Tuesday, December 19, 2017


[S]omewhere in Tartary fifty generations of ever woolier and woolier sheep had recently ended abruptly in one hairless, five-legged, impotent little lamb...
Posit worlds where they can build new bodies to replace old ones, upgrades to replace deficiencies, looks to replace looks, et cetera. Now contemplate (or "imagine," if that's your thing) shell-hell, where it's an understood, usually so minor it's something you'd only say if you were being really informal or really formal, thing to have or mention probably having, or to politely guess someone might be having, when they're breaking a body in. Like, you go to a place, maybe they can get you in today, here's one some dude decided he didn't like, yes I said "dude," but it's only basically been in here, it's like new, it's thirty percent off, oh, what the hell, it's only $299 to start anyway, that includes the transfer if you've got insurance--that kind of thing. So you pick up your new body, get it verified as you, change your profile so everyone who cares knows, maaaaybe give the parents some direct contact, maybe not--that sort of thing.

So, shell-hell. Even if it's easy, there's usually a period of a few weeks/months, prob'ly worst in the first couple of days, where you get used to the thing. Oh, the knees feel so fat, why'd I get this one, lemme check the mirror again; is the neck supposed to twist like this; I dunno babe, the ass is sorta lopsided. Nothing is right, everything is wrong, and you sorta know you're going to accustom to it, and the nights are the worst because was it really meant to happen this way and I am so material and they didn't used to do this for every little--and I make light of it here, but it was really bad for some times, some places. The legs feel wrong, like alien-wrong, and it sounds like a joke unless you're really feeling it. Sure, it's as routine as, ohh, a broken limb or a heart procedure, everyone's done it at least once, but you still have those private times where it's not so cool. A touch of pain, a brush of death, and on it goes.

Yeah, big joke, she got a younger one so she's gonna be a little testy like that for a couple weeks, oh, didn't you hear about the accident? On it goes. What we can learn from it here is, at the least, a birth comparison, since really getting born is like a lesser form of shell-hell but you're less prepared for it. So, how much does metaphysical (sic) understanding of what is going to happen help? Hold on, there's a mosquito on your arm--which is to say, it doesn't help much, since you'd prefer not to be bitten. And we don't like to talk about it, how we're quite affected by these things we inhabit, changeable as they are, but with a new body, you can really tell. Yeah, the idiots adopt a new catch phrase, or they force saying something as a new habit based on a similar-appearing body they once saw in a movie or movie-equivalent, or whatever. But the smarter people are pretty much unnoticeable externally even though they can tell in different ways, more private ways usually, where they realize their thinking has changed in a slight way, only really noticeable to them, and you start to wonder, "Just how me is me, anyway?"

There's sort of something retro, or retro-original, new-again, whatever, in doing this forced hell of a different variety here, where it's only (so far) one take. And there are certainly benefits to being able to plausibly argue, to feel, that matter doesn't affect you because [reason]. To me, that's the more important issue of shell-hell from this perspective, or any perspective; not the infancy anew that can take decades to worm/work its way through the system, but the technological realization that, along with showing how important matter isn't by being able to maintain some degree of coherency through faster transitions, we simultaneously learn how important matter is, and how we've never really understood ourselves until then. Which we didn't then and won't much later, by those same tools of perspective, but it's at least an advancement, a beginning. Even treating it as faraway bullshit, that-island-doesn't-have-inhabitants bullshit, shell-hell's instructive, inasmuch as we can vicariously relive our own infancies, our own right-after-waking moments, and learn from it.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Saving Money at the Store

"If I buy this, I'll save money. It's, like, seventy percent off."

A simple ruse, yet like most of its kind, remarkably effective. What makes it most effective, sociologically speaking, is not actually the more direct expression of it, in the sense of convincing people to buy something they would not have otherwise bought. For example, we may be living a life, living a day, planning on hanging around the house (dialect for not going to a goods repository and trading currency for something as a form of amusement; although that gap has already mostly been bridged, the saying still has a trace of non-purchasing left), and not otherwise intending to buy anything. We can modify this behavior by making the purchase--literally subtracting from resource-acquisition capabilities--become a necessary, helpful, vital, resource-acquisitive act, by creating the illusion that the purchase is actually a necessary saving and/or acquisition of resources. Ergo the implication that by losing money, one is gaining money--sic.

We see the effectiveness of this technique magnified across history by the theft of credit for accomplishments during historical periods, wherein a prisoners' having acquired something is credited to the keeper. It's an easy trick, in the sense of assigning an anticipated value of zero to the time period in question, then crediting the desired authority with anything greater than zero. These assumptions made, the greatest bar to progress becomes the cause of progress. Whether mob-rule, cohort rule, or sales for things which wouldn't have otherwise been purchased, without the ability (or desire) to discern that the voyage might not have occurred, or something to have been done instead in the interlude, the liar's math is simple: any accomplishments must be the result of the act, even if the act itself was an act of subtraction. Socially, personally, we can pay witness to, if nothing else, media effectiveness, whereby one is saving money by spending it; where an act of self-harm becomes an act of self-aid by the illusory predicate of preexisting tech; by the exercise of body- or personality-conditions set long ago. Ergo the modern consumer actually does believe he is saving money by spending it.

We might liken the individual act in such a case to doublethink, except that doublethink implies a sophistication; an ability to believe both things, and thus to understand the truth of one while denying its truth. There is a similarity, for confronted clothing-savers would, at some level, understand the postponed schism between bank accounts and clothing, and thus, if forcibly educated with each purchase, would vocally admit an understanding that saving is not actually spending. Yet the true doublethinker simultaneously, completely understands, avows, and disavows, and therein lies his material genius. Two plus two actually is five, always, just as much as it can never be five, and there is never a moment of "breakdown" where a masterful doublethinker can perceive the contradiction. There is no contradiction, there never was one, and outrage at the implication that there might be such a contradiction is justified so thoroughly that, if you're not outraged, you're stupid.

The lesser stuff required of the masses, in the case of saving while spending, is less refined. We can buy things we wouldn't have bought, understanding the difference under cross-examination, yet putting it aside mentally for useful functioning. Obviously the end result of such behavior is trying, yet the historical variety is similar, but effects more because of our unfamiliarity with the passage of time. Ergo we may understand, vocally at least, that spending is not saving, yet when considering one millennia, rather than one afternoon or one lifetime, one's estimation of what would probably have been accomplished, compared to what was actually accomplished that we know of, controls the evaluation more than does one's evaluation of quality alone. During a period of dominance/ascension by a group, then, the prediction that achievement will be at zero, or near zero, controls one's evaluation of said group's effectiveness, more than does one's much-more-limited evaluation of the quality of the work alone. High expectations versus low expectations, perhaps. And in some sense, the girl with the new dress that potentially makes her look better than the last twenty-six will become upset, perhaps even good-naturedly, at the implication that the new dress was not needed, but if you set your baseline at "gonna spend at least $170 today" then shopping is saving.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

The Subtle Blade, Part 2

Continuing from Part 1.

Christianity as Conquest: Control of Art

This one has touched on this issue before, about which it is at once simple and impossible to be comprehensive. Which is to say, you can be comprehensive simply by saying, "Everything," but beyond that, you barely brush the surface.

Consider, as we go through this one, how art is, like other things taken by Christianity, but a component of "spirituality," about which more could be more-incompletely said. As a throwback to this one's promise to not attempt at being herein comprehensive, consider again the idea that everything spiritual becomes defined, through conquest, in Christ-language. We will never know what would have been written, let alone thought, in a Christ-free environment.

In that vein, consider the small sub-component of spirituality that is art. We certainly have been instructed, somewhere amidst a vast assemblage of Christian-founded and -enabled public schools or universities, on the Christ-centered art which permeated Europe, and then the world, since the advent of Christianity and colonialism.

We note here that, like universal Bangism, Christianity is the direct, sense-making predecessor to what was, as it is a form of its creator. The university and its learned men are not hostile to the press, nor vice versa, because of where they come from. And yet, dead white men who vocally believed in white supremacy and/or Christ founded the said universities and/or presses. In all technicality, this should be a problem during the new phase, in which the sins of the past are cast off, but we will not accept new tradition; only a revamped, yet somewhat-actual, tradition works. Ergo black academics do not break away in righteous media anger to found their own medical college, but rather take over, or try to take over, existing American/European colleges, because they were either, logically-inconceivably, "always black" (we actually did build this place) or "should've always been black" (we had the spirit to build it but actually didn't even though we could've). Wordplay aside, they are right, like feminist-preferencing universities. Nominal targets change, but foundations remain the same.

The even more subtle ways in which this weltanschauung served as a cruel gift, though not quite as subtle as that of basic perspective, is through its private subversion of art, in which the child's first fantasies include Christian themes. Not historically meaningful, it seems, until we attempt to calculate the growth and worldly effects of said X billion children. Far more profound, really, than that of the still-profound statues and paintings of biblical figures produced by older artists raised in a Christian perspective.

We encounter anew the darkly brilliant subtleties of Christianity, here. Through the jealous exclusivity of Yahweh's monotheism, we forestall countless avenues of progress, akin to jamming all the ocean's rivers through a single small funnel. Made of case-hardened titanium, you are free to do whatever you like before or after the funnel, but even the modern's relative freedom, and the pseudo-rebellion or managed transition from Christ-worship to Bang-worship, delivered by the same or successor media, the Christianization seems to be foundationally European. A simple trick, played after the bodies have been discarded, upon the stupid- or rape-spawned leftovers; like the Great War or wicked King Edward I, it works on those who believe the company line about their history. Publicly professed identity during the occupation is assumed, by the undiscerning, to be voluntary. Flattered Nu Euros seem to presume freedom as their baseline, so the choice to attend a meeting or fight a battle is perceived as an endorsement: a vulnerability they would address if they’re to survive in any recognizable form. Consider state policemen or soldiers, and they tend to have strong disagreements with, shall we say, the world historical significance (or local political significance) of the organization at large which they theoretically represent. When ignorant, it’s easy to believe in random "greatness"--it comes naturally to the remnants of Europe--and it often takes years for them to realize they’re just focusing on an area because someone told them to, and might be neglecting other areas for reasons that aren’t theirs. So too do we see age come into play, for once you've devoted your life to invading Africa/Asia, or handing out traffic citations, you are old and it harms you personally, your offspring, and your self-image to perceive of wrongs as wrongs. Plenty of retired soldiers and cops are vocally brave, and know better than to challenge the duped enthusiasm of the young. This is the inner conundrum of the whistleblower, who believes--often correctly, as many non-living friends and associates evince--that they'd better stay quiet. We hide what we know, in part, in disappearances, asylums, and official suicides.

“In the old days” they might resign and/or take up other trades. Yet they don’t, because there are no other careers, the pension doesn’t vest if you rock the boat, and several layers of intermediary officers offer an even more plausible veneer to what’s happening, being subject themselves to differing stresses.

There’s no way to tell what Leonardo actually would've painted on his own, just like there is no way to tell what anyone we believe in historically actually believed in the privacy of their minds. Maybe some of them actually did believe in that Rabbi, just like some people who spent 3 years in the Middle East actually wanted to defend Israel with their lives, or some people really thought the biggest problem in Middlesex was white drivers who exceeded posted speed limits.

...or that the best way to run society is to put an obese inbred in charge and do whatever his attendants say he says. People "should" be smarter about their history, and stop assuming that things existed because everyone thought it was the best way to do things. VATs and income taxes, for example, are paid because of a complicated dynamic of repression, appearance, and warnings, but not because everyone, let alone a simple majority, agrees with the idea or what the taxes are being spent upon. Like so much else since JC arrived, a majority of people could be privately hating/doubting the king, but be prevented from expressing it due to their individualized preferences against being hammered upon, and the amazing quantity of funds available to their oppressors. A new history would be currently dangerous, in the sense that it would expose who was actually creating this system of shifting illusions.

Art is nearly identical. If we're stupid, we assume that if Mom had not left the room a minute early on that one special day, she would've met the man who gave up and tried with someone else instead, and therefore we'd've been raised in, and believe in, a different denomination, and be equally certain of our salvation. Or maybe that man's our father, that's how they met, and if grandmom hadn't had that five-minute delay with her hair that night, she'd've never shown up, never met Grandpa, and would've met someone else in the next five years. Yahweh has a plan, of course, and makes things happen correctly, but if we're so delusional that we can look beyond that type of explanation we see different worlds, forsake Calvin, and ask what Leonardo, or someone almost as famous, would've painted if not the Pentateuch and later works. We do not know, similarly, what all of the "screenwriters" would have done with themselves without Hollywood, and if we think we're smart enough, we might imagine a different, non-invasive, actually creative venue for plot structure and the use of technology, and not be so reverent toward things as they are. Funny when we try to have it both ways, like the wrongness began sometime in the twentieth century: mentally, though, we can ask what might have been created if people weren't being sought out, groomed, then largely ignored by merchants who wanted to create and sell a certain derivative product.

What would have been painted? Written? Sculpted? We don't know. We can only guess, and we're limited by minds exposed since inception to products that have already been mainstreamed. Who we would have become, and what thoughts we would think, have been governed so thoroughly that it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to imagine thinking better. Consider a formative moment from your own memory, and then try to imagine what it would have been if you had been, oh, twice as inspired. Who are you today? Who would you be? The wasteland is harsh and tough, and breeds to its own methods. None of us know who we would've been in a worldly paradise.

Or just eat a Purim-cookie and celebrate the death of the pointy-eared holdouts again.

Funny that this one is listening to Christmas music while typing. There are adaptations, attempted traditionals, and a few "new but supposedly in the spirit of" ones. And they are often quite good. So we ask, again, what would have been created without the understood framework? What would've been built, what would've been channeled, and what would our special times look like and feel like if all of our drive to be creative, reverent, everlasting, et cetera, had not been funneled through the Risen Rabbi? People who believe in an environmental approach to society might say that "Christmas" (like those of us who remain, a stolen thing with only echoes of past meaning) creates certain traditions, like not shooting infants, and they have a plethora of explanations for why certain groups might accidentally discharge firearms at all, or on such a time.

People who believe in genetics might, though, imagine a past, and maybe a future, where Euros create, revere, and are spiritual as they are allowed, and while they appreciate the idea of a winter festival of some kind, find the peaceableness and togetherness to be created by the people rather than the environment. It's less than narcissistic, of course, to imagine that everyone doesn't approach things the way you do, but maybe, just maybe, a hint of the forebears might've survived.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

In Case Computers Delete It

Just a record--this one signed in to Disqus for some reason and found a bunch of old moderated AmRen posts that were, as they say, rayciss and therefore thoughtcrimed. Sticking them here because.

Monday, December 4, 2017

The Subtle Blade: Christianity and Conquest

In this discussion, we'll acknowledge, but try not to focus on, the foundation and use of Christianity as an aspect, perhaps the most important, of biological conquest. Not lightly do we address this subject, given the incompletely valid references to passions young and old which persist as side effects. Imagine, for example, a person from 1,000 B.C. and a person from 2017 A.D. transported to a mediation table, where they each scream at the other that they have no idea what it was like to live in the other person's timeline, and how much assistance their spirituality gave them, and how ignorant the other person is of the way the world has worked or is working.

Though it would mortify the person born earlier, on whose grave we've been dancing for quite a while now, there is still some cohesiveness attributed in part to the post-JC wasteland, wherein forms of spirituality, disguised successors to the older, have been, as it were, manna in the desert. Arguably older conclusions, were they made, can be said to've been partly wrong also, which error is of a substantially different variety--yet, in its consuming aspect, and the reduced interplay with formal pseudoscience to which some older spiritualities were subjected, wrongness is rather comprehensive. Far be it for this one to dance harder upon graves, particularly ones that attempted to be helpful rather than to forestall through guesses made gospel (sic), but we must at least acknowledge the potency of religious wrongness, for even in a tiny portion it can be misused.

Christianity as Conquest: Soulular Universalism

Here follows an acknowledgement of the unspoken non-topic, the prelude, to Christianity's wrongness. We might first notice the universalism that underpins Christianity. By decreeing that every soul was valuable, Christianity made humans numbers, interchangeable and useless except as vessels of deference. The predecessor to affirmative action, to say the least, Christianity's march turned the landholding fathers' decision into, so to speak, the television masses' vote or the welfare degenerate female vote (whichever you prefer, as both are true; and yes, landholding fathers are idiots also, but a thousand and a half years ago, we might speculate a different quality of "average voter," which speculation might render us assistance). The effects have been profound. Whether for good or ill can be your judgment, but Christianity's ideatic role in rewriting the future, and the governmental customs of several continents, must be noted.

We recoil from, say, the hypothetical attempt to cull disability from future generations, as though subsidizing the production of non-disabled is more evil than our current tax structure. Easy to do if you're not congenitally disabled and haven't felt it; even easier if you're merely very selfish, and don't mind imposing suffering on at least ten generations by aiding in the perpetuation of said suffering. Such weighing of lives finds its roots in Christianity, wherein the soul of a pain-wracked cripple who steals from the collection plate is as valuable as the soul of the lusty hero who saves three children from the runaway train. Christianity foreshadows Bang and now in so many ways, notwithstanding its contentious relationship with then-European strength-favoring culture. It is easy to underestimate this effect if one considers the "obvious" perspective before Christianity, where it is an obvious wrongness to breed a hundred stealing cripples at the expense of one healthy track-attendant. Like many things here for which it is impossible to perceive a previous obvious, Europe's comparative preference for sloth has been subtly altered over hundreds of years.

(Talk with some pained dying about creating more people with their destiny, and keep your own survey about whether or not they want to put someone through it, as opposed to letting half the number live without it. Really, do: today, you might find not zero, but some of a hundred clinging to the belief of a "cure" that will liberate potential successors, but absent the reality of such a cure you might find, instead, a Stockholmish or hateful attitude toward the causes of the pain.)

Christianity as Conquest: Imposed Blindness

In accordance with the aforementioned effects goes Christianity's observational denialism. By demanding ignorance, Christianity's notion of "faith"--which we previously knew as either "trust" or "stupidity"--has had matching effects on government and society. The trend of blindly trusting authorities stems from Christianity's hidden texts and subversion of Latin, ergo our acceptance of televised elections with "best available" leaders no one likes is Christian, as is our reverence for a priestly class of "scientists" or "academics" which knows things of which we could never conceive. Like the rest of Christianity, the losses and opportunity costs of this aspect of redesigned Zoroastrianism were vast: a gift that has given for more than a thousand years. Not only political blindness, and the innumerable toxic things that have resulted from it, but creating an inherent derision for the un-godly learned, and the consequences of mistrusting unpleasant but observed facts, has been seeded by Christianity. Our denial of doctoral degrees to disagreers is thoroughly Christian, for we will not acknowledge the potential for wrongness.

Christianity as Conquest: Actually Requiring Conquest

The imposition of Christianity by force needs hardly to be spoken of, and yet it does, for many still have the impression, fostered even by the purportedly anti-Christian mandatory schools of the Christianized world, that the religion's stupid promises of future pleasure caused it to be willingly adopted by "the west." In fact, Europe had to be conquered, region by region, century by century, in order to leave behind a population that vocally allied with inbred leaders who claimed allegiance to Christ. We've recently discussed the wrongs done to the Irish, but in turn consider what the survivors did to those Irish who resisted the first armies who murdered the majority of Irish who were "heretics."

(Of course, the grandchildren of the Irish enablers or stay-quiet-ers were given their just desserts from within and without, as are the raped and murdered spawn of the most would-be joyous enablers of western immigration now. Have you been shot by prison guards, yet, while you were trying to break Breivik out? No? Then enjoy the future. Terrible justice, indeed.)

The "side effects," or actual effects, of this conquest were prodigious, not merely in terms of Christianized political systems, but the genetic losses, also, whereby minds that combined inquiry and honesty were almost wholly eliminated, leaving behind as their survivors only the superficially amiable but internally loathing, or the vast majority of quiet non-seers. Christianity by force was rather an acidic test for Europe, whereby stupid herds were given genetic preference. If you still retain a touch of the past, you may wonder at how evolution could've worked that way--and through outsiders imposing Christianity, you have your answer--careful planning.

Nu Euros have grappled with this issue throughout the modern period, wherein thinkers regularly ask, in one or more forms, how the masses can be so stupid. Politics and markets have to deal with manipulation because, absent it, the masses would be so easy to control. Without the guidance of even a Ronald McDonald, people would literally drink poison that acted much, much faster--and they have. Quite seriously, surviving hordes will eat literal "in about an hour" poison when someone interferes with the message. All people who deal with health in some realistic way must confront the issue of "reaching" the everyman. TV helps, but people keep forgetting to finish, or even watch, their televisions, so a constant barrage of "what to do next" must be employed, else they'd strip themselves and start burning things just to see what would happen. Ergo commercials have to be subtracted, or made suitably subtle, and devices have to exist which deliver television commands without even their supposed source of meaning.

Were these traits endemic to Christianized populations before Christianization, or as a result of it? This one holds the latter, but it's certainly possible that dumb enough people do this anyway, ergo the surviving mass of Christianized peoples is more likely to pursue entertainment-by-television, so to speak, than would've been the pre-Christian mass (sic, sick).

Christianity as Conquest: Birth Control

Early Christianity advocates natalism because so many were killed to establish it. We might consider the suddenly-stalled butchery of Africans whereby normal people went across the ocean to kill because they were engaged in the work of uplifting, and then, a few generations later, well-wishers of derivative religions encouraging normal people to cross the ocean to breed. If you're familiar with what happened to people who live near a source of diamonds, versus how eagerly well-wishers now work to rapidly expand Africa's population through breeding and feeding programs well beyond continental infrastructure capability, conjoined to a readjustment of attitudes to those currently acceptable (sold as "modern"), you can imagine Europe after Christianity's advent, where those who stuck to "old ways" were murdered en masse, and those who converted encouraged to quickly have a lot of children. Much is made of the Catholic opposition to "birth control," like the details of many staged rebellions, yet the actual status on birth and reproduction was effected by the first widespread birth control--the Catholic "rhythm method"--whereby intercourse was encouraged for pleasure during non-reproducing times. The rather hilarious pretense that this was not birth control has borne the fruit it was intended to with modern demographics. As time passes between conquests, Jenomic cleansers ("Judaic religions") gradually accede to limiting in certain areas and unlimited in others--an obvious genetic boost to a conquest-focused system. A terrible form of righteous justice, that, comparable to what is befalling the remaining survivors now.

One of the many ways to accustom the unwary to obey you is to tell people to do things they're already going to do. Ergo telling a bunch of young people, "Do it," is a great technique for getting them used to carrying out your wishes. Much of Christianity's similar "advocacy for births," which has proven its truth over the years (always through its actions, though not always through its words), is this technique writ large. Of course if you make yourself the center of "Europeans doing it," the Europeans will continue to do it. Claiming credit makes you quite foul, then ever-so-quietly removing support for births lets you control them. For this is what birth control actually is--the control of births, rather than anti-natalism. Who shall be born, and when the births shall happen, is birth control. It proves itself a short step from "Don't have babies until an old hetero-virgin has pledged you to each other" to "Don't have babies," and the notion that you should pay for someone else's six babies and cut one or two babies from your own total is then easily achieved. Thus did Christianity serve as a useful tool for taking control of a growing population, then seeming to be its ally while first stabilizing, then shrinking, said society.

Like many critiques of Christianity, the observational science--sic--of birth rates, social control, et cetera, can speak for themselves. Even those who believe in the Risen Rabbi can see the way that He has claimed credit for the initial recovery, then shirked credit for the later reduction, in the birth rates of occupied territories. An alien fleet which suddenly occupied Earth, imposed worship of a reptilian general, and happened to be administering things during some triumph--say, the greatest-ever bicycle race coverage or the cure for cancer--would claim credit for the positive things that Earth had produced, eschew full responsibility for the negative, and seem, at first, to be obvious and evil. Yet in a great deal of time, said alien race and religion might be adjudged a native thing. The said invaders would thereby be deemed responsible for the natural progression of bike-races, cancer-treatments, et cetera, even though those things had happened before and would continue to happen.

Christianity as Conquest: Access to Children

This discussion is not about the larger, more systemic of Christianity's negatives, but about the smaller. Superficially, if we ignore all of the details of Christianity's imposition, and focus only on now--an enormous task, but assume it--we see the brilliance of the disease that keeps on giving. Christianity isn't merely about killing infidels, encouraging blind trust and stupidity, and absolutely revising itself (notions of advancing time and inevitable social progression being one of the numberless derivatives of the latter), but of ways small and varied that can make it effective in any environment. We'll purposefully avoid the discussion of similarities between all Judaic religions and the populations at which they were targeted, focusing bullishly on "European Christianity," even when such similarities abound.

One of the cardinal rules of successfully conquering a population without exterminating it is severing the parent-child bond. Christianity has done an exemplary job of this, setting the stage for not only mandatory secular schools in occupied territories, but a closer relationship with the state itself, rather than the family. This one commented elsewhere about feminism:
Interesting fight between people who want to defame America’s founding fathers for the wrong reasons, but are factually correct, versus the people who defend them wrongly but for the right reasons. This one also has to point out that, forgotten now, is how a lot of early feminism drew its anger from social impressions of hundreds of years of mandatory Christianity. Pedo-reverends/pedo-priests handled mandatory punishment of kids, getting “confessions” of desires, masturbation, etc. Yet again, this one’s not saying that feminism was correct, but one can understand its source, as well as how the untermenschen and many individuals in crypsis used the Risen Rabbi to gain access to people and families. Viewed in that light, feminism is quite understandable; one of the many fruits borne by Christianity, like modern men’s rights transitioned into Judaism in a match to the women’s movements that had come before.
Feminism stands out because it was primarily (though it didn't know it) about child protection, in the sense of taking a mother's future from her and convincing her to tell everything to a theoretical virgin instead. Forgotten by many, if not all, is the mandatory nature of religion throughout most of Europe's history, where one could not reproduce, work, sleep, or live, without regular attendance, contribution, and ritual. The busybodies in one's condominium association were, in Christian times, like an I.R.S. audit team, ensuring that every child, family, and individual fill space in the pews, listen to whoever was preaching and what they were saying, signing up (or providing an excuse) to take another piece of land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews, et cetera. This theft of freedom, still antithetical to the Nu Euro, is a great part of why the liberation of women was partly (you can make the fraction whatever you like, but be sure to multiply it by infinity for the predilection for protecting women then still more extant in European survivors) correct.

Continued in Part 2.