Divide and conquer?

Trevalyn · 2016-12-02T09:26:01+00:00

I'm from the States, so I have an American bias. Men vs. Women, White vs. Minority, Republican vs. Democrat....These are old divisions that the powers that be use to distract us from the real conflict. Liberal policies enlarge the population that hovers around poverty, growing the political base that needs daddy government just to get by. Meanwhile, the Right rigs the system for the richest of us to become that much more wealthy. They are squeezing the middle, and putting on a horse and pony show on to distract us from it. The end goal, in my opinion, is to create a world with two classes, the very rich and the very poor.

DWShimoda · 2016-12-02T10:55:25+00:00

We live in interesting times. Brexit, Trump, migrant crisis, erosion of freedoms and things we once used to take for granted, like privacy. Rift between the sexes is growing.

There has always been a "rift" and "separation" between the sexes.

Despite all the present androgynous idiocy and ideological bullshit around "multiple/fluid genders" -- the rift IS present and it IS biological: we ARE in fact a sexually dimorphic (two and ONLY two sex/gender) species -- that is, there ARE significant differences (from bones to brains) between men & women that are beyond and distinct from merely the sexual organs.

Historically speaking, all civilizations, societies and cultures openly acknowledged, accepted, and accommodated that rift. They maintained that "rift/separation" to varying degrees and in various & sundry (i.e. different, diverse) ways: expressed everything from the architectural things like the Andron & Gynaeceum (ἀνδρών & γυναικεία) of the ancient Athenian homes; to the societal things like Gentlemen's Clubs vs Women's Societies of the British Empire, or the YMCA versus YWCA of the American industrial era, and the various Fraternities & Sororities of Colleges & Universities, etc.

The present "growing rift" is really just a natural consequence & reaction (actually a re-reaction*) to the worst nonsense of the wholly artificial "equalitarian" notions pushed via feminism/socialism (and the so called "progressivism" {an absurdly ignorant/obtuse ideologically dogmatic misnomer if ever there was one}).

* Because the "equalitaran/egalitarian" stuff (which includes not only feminism, but anti-racism & "multiculturalism" etc) is itself largely a "reaction" to the immediately prior (and arguably over-the-top in someways) social-Darwinism of eugenics and the excesses of the Victorian era. (And that too was arguably a "reaction" to the licentiousness of the immediately prior Regency/Revolution era, which in turn... etc. This stuff is all rather "cyclical" tending to veer from one extreme to another.) Nor is it any coincidence that BOTH attempt to claim the mantle of "science."

Sometimes, I can't help but think that today's feminist madness is encouraged by the higher-ups. After all, it's much easier to rule over (and pass all sorts of Orwellian laws, what the hell, UK?) the proletariat if you encourage infighting, especially if it's between the sexes.

I don't think there is ANY doubt at all that much of the present social "battles" are a direct result of an elite pushing a specific "agenda" (there are a plethora of documents from various "establishment" think tanks and other organizations & entities about exactly that, even often openly named with the word "Agenda" and forthright statements about "changing society" and engaging in "social engineering" including not the least, the "gender roles" etc.)

Whether the sole (or even primary) goal is to create "infighting" is a bit more debatable -- in fact I think "infighting" is not the goal at all, but rather simply a consequence of other goals of the elite establishment echelons: chiefly the undermining/subversion of the "middle class" as a political power; an ending of "social mobility" (via economics) and a return to a sort of "feudalistic" class & caste based society (essentially a two-tiered one).

Nor again is that anything unusual -- once they reach an upper echelon, people have ALWAYS sought to "establish" themselves (and their families) in a sort of permanently ensconced high-status -- which generally only lasts a generation or two before being overturned by one means or another -- that too is both predictable, and cyclical. All that really changes is the specifics of the mechanisms (variations on a theme) by which they attempt to achieve that goal.

I find it increasingly hard to not believe there's a covert demasculinisation campaign going on, because after all, if there's one gender that's likely to fight back, it's men, and we all know it.

I disagree with the idea that it is at all covert -- in fact I think it the "de-masculinisation/emasculation" (and in many ways also a "de-feminization"* as well) is entirely overt even BLATANT and openly stated & promoted.

I also disagree that only Men will (or are capable) of "fighting back" -- women are MORE that capable of fighting back as well, they just do so in a wholly different manner, via generally different means -- and in fact, I think a lot of the things that we are seeing at present (college girls seeking 'sugar daddy' arrangements, even women becoming "welfare moms" and using the state as "daddy/hubby" etc) are some ways that women are in fact (and in their own manner) "fighting" the main feminist/socialist push towards "androgyny" (i.e. the so called "independent career woman" etc).

Also, ironic as it may seem, the over-the-top demands of the more radical feminists -- pushing things like "yes means yes" etc -- are really (in the end) just re-establishing that women are NOT the "equals" of men; because they are rejecting their own "agency" and "personal responsibility" ... and eventually (if they continue to push in the direction of making DEMANDS of "authority") it will end up right back with "authority" reasserting control over female sexual activity (in one form or another -- quite probably via some kind of "segregation" of the sexes).

I'd note that we're also seeing somewhat the SAME kind of thing happening with "race" -- the special snowflake SJW demands regarding race, specifically demanding special "privileged" and "separate" facilities, etc -- are ultimately leading right BACK towards OVERT "segregation." (They THINK this time with the minorities being gifted with some "on top" position/status -- but I guarantee you it doesn't/won't work; that kind of thing has already been tried many time before {cf things like minority "housing projects"} because while they can be "gifted" better facilities, they never maintain them, entropy reasserts itself, and only merit/effort can controvert it {i.e. taking someone who lived in a squalid hovel and gifting them a "mansion" doesn't make them "rich", it just increases the level/degree of the squalor/waste}).

* In the sense of undermining, subverting, and eliminating traditional/historical "femininity" in women -- i.e. civility, and a lady-like "deference" or humility -- in favor of a promiscuous, licentious "androgynous pseudo-male" bisexual/lesbian version of females. (Cf Rachel Maddow, Lena Dunham, et al.)

dot_dot_beep · 2016-12-02T15:45:05+00:00

I don't doubt that there's a political agenda behind pushing these demographic divides. But ultimately it comes down to both parties, and women have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of actualization, awareness. The social is their religion and they buy whatever the narrative hook, line & sinker.

They're useful idiots.

NaughtyFred · 2016-12-02T15:51:07+00:00

dons tinfoil hat

This might bake your noodle:

Factor II - Father The man of the household must be housebroken to ensure that junior will grow up with the right social training and attitudes. The advertising media, etc., are engaged to see to it that father-to-be is pussy-whipped before or by the time he is married. He is taught that he either conforms to the social notch cut out for him or his sex life will be hobbled and his tender companionship will be zero. He is made to see that women demand security more than logical, principled, or honorable behavior.

By the time his son must go to war, father (with jelly for a backbone) will slam a gun into junior's hand before father will risk the censure of his peers, or make a hypocrite of himself by crossing the investment he has in his own personal opinion or self-esteem. Junior will go to war or father will be embarrassed. So junior will go to war, the true purpose not withstanding.

Factor III - Mother The female element of human society is ruled by emotion first and logic second. In the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins, fantasy prevails, maternal instinct dominates so that the child comes first and the future comes second. A woman with a newborn baby is too starry-eyed to see a wealthy man's cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor.

A woman must, however, be conditioned to accept the transition to "reality" when it comes, or sooner. As the transition becomes more difficult to manage, the family unit must be carefully disintegrated, and state-controlled public education and state-operated child-care centers must be become more common and legally enforced so as to begin the detachment of the child from the mother and father at an earlier age. Inoculation of behavioral drugs [Ritalin] can speed the transition for the child (mandatory). Caution: A woman's impulsive anger can override her fear. An irate woman's power must never be underestimated, and her power over a pussy-whipped husband must likewise never be underestimated. It got women the vote in 1920.

From the "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" conspiracy theory, supposedly the elites global policy since at least the late 70's. Scary how closely it resembles reality, isn't it?

metaqaulone · 2016-12-02T16:10:43+00:00

The NWO feudal system will suck for women, I will be too dead to care cause there's no way I'm going out like a slave. The post industrial zero growth societies will create post feminist females, mgtow will be be post caring about you're ass. The excuses that society always makes for women that goes like, 'they're the weaker sex', 'the fairer sex', 'women & children first', 'Men needs to man up and cuckold' is rediculous, no dignity there, so the blue pill conspiracy is just as bad as the NWO conspiracy. Marriage is a phyrric victory these days, don't get married even if her father pays the dowry in gold.

igor_bloodscene · 2016-12-02T16:37:21+00:00

the kalergi plan, the iron mountain report, and so many others.

imo it's not a coincidence.

LetsGoAllTheWhey · 2016-12-02T23:10:25+00:00

I agree with you. I've posted similar comments in other subs and on other sites and nobody seems to get it.

Somebody is pulling the strings on a global level and people in the know are ignoring it.

Title	Divide and conquer?
Author	pooshhMao
Upvotes	9
Comments	9
Date	December 2, 2016 7:46 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/5g23w7/divide_and_conquer/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/divide-and-conquer.620070 https://theredarchive.com/post/620070

Comments

There has always been a "rift" and "separation" between the sexes.