Thursday, March 24, 2016

The Western Patriarchy


Plot First

An intelligent, independent, light-haired young woman, possessing education and freedom, is approached by a male friend. The confident bachelor plies her for sex and attachment, but is rebuffed. The bachelor looks incredibly smug despite the rejection. Leaning back with a cigar, he begins analyzing the woman. He objectifies her, describing her facial beauty and some choice details about her body. He informs her that her career is worthless, that her body was meant for sex and child-bearing, and that the only reason she isn't having sex with him right now is because she is frigid and unnatural. She further rebuffs him, he offers a bribe or a promotion for sex, and when she continues to refuse his advances, he gropes her over her objections, chucks her chin or feels her up, then finally releases her while she gasps in fear and dismay. He reminds her that one day she will fall prey to dicklust. At last he leaves, laughing, while she clutches her blouse and looks upset. She promises herself that she is tough, independent, and is genuinely interested in her life, and will perhaps meet a decent man later on.

Minutes later, a new man enters. He is tall, made-up to be white but slightly swarthy underneath, dark-eyed and dark-haired, with a drab suit and an immaculate, over-gelled haircut. Instantly, the light-haired woman swoons. This new man is so incredible she can't keep her eyes off him. She forgets her character, her career, her interests, and starts stumbling over her words, giggling garishly, and slobbering at the chance to be with the new man. He is suave and distant, infantilizing her with words and gestures, patronizing her choices, deciding what's best for her, and she is eating it up and fainting into his arms. He asks her out on a sort-of date, she clings to him desperately, and inside of a day, she is in love with him, confessing that she hates herself, is a living lie, and wants nothing more than to cook his meals, wash his feet, and slobber over his cock until the end of time.

...where does this come from? This, the most solidly twentieth-century recitation of patriarchal tropes to be found on the planet Earth? Who created it? Who made it a dominant theme in international media for several decades in a row?

If you don't know, then add in a few details. Suppose that, after the woman has been slobbering over the slightly swarthy, dark-haired and dark-eyed gentleman for a couple days, he warns her that the subhuman Germanic race is plotting to destroy the world. She eagerly joins him on a quest to execute as many Germans as possible. Along the way, her handsome savior has to seduce or imprison or beat a few other light-haired women, with which the light-haired bimbo is perfectly content. A few low IQ, idiot rural peasants with light eyes clumsily try to obstruct them, but the man knocks each one out with a hard right to the jaw, sending moisturous tingles to the light-haired girl's vagina. Once all the Germans have been jailed or killed, the woman stands in front of a sunset and states her passion for subservience to the man's superior penile and geological management abilities.

Plot Second

A feisty, independent, light-haired young woman undoes her clothes and begins pleasuring herself. A man enters. He is beefy, made-up to be white but slightly swarthy underneath, dark-eyed and dark-haired, with a hairy back and ass, and a grimy, over-gelled haircut. Instantly, the light-haired woman swoons. This new man is so incredible she can't keep her eyes off him. She forgets her hand, her dildo, her dignity, and the world outside, and starts babbling lewd nothings, giggling girlishly, and slobbering at the chance to be with the ugly man. He is businesslike and distant, infantilizing her with words and gestures, brushing her hands aside, deciding what's best for her, and she is eating it up and spreading her legs wide. He paws greedily at her body for perhaps half a minute, then sticks a large, misshapen, somewhat sweaty penis into her vagina. His curly belly rug presses against her trim abdomen. She clings to him desperately, and inside of a minute, is wailing in exaggerated pleasure, screaming through a half-dozen orgasms, and hurling herself to her feet whenever he gets soft and pulls loose, so that she can slobber on his dick and coax him to hardness while the camera pans across the hair-crusted canyon of his ass.

...where does this come from? This, the most solidly twentieth-century recitation of patriarchal tropes to be found on the planet Earth? Who created it? Who made it a dominant theme in international media for several decades in a row?

If you don't know, then add in a few details. Suppose that, after the woman has been slobbering over the slightly swarthy, dark-haired and dark-eyed gentleman for a few positions, she stops getting callbacks until she agrees to take him in her anus, and a year later, a group of his friends. Another year later, she's expected to fuck six Africans on a Swedish couch, all the while throwing apologetic looks at a nerdy looking white guy, while saying, "I'm sorry baby, it's just, too, good!"

Plot Third

One of the few European nations to obtain a rape conviction against Middle Eastern "refugee" men is Poland, where Ibn al-Ryshar was sentenced to ten days of community service for a series of rapes committed in that country in 2010 and 2011. For his community service, al-Ryshar was interviewed by a journalist, who chronicled the details of some of his assaults. Dark-haired, swarthy and hook-nosed, and meticulous in the arrangement of his hair and beard, al-Ryshar is often described as "confident" and "successful," and he takes care to present himself for photographs under bright lighting, with lightening skin care products. Among refugees, he is wealthy, possessing mysteriously deep pockets for world travel and self-promotion--pockets that some analysts have suggested are kept filled by pro-rape groups.

Here are some direct quotes from al-Ryshar's interviews, describing two of his rapes:
I pulled off her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No! No!”

I was so angry at the sin of her exposed beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a [Polish] prison to make it happen.

I put it in. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a true husband.

... (snip, skipping ahead to Victim #Twelve:) ... It took four hours and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Ibn, No!” until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina.

The sex was painful for her. I was only the second guy she’d ever been given sex with. . . . She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time, but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes.

After sex she sobbed for a good while, talking about how she had sinned in the eyes of God.

...where does this come from? This, the most solidly twentieth-century recitation of worst-case-scenario patriarchal tropes to be found on the planet Earth? Who created it? Who made it a dominant theme in international media for several of the past years in a row?

If you don't know, then add in a few details. Suppose that Ibn al-Ryshar was actually named Daryush Valizadeh, and that he was sent to the West with funding sufficient to repopularize the notion of proprietary rape, chattel femininity, ethnic hostility, and non-reproductivity. Suppose that a few years ago, internet search engines, a large network of bottom-feeding marketing sites--including diet supplements, testosterone pills, penis extension kits, electronic masturbators and lotions, divorce and child support forums, and "negative" anti-publicity from major sites like Salon.com and Huffington Post, as well as anti-publicity from other well-funded marketing groups, who gained their own followings through links associated with diet supplements, hormone therapies, anti-wrinkle cream, romance novels, and divorce and child support forums--suppose that, a few years ago, all of that came together in a big, integrated way to produce an audience for this particular dirty lying covert agent or dirty lying rapist.

Where Did the Western Patriarchy Originate?

In 1873, a young man was born to a Jewish family in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Through an amazing bit of luck, the young man, as a teenager sensed that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would soon be destroyed, and traveled to the United States--the Empire City of New York, more particularly--where a stunningly brief career in free-market sewing turned him into a wealthy and powerful fashion designer and movie producer. This instant international mogul turned his attention to London, his Silversteinian good insurance-sense guiding him to another bastion of victory, where he began using his wealth to buy up rights to pulp adventure tales published by Jewish publishers across Britain. He hired an obese eunuch to front the movie versions of the pulp, and the rest is history.

Adolph Zukor and Alfred Hitchcock made many movies together, while simultaneously, dozens of other studios in London and Hollywood churned out different versions of the same story, over and over: building up a disgusting repertoire of sexual perspective that would later allow Zukor's successors, including Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, to have evidence for how terribly western culture portrayed women. Spellbound, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes... Like the ridiculously outlandish heterosexual James Bond, or the ridiculously homosexual Sherlock Holmes, this patriarchal dross was neither Occidental nor accurate.

Now, we do face a problem here: America and Western Europe did adopt and cheer on this filth, and take a hand in creating it. The mistake of "men's rights" people is in pretending that honor, chivalry, morality, decency, et cetera, are somehow related to the perverted version of misplaced homosexual representations of "patriarchy" that were expressed into the culture by Adolph Zukor and his fellow disease vectors. Like poison into a provincial well, the use of pulp fiction (sic) and movies to subtly alter the nature of sexual and familial relationships had far-reaching implications for the targeted people and culture. Later, when the idiocies of feminism had become not only silly and wrong, but drastically expensive and harmful, the perception of the false patriarchy, fostered by all those clogged-toilet propaganda pieces inserted during the twentieth century, would be useful for either (1) causing feminists to justifiably dig in their heels, or (2) causing anti-feminists to fight for a return to the artifice and lies.

"Plot Second" above--the traditional twentieth century pornography scenario--is a logical extension of the dross from "Plot First." The woman gets a little dumber and a little more made-up, the man gets a little less made up and a little more like Ron Jeremy, and there you go. There's an integral relationship between the false patriarchy of the post-Fed movie studios of the early twentieth century, and the post-Woodstock porn studios of the late twentieth century. The counterreaction to this phony history, embodied in marketing operations like the one discussed in "Plot Third," exhibits similar cultural planning. That Roosh-thing, and his erection pills and testosterone cream, is a political movement nearly identical to that incubated by Gloria Steinem: a Levantine creature adopting crypsis and slithering into America to come up with profitable theories about how boys girls suck, deserve mistreatment, are trying to cheat you, and should be cheated in return. Because they were so unfair to "us," clearly "we" should be unfair to them, goes the line. The rape quotes from the Roosh-thing are genuine, taken from Greg Johnson's selections from the Roosh-thing's book Bang Poland, but edited to make them a bit less vulgar.

Terra's twenty-first century perspective on feminism, and on western patriarchy, is so heavily influenced by this clever propaganda that it is difficult, if not impossible, for us now to contemplate actual western patriarchy and its actual origins. The Torah (the "Old Testament") says not to give women authority, and aristocracy generally passed through the male bloodline, and women weren't required to manage property (sorry--were "prevented from owning property"), and women weren't forced to learn arms or trade (sorry--were "prevented from having careers"), and usually weren't forced to be liable for state decisions (sorry, were "prevented from holding public office"), but those cultural traits bear only superficial resemblance to the utterly loathsome, sneeringly condescending crap that we see in, e.g., "Hitchcock" (Chosen) movies. If an uppity woman learns she can't manage without a husband, it might be pleasurable to view her fall from grace, just like it's funny watching a pompous man accidentally slip into an open manhole--but that kind of plot structure was used by London and Hollywood, repeatedly and cunningly, to portray all women as fluttery bimbos. Yeah, there are hard and fast sex differences, and Waif Fu is overdone and stupid, and statistically trackable abstract differences and spatial differences and IQ differences exist and so on, but those things have no relation to the snotty, cheap plot devices and flat character tropes used to maximum social effect in those awful early movies. It's funny watching a man fall into an open sewer, too, but if that happens to 99% of male characters onscreen at least once per movie for fifty years, it gets pretty fucking tiring--and the producers' agenda gets pretty fucking obvious.

So too the propaganda assault on European women. A realistic blend of individual characters, rather than a recycling of tropes (the virgin, the gossip, the vamp, the dowager, the slut) would have meant not only actual art, but a relief from the coordinated assault of society-shaping cliches. Sophia Loren was a rare standout in El Cid, though past the time when the false patriarchy had already been troped. Loren's Jimena was loyal and virginal, but she was also loyal to her father despite his wrong, and so tried to have Heston's Rodrigo killed in pursuit of higher principles...and then accepted the bargain she had made, because she wanted it even though her own honor code made her hesitate. She had agency and dimension, strength and weakness, and believable femininity without tons of cliche neediness; if producers had shown women that way, rather than like Hitchcock's series of brainless cock-needers, feminism would've never reached the masses.

(Which latter point is, of course, why (((producers))) did it the way they did. You can argue that Rodrigo was "Alpha," but then, was he also a cuck for sparing Al-Mu'tamin? No. Rather, it was the Sephardic contingent in the shadows who wanted Gomez to prevent the Cid's method from working, and they overemphasized a simplistic form of nationalism to justify the lack of alliances that ultimately permitted the defeat of Ben Yusuf. But this isn't the place to argue too much about one movie, and this discussion should not be taken to imply an endorsement of the historical figure himself, or of his actions as such, or of the other agendas involved in the production of that particular movie. This one's just using it for a Jimena character reference.)

It's tough for people now, around the reversing of feminism, to find any justification in the movement. Certainly its arch witches were vile, being in on the long game, and setting it up to be as stupid and hypocritical as the false patriarchy that had been blessed upon them by their friends in international communication. For the actual people, though, we can't forget that there were actual problems to address--or at least that they thought there were actual problems, based on the pretend history they'd been taught by a bunch of publishers and producers.

Imagine the chivalrous knight, dinged broadsword, full suit of battered armor, standing in an office in the first few scenes of Spellbound, watching a scrawny, twink-haircutted Levantine push himself on the unwilling, pretty young lady who had been formerly busy writing her correspondence at a desk. What is his reaction: (1) Behead filthy cad, or (2) Engage in a reasoned abstract discourse about how women shouldn't practice medicine?

Off with his head. Western feminism would not have been successful without the endless and ongoing legislative and regulatory sheltering of women from the actual standards applicable to men; of course, it had to be fostered by mandatory government boosts. But the offensiveness of the early versions of the "game" people--squawky multi-level marketing manchildren--made the feminist overreaction predictable and, even, minutely justifiable, just like the masses of men now gobbling up reverse-feminism are somewhat justified (but ultimately harming their people) by a half century of family court.

We've covered this material before. What should stand out in this entry is the vampires' intergenerational coordination between two media-driven men's asshole movements, separated by a single media-driven women's asshole movement.

1 comment:

  1. As to the closing observation:

    The filling in the sandwich, it's what makes the sandwich!

    Besides, behinds notwithstanding, it's an epochal demonstration of equality, the ability to be sanctioned socially for repellent behavior.

    ReplyDelete