I should also mention that Rick's argument and my own in my talk complement one another. We are both showing the link between sexual/feminist ideology and the current takeover of western governments by the authoritarian left. Rick starts with feminism and shows how it provided all the ingredients for the current authoritarianism that has now seized the West. I start with the larger politics of the last 4 years in the West and work backwards to show its antecedents in the radical sexual ideology of the past (feminism much more than homosexualism/transgenderism). But the point is the same, and it is of the highest importance, because it shows that all this is of central concern to the freedom not only of men but all of Western society.
Is it possible that the feminist establishment is starting to feel a little ‘heat’, or perhaps sense a changing of their perception regarding unquestioning public support? Thank you
Very erudite and detailed analysis. Any of us that are old enough - I was 20 in 1966 - and came into the start of the sexual revolution, and have since observed the obvious decline in western society to the current level of total absurdity. Yes, most of us could see the symptoms and speculate on the feminist causation, but could not articulate in such a detailed and accurate manner. This is a very valuable speech. And, his suggestion of parallel subgroups going there own way, which is starting to happen, seems like the only logical approach for any thinking person. Find your subgroup and move to where they are. And where they are isn't likely to be a big city, where the level of decline is only going to fester and get worse because that is where it all started.
authoritarian: essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace. authority: the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology. The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires. Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place. Unfortunately, *authority* is often conflated with the notion of *power* , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma). P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
Wonderfully lucid treatment of a fascinating topic. The first 15 minutes alone are well worth the price of admission.
I should also mention that Rick's argument and my own in my talk complement one another. We are both showing the link between sexual/feminist ideology and the current takeover of western governments by the authoritarian left. Rick starts with feminism and shows how it provided all the ingredients for the current authoritarianism that has now seized the West. I start with the larger politics of the last 4 years in the West and work backwards to show its antecedents in the radical sexual ideology of the past (feminism much more than homosexualism/transgenderism). But the point is the same, and it is of the highest importance, because it shows that all this is of central concern to the freedom not only of men but all of Western society.
Thank you gentlemen.
Is it possible that the feminist establishment is starting to feel a little ‘heat’, or perhaps sense a changing of their perception regarding unquestioning public support?
Thank you
Very erudite and detailed analysis. Any of us that are old enough - I was 20 in 1966 - and came into the start of the sexual revolution, and have since observed the obvious decline in western society to the current level of total absurdity. Yes, most of us could see the symptoms and speculate on the feminist causation, but could not articulate in such a detailed and accurate manner. This is a very valuable speech.
And, his suggestion of parallel subgroups going there own way, which is starting to happen, seems like the only logical approach for any thinking person. Find your subgroup and move to where they are. And where they are isn't likely to be a big city, where the level of decline is only going to fester and get worse because that is where it all started.
Many thanks. I'm glad to find support for these ideas.
Excellent speech!!
Thanks Louis!
Excellent, Rick. I found the section on international organizations (about midway) especially powerful.
Superb and enlightening analysis.
Cogratulations from Brazil.
great elucidation sir, love and regards from India
authoritarian:
essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way.
HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard.
Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace.
authority:
the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology.
The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires.
Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place.
Unfortunately, *authority* is often conflated with the notion of *power* , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma).
P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
ive always had a idea feminism is part of the white anting of the west and anglosphere
Gee!, you think?
Say it isn't so!