Friday, October 23, 2015

The Garden of Eden, Technology and Feminism

The story of the Garden of Eden observes that men's curse is to work and women's curse is to bear children in pain. That's been true for tens of thousands of years, but that's not so much true anymore, due to technological advances, which were created by men, specifically white men.

Someday I expect children will be grown in artificial wombs, I sure to the delight of the more crazed radical feminists (the first time I encountered this was in the writings of the paranoid schizophrenic Shulamith Firestone, whom I've mentioned before). On TV the first time I saw it was in the short-lived series Space: Above and Beyond.

These technological advancements, which have overthrown the curses of the Garden of Eden, unwittingly also created feminism (Karl Popper called such things "the Law of Unintended Consequences"). This means science and technology, which makes life so much easier, led to the envy and hate of leftist feminism (all feminism is leftist).

This doesn't make any sense. Men created advanced technology and freed women from a life of drudgery (and themselves, too), and instead of responding with appreciation and gratitude, women responded with envy and hate and the desire to destroy men? How bizarre!

Honestly, who woulda thunk it?

Unfortunately it's human nature to respond with hate and envy instead of gratitude. Not for everyone, of course, but certainly for those of a leftist inclination.

When you respond with envy and hate instead of gratitude you'll never be happy. And these days women are much unhappier than in the past, to the point supposedly one-fourth of them are on some sort of psychiatric medication.

Leftists always blame their problems on other people. On "society." It's never their fault, always someone else's. They created complex, grandiose hallucinations about "class struggles," about "patriarchy" and "oppression" and "rape culture" and "microaggressions" and "Dead White Males."

You can see this "blaming other people for my problems" also in the story of the Garden of Eden, in which Adam falls and blames it on the woman's "deceiving me" and Eve blames her transgressions on the serpent...which is a symbol of envy and hate. And it told her she could be like God.

For that matter, the story also points out women want to control men but men instead will rule women. But if women are prone to envy and hate and the desire to control and destroy men, then obviously men have to rule women if you don't want society and culture destroyed, which is something women do.

These things are why I consider the story of the Garden of Eden to be the most important story in the Western world.

Perhaps many women became bored with all this free time and leisure - the grotesque Betty Friedan called this "the problem with no name." Unfortunately women couldn't fill this leisure with anything useful - instead they turned to Karl Marx's nonsense! Talk about a wrong turn! How many actually studied free-market economics and political liberty? Instead they turned to complete frauds like Marx and believe he made sense? Was the first too hard instead of being easy? After all, Marxism is a false but clear idea - easy to understand for those who lack analytical ability.

I've had women tell me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world." No, men are responsible for all the good in the world. Again, it's either envy or gratitude. I don't believe you can experience both simultaneously.

Now leftists have gone almost completely insane, with those hallucinations about "rape culture" and "microaggressions." When will this nonsense ever end? When they destroy society completely? And then what are they going to do?

They think they are going to rebuild it obviously, with them in charge, ruling a new human nature. More hallucinations!

The problem, as I see it, is that many women are naturally socialist/fascist. They don't see this as a bad thing, or think it is a good thing. If true, this means men shouldn't listen to women's whining. Instead, these days they accommodate them.

Many women are ruled by their feelings and lack analytical ability. They're short-sighted - they cannot see into the future. Not all, of course, but a hell of a lot. That makes them closer to children than adults.

Some men are like this, too. I once knew a Russian Jew who did everything he could to not get deported after he was drunk in public and fighting with the police. And this was his second arrest, the first one being for dealing marijuana. He did not want to go back to the socialist paradise of Russia, yet he once said that socialism was "based on love" instead of envy and hate. That's more leftist hallucinations.

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was once that sooner or later the Right has to "knock heads" when it comes to leftists and their envy and hate and desire to destroy.

For one thing, women shouldn't be allowed to vote. For that matter, some men, too. They always try to kill the golden goose.

The way things stand now cannot last all that much longer. Societies based on leftism and hate and envy and the desire to destroy never do.

I don't know how much more things can continue like this. But every culture in the past that has done what we are doing has had to quit doing it. Some which didn't don't exist anymore.

Sir John Glubb found civilizations last only about 250 years. If you use 1776 as the starting year, we have about ten years until something major happens.

Science and technology will continue to advance rapidly, but our government in is big trouble. And politically, leftism is destroying us, not that leftists know that.

We're also due for some sort of religious revival. If you want to see the role of religion, compare the pro-religion Revolutionary War with the anti-religion French Revolution, with its slaughter, torture, multilation and necrophilia.

So I think the next ten years are going to be very interesting indeed.

Let's put it this way - the Four Horsemen are mounted and ready to ride.

13 comments:

Earl Thomas said...

'These technological advancements, which have overthrown the curses of the Garden of Eden,'

No, they are still there...we are going mad because we think we've overthrown them.

Bob Wallace said...

It's not gone but better than it used to be.

Mindstorm said...

The more women become unlikable, the more popular this trend will be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqjYwtcBwFc
(courtesy of greyghost)

Glen Filthie said...

Feminism established itself in my wife's family about 15 years ago. Her mother is a domineering, loud stupid woman that ruled her family with an iron fist. (Her husband, my father in law - is a gutless beta male that you say doesn't exist!).

10 years ago my brother in law - a shameless commie f-tard - married a radical feminist. He's a school principal, she's a school teacher. They've since divorced and have two children with 'learning disorders'. I firmly believe it is a parental disorder myself.

And of course, my daughter became a man-hating militant lesbian feminist 5 years ago.

All three of our families have disintegrated. When my stupid mother in law decreed that we would all change our morals and values to accommodate leftism, homosexuality, and feminism - I rejected the lot and gave the old bitch the punt and told her to stay away from us. When she discovered I was serious and meant what I said - she turned to her wimp of a husband and told him to "DO something...!!!"

Today our family is in tatters. In order to repair it either I have to scrap common sense, my morals, ethics, and self respect and get in that closet my daughter came out of - or they can act like reasonable adults with triple digit IQ's. So far nobody's giving an inch and I am fine with the status quo. They are not and think I'm a dink. Oh well.

Humour me, boys?

I posit that there are two types of 'stupid' in North America today. There is a degree of stupidity that results from lack of experience, observation and careful thought and involves problems with basic logic and intellect. We are talking about the ghetto negroes with their sub-85 IQ, the chicken-headed fishwives that inhabit our trailer parks, or the guy that consistently sets himself up to fail and honestly wonders why he can't get ahead.

Then - there is the deliberate, intentional stupidity. It is the kind of stupidity that fools can profit from: Obama telling his homies that evil rich people didn't build or deserve their fortunes, that they got it by exploiting the poor. The race hustlers telling blacks that Whitey is out to get them and the only way to prove otherwise is for massive reparations to black people. The union slob that screams about outsourcing and offshoring when he himself makes $65.00/hour pushing a broom.

I put it to you that our women are being deliberately and willfully stupid - and we are letting them get away with it. I would further posit that all leftism is deliberate and calculated stupidity; and the men that indulge in it are every bit as culpable for it as women.

My wife works. She does the same jobs the guys do. She puts in overtime and goes in early and stays late. She has stood shoulder to shoulder with me as her liberal family did it's level best to undermine me and humiliate me. She deserves her vote and her rights every much as you, indeed - she deserves your respect too. My mother in law? My daughter? Niether of those idiots have any business in a voting booth, much less a place of authority or even a voice in the affairs of modern society. I remind the self righteous SJW's often that it is still as legal as church on Sunday to discriminate against stupid people - and I do so with out hesitation or regret.

And this is precisely what feminism, Marxism, and liberalism is aimed at today - the criminalization of discrimination against stupid people that stand to profit from it. Since stupidity won't sell itself, it has to be mandated by law - which in turn will mandate the abolishment of rights to freedom of speech, of self defence, etc.

When will this end? As long as there is a buck in it.

Mindstorm said...

Two types? You forgot genetic issues (to varying degree). Or you too ascribe to the "blank slate" theory that upbringing and experience are the only important factors.

Mindstorm said...

Meh, bad wording.

ray said...

'For that matter, the story also points out women want to control men but men instead will rule women. But if women are prone to envy and hate and the desire to control and destroy men, then obviously men have to rule women if you don't want society and culture destroyed, which is something women do. These things are why I consider the story of the Garden of Eden to be the most important story in the Western world.'


From a social, legalistic, and relational aspect, this is the crux of modern Western deterioration, so indeed the 'most important story in the West'. I wish it were only a story, and so do many others.


Takes an older man, with some wisdom, to appreciate that women, and weak males, often respond to generosity or favor with resentment and rebellion. It's a way of covering their real or perceived inferiority. Young men don't get this dynamic b/c they project their own masculine virtues (honor, honesty, gratitude etc.) onto females, particularly modern females. But despite constant propaganda, females are not males.


As the twentieth century proved, there is a powerful and trans-temporal urge in women to supplant, control, and ruin men, particularly fatherhood. It's will-to-power, with institutional backing.

Much-increased pain in childbirth was only the first part of the curse on women for rebellion -- the second part was a 'desire' or psychological submission to 'her husband' (= men) AND the 'rulership' of her husband over her -- as direct consequence of her covetousness and rebellion. The Scriptural translations suggest that these were NEW conditions imposed upon the female, as restrictions in response to her untrustworthiness. Ironically, I suspect that females were created originally in a kind of seamless complementarity, or reciprocity, with males. This beautiful and joyful condition of relationship was given up by choice, even the choices we continue to endure today.



Bob Wallace said...

"It's a way of covering their real or perceived inferiority."

That's exactly what I've noticed too.

"Ironically, I suspect that females were created originally in a kind of seamless complementarity, or reciprocity, with males"

The ancient Greeks had a myth that people were originally hermaphroditic, got torn apart and each is always seeking its other half in order to be whole.

ray said...

I've heard that myth, sounds Platonic? and Romanticist. I dunno, the Greeks and their sex-stuff. . .

Some Jews think Adam was hermaphroditic, but he wasn't, he was male, created from the 'breath' or spirit of a very masculine God. He made them 'male and female' -- distinct but complementary. Not unisexual or hermaphroditic as the progs and their influences proffer.

Because Adam was used as intermediary in the creation of Eve, I do think it's fair to speculate he contained some aspect of masculine/feminine wholeness. Such a thing doesn't necessitate a state of femininity, and many elements of Creation are still a mystery. To everybody.

Ergeniz said...

I'm conflicted on the duties of women. There's no denying that back in the days where we were not technically advanced the duties of a stay-at-home mother were nothing to sniff at, though still not nearly as dangerous or demanding as those of the man.

I also am aware many of the problems befalling the economy are due to women's joining the workforce.

However, I feel I cannot fully respect the stay-at-mother at this time because of the simple fact we no longer live in times where technology did not make things easier. Taking care of children, cleaning the household, making errands, etc are all made a snap due to modern technology. Even a particularly large house usually takes no more than a hour or two to clean and less than that to maintain day-to-day.

So, I see the downsides to women leaving the home but at the same time I also see that if they do get to stay home its basically a 'free ride' in a sense. Women like to say they'd like to stay home for childbearing and supporting the husband but in reality I see it as a far more practical reason - its simply so much easier! Who wouldn't want to stay home and have hours upon hours to burn after a bit of vacuuming, tossing the clothes in the wash and taking a few minutes drive to the grocery store.

Hell, men do that ourselves out of necessity when we are single anyways.

I suppose it boils down to letting women back into being a completely spoiled, privileged class (how else can one describe the relationship of someone who goes out to work while the partner gets to stay at home and do as she pleases - backed by the court system?) or allowing them to continue outside the home where they are still ridiculously privileged, but have some sense of having to take the option to get employment to take care of themselves.

Of course, the latter is horrible as well because this probably only exists due to men collectively being forced at gunpoint to support women through welfare, AA, taxes, strengthened government, etc.

So I guess its more of decision between which is the lesser evil.

I do think I recall reading somewhere that part of feminism gaining support was due to women's role in staying at home being regarded as less useful and necessary due to the advances made in technology. Indeed, many famous feminists were rich white women who had far too much time on their hands.

I'm not sure what the solution is.

Mindstorm said...

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx - imagine the shrieks of feminist harpies (the link is a courtesy of Nick Land).

Anonymous said...

"We're also due for some sort of religious revival. If you want to see the role of religion, compare the pro-religion Revolutionary War with the anti-religion French Revolution, with its slaughter, torture, mutilation and necrophilia."

Few people realize that Catholicism in France was actually much stronger after the revolution than before. Pre-revolutionary French clerics mouthed pious rhetoric, but most of them, especially at high ranks, were really skeptics and Deists at heart, who viewed their religious duties with benign indifference at best, if not with utter contempt- witness how many priests became fervently anti-clerical supporters of the Revolution. Disgust at the perverse sadism and lawlessness of the Revolution sent the French rushing back to church in droves.

Rusty Shackleford said...


"Few people realize that Catholicism in France was actually much stronger after the revolution than before. Pre-revolutionary French clerics mouthed pious rhetoric, but most of them, especially at high ranks, were really skeptics and Deists at heart, who viewed their religious duties with benign indifference at best, if not with utter contempt- witness how many priests became fervently anti-clerical supporters of the Revolution. Disgust at the perverse sadism and lawlessness of the Revolution sent the French rushing back to church in droves."

It was the same situation in Czarist Russia, with the atheist priests and a sclerotic church. Stalin was a seminarian. Now Russia is Christendom.