PHONEY FEMINISM
.
by Michael Tsarion
|
|
...it's only make believe - Conway Twitty
|
If you are a feminist, don’t bother reading this article. It will ruin your day. You will discover that the ideology you believe in and promote has no historical precedent and is a total fraud.
Modern feminists condemn and wish to obliterate what they refer to as the "Patriarchy.” They mean male-rule and male supremacy. They mean the status quo as established and maintained by males. However, what no feminist admits, and what all competent historians and anthropologists know, is that since the very first civilizations it was men alone who opposed the status quo, not women. For millennia it was young men who found themselves in conflict with the systems and structures erected by older men. Women may have played a supporting role in this regard, but that is all. Alas, most anthropologists and historians penned their works after the advent of political feminism, and for one reason or another, never let the truth be known to their readers. The brilliant Jungian scholar, Erich Neumann, for example, concedes that since the beginning of time it was the young man who came into conflict with his elders, seeking to overthrow their oppressive and fossilized systems. Sadly, like so many others, Neumann does not draw the right conclusions and avoids implicating the absurd claims of feminists.
The cause of the younger male is part of a larger movement in his life toward attaining the mantle of the hero. He reaches his goal by fighting against all forces preventing him from becoming an individual. He is determined to think and act for himself, and to live according to his own standards and decisions.
Modern feminists condemn and wish to obliterate what they refer to as the "Patriarchy.” They mean male-rule and male supremacy. They mean the status quo as established and maintained by males. However, what no feminist admits, and what all competent historians and anthropologists know, is that since the very first civilizations it was men alone who opposed the status quo, not women. For millennia it was young men who found themselves in conflict with the systems and structures erected by older men. Women may have played a supporting role in this regard, but that is all. Alas, most anthropologists and historians penned their works after the advent of political feminism, and for one reason or another, never let the truth be known to their readers. The brilliant Jungian scholar, Erich Neumann, for example, concedes that since the beginning of time it was the young man who came into conflict with his elders, seeking to overthrow their oppressive and fossilized systems. Sadly, like so many others, Neumann does not draw the right conclusions and avoids implicating the absurd claims of feminists.
The cause of the younger male is part of a larger movement in his life toward attaining the mantle of the hero. He reaches his goal by fighting against all forces preventing him from becoming an individual. He is determined to think and act for himself, and to live according to his own standards and decisions.
His first nemesis is, however, not the patriarchy. His initial fight is not with the world of older men, but with the world of womankind, as embodied in the stereotype of his earthly mother. He cannot attain independence until he has endured the so-called “dragon-fight.” This entails confronting his mother, the first person who inhibits his psychological maturation. All men grow biologically and physically. But not all men grow emotionally and psychically. They are quite capable of remaining arrested at the infantile level. It is the desire of many mothers to hold fast to their sons and prevent them from going their own way. They wish to maintain control over every aspect of a son’s life. It is a motif that is explicit in the world’s myths. But we are not to dismiss myths, legends and folktales because they encapsulate the facts of history, of real events and scenarios. The would-be hero must overcome the will of his grasping and smothering mother if he is to make his own choices and decisions, and one day go on to choose his own mate. He cannot enter the solar world and become truly masculine without winning the dragon-fight. As Horus decapitated his mother Isis for betraying him, so must all men gain independence from the female will.
|
|
In the newer understanding of the castration complex it is not the father’s threats that the child reacts to...the castration complex comes into being solely in confrontation with the mother…It all centers on the fact that the mother monopolizes the child’s world; at first, she is his world. The child cannot survive without her, yet in order to get control of his own powers he has to get free of her - Ernest Becker
Everywhere the female is “terrible:” she is the seducer, the instrument of castration - Erich Neumann Thus the Great Mother is uroboric: terrible and devouring, beneficent and creative; a helper, but also alluring and destructive; a maddening enchantress, yet a bringer of wisdom; bestial and divine, voluptuous harlot and inviolable virgin, immemori-ally old and eternally young - ibid |
The female who attempts to inhibit the healthy development of her male child cannot spew curses against the male-built world, since she is one of its initial causes. The solar world of men was constructed expressly to free men from the stygian lunar abyss of the mother. And the will of one terrible mother is that of many women. Sterotypes and Archetypes walk hand in hand. Historically and mythically speaking it is a characteristic of what is called the “matriarchate.” This world is the construct of the female will, and is chthonic rather than ithyphallic.
|
|
In a child's eyes, a mother is a goddess. She can be glorious or terrible, benevolent or filled with wrath, but she commands love either way. I am convinced that this is the greatest power in the universe - N. K. Jemisin
|
After his colossal struggle against the formidable will of the mother, he is freed from the relative peace of the uroboric enclosure where he passively experiences only instant gratification and plenty. His consciousness is formed and directed by the “Pleasure Principle," as Freud called it. The youth remains in this state for up to six or seven years. If his mother had her way, he’d remain there forever. Fortunately, mother nature ordains a different fate for the human psyche. Growth must occur on all levels. That is the fact animating all life. Although a person is always free to flaunt the laws of nature and regress to earlier pre-Oedipal stages of existence and experience, the heroic soul faces the cold, unfamiliar world and allows himself to be directed by the “Reality Principle.” At this moment, as Jungians say, he awakens the masculine archetype within his being. Animated by it, a boy or girl orients themselves toward the solar world.
|
|
The hero is an ego hero; that is, he represents the struggles of consciousness and the ego against the unconscious. The masculinization and strengthening of the ego, apparent in the hero’s martial deeds, enable him to overcome his fear of the dragon and give him courage to face the Terrible Mother - Erich Neumann
Consciousness equals deliverance: that is the watchword inscribed above all man’s efforts to deliver himself from the embrace of the primordial uroboric dragon. Once the ego sets itself up as center and establishes itself in its own right as ego consciousness, the original situation is forcibly broken down - ibid |
It is at this point that the would-be heroic male encounters his second hurdle, the stultified world of his male elders. He quickly finds himself at loggerheads with the status quo and finds that he is treated by the elders as a threat to their inflexible order. He tests his mettle by setting himself against the traditions and standards of the elders. He becomes a passionate rebel, and at this time he succeeds in becoming heroic. The elders circle the wagons and seek to kill him off. If he submits to their demagoguery, they’ll find a place for him. They can always use his type as cannon-fodder in their interminable bloodbaths. As history testifies, they know how expertly set young men at each others throats.
We see that the hero attains true independence of mind and heart by overcoming two main foes. He must triumph over the matriarchate and the patriarchate in order to successfully go his own way and build a world in his own image.
Of course, ironically, he must eventually grow older himself. Once his youth fades he is likely to become one of the elders himself, to be opposed by a new generation of young heroic types. It is the never-ending cycle of necessity expressed in the world’s great myths.
Of course, ironically, he must eventually grow older himself. Once his youth fades he is likely to become one of the elders himself, to be opposed by a new generation of young heroic types. It is the never-ending cycle of necessity expressed in the world’s great myths.
|
|
He who fights too long against dragons, becomes himself a dragon - Freidrich Nietzsche
|
From this we see how spurious are the claims of modern feminists in regards the phenomenon of the Patriarchy. History tells us in no uncertain terms that the chief enemy of the male world is the male, not the female.
Women have of late usurped the role of the young man in his struggle with those who prevent him individuating. Not one of them acknowledges this fact, or honestly explaines it to the masses. Their action prevents the young man from commencing upon his upward ascent toward herohood. Feminists have supplanted him and grabbed the sword of battle from his hand. Look at what he has become. An idle couch-potato stripped of his values, passion and will. His exhileration and gratification now comes from sitting in a darkened room playing violent video-games. Bec ause of his docility, the world of his elders grows more and more corrupt. The opposition of the Feminists is no threat at all. It lacks the power to change things for the better. It succeeds only in replacing patriarchy with regressive matriarchy.
Senior intellectuals within the feminist movement, at the highest levels of the academic totem-pole, are privy to these controversial facts, but remain silent on the matter. They don’t want the lessons of history, as preserved in world myth, from being studied and contemplated. It does not serve their disingenuous cause.
But where did that cause originate? Why did the feminist movement arise? It did so due to the will of the architects of world socialism, and as part of their nefarious plan to undermine western civilization. The agenda is the ultra-feminization of western man. Women were, in this regard, to be used as doomsday weapons against the men who buiit western culture. The demagogues had the male youth in their sights. Attacks on masculinity and heroism will prevent progress and perfection. When young heroic alpha- men cease addressing the flaws in their societies, those societies become stultified and corrupt. In the place of the archetypal battle between the young hero and his conservative elders, we have rowdy gangs of unsane females waving fists at the establishment. It gives us the impression that reform is occuring, that rights are being honored and that injustices are being addressed. Nothing of the sort is happening. It’s just a case of carefully orchestrated optics. It’s a matter of stage-managed histrionics with no chance of achieving positive outcomes.
Women have of late usurped the role of the young man in his struggle with those who prevent him individuating. Not one of them acknowledges this fact, or honestly explaines it to the masses. Their action prevents the young man from commencing upon his upward ascent toward herohood. Feminists have supplanted him and grabbed the sword of battle from his hand. Look at what he has become. An idle couch-potato stripped of his values, passion and will. His exhileration and gratification now comes from sitting in a darkened room playing violent video-games. Bec ause of his docility, the world of his elders grows more and more corrupt. The opposition of the Feminists is no threat at all. It lacks the power to change things for the better. It succeeds only in replacing patriarchy with regressive matriarchy.
Senior intellectuals within the feminist movement, at the highest levels of the academic totem-pole, are privy to these controversial facts, but remain silent on the matter. They don’t want the lessons of history, as preserved in world myth, from being studied and contemplated. It does not serve their disingenuous cause.
But where did that cause originate? Why did the feminist movement arise? It did so due to the will of the architects of world socialism, and as part of their nefarious plan to undermine western civilization. The agenda is the ultra-feminization of western man. Women were, in this regard, to be used as doomsday weapons against the men who buiit western culture. The demagogues had the male youth in their sights. Attacks on masculinity and heroism will prevent progress and perfection. When young heroic alpha- men cease addressing the flaws in their societies, those societies become stultified and corrupt. In the place of the archetypal battle between the young hero and his conservative elders, we have rowdy gangs of unsane females waving fists at the establishment. It gives us the impression that reform is occuring, that rights are being honored and that injustices are being addressed. Nothing of the sort is happening. It’s just a case of carefully orchestrated optics. It’s a matter of stage-managed histrionics with no chance of achieving positive outcomes.
|
|
Death by Freedom! It's what you want and what you vote for, say the imperious technocratic social engineers.Okay, you lovers of freedom, go for it...Enjoy the 1,000 cliques and subcultures, all antagonistic to one another. And it's no different with the dozens of religious denominations that proliferate, each antagonistic to the others. It all serves to fracture society as per the agenda of the Fabian-Marcusans and super-secret Black Lodge that no one believes exists. (Click image for more articles on this subject.)
|
|
The wily architects of control in the Frankfurt School, Tavistock Institute, Council of Foreign Relations, and other faustian orgs, have obsured and held back the historical truth because they are profoundly anti-heroic. They despise individuality above all things. They know all there is to know about how to mobilize against it. Radical women’s movements have been used as spearheads against western civilization, and there can be no proactive mass awakening, as it is absurdly called, until the messages of history and mythology are once again respected, decoded and taken to heart.
|
|
Erich Neumann (1905-1960) was the erudite Jungian scholar who, in his brilliant works on matriarchy and motherhood, conceded the instinctual clingy, regressive role of the mother, on both stereotypical and archetypal levels. Like so many other prominent experts, however, he failed to draw the correct conclusions from his extensive research into the mother-child relationship. Consequently, feminists were permitted to go their merry way without challenge. It is a major indictment against psychoanalysis when any scholar or practitioner fails to see that the influence of a Terrible Mother prevents a son from masculanizing himself to thererby attain herohood. It is equally inexplicable for any psychologist to not see the average monomaniacal feminist as neurotic and antisocial. The usurpation by women of the designated role of the son-hero actively prevents civilizations progressing in healthy ways. That this fact is not conceded by any feminist makes a mockery of their movement and cause. Women who desire social change would have been better served by standing side-by-side with masculine young men and supporting their fight against the status quo, rather than forming movements of their own and spurning men entirely as the enemy. This constitutes the reformation of the ancient gynocracy which opposes all forms of advanced civilization and culture.
|
|
What I explain here is known to the world’s leading feminist scholars. By their silence they bring nothing but disgrace upon themselves and their absurd ideology.
. . .
Michael Tsarion (2023)