want to do fairly similar things to us for real. Still, if she ever does wander off the plantation, then the literary establishment would never publish another one of her books.
Finally, the commentary has an excellent ending:
The Handmaid’s Tale is just this subversive-to-the-core victimization porn. And quite frankly, if you have loved ones that are watching this electric brain cancer, this shouldn’t be tolerated. You should just tell them no. It’s time to be a man and start putting your foot down and being at least half as effective as the boogeymen that their propaganda makes us out to be.
A while back, I was reading up on the Chinese Cultural Revolution a bit. To say the least, these were difficult times for anyone on the government’s shit list. As a side note to all this, they did have some creative words for these specific categories. If you look past the grim details, the terminology is a real hoot.
The original Five Black Categories
This is why you don’t want pinkos running the country
One grab-bag term for the bad guys (according to their opinion) was the “Five Black Categories”, quite an evocative phrase. These included:
Landlords: This occupation pretty much got turned into a dirty word
Rich farmers: This is equivalent to “kulaks” in Soviet terminology
Counterrevolutionaries: People like me, basically
Bad influencers: Also meaning “bad elements”, or evildoers
Rightists: Presumably this is anyone more conservative than Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein
The meaning of item 4 isn’t clarified in detail. The Chinese wiki page redirects to their word for “rogue”, and in English, the definition would be something like:
Rogue usually refers to those who frequently cause trouble, are unreasonable, and rely on intimidation and other means to obtain benefits. In ancient times, it refers to street sleepers who did not work, and then specifically refers to those who do not engage in legitimate businesses and do things that are harmful to society.
So in Russian, these would be called “hooligans”. In German, that would be a grab-bag term for Berufsverbrecher, asozial, and arbeitsscheu. Come to think of it, San Francisco has quite a few aggressive panhandlers who drop loads of dookey all over the city; they certainly qualify as huàifènzǐ (坏分子).
All the above were in contrast to the Maoist “Five Red Categories”, which were the good guys in their view. That included farmers who aren’t rich (I don’t have the slightest problem with them; rednecks grow our food), workers (I like those guys too), and three categories of ChiCom revolutionaries (I lack enthusiasm for them).
The Nine Black Categories
Later, the “Five Black Categories” got expanded into nine. The new additions were:
Traitors: Naturally, these are unwelcome in any society
Spies: It’s also sensible that they didn’t care much for these guys
Capitalist roaders: If you have a complete Ludwig von Mises book collection, that’s you
Intellectuals: In my opinion, there are good ones and bad ones
Interestingly, modern history shows that the “capitalist roaders” were right. China’s low point was the “Great Leap Forward” catastrophe, characterized by kooky agricultural experiments, counterproductive boondoggles, and eventually mass starvation that led to the deaths of tens of millions. By following the path to industrial development and export trade, the public at last is starting to get something resembling a tolerable standard of living.
This last item in this updated shit list – the intellectuals – had a special name: the “Stinking Old Ninth”. Together, the Nine Black Categories tended to get called “cow demons and snake spirits”. Did I mention that Maoist terminology is a hoot?
Clown World’s Nine Black Categories
So all that got me thinking – how could this be updated for today’s conditions? The following might be a good start for a modern shit list:
The following recaps the original film, The Stepford Wives. I haven’t seen this version, but I did see the somewhat more upbeat remake. I also read the Ira Levin book on which these movies were based. The Stepford Wives isn’t anything too exceptional from a literary or cinematographic perspective. Still, it certainly is emblematic of the sneaky agitprop along these lines intended to break down traditional roles.
By the 1970s, this sort of thing was quite heavily promoted to reprogram the minds of millions of women and turn them against their own society. If that sounds like an exaggeration, then watch the following and consider it again:
I’m a pretty old hand at propaganda analysis, so I have to admire the skill of the video’s creator that went into deciphering the movie. He caught lots of nuances that are pretty subtle. Actually, they would be subliminal unless you know what to look for and are on guard for those things. I have to wonder how many of the viewers realized during these scenes that they were being propagandized and psychologically manipulated.
As for the film’s main message, though, it has as much subtlety as Miley Cyrus wearing a strap-on dildo resembling a giant carrot. The overall subtext, of course, is pretty obvious – men literally turning women into robots. As a statement, it might go something like this: “Being a mother or a traditional housewife is worse than slavery. If you’re happy about being one, then The Patriarchy already turned you into a mindless automaton!” That’s a pretty nasty accusation about men, of course, and one that was calculated to promote dissatisfaction. Rather ironically, this message was proclaimed by the precursor to the leftist political establishment that blew a fuse over the NPC meme.
Why did Ira Levin write that book – and why did the Hollyweird filmmakers put it on the big screen? Were they male feminist useful idiots, or were they cultural Marxists trying to degrade society by driving a wedge between the sexes? Now that’s a good question. Deliberately spreading discontentment and social discord is a go-to tactic of cultural Marxism, a point similar to one that the video reviewer also made.
One more item from the movie that I’ll point out and add to the discussion is the following depiction:
New York City: the old happy place, full of culture and opportunity
Stepford: dystopian Bourgeois Hell where you literally get turned into a robot
Let me reiterate:
NYC during the 1970s = GOOD!
Clean, crime-free suburbia = BAD!
Point of fact, before Mayor Giuliani went a long way to clean it up, NYC was an urban hellscape. The film Taxi Driver depicts things a lot more realistically. Who are these people trying to fool? Or was the point about insulting people who weren’t living in the big Mouse Utopia?
…The Feminine Mystique was promoted for mass appeal, and indeed it became a hit. The message that women should be captains of industry instead of nurturing children did strike a chord. (It was clever propaganda, conveniently ignoring the facts that work is usually pretty tedious, most employees never rise to high places or even get exciting jobs, and especially that the next generation doesn’t come from a cabbage patch.) The Redstockings Manifesto, on the other hand, is little known outside of feminist circles, women’s studies professors, and of course their students. This snotty screed with Marxist-flavored rhetoric describes what radical feminism really believes; for one item, very explicitly declaring all men to be oppressors.
Later it describes Betty Friedan in greater detail:
Her book The Feminine Mystique persuaded millions of women to define their success the way men do, leaving their homes in droves for the awesome adventure of cube farms. If only they’d asked some men, we could’ve warned them that work sucks. Chapter 1 begins like this:
The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban housewife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night, she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question—“Is this all?”
You know how that kind of rhetoric goes. The kitchen is a torture chamber. Light housework is slavery. Raising the next generation of precious young children is a total waste of time. All that’s beneath us, but our husbands are having a blast working on an assembly line eight hours a day to keep roofs over our heads. Blah blah blah…
OK, cool, so now we’re in a more enlightened age, thanks in no small part to Betty Friedan. These days, tens of millions of women spend their days in cube farms. Many are childless and will endure their final years all alone, thanks to all those abortions. As for now, at the end of the day, they ask themselves: “Is this all?”
So in that regard, The Stepford Wives was much like The Feminine Mystique, except presenting the message in a sneaky and more weaponized manner. Again, it’s basically this – “If you’re a mother and a housewife, that’s unacceptable. Your only salvation is to join Second Wave feminism and help us rip apart society.” Sweet!
What about the Redstockings Manifesto then? That one is a brief document that tells you what radical feminism really believes, without all the pretty rhetoric or subliminal messages. It came out in 1969, by a Marxist-influenced group that was nearly a “who’s who” list of the NYC feminist scene of that time. Moreover, they were trendsetters in what contemporary feminism became.
One of the concepts that this foundational manifesto introduced eventually became known as “The Patriarchy”. Myself, I think the idea that all men are out to oppress all women is pretty half-baked. As I wrote about the Redstockings:
Again, none of this patriarchy stuff is explained or backed up by facts. If they’re putting forth a conspiracy theory, where’s the damn theory? I’ll give them one—the patriarchs must have a secret tree fort where they decide how they’re going to be a bunch of dicks.
Note well, The Stepford Wives doesn’t actually have a secret tree fort. However, it does in fact depict a secret “Men’s Club” where evil plots are hatched and wives are turned into fembots. I can’t think of a plainer cinematic metaphor for this amorphous “Patriarchy” the feminists have been scarum-shouting about for the last several decades. The idea was pretty new back then, so this shtick in the film was a great way to introduce the concept. These days, there’s less need to state it so plainly, now that feminists have poisoned the well so much.
What’s the real deal about “The Patriarchy”? The truth is that, on the whole, straight guys usually fall all over ourselves to please women, not that it gets us much appreciation lately. Look at it another way. Men are bigger and stronger. Therefore, if the pearl-clutching feminists were right about us conspiring to subjugate all women, then what’s taking us so long? If that’s truly what we wanted (not that I’m recommending it), then we could revert relations between the sexes back to the Bronze Age. If we acted in unison, it would take less than an hour. (If women didn’t like the new status quo, what would they do – call a policeman?) Since that easy power grab hasn’t happened, it’s fair to call bullshit on this “Patriarchy” nonsense.
More seriously, as a critic of feminism, what is my evil intention? I want goodwill and harmony among the sexes again. That’s how healthy societies work.
Lana Lokteff sets it straight
So now that I’ve described all that propaganda, here’s a brief deprogramming course:
I was looking around for irreverent art, and I came across mocartoons.com by someone with the evocative name Mohammed Ibrahim. Quite likely it’s a pen name, since I’m sure he doesn’t want to get his head cut off on TV. One of his specialties is drawing the Prophet Muhammad. That’s s a serious no-no in that religion, not that he believes in it any more. I understand; I’m almost as jaded about mine and its founder.
Obviously a lot of people will get their noses bent out of shape about it. Still, his stated intention is not offense for its own sake, but rather to be witty. It’s fairly similar to my own Space Vixen Trek Episode 13: The Final Falafel, in which I poke fun at lots of religions, though in an entertaining way. Some of the cartoons have more impact than others. (Islamic jurisprudence can be a dry topic sometimes.) Still, he does have his moments. One of his classics is “Prophet Muhammad gets drunk“, in which there’s quite a confession.
Another is “Hijab in the West vs. hijab in the Muslim World“. This shows two fairly glam Muslimas in a mall, at the minimum standards of compliance, contrasted with a couple of ladies in burqas, adhering to the customs at maximum scrupulosity. That does strike a chord with me, since it grinds my gears to hear Western feminists telling us how ninja suits are “liberating”. (Heck, when are feminists NOT completely wrong?) This shows that their anti-Western agenda is more important than their ostensive goal of women’s liberation – but I digress.
Other than that, the artist draws on some generic atheist themes, some of them pretty funny. Aside from that, he does political themes too. He’s liberal, but I won’t hold it against him. All told, I came across his site and figured that I’d signal boost it.
I’m not in the best of moods right now. It’s time for some black humor. However, the topic here is pretty gross. If you’d like to skip it, no problem. I’m here to talk shit, literally.
Public defecation on the Left Coast
Exhibit A here is a map of Silicon Valley, showing the location of several giant tech corporations. Some of them track us nine ways from Sunday. Others are limousine leftists who believe it’s their purpose to censor the Internet. The following is a graphic merely of what they did after the Charlottesville setup:
Cyberspace is an international community and one would expect it to be very ideologically diverse. Still, some of the munchkins at these tech companies think the Worldwide Web should be run according to the political sensibilities of the Left Coast. And here they are:
Now look to the top left of this map. A large number of these corporations are based in San Francisco, the buckle of the Granola Belt. (This includes WordPress, my webhost here, which has started to get into the “deplatforming” craze. I have my content backed up, and if I get shut down, I know where I’ll restore it. Furthermore, I’ll come back with both barrels blazing, no holds barred.) Now look carefully at what neighborhood of SFO these corporations are in. Got that?
Now here’s a handy map of public defecation in San Francisco – and these same corporations are very close to the poop epicenter. Is this a cause, an effect, or just an evocative coinkydink – the sort of thing that Karl Jung would call synchronicity? I’m not sure, but it just gives me a warm and squishy feeling.
More seriously, DO NOT walk barefoot in San Francisco. Maybe that worked in the “flowers in your hair” 1960s, but not now. They have a hypodermic needle problem too. I haven’t been there in about twenty years, when there already was a major homeless problem, but I’ve heard that things have slid downhill. As California continues to become more vibrant, thanks to unchecked population replacement immigration that began in the mid-1960s, these trends will likely rise.
Even so, it’s not just places like San Francisco and La-La-Land. Seattle, another epicenter of poz, also has this problem. A Seattle Times article about it included the following evocative item:
Councilmember Larry Gossett said he didn’t like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists.
Oh, really? Maybe this guilt-ridden nitwit needs to hit the streets, get on his hands and knees, and scrub off his city’s poop with a toothbrush.
Open defecation around the world
This seems to be an international phenomenon. India, about to be the world’s most populous country, also happens to have the greatest public defecation problem. According to another chart I’ve seen, there are 150-200 public poopers per square kilometer. After a while, things are going to get a bit smelly, especially in densely-populated urban areas. Here’s a world public defecation map.
It’s rather strange – ancient India had the world’s first sewage system; what the heck happened to those guys? Things sure seem to have slid downhill after 4000 years. I’ve heard that they brought the custom to the USA after the Hare Krishnas came in and started teaching their customs to the 1970s burnouts they recruited. According to a story I’ve heard about one of their ashrams, they did their business on a hillside. Things didn’t seem so bad in winter when snow covered it over, but when spring came, there were lots of little surprises that had to be carefully avoided.
Anyway, I have to wonder if all that dookey in San Francisco is only from homeless guys who don’t bother to find a public bathroom. What about the H1-B employees that the tech giants are bringing in from India to drive down wages of high-tech workers? Maybe they’re adding to the steamy mounds?
Anyway, speaking of maps, here’s a world IQ map. Notice anything?
rainbowalbrecht 