In the wintry months of early 1692, two daughters of the local Salem pastor Reverend Parris began to have awful fits of bizarre behavior. The two, Abigail Williams (11) and Betty Parris (9), would scream and cry randomly, crawl around on all fours, destroy property and contort themselves in frightful ways. Parris was concerned and had the local doctor examine the young girls. The doctor found nothing medically wrong with them. A pastor of a nearby town suggested to Parris that the behavior was beyond natural and very well could be due to the machinations of Satan.
Salem was a small village situated in what is currently Massachusetts. After the Glorious Revolution in England, many strong Christian Calvinists, self-styled as Puritans, fled Europe and headed for the American colonies to escape religious persecution. Most settled in what is modern New England. They formed many self-governing villages and towns that were based exclusively on their interpretation of the Bible. Children were only taught the Bible and access to knowledge was controlled by pastors and powerful religious leaders.
Rules about social comportment were extensive and complicated. Deviations, however slight, were regarded with great suspicion. Salem, itself, was a particularly loathsome town, with incredible amounts of petty disputes and a very heated family feud between the Putnam and Porter families—most likely the impetus for the witch hunt.
At this juncture of American history, Satan was widely believed to have a great and constant presence in the world. Witches were thought to be agents of Satan and sought to target people to advance Satan’s agenda—often young girls. Cotton Mather, a prominent religious figure, disseminated a great number of pamphlets in the years leading up to the trials exhorting the real and palpable evil of witchcraft. He detailed the effects of witchcraft and who would engage in it.
After knowledge became public about the local pastor’s daughter’s fits, a town meeting was called as more young women became to emulate these two girls’ behavior. At the meeting, the young girls would interrupt the proceedings multiple times, convulsing on the floor and screaming at the top of their lungs.
At the outset, three women were arrested—a homeless beggar, a black slave, and a prominent but poor and unpopular woman who was a member of the rival family. All three violated the codes of Puritan life and nobody bothered to defend them. In court, the three were subjected to intense interrogation for about a week, with the black woman, Tituba, confessing she signed a deal with Satan and was an agent of his bidding. This confession sparked an absolute maelstrom over the course of spring and summer in the village.
The two girls, plus a girl named Ann Putnam Jr., began to level accusations of witchcraft against over 50 people, and they all were summarily arrested and subjected to interrogation over the spring. People who questioned the proceedings were arrested. Any dissent from the process was looked at with extreme prejudice.
In order to prove the accusation, a contentious issue was the admissibility of “spectral evidence.” Spectral evidence refers to testimony of the accuser that the accused came to them in the form of a specter or spirit. It was hypothesized that said power only could be granted by Satan himself. There was significant debate over the legitimacy and admissibility of said evidence. Cotton Mather remitted a treatise to the court in Salem that spectral evidence should be admissible, but cautioned that it is never sufficient for a conviction.
The court ignored Mather’s contention and began to issue convictions based purely on spectral evidence. Accusations continued to pile up and eventually hangings took place on a what would infamously be known as “Gallows Hill.” Bridget Bishop was the first person to be hanged as punishment. This caused the presiding judge to resign, as he grew disillusioned with the proceedings. It was rumored he became an alcoholic as a result of his participation in the trials.
Over the course of the summer in 1692, 19 people were hanged, with a slight majority of them being women. In September, a man who refused to enter a plea after being indicted was crushed to death after being subject to “peine forte et dure,” a punishment during which he had heavy stones placed on his body until he either died or entered a plea.
At this point, Increase Mather (Cotton Mather’s father and President of Harvard) become a strong critic of the proceedings and refused to acknowledge any legitimacy of spectral evidence. He had a famous quote, enshrined by Blackstone:
It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned
The Governor of Massachusetts colony, after his wife was questioned about witchcraft, issued a stay on any more prosecutions and executions and formed his own court to try the remaining accusations. All but three people were released and not tried by this court because their indictments were based purely on spectral evidence.
In the aftermath, there was much consternation over the trials, as many convictions were overturned by the end of decade. Many leaders began to criticize the proceedings and their supporters. As it stands this day, all the convictions have been overturned, all deceased members allowed back into the church and the innocence of all formally recognized. Abigail Williams, the most notorious accuser, did publicly apologize for her behavior about a decade later.
The underlying psychology that lead to the zealous witch hunt in Salem never went away in America, it merely went into hiding. It has erupted from time to time as moral panics—as such McCarthyism and the McMartin Preschool debacle—but, generally, it has been repressed and expressed as America’s famed Protestant work ethic. While this work ethic has been largely displaced by America’s culture of narcissism, moral puritanism still exists in one key demographic: feminists.
First off, moral puritanism is clinically referred to as “Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder.” Personality disorders are recurrent unhealthy thought patterns that result in predictable routines or behavior. Obsessive-Compulsives are characterized by their love of work, their perfectionism, and their profound emotional and moral constriction. They do not only consider themselves to be moral superiors to any non-compulsive, but they also seek to convert the world to their unhealthy thought patterns.
Inside every Obsessive-Compulsive—which shall be referred to as a puritan going forward—is an anti-social desperate to claw its way to the surface. Unable to reconcile their bad thoughts with their good ones, they engage in a form of emotional constriction that causes them to become obsessed with control. In their own minds, they engage in incredible amounts of obsessing over work or moral judgmentalism of others to avoid dealing with their own superficially repressed anti-social behavior. They want to rebel and give into their adolescent anti-social desires, but their supreme desire for control means they never indulge those impulses, nor do they recognize that others sense those impulses in them.
Furthermore, puritans have one massive flaw in their thought patterns: the inability to distinguish between process and product. In his book Emotional Vampires, Dr. Albert J. Bernstein observes that the difference between product and process is that product is what a person or group is trying to do and process is how a person or group goes about it. These are distinct points that need to be separated to understand puritans as he states:
Obsessive-Compulsives habitually confuse process with product. To them, how something is done can become more important than whether it gets done at all…Obsessive-Compulsives tend to think that there is only one way to achieve any goal.
Since puritans are primarily interested in control, they bog others down in drowning amounts of details, needless critiques of slight deviations of what they think the process should be, and the general impulse to criticize over rectify. They don’t want change, but rather desire a maintenance of the status quo so they can repress their own impulses. Giving them free reign over achieving a product allows them to purse what they really want: control over the process.
This week, over at Forbes, Bill Frezza got pitchforked by puritans over an article on the relation between fraternities and drunk women. Frezza—understandably worried about drunk women around men in our current cultural milieu—wrote a piece about how to limit a fraternity’s liabilities in the face of widespread female drunkenness. He got burned at the stake quickly, with Forbes deleting the article and firing him immediately. National treasure Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel did a great job of fusing female hysteria with moral puritanism:
But I understand the need for constant vigilance [emphasis mine]. If Forbes didn’t want a column like this in its house, it should have stopped Bill Frezza at the door rather than letting him in to shit up the joint. It only takes one drunk female or idiot blowhard to ruin things for everybody.
Ryan’s response to Frezza’s inartful, but correct, article is telling. Ryan lauds some of Frezza’s recommendations—but always qualifies them, as she sees herself as superior to a dude-bro like Frezza—but she beats Frezza over the head with her delusional sense of moral superiority. She takes Frezza’s article which is only partially about sexual assault and rape and makes it completely about sexual transgressions. Frezza cites the issue of women falling to their death off balconies when they are drunk, but puritans like Ryan don’t care about that unless they are doing the pushing—excuse me, others are doing the pushing. Puritans like Ryan are only outwardly concerned with controlling the anti-social impulses of others.
Just like with the Salem Witch Trials, modern feminism is little more than a gang of puritans looking for their next score. Instead of doing this in real life, their hunting grounds are online. Their tribunals are not court rooms or places of worship, but the new places of worship in America: Twitter, the left-wing blogosphere, etc. Their accusers might not be girls but grown women with a political agenda.
Reconsider the concept of spectral evidence. The necessarily back-and-forth nature of sexual assault or rape accusations mirrors admissibility of spectral evidence. Since spectral evidence is wholly about the perception of the declarant, consider this caption of a YouTube comment about Sam Pepper (who did a sexual assault prank and posted it on YouTube):
This isn’t about what Sam Pepper did, but about how women like Miriam see the world. Not only do they assume the worst in those around them, but they are looking for ways to control others’ behavior in a negative way based on punishment. As. Dr. Bernstein observed:
[Puritans] try to make the world safe for truth, justice and love, using censorship, punishment and cruelty. They never realize that they’re the primary instigators of the forces of evil that they labor so hard to combat.
A puritan’s life—feminist, Christian, whatever—revolves around punishing those around them for thoughts they spend their entire lives repressing. This could result in the Salem Witch Trials: prosecuting people for giving into Satan. It could also result in attacking young men on college campuses for associating with men or #GamerGate.
For feminists, it is about controlling their own anti-social impulses. Just like in the Salem Witch Trials, they come across as bullies because they are bullies. Their supreme desire to control the impulses of others are nothing more than the extension of their own desire to suppress and control their own impulses.
Modern feminism, then, is little more than a repackaged version of the Salem Witch Trials. The feminine hysteria, the inability to consider real evidence, and the swarming nature of the phenomenon are all indicative of its puritanical nature.
“The Salem Witch Trials were the rock on which the theocracy shattered.”
…George Burr
It’s interesting to note that in the weeks after the Ray Rice incident, a modern witch hunt has begun.
People really have moved on from that. Maybe you should too.
No they haven’t. The media is still in a frenzy.
People have, the media has not. The Ray Rice thing is the tip of the iceberg.
That ape got what he deserved
All aboard! The pseudo-hero train has arrived.
as I was coming towards the end of this article, I realized a really strange parallel: that those that excuse other people for performing witchcraft are almost of themselves performing witchcraft. Think about it, you get a whole bunch of people making accusations, then you start bringing up spectral evidence which is nothing more than saying whatever the hell you want and it being accepted by the prosecutors, and then going forward with the Lynch mentality and carrying out the accusers will. So who’s really the witch?
very clever and a conclusion that i have been coming to myself, although you put it perfectly…..
the whole homophobic issue for example….. it’s well known that gay men are disgusted with their behavior on some level, and thus the real homophobes are the homos…. i couldn’t care less so long as they keep their sexuality to themselves…… (but they never can, it’s always an issue) …. and that is why they have to make an issue out of it.
sure there have been terrible cases of people being attacked on the color of their skin, religion, sexuality etc. but firstly these cases are far less important than the way the people feel about themselves.
if a black man feels bad about himself because he is in a white dominated area…. his own insecurities can project onto those around him who reciprocate by treating him accordingly…….
if i am a jew surrounded by Christians, my own paranoia might create a situation where I am treated like an outcast…..
all of this basically boils down to passive aggressive…. and of course that is a trait that gets passed down the generations from parents to children…. it becomes a way of communicating…… and a way of being persecuted and manifesting your own dis-empowerment and guilt.
Slave morality as nietzsche called it.
Oppression gives identity.
This is all very true but aside from women who are thoroughly happy and can use rational or women who truly just want a happy life, the amount of hate mongering is akin to the old hunting of witches and “nigger” lovers. I don’t know about anyone else but what are women fighting for? We don’t rape, we employ them more than men now, they have a higher chance of getting a high paying job at a lower salary ( not too different from affirmative action), they can avoid child support thoroughly, leave a man homeless and not be viewed detrimentally, and enter any field of their choosing by simply calling sexism. The last statement is liberal because some fields require harder work than some women who claim equality are looking to do.
If you have the unfortunate reality of seeing a feminist make a post on social media, you would think there is a war on women supported by men. We rape, put them down, want them to marry men they don’t like, and pay them less on the job. It is all a man’s fault and until equality is reached it is still a man’s fault. While seeing their comments which ranged from damn misogynist, I would never have sex with him, thank you for removing yourself from the gene pool, [email protected]( you and so on, there is little more than unadulterated anger being expressed. I want to talk with them but they seem no different than flaming heads or rabid dogs. And you can’t reason with a rabid dog.
they get all of the prizes because they know at any moment they can just cry which and get the person that was “oppressing” them in serious trouble. It’s not so much the fact that they won, it’s that they want to do less while getting more, and then maintaining that status quo.
I wouldn’t be surprised that the women that Abigail girl was accusing of witchcraft we’re just people she didn’t like. The fact that she had to apologize for such a thing clearly denotes she knew what she was doing. You have to assume that most feminists are doing the exact same thing.
The goal is feminine suzerainty and masculine thralldom…MRA’s are just like JoAnna at the end of “The Stepford Wives”…when Dale Coba / Diz pays her a final compliment… “You were…smarter than most.”…LOL.
As per a feminist:
1 out of every 5 American women has reported experiencing rape in her lifetime. For American men, it’s 1 in 71.
White (cis-gender) American women earn 78% of what their white male counterparts earn. Black (cis-gender) American women earn 89% of what their Black male counterparts earn and 64% of what their white male counterparts earn. Latina (cis-gender) women earn 89% of what their Latino male counterparts earn and 53% of what their white male counterparts earn.
Only 4.8% of Fortune 500 CEO’s are women.
While I am grateful for her facts it seems overall, every group earns less than a white woman, who in turn earns less than a white man. This is more racial specific and I can understand the arguments against rape and economic dispersal. However, the things that need to be addressed are schools, jobs and racial equality. The problem with believing the stats on rape is everything besides rape is rape. Rape is typically the forced entry and the involuntary use of a person’s body for sexual means. Forced and a late game rescind or even post coitus rescind are far more likely now due to mistaken beliefs in the 1 in 5 stat. Are women being raped? Sure. Is it higher than 1 in 71? Absolutely. But to promote a rape culture, support men hating their agency, and vilifying men as a whole when your issues are money, protection of agency and a right to choose don’t destroy the group you say you need the power from.
The 78 cents on every dollar exaggeration has long ago been discredited and it has no place in any rational discussion about feminism.
Just quoting a feminist argument given in relation to Emma Watson and illustrating how it more about inequality and less sexism. But if that argument is gone and more women are employed, they lose the argument over wealth distribution.
I’ve never ever seen any workplace where a woman was payed less for equal amount of work in a particular job position.
When a women spouts the 78 cents per dollar meme at you in defence of feminism you know right theres she is not basing her political ideas on anything she has actually experienced.
I’m afraid Obama hasn’t read the memo.
“I wouldn’t be surprised that the women that Abigail girl was accusing of witchcraft we’re just people she didn’t like”
I believe historically that’s how many – perhaps most – accusations originated. Alleging witchcraft was a very effective way of settling a dispute (over land in particular). Mysterious / unexplained deaths also required a scapegoat though, and then the local eccentric crone / wierdo was also likely to be fingered.
I don’t think it is higher than 1 in 71. I’m talking about women being raped too. I know that stat was in regards to men but I’m making a point about how extraordinarily FOS the stats are. The true violent crime rape in Detroit is 2%. That includes murder, agg. assault, rape and a few others. In Detroit it’s two percent. In safer communities, I really don’t think more than 1 in 71 women are being raped. The infamous 1 in 5 (soon to be 1 in 4 then, oh hell why not? 1 in 3) is a cooked book experiment to a laughable degree.
Same here. If anything, women will get paid more and eveyone knows that. This is not even yet factoring in the silly HR departments the size of the pentagon that are built up to employ women so that the hiring percentages are balanced as the law requires. None of them are innovators, engineers, or producers in any way so bring on the sensitivity training workshops full of useless upworthy-style sentiments that 99% of males have been on board with since they were 8 years old anyway.
Clueless and delusional: this stat doesn’t match with my gut feeling, based on nothing, so the stat must be full of shit.
Its seems that the worst persecution comes from older more ugly women on younger more prettier witches.
It’s been debunked and the extent of the experimental bias is hilarious. Look it up. Actually, don’t. Stay in your little mangina world.
Obviously, you don’t know that it is illegal to pay women less than men for the same work and has been since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. So stop spouting mindless bullshit.
It was a quote used in the argument to help flesh out feminism used by a feminist. Asking questions helps verify facts.
True. Women typically work more superficial jobs to begin with. Men usually take on more meaningful productive jobs, with more hours and skill requirements. Of course some men make more than a nail ‘artist’ or waitress… If women didn’t work for a day, the world would run fine. Only the education and medical industry would be affected. If men didn’t work for a day, everything that keeps society in place would collapse, especially facebook and the utilities, law enforcement, military, I could go on and on… There is no true wage gap, that honestly bothers me because women might actually get overpaid!
I think you’re on to something. Nearly all of leftism / anti-hate politics can be explained in terms of projection. This is why you have an insistence on ‘not blaming the victim’. Not blaming the victim means, ‘no-returns’, which in turn means not analysing the cycle of violence that may have been involved in producing and reproducing the ‘hate’ targeted, or worse examining the possibility that what is presented as defence is actually a disguised attack (think false flag attacks)
Unabomber manifesto addresses that leftists project their own insecurities and self-hate onto other people.
He was an incredibly bright guy, but his opinions wont count for much given what he did
If a blind man says the sky is blue, it doesn’t make it less true.
I don’t remember his manifesto very well, but I remember being amazed at how clever and insightful some of the things he was saying were. Because of what he did though his work can’t really be referenced as an authority in the same way as if he didn’t do those things That’s not a moral judgement, its an acknowledgement of how moral ‘authority’ works in debate. I’ve had arguments about the marxist Althusser for example and one way of ‘winning’ an argument for instance is to point out that he killed his wife. That weakens his moral authority with respect to a movement that claims to be about a higher morality. I’m not saying the unabomber should be ignored – Althusser is for example still hugely influential – but just doubting his usefulness (besides marxists get away with murder, nobody else does)
The hell you say?
Great point Mobius. A group of millenials positively overflowing with their anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-gay self-congratulation festivals will be the first to hate, judge and marginalize white males purely for their race, gender, and heteronormative state. Old story. Very stale addition to the thread, sorry.
I think this kind of rebuttal only makes sense with regard to the feasibility of the morality.
What I mean is… if the person who advocates for a particular morality can’t live up to that morality, then perhaps it is simply not feasible.
But if a murderer says that killing people is wrong, does that mean it is right? You still have to come up with an argument pro or against the actual act of murder to draw a conclusion.
Btw I don’t know anything about the unabomber. Just argewinwitcha 🙂
Thanks. I didn’t realise it was old re. connexions to feminism etc. though
“But if a murderer says that killing people is wrong, does that mean it is right?”
Kind of ‘yes and no’ . Think we both need to read up on the unabomber
I just wanted to add to your mentioning of projection. It happens all over the place. Also, my final line was in regards to my own point and not yours. I hope that was clear.
Thanks, yes projection is a big part of what is going on today
I find it interesting that the witch trials were blamed on religion, when what they really were were teenaged girl’s vicious attention-baiting.
Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible” plays that aspect of it up. Good point.
The man who was pressed to death was Giles Corey. He is one of my personal heroes. Corey was an elderly man who wanted what remained of his estate to pass to his heirs–conviction meant his estate would be forfeited to the Crown. Back in those days, a refusal to enter a plea meant that he could not be tried. Insofar as jury trials had resulted in zero acquittals, Corey refused to play their game.
Over the course the torture that led, ultimately to his death, Corey was asked several times to enter a plea, each time he replied “More weight”. This was correctly interpreted by the authorities to mean “FUCK YOU!” This type of determination in the face of one’s ultimate demise can only be applauded. It also means that Corey should not only be viewed as a victim of religious zealotry, but also a martyr in the struggle against an out-of-control, confiscatory government.
À bientôt,
Mistral
As per Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
But let’s not forget the second part of the admonition, “There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.”
To me, the two quotes go together regardless of provenance.
Being a good man requires a certain dedication fueled by properly understanding the enemy. This is no crusade. A good man is content to be left alone, but he knows that he probably won’t be.
The enemy’s narcissism makes them much like the Terminator. Their destructive rampage won’t even result in a positive emotion on their part. Your demise will bring neither calm nor satisfaction to them. Their hate will continue, automatic, robotic, as it were.
Why do you have to leave a signature after every post you make acting as if you’re somebody special?
Bis bald,
Danny
Because he can, and he wants to. Nothings stopping you from doing it.
Buttered toast,
Dick
Wow. That is some petty stuff right there.
Yeah what a tosser.
Hot soup,
bob.
I love the fact that intelligent value-added comments like this get upvoted to the top on ROK. It’s what makes reading the comments section worthwhile and gives me faith in the type of people that read ROK. There’s no comparison with the kind of illogical, profanity-laced rants that get hundreds of votes on the feminazi sites.
Thanks for the props. Sure, sometimes, guys just need to vent, but, to me, “red pill” communities are (or should be) about brothers helping brothers with Game, along with some broader principles applicable to every day life, and also, ideally, how to be better men.
While anger can be cathartic, in the end, it’s better to come out, well “better” rather than bitter.
À bientôt,
Mistral
“If you’re betrayed, release disappointment at once.
By that way, the bitterness has no time to take root.”
― Toba Beta, My Ancestor Was an Ancient Astronaut
I think it’s also nice to just be able to express some of the substance of the mind. The inherent value of this does not always have to be elaborated upon.
It’s just one of those curious things, that phenomenon of what’s inherently valuable to which communities.
Aside from the trolls and boys who still need validation. This site is a place of truth.
This describes leftists in general. They can’t stand anyone having a different opinion, even if that person isn’t bothering them with it.
“We don’t tolerate the intolerant” is a dog whistle for equalists to define anything they fear as ‘hate’, as though their views on reality is shaped by their emotions.
I’m not sure that’s true anymore. Equality appeals to young extroverted men because they haven’t built the social/financial status they need to be as dominant over women as they’d like to be. They want the privilege of this status, but know that gaining it would mean giving up their cool guitar guy lifestyle. The access to sex is bound up in this contradiction between broke guitar guy and rich established guy. So they want the government to just fix it for them, to enforce a synthesis for them.
Women like equality, it’s part of their social instinct. However, they want equality within their social clique. Outcast women will be thrown far under the bus. Invisible men even more so.
This is the dynamic that defeats equality. Once enough people outside of the social clique get ‘equality’, women lose interest in it. And men grow up.
Feminism, on the other hand, seems to be a much more poisonous religion. For the reasons discussed.
And, I feel like ‘hate’ is a hateful term. It’s a way to throw a label at someone to try and take away their humanity in the absence of due process. I don’t think non hateful people throw that label at anyone. It would be a more academic thing.
“And, I feel like ‘hate’ is a hateful term.”
I’m not trying to sound like an asshole when I say this, but no duh.
anyway, I think the problem with feminism is that thy constantly use the term equality, but that’s not what they’re aiming for. They’re either looking to have equality through handicap, because women don’t have the physical strength of men, more so that they don’t inherit an actual logical process to do some of the work that men do, or they just simply want to dominate.
I remember reading in the comment section of another article either a week or 2 weeks back and somebody commented that all feminists really want is to be able to snap your fingers and have a guard just take away whatever man is in front of them. For any reason. That left me slightly disturbed because he was on to something. That looks to be the direction we’re heading in.
This ‘snapping of fingers’ form of cunt craft in action is here AND HAS LANDED. There are places where you can actually witness such a complete absence of due process for the males and where empowered females walk about like the human women with leashes on planet of the apes – where the men would be likened to the apes.
The timeless tenets of jurisprudence are all but absent for male heads of households in the lowest socioeconomic echelons (no, not hobo camps – the bowie knife rules) rather in subsidised housing developments and the bottom rent districts and working poor blue collar bedroom communities. AND IT COULD MAKE IT’S WAY TO YOUR quiet residence.
The tenets of RPROVABILITY, ADMISSABILITY and RELEVENCE are non existant for the working poor families, especially the men, and one can witness violations of rights that are comparable to the gross violations we see in the current outbreak of assorted purges occurring worldwide.
Just turn on the police scanner. Listen how the cops scramble to respond to a ‘domestic’. Like a bunch of F-16’s that just saw a UFO, all units respond to domestic disturbances with sirens blazing. Ten fucking squad cars race by you doing 100mph and you turn on the scanner to find it’s about some cunt trying to do a preying mantis on the man. Kids in the house and dad won’t leave. Big fucking deal, right? The pigs come primed and ready to shoot Jack right in front of the house that Jack built. Hey they come to snuff the rooster as from the Alice and Chains lyric.
If the man lives to see the magistrate – to receive his protective order and walking papers – THIS IS WHEN THE FINGER SNAPPING can be witnessed firsthand. Say the guy wants to talk sense into the ding bat at the steps of the courthouse. The woman literally ‘whistles’ a deputy over who comes clutching his sidearm. SHE LITERALLY WHISTLES. If she doesn’t motion dad away, a casa worker or some sort of sjw socialist worker will summon white knight force IN HER BEHALF if she doesn’t complete going through the motions of the mantis ritual with the ejected male.
With no representation or a public defender, this scenario is inevitable for many working class men today. Financial levity may stave off the likely hood of swat removal and result in a more gentlemanly division of assets, the man getting to keep his life of course. But above all we are witnessing a real purge going on. Drive by the projects and look at the fat whores on the porches and balconies. They actually believe the cops are there to remove the male once the female has been fertilized. Just like a mantis.
I’m a white man living in the ghetto. I don’t need you to tell me this shit, I see it every fucking time I Drive through the neighborhood.
Feminist are today what the Puritans were in the 17th century.
In the 17th century Christianity was the unquestionable orthodoxy religion of the day. Puritanism was the extreme, cartoonist, fantastical version of that very same Christianity. Anyone who steeped out of line was called an ‘witch’, ‘heretic’, ‘heathan’ ect….The minority held power because they were just the extreme of the already majority.
In the 21th century Post-Modernism, Progressiveism, and Political Correctness is the unquestionable orthodoxy religion of the day. Feminism, SJW’s and far left Socialist/Communist are the extreme, cartoonist, fantastical version of that very same Post-Modernism. Anyone who steps out of line is called an ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, bigot, homophobes, islamaphobe, ect……The minority holds power because they were just the extreme of the already majority.
“Feminism is just about equality and rights!! How can you oppose equality and rights!?”
“Puritanism is just about Jesus Christ. How can you oppose Jesus!?”
Feminism pretend to be women’s rights advocates and puritans pretend to be Christians when in reality both of them are just power hungry sociopaths. In both cases we can see that is the backing of absurd idealistic ideas by the mass idiot majority that allows these Puritan and Feminist monsters to hold that much power over the majority to begin with. Same shit different toilet.
Feminism=Modern Puritanism.
In the context of this article, the comparison of feminism to puritanism is spot-on. But I also think it is always important to note that in the general big picture, beyond the context of this article:
The Nazis = religious bigotry
The KKK = racial bigotry
Feminism = gender bigotry
the white guilt is strong with this one
Nice try. Don’t change the subject.
Nice try. Don’t change the subject.
Thought experiment here, who held the majority of political offices in locations where Nazis and the Klan had the most power?
It wasn’t Jews or Blacks, it was white men. Feminism is about equality and the fact white men control more money and more political positions today is just one of the many pieces of evidence that puts your sexist views in the garbage heap where they belong.
lolz
So the only way something can be considered bigotry is if it involves money and political positions? Wrong. The only way to have a significant amount of cultural influence is to have money and political positions? Wrong again. My views are sexist? Not one word in my comment is sexist, so wrong again. White men can’t also be feminist? Wrong again. Feminism is about equality . . . haha.
Everything you said is wrong and it’s because it is you who is sexist. Putting your view in the context of “white men” this and “white men” that, really just exposes it. The fact that you believe that feminism is a completely separate entity from a group you refer to as “white men” further exposes it. Feminism would be nothing without the significant portion of “white men” being duped into catering to it.
You are merely projecting your own sexism into the thread, and it gives you a very narrow view of power and influence. Feminism (your brand of sexism) is the most predominant form of institutionalized bigotry in our society today. And by the way, your comment is not a thought experiment.
Allow me to add that Feminism=’Gender Apartheid’. The hatred in the feminist community is like a cancer devouring an organism. I just don’t get it, its anti life. It must be Y Chromosome envy!
I elaborated upon this in a post of my own, but let me repeat the conclusion which you mind get a kick out of.
Feminism is the betaization of puritanism.
(because of the way predestination is applied on the basis of gender)
I would like to throw out the suggestion that the community adopt an easier-to-say form of “betaization”. Let’s throw a consonant in there for combining purposes. Like, maybe, betatization. To become betatized.
Thoughts?
Motion upheld
It is beyond hilarious that a website and a community that advocate such regressive, anachronistic values can, oblivious to the irony, use “Puritan” as a term for their enemies. You guys are really so beyond myopic that you can’t understand the world through any lens but this tiny, angry reductionism. Progressive Puritans. One of the funniest things I’ve read here, and that’s saying a lot, because every article or comment here is comedy gold. And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously.
“. You guys are really so beyond myopic that you can’t understand the world through any lens but this tiny, angry reductionism.”
Your entire comment was nothing more than angry reductionism. The amount of irony, hypocrisy and projection is astounding.
“Progressive Puritans. One of the funniest things I’ve read here”
This isn’t an argument. Nice try though.
” And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously.”
You took us seriously enough to come to this website and respond. I love how easily idiots destroy their own arguments then pretend they just shared some amazing ‘insight’ to the world. Nothing you said ever even begin to address my arguments. Go take you sophistry elsewhere you fucking moron.
“Your opinions on how society ‘should be’ is no better anyone else.”
People being respected and valued regardless of gender, race, social class etc. is better on multiple levels than backwards and bigoted points of view like yours.
“People being respected and valued regardless of gender, race, social class etc. is better on multiple levels than backwards and bigoted points of view like yours.”
LOL at ‘progressive’ idiots pretending that their opinions are facts. Respect is earned not given. But morons like yourself who have no fucking clue what respect is tend to think that they are entitled to respect just because they were born as if you or they were some kind of special snowflake just for being alive.
You are clearly an infantile, sheltered mind who thinks that people shouldn’t be held to any cultural standards of decency and respect for their peers and instead believes that every degenerate, every moron, and every retard in the world deserves ‘fair treatment’ just for being alive. A pure narcissistic in other words. You call me backwards yet you defend degenerate, anti-social, anti-civilize, backward behavior form degenerate backward people. The Irony is strong on this one. One day you will be the victim the very degenerates you now defend.
Now go take you narcissistic worldview elsewhere idiot.
Hmmm, what part of his comment was bigoted? In fact, you saying his views are bigoted really just proves this part of his comment to be true:
“Anyone who steps out of line is called an ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, bigot, homophobes, islamaphobe, ect……”
Now that I have quoted you an example, please quote me one in which bigotry is espoused.
Oooooooo “anachronistic”! “myopic”! “reductionism”! Look at that vocabulary, you must be smart! It’s hilarious when people try to talk over people’s heads by using a disproportionate amount of dimestore words. Here are a few more for you: “sesquipedalian”; “ostentatious”; “verbosity”…
Great writing. Some “Twilight Zone” episodes deal with this kind of mob mentality.
Women’s greatest faults are they think they are alway right and they are only satisfied with the best. They have wrecked society. . It’s so obvious that a society can’t flourish unless female sexuality is controlled. The are big children who only care about themselves. .
It is men that entertain the idea of egalitarianism and give equal rights to women freely in times of safety and prosperity.
As a token of appreciation, the women (naturally) turn it around and use equality to enslave men and make us 2nd class citizens for their own perceived benefit.
Ah, humanity is wonderful, is it not?
Liberty for me (women) but gender roles for thee (men)
Did you just say women love being oppressed?
It is worth noting that McCarthy was not conducting a witch hunt, but had legitimate concerns about actual communists. Imagine if all or most of his accused were actually arrested. Hollywood would not be the leftist hellhole it is today. Feminists may never have gotten off the ground.
Exactly. McCarthyism was a good thing, as it did out numerous communists working within the US government. Joe McCarthy was an American hero and we need more of his kind of thinking around today, not less.
Like Lucile Ball.
But, today, instead of doing it with communists, do it with feminists.
Any my sister is a witch. She has witchcraft books, goes to “classes” and talks about her powers.
Many of the avowed feminists I know personally are practicing Wiccans (most actually). For those that don’t know that means they are avowed witches.
I am really impressed by this article. Brings a lot of 2wycked’s ideas together.
I read it from start to finish. An insightful piece.
I’ve actually had a feminist tell me that “It’s better to convict all accusations of rape because it doesn’t matter if innocent men go to jail as long as we get rapists off the street” (and therefore make the world safer for women). And they wonder why we call them feminazis.
Jesus Christ. I have no doubt that many of them think this way. What a bunch of dangerous, hateful loons.
Good God, that’s like the lunatics taking over the asylum! Next time you should say this, “Two words: Due Process.” If women can demand it, men can demand it. You talk about equality, you damn well better mean it right to the T!
I don’t mind cutting off the balls of pedophiles, so we better make sure he’s a fucking pedophile first.
Treat all accusations as though they’re true without evidence or defense to the contrary? What the fuck is wrong with these people?
And that starts with the proper definition of pedophilia 1st that is the abnormal attraction to prepubescent children.
So a pedophile is not an adult who has sex with a 17 year old?
Read up the clinical definition:
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
What the media touts as such in inaccurate and meant to demonize healthy sexual attraction to adolescents.
englishbob, having the slightest impure thought about that hot Junior can only mean that you are a despicable creep who should spend the rest of your life behind bars where you are not a danger to our sweet little flowers.
So I can stop flogging myself every night in punishment for my impure thoughts?
Wow. Clearly, it’s not about fear of rape. It’s about this lust for imposition of one’s will upon others. Validation from that sort total victory. Mental disease indeed.
“Get rid of all rape ever” Such total statements can’t be about reality. They’re conceptual tokens. Declarations of intent that position one clique above others in a power hierarchy.
I guess if we applied that illogical though pattern to all crimes (or would be crimes?) then women might find themselves on the short end of the stick.
That would definitely change things……when many innocent women are sitting in jail.
The world isn’t a safe place for the vagabond woman. The autonomous or independent woman is bound to walk into a manhole or step on a rake if she’s lucky. If she doesn’t end up falling into a gang of femi-nazis she’ll likely spawn infidelity where there is fidelity. An unkept woman starts fires (burns beds) or simply starts a war. If you’ve ever owned a pet rodent, the cage clean up is laborious. We cannot jail our women – who would clean their cages. HOUSE ARREST is the answer.
HOUSE ARREST ! !
That’s a bit like environmentalists who say the human race should be eradicated in order to save the planet. I think they should start with themselves.
The warning from Salem:
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/969349_f520.jpg
Today Me – Tomorrow You
Take heed, Gentlemen.
“How dare you even question an allegation?” The feminist mindset in a nutshell.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”
“In the wintry months of early 1692, two daughters of the local Salem
pastor Reverend Parris began to have awful fits of bizarre behavior.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
“Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms, including “a tendency to cause trouble”.”
Interesting how the Wikipedia article first says that female hysteria is no longer recognized by the medical community and then later says this:
“A physician in 1859 claimed that a quarter of all women suffered from hysteria.”
Funny, that happens to be the same ratio of women who take psych drugs today.
pathologisation always reflects the society / culture of the moment. This is partly because abnormal psychology (psychopathology) necessarily implies a statistical relationship to what is normal
Interesting, indeed.
Reminds me of Foucault’s “The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception” and “Madness and Civilization”.
Yes, definitely. Haven’t read birth of the clinic, but definitely, madness and civilization.
Foucault does a good job (albeit a relativist one) explaining how the mad subject for instance is created within psychiatric discourses of madness, where power/knowledge is located within the institutions of psychiatry.
Although this is a leftist(ish) analysis, Foucault could be very useful for those looking to show how modern feminism / progressivism is working to create and control pathological male subjects. There have already been one or two Foucauldian ‘genealogies’ I would love nothing better than to see feminism’s own technology turned against them.
Despite Foucault’s work being used and abused in feminist circles, I think he does a pretty thorough job in “birth of the clinic” and “madness…”. The sheer number of historical references he brings up in “the birth of the clinic” alone (he read them all)…
I must read it. He’s of the left, and obviously a relativist, but also an anti-marxist and I see no reason why his methods can’t be used to scrutinize any form of knowledge / power – including progressivism / feminism
The term ‘hysterectomy’ literally means ‘removing the ‘hysteria’, in 19th century medical terminology.
Not really. Both words come from the Greek root, ὑστέρα, which is related to Latin (and English) “uterus.” Because women are so prone to allow their emotional impulses to rule them, rather than to act rationally, the behaviour most typical of those with ὑστέραι, is hysteria. A hysterectomy literally means “removal of the uterus.”
The behaviour which men should have, is “virtue.” This has “vir” in its root, from which “virile” comes (‘vir’ is Latin for ‘man’). It may also be related to the roots of words like vine, virulent, vital, victor, vindicate, etc., all of which refer to things that are sharp and and lively. Before women are deflowered, they are called by the term “virgo,” and a woman of noble qualities and warriorlike comportment (usually godesses) are called by the term “virago.” This quality of virility and virtue is proper to men, and to females that avoid feminine weakness; most women, once they are dominated by their uterus and its menses, are “hysterical.”
Madness is defiently worth the read. From the conclusion: “And man, instead of being placed before the great divide of the insane and in the dimension that it inaugurated, became, at the level of his natural being, both madness and freedom, thus acquiring, by virtue of his essence, the right to be both a nature of nature and a truth of truth.”
Well if that didn’t smack of relevatavism I don’t know what does. But his conclusion is philosophically relevant in that all we know about madness is that it is part of our nature.
A woman can be virtuous when she avoids her weaknesses. Her hysterical bouts come about when she allows her empty uterus to govern her mind and body like a defective car alarm. It’s an air siren on the blitz. It screams at any untimely moment until it fulfills its purpose and BECOMES A WOMB. Then peace is relatively long lasting. The barefoot and lumpy woman may squeal every so often but this is quelled by the magical words ”Haagen Daaz” (*Howie Mandel).
Only a quarter? I have bad luck then. Everyone woman I’ve known suffers from hysteria.
To tell you the truth, it seems as if the pastor’s daughters were the real witches. As a guy who read about that kind of thing, Witches and the word don’t mix.
Can we get some articles about game and approaching? Feminism is the enemy but it can be used to our advantage with the right game.
OCD schmucks make up the bulk of the bureaucrats and code enforcers that menace our free and natural will today. They are many people who are hardwired to respond that we are a ‘society of laaah’ (law). BITE YOUR TOUNGE MAN if you are about to blurt that programmed shit PLEASE refrain. Remember WE ARE NOT a ‘society of laaaaah’ (wipe the retard slobber).
WHAT WE ARE IN FACT unfortunately is a society MENACED by AGGRESSIVE bureaucrat parasites and SELECTIVELY ENFORCED law.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard rookie debaters and even sophomoric legislators argue the bullshit of ‘laaah’. Like a sheep’s ‘baaah’. Or in town meetings over pooper scooper ordinances some fucking nit wit informs the townspeople of betaville that the silver haired douchebag mayor overrides councilman handlebar moustache fag’s whatever and you plug your ears at the mindless ‘baah’ ‘laaah’ ‘baaah’. STFU old bitches !
As I understand, during the witch hunts of the later middle ages, many women were burned not for casting spells, but for going to villages persuading and urging women to become malcontent and leave their spouses. So they weren’t really witches after all. THEY WERE ANTI-FAMILY FEMINISTS.
I think the OCD / puritanism argument does a lot to explain the (warped) mindset of SJWs etc, but if you look at the kind of witch-hunt you have going on in England at the moment, subsequent to the Jimmy Saville scandal (he was an entertainer who turned out to be history’s biggest paedo) then its clear there is an element of ‘revanchism’ – the vengeful play of a class newly in power and ready to avenge themselves on the past. Under Operation Yewtree absolutely loads of old male entertainers from the 60s, 70s etc have been accused of sex crimes. Occasionally these have involved serious allegations e.g abuse of underaged kids but generally they’ve involved men like Dave Lee Travis convicted of relatively minor offenses (he was convicted last week of having felt up a TV researcher during a TV interview some twenty years ago). As soon as the Saville paedo scandal surfaced feminists tried to link this to the ‘culture of sexism’ that existed in the 70s & 80s at the BBC, thus linking the most serious child abuse to allegations of post-war bottom-patting. Operation Yewtree based proceedings have now become the Nuremberg Trials of the feminist’s historic ‘war against women’. I don’t know why I just don’t think squeezing some bird’s tits forty years ago is the same as participating in the holocaust.
It’s because you use a precious organ called a brain.
I hate to think what feminist abuse of male brains will have done in forty years time. Any man not dribbling from the mouth and smiling like a cretin will probably be suspected of thought crime and immediately incarcerated
Nice piece, Wycked. Here is a book you might like about the opposite approach to religion, a very powerful book about the early New England colonies, it came out this year http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Williams-Creation-American-Soul/dp/B007SRVV7O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411949726&sr=8-
1&keywords=Roger+Williams
So what provokes the puritan mindset?
I assume some sort of childhood abuse. Puritanical parents undoubtedly impose impossible emotional constraints on their children, leading to mental health issues in adulthood. Interesting that puritans escaped Europe to America. If puritanism is a self-perpetuating cultural insanity, then it would probably not survive against the broader culture. But if they could simply escape to empty land, then they could survive there. Many people have speculated about “Yankee culture” and a cultural “disease of the mind” that has inspired a unique aggression in American history. The cause of the Civil War, prohibition, etc. It’s not well known, but Italian Fascism and German Nazism both based their principles on those first developed by American Progressives and Pragmatists (not pragmatism, but the philosophy that says that a strong man dictator should solve social problems by trial and error). I’ve always attributed this connection to the German influence in America’s second century. For example, our university system with its PhD is wholly adopted from the German academy (as is our public school system). However, I think the American puritan culture may have uniquely contributed to at least part of the mental disease behind Nazism and Fascism.
What I’d like to know is how you get there? What makes feminists feminists? Has Yankee culture, with puritan mental health issues, actually persisted over 300 years? Or is something else provoking this?
The article says that the mental health problem arises from categorizing one’s anti-social thoughts and impulse as these sort of infinite sins that have to be completely purged. Since perfection cannot be, the person adopts an obsessive compulsive behavior to maintain outward perfection which eventually spills into controlling other people.
Okay, but why purge certain thoughts and impulses so absolutely?
The best I have, visavis feminism and society (as in the dynamic affecting the Salemites), is that already unstable narcissists (poised as alpha males and females) define social status according to a standard of perfection. This causes puritanism. Women buy into it because, well, social status. Beta men follow. I would imagine this happens from time to time then dies out soon after it starts. I can see why it would survive in a frontier setting. Why it’s thriving now is another mystery. My best guess is that feminism is hugely profitable for the crony state, so this system more or less funds and sustains this memetic control mechanism.
Raised by puritan mother, with adopted asian sibling. Am mentally ill, can confirm your hypothesis, anecdotally. But men can’t discuss this shit because we are disposable, and any man that breaks the lock step and admits he is degenerate is thrown onto societies waste pile.
And people wonder why Elliot Rodger was so fucking crazy.
Some people are predisposed to mental illness. Some people let mentally ill people mold their brains. Or, sometimes mental illness is inherent and sometime a product of society. Our world is going to shit because people with inhereted illness are given free license to project their ideas onto those who would be influenced by them, thus creating more people who’s illness spreads to te culture at large.
I read this article until the author validated and gave such a frivolous definition to the concept of an “obsessive compulsive disorder”
IMO, you can lump this term into the BULLSHIT category, along with ADD, ADHD, etc
Nice rebuttal to a universally accepted definition of said personality disorder by the psychological community.
The difference between ROK articles like this one and Jezebel articles is so profound. This article is in-depth, well-researched, and has multiple connections between science and history, with an argument that has a strong logical chain of argument. Jezebel’s articles such as Erin Gloria Ryan’s? They all follow the same framework: Snark + Controversial Headline + Quote from “Evil Source” + More Snark + Feminist Buzzword + Call to Action = Rage/Boycott/Silence/Censor/Ridicule Someone/Something
Jezebel is so offensively banal that you instantly arrive at the point of knowing that arguing against it wouldn’t be worth it. That’s hard to pull off on the internet.
Agree. There is no logic involved. The articles are more ‘feel good’ stuff or the articles get the reader (women) into an “emotional tizzy” (and they rely on that shit).
There is no real argument when arguing with crazy because the rules change.
I’ve been thinking even more about this over the day. I think it boils down to a theological examination of Calvinism. Apologies to the sincerely religious…
In early Christianity there was a heresy called Pelagianism. The essence of Pelagianism – what it boiled down to – was that Pelagius argued that the point of Christianity was that we have to actually try to not sin and actually are accountable for being ‘good’ people. His rival, Augustine, argued that sin is our nature and therefore by our nature we cannot possibly choose to do good. Thus, choosing to not commit sin requires God’s intervention – grace. Now, never mind that Augustine was a more recent convert with a sort of hippie (the best way to describe it in modern terms) spiritual background. Never mind that almost all the earlier church fathers agreed more or less with Pelagius – indicating his position was simply that of the church up until that point. Never mind that all the history we have on this matter is provided by the Catholic Church which treats Pelagius as a significant heretic.
Here’s a quote attributed to Pelagius:
Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead.”[25]
“And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature’s fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature.”[26]
“Yet we do not defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault of our nature, when, in fact, we do neither good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to do one of the two, being always able to do either.
“Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty…Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our own nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing.”
When I read this, I was astounded by how similar this could sound to a condemnation of feminism. More on this later.
For now, I offer one interpretation of Pelagianism that is admittedly speculative. It is thought that Augustine was the true innovator, and Pelagius more of a church traditionalist. That political economic forces favored Augustinian thought over Pelagianism.
This was an early period of church history – a couple of centuries in the mainstream, but before the fall of Rome and a couple of centuries before the totalitarian Catholicism of medieval Christianity (in other words, Christianity was mainstream and the official religion, but other religious beliefs persisted in a still marginally pluralistic Roman society). This period was marked by two political economic currents. One, the Church was mainstream enough to have significant societal wealth and power. Church officials were more than nerdy monks, fanatics, or the second century’s equivalent of televangelists. They were wealthy power brokers. Although Pelagius is best known for touching on the subject of nature and sin, he specifically condemned unworthy priests. Essentially, he argued that church officials who consistently sinned should lose their positions. Augustine’s doctrines helped formally refute the theological necessity of priests being actually righteous. Thus, priests could sin, live the high life, and keep their position of power. Because, goodness comes not through doing good, but purely through God’s grace, through the priesthood of the church. You can see why church leaders rallied behind this point of view.
The other current was the decline of Rome. By now, productive citizens had fled to country estates, where they had to rely on local gentry for protection. This was the beginning of the feudal system. Extant in this culture was the remnant of the notion of Roman liberty. What Augustine’s theology proposed was that individuals were not capable of worthiness in their own right. Goodness and virtue came only through God’s grace – in the Catholic mind this means via the priesthood of the church. Thus, the notions of virtue which underpinned Roman liberty were subsumed into the church. A sense of sinful worthlessness, a need to pay complete obedience to the church, a notion of living a crappy short life to earn an eternity in heaven – this framework enabled the feudal lords to really exercise authority over their serfs. You can see, again, why this doctrine was useful.
This applies directly to the Salem Witch Trials. Puritanism is sort of an English branch of Calvinism – best known for its doctrine of Predestination. This adopts the Augustinian view of sin as an inescapable part of our nature. It merely adds that rather than the church being the avenue of grace, rather God Himself must be the agent that directly chooses to apply or not apply grace. And since not everyone is religious, He must therefore choose to simply not save certain people.
Predestination adds a certain aire of unaccountability to society. Granted, people follow the rules because they perceive that they are supposed to. Granted, subconsciously they are still ‘choosing’ their own predestination if they truly believe the doctrine. So there is accountability present in the system. But the doctrine creates a psychological fatalism.
The disease of the mind that resulted from Puritanism, which caused the witch trials, is a product of this effort to reconcile human accountability – a fact of life – with a doctrine that proclaimed it to be non-existent. Modern Calvinist theologians have tried to rationalize free will back into the theology somehow, but to the average 15th century person I’m sure the doctrine of predestination sent a clear message.
The missing piece of the puzzle here lies in what results politically from a social paradigm that removes accountability from the moral code. This removal of accountability is not nihilism. Sin and punishment still exist. Bad people still must be punished. But, you no longer have any control over whether you’re bad or not.
Can you not see how this is a formula for subservience. In Augustine’s time it set up the Church and Feudal Lords to eventually exercise a level of total control over the common people. In Puritanism, no single institution was explicitly invested with this moral authority. That was the problem.
You were commanded to be perfect, but told that you were personally unable to fulfill this command. The resultant obsessive compulsiveness seems like an obvious response. The problem in the end is the crusade – the search for the source of moral authority. No one can fulfill this. Everyone must be subjugated, everything is always imperfect, the utopia is just around the horizon beyond our sins. We don’t deserve Utopia, but we must burn everything down until we have it.
Make sense?
I think this Calvinist Millenialism actually combined with the post-Judaic (medieval totalitarian rabbinic Judaism) secular socialism. It’s a sort of synergistic scheme for total subjugation of humanity to an elite. On the one hand, we’re unworthy defilers of Earth, wherein perhaps we should be entirely exterminated to protect Gaia. On the other hand, the Aral Sea should be completely drained to serve the Progress of the People. But it’s okay, because what has happened is that the invisible moral authority longed for in Puritanism is fulfilled by the sons of Rabbis deprived of their flock. It’s sort of a pragmatic union. Only God can stop sin? Okay, but let’s just trust this little group of guys for a little while, but not permanently. The vanguard of the revolution. It’s a pretty good synthesis now that I think about it. And please, if you don’t get what I’m saying, look up Millenarianism in America and also Medieval Judaism in Europe. Also, the history of socialism, and how Anglo religionists and secular Jews seem to be the primary advocates.
Now to feminism.
Women have a natural desire to deflect accountability. Their brains are wired to do so, and they derive validation and satisfaction from doing so.
I think feminism is a natural ‘final outcome’ of the female imperative. When the constraints of nature no longer bind women to the imperatives of men, they are freed to become completely unhinged.
Calvinism has a lot of parallels to the female imperative. Women seem to have anti-social “sinful” behavioral impulses. These seem to constantly override their meek devotion to reason and justice. And yet, they seem to feel like they need men. Even when they can solve problems independently, they derive pleasure when men do it for them. So, an underlying – mysterious and otherworldly (ha, pertaining to men) even – sense of right or wrong is constantly undermined by the sinful self. What to do about it? Man up? Nah! How about systematize the notion that we have no control over this situation? Predestination? It’s called feminism.
What’s unique about this ideology is that bifurcates humanity. Man is inherently sinful, because he actually does good things and works hard – and can’t be rewarded for that. Woman is inherently good, even though she sins in every measure, and is held as incapable of accountability. She must be positioned as beyond moral reproach.
It’s like women have finally succeeded in emotionally manipulating Puritanism, after sucking its dick all these centuries.
You know, that’s it!
Feminism is Puritanism in its fully betaized state!
Very incitful post. While I wouldn’t say that feminism is a beta form of Puritanism, I would agree that the totalitarian aspect is present. The sixth age is full of ideologies, feminism is the next logical step, although I would not like to see the outcome. “im’s” usually precipitate war. Last I would hardly equate neo-Platonism and manichism with “hippie” or any new-age religious belief. Great post tho
I am astonished with how clearly this explains the psyches of some recent co-workers. SJW types, one going off to get a Masters in ‘Humanitarian Aid’ while being the biggest a-hole I’ve ever known. And the callout on small details while doing nothing about them is on point.—-“In their own minds, they engage in incredible amounts of obsessing over work or moral judgmentalism of others to avoid dealing with their own superficially repressed anti-social behavior.” WOW. Nailed it, along with several other lines in the essay. My theory about how so many young feminists have become these projecting monsters;
Feminism does many things but two in particular that lead to these terrible personalities. It’s the simultaneous message of blamelessness and inherent supremacy. The blamelessness leads to a total lack of character or true empathy. The nasty soul that results from a life of NEVER being blamed for anything then grinds against the sacred ‘fact’ of their superior, awesome femalehood. This stress leads to all the ‘puritanism’ in which they have to engage to get themselves balanced—Projecting away their unwanted nastiness instead of acknowledging it in themselves. Case closed. What’s so scary now is wondering what really lurks in these minds of theirs. How truly hateful have they become? All in a country that gives them every advantage and has been based on chivalry and pedestalism from the start. They have become the gender version of the Menendez brothers. So spoiled and entitled that they are only left with pure nastiness. Sociopathy and tits. What a hellish combination. Luckily, so many of them are fat that guys are looking elsewhere or grass-eating. How many lives of enchained drudgery have been avoided thanks to Coca Cola. Tread very carefully. As Cappy says, ‘Stay frosty’.
“It’s the simultaneous message of blamelessness and inherent supremacy.”
I object strenuously to using McCarthyism as an example of a witch hunt.
Turn out that, despite the fact that McCarthyism didn’t have anything to do with McCarthy, in the end they were actually RIGHT.
Their failure to adequately prosecute the media is the reason America uis in the pickle it is today.
an article on the rosenbergs would be …interesting
The opening of the Soviet archives has shown that the bulk of the charges issued by McCarthy were completely accurate. The principle one fought against by the lest for decades as a cause celebre was the Alger Hiss case.
Yeah, I remember reading that. Ironically it wasn’t even McCarthy who was on the house unamerican activities committee, what everyone points to when they try and blame mccarthyism for something.
That YouTube comment is a day ruiner. I cannot believe that ANYONE is that stupid. I wish she would rape someone and have her standard used against herself.
Fantastic article. Just a question on grammar. Do you “do” a product or do you produce/make/create a product?
Historically, it was the witches that got off scot-free.
There were no witches in Salem.
Do you really believe that there are witches ( the real kind spelled with a W and not a B) anywhere?
Of course there are witches. Just as there are warlocks. I’ve known a couple. And just as there are druids and necromancers and mediums and tarot readers, etc. One can call oneself anything one wants and follow any religion one wants.
The only relevant question is: Do they have any actual power to cast spells that objectively (and not merely psychologically) harm people?
The answer to THAT question is No.
Au Contraire, Tituba was apparently deep into Voodoo, and apparently the young girls got intrigued.
There’s a theory that the behaviour shown by the “witches” at Salem and many other locations was a result of ergot poisoning through rye bread consumption:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCHcmZm529c
Quite fascinating!
What a superficially eloquent argument against feminism. It’s juvenile, factually incorrect, and the way you equate people being charged with rape to the victims of the Witch Trials is frankly offensive, but superficially eloquent.
Of course, when you consider that the Salem Witch Hunts were created off the cuff of things like the Malleus Mallificarum (which you boys would absolutely love, it’s like a how-to manual for raping, torturing and murdering women!) and how the fact that the people most persecuted were women because of the sexist and violent male-dominant mentality of the time which suggested that women were more susceptible to devil seduction and how every academic study on gender dynamics which references the Witch Trials in Salem makes a case for the lack of gender equality and the fact that women were seen as little more than property at the time lent itself to the extreme and prolonged violence against women might blow a few holes in your argument.
And when you consider how many women were the victims of rape and genital mutilation in the name of witch hunting back during the European Witch Hunts, I think you just might wanna rethink this.
See, the Crucible by Nathaniel Hawthorne used the Witch Hunts in Salem as a symbol for McCarthyism. And not well, the facts were very skewed in the book. Kinda like in this article, actually! See, women coming forward about being sexually assaulted does not equate to people being accused and murdered in the name of misplaced religious zealotry.
Every accusation of rape needs to be taken seriously and investigated. Because RAPE, as opposed to the devil, is a real thing that does real harm. Saying that women coming forth about being raped is the same as children being used by their parents to levy false accusation of witchcraft against neighbors for the purpose of land-grabbing is the most dispicable thing any person can actually say.
Because, thanks to hindsight, we know that those accusation of witchcraft were false, and to equate the two implies that women’s accusations of rape are also patently false. Which might actually make you, the writer, the actual devil.
Top-notch troll job. Well done!
I’m assuming you’re referring to the article itself, because I was being completely serious.
If not, I’m very concerned.
Be concerned. Be very concerned. And sleep with the lights ON.
You comment consists of nothing more than, “If you only had these special glasses I got in college you would see these things the way I do as clearly as I do. And if you can’t then you’re a mean, mean man and you have hurt me in my special, special heart! Bad, bad man! Shame on you. Shame on YOU.”
We need a Salem Bitch trial.
These guys were the ancestors to the modern ‘churchian’. If they read the bible, which it seems they did NOT, they would find witches had no power over them. People are so malleable, they forget the reason why the rebel.
You had me until you lumped Christians in with feminists
You miss out an important part of the Salem witch hunts: women gaining power in the eyes of the male dominated church/community. You are forgetting that women who were mid-wives were told to stop delivering babies due to the fear of women having any power especially in medicine and the community. Many women were put to death because they refused to stop assisting women with childbirth. Male fear of powerful women started the witch hunts. Hysteria just pushed it along.
You have GOT to be kidding? You’re a troll, right? I sometimes can’t tell because I want to engage with people making comments. But this is. . .nonsense. Do you have ANY historical references to back this up? I mean real sources, not quotes from some women’s study course you took? If so, I’d like to see them.
In my humble and uninformed opinion, I believe the rape accusations against Bill Cosby are classic Salem Witch Trial-type allegations.
Oh, I believe he had sex with just about every woman admitting they had sex with him. And I believe he did offer them drugs and alcohol. But do I believe he had to drug them to HAVE sex with them? That he penetrated them against their wills? Absolutely not!
In fact, in my opinion, every women who comes out of the woodwork and finds a camera to tell her “story” to reduces the credibility of every other woman making an accusation!
Why?
Because women are herd animals. They do EVERYTHING as a group. Even falsely charging a man with rape. And the ones who turn up now are simply showing how easy it is to cry rape when all you have to do is prove you once met this man without a chaperone!
But for me, the piece de resistance was the PHOTO SPREAD in New York Magazine of 35 of these “accusers”! ALL OF THEM IN WHITE!!!!
When was the last time you heard of a real rape victim POSING FOR A MAGAZINE featuring the SORDID DETAILS of her rape????
I mean, aren’t victims supposed to be sooooooo traumatized by the accusations that they can’t bear the HUMILIATION of being seen as a victim of a SEXUAL assault?
My opinion of Cosby would be lower today than before these sluts came forward, simply because I believe in fidelity in marriage. But that would only be if my opinion of him mattered to me.