~ archived since 2018 ~

Angry Harry – ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine’

ernestbelfortbax

April 13, 2014

5 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://theantifeminist.com/angry-harry-eleanor-of-aquitaine/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Angry Harry – ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine’
Author	ernestbelfortbax
Upvotes	5
Comments	3
Date	April 13, 2014 9:56 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/22wxz7/angry_harry_eleanor_of_aquitaine/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/angry-harry-eleanor-of-aquitaine.1001719 https://theredarchive.com/post/1001719

Comments

[–]rbrockway 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, lack of votes could have something to do with that blog's unfortunate design. The link to Angry Harry himself has no permanence However, you may also like his other articles on debunking the narrative of feminism.

I fully agree that history should be VERY important to people, especially to MRAs, considering their history.

Without a correct historical narrative all sorts of cognitive dissonance can be leveraged. First comes the fallacy that the sins of the grandparents should be paid by their innocent grandchildren, which is a prime component of feminism embodied as "privilege". It is that first acceptance of selection bias and cognitive dissonance over plain observation by which feminism filters new useful-idiots into their numbers and keeps the rational out. The rest of feminism is anti-rational feeling based reasoning, confirmation bias and identity politics which carrying on just as Engels first did when he created feminism by assuming that it was men's desire to control the female sex that caused women to be disadvantaged. The man who invented feminism ignored the realities of gestation and devalued the parenting role, claiming the "nuclear family" (the family unit) institutionally oppressed women's freedom. Thus destruction of the family, devaluing of women, and limiting women's and men's choices through historical revisionism has always been a prime modus operandi of feminism. Indeed, are not re-interpreting results of studies a form of historical revisionism in the short term?

Aside: Just once I'd like to see a "wage gap" study that attempts to valuate the parenting role by equating it with child care costs the family needn't spend. Attribute that value to women and see how much of a "gap" actually exists... Seriously, what rational woman would accept the feminist dogma that they are worthless unless employed by a corporation?

Feminism is clearly now corpro-statist brainwashing of the highest degree. Don't forget both Marx and his close chum Engels were first and foremost economists: We'll have 2x the workers! We can better indoctrinate kids in cheap 24/7 nurseries! Normalize the method of human reproduction! What can possibly go wrong?! Of course, if feminists actually studied the history of feminism they'd see how certain foundational assumptions completely stand untested despite decades of "research" by modern day feminists. They'd also see how these initial misandric assumptions influence all of modern feminism's studies and "theories". It's quite revolting to any who apply the methods of rationality.

A while back I saw a couple of very female centric period pieces on PBS, one about a child delivery practice, and the other about WWII code breakers. DVRs, Encyclopedias and the Internet allowed my friends and family to pause and debate the accuracy of several portrayals therein. We quickly solidified the notion that the shows were painting a very different picture than what had actually occurred or would have occurred in those times and cultures. The shows were still enjoyable but they left a bad taste in our mouths. Now every time the shows coincide with my maker hobby get-together, we can't help but choke on the vile taste of historical revisionism. Some will start mumbling and end shouting out the inconsistencies as the shows go on. It is very entertaining to watch. Dissecting period pieces has become like a Mystery Science Theater 3000 for history buffs, and a disgusting trend is to erase and demonize men and needlessly victimize females. Often one will spout, "If they really wanted to show something terrible that happened to a woman they'd have..." So, often the shows and movies are needlessly inaccurate, where they could have been informative instead they are deceptive. It's not just the added embellishment of domestic abuse and very poor portrayal what a reaction to it would have been, it was also the erasure of men and women who don't fit their sexist victim-narrative.

Point being: Starting with a disparate group of a-political history enthusiasts, It's now commonly acknowledged that media is sexist against men, and some have even discovered for themselves the MRM. I love that awkward moment when two MRAs cautiously try to introduce each other to the MRM and realize they're both MRAs, and further that they're not alone. Thanks History!

Historical revisionism brain-damages everyone, not just the feminists; It is the enemy of the MRM, and society in general.

Another common falsehood I find even in supposed reputable historical programming is that the Wright Brothers invented the airplane. They most certainly did not. A simple search of the patent database will show you the fact. I mean, they didn't even invent the propeller, they simply added the wing shape to its blades. Look at your ceiling fan, how does it work with flat blades? The bird-shaped wing has little to do with flight at all; It is the angle of attack of the wing. Remember the folded paper wing, curved on top, you're made to blow on to show the Bernoulli Principal? Well, I've always been a scientist, so I turned mine upside down and blew across it, and it had the same effect... If the wing shape mattered so much then how do planes fly upside down? That's because it's the angle of attack that matters instead. The Bernoulli principal is only a minor contribution to the physics of flight. Even a biologist will note that other things fly quite well without bird-shaped wings, take dragonflies for example.

Despite my reasoned arguments my Jr High science teacher persisted in complete ignorance of reality. This was my first brush with indoctrinated historical revisionism and I learned how strong and devastating the cognitive dissonance can be. I felt forced to disabuse my teacher of Bernoulli Bullshit and demonstrate the facts of flying, much to her chagrin, by replacing my RC airplane's wings with barn-doors from my train set, and flying it around the football field instead of coming to class. The class watched from the window as I earned a week of detention: Unfortunately, my teacher broke down and cried when I lambasted her for teaching whatever lies school books said without checking them first. Through historical fact checking we both became aware of the indoctrination in every subject of school. However, our science class became instantly more enjoyable as we then did experiments to verify the claims in the books and everyone's grades improved. She became my favorite teacher and historical correction co-conspirator, because she had to open her mind after confronted with a sufficiently sensational scandal. She couldn't ignore her students demanding to know how my plane could fly with flat wings.

The Wrights made an improvement to wing design, then went around bashing everyone else in the head with their patents. They were a detestable lot, and we'd have all been better off without them, as evidenced by the bullshit Bernoulli "shape of the wing" shit they still teach in school as the prime mechanism of flight, instead of simple Newtonian forces that make your hand go up or down when hanging it out a car window and deflecting the relative wind. The simpleminded distrusted airplanes so airliner corporations sought to promote this incomprehensible (to them) seemingly magic reason that air planes stay aloft -- Despite seeing birds fly the ignorant masses just couldn't grasp that air is dense enough to hold scaled up bird or airplane aloft. In other words, historical revisionism is literally retarding.

Feminism can only exist because it is possible to raise a generation to believe such obvious bullshit that's easily disprovable by observation and simple experimentation or the slightest bit of fact checking. If you ever believed Bernoulli's Principal made airplanes fly and not the same Newtonian forces that make fish fins and insect wings work, then you can understand how feminists can be deceived, and see that the solution is to teach kids not to trust the bullshit their elders or educators say just because they're "Academics".

Historical revisionism is the enemy of every free society, since it leaves us unable to make informed decisions.

[–]rbrockway 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link