Monday, December 27, 2004

Sony Lifestyle

Ask just about anyone today about the kind of society we live in, and most of them will respond with something like "a capitalist democracy".

They are wrong.

What we have is "capitalist marxism-lite", which is a fascinating combination of what to most people would appear to be two diametrically opposed systems.

But they are not that diametrically opposed when you think about it. In fact you may soon realise that Marxism-lite requires a capitalist foundation on which to flourish.

Marxism Lite does not require the jackboots, truncheons and Gulags that we associate with traditional Marxism. Yet, just like traditional Marxism, Marxism Lite has as its central goal the total and utter control over the populace by a group of elites. Just like Marxism it uses class warfare, propaganda and censorship to achieve this goal. It also provides substantial penalties for non-conformists.

Marxism Lite has a considerable arsenal at its disposal. This arsenal is far more subtle than that used by previous well known Marxists, such as the Soviets. Tanks, guns and jackbooted thugs give people a clear enemy to struggle against. Not so Marxism Lite.

Where the Soviets had Gulags, we have complete reliance on our surrounding society. Plentiful food, mortgaged-to-the-gills home ownership, government welfare, home theatre systems and expensive cars keep us all on the financial treadmill, always striving to keep ahead of our creditors whilst still collecting about us ever growing piles of blinking lights and glittering trinkets. Most people today measure the quality of their lives by the number and quality of the trinkets that they own. Few city folk today are truly self-reliant Many city people today are unable to cope for even short periods without the support network provided by our modern urban environments. Roughing it usually means going without plumbing.

We have what I call a "Sony Lifestyle".

It follows that, if you can threaten to take from a man his Sony Lifestyle, then what has he left? His entire life has been spent building an identity based on possessions. We teach our children from the time they are babes to crave possessions. Ask most parents today, and you will find that you cannot buy your children lunch these days unless it comes with a plastic toy. This craving for possessions will develop through to adulthood, it will follow them through their entire lives. Just as it has for their parents, that is to say, you and me. They too will embrace the Sony Lifestyle.

If you can threaten to take all this away, remove access to the "Sony Lifestyle", then what you really have is a milder form of "threatening to send someone to the Gulag" The effect is much the same. When you step on to the treadmill you, by necessity, acquire a reliance on the infrastructure that provides the treadmill to you. Take away our government and its infrastructure and the concept of "home ownership" becomes meaningless, an artificial construct. Your "ownership" of that house will last exactly as long as you are able to defend it from malfeasants. Finally, reliance begets obligation. When you are on the treadmill, you are obliged to not rock the boat, or you will be thrown overboard.

Be warned, once you are on the treadmill it is hard to get off again.

Of course, losing the Sony Lifestyle is considerably less extreme a fate than that of being sent to do hard labour in some Siberian Gulag. This too works in favour of Marxism Lite. Being subjected to enough jackbooted oppression is sure to invoke thoughts of rebellion in even the meekest of the citizenry. Giving people ample creature comforts and threatening to take them away again is less likely to create a groundswell of rebellion. People consider that as long as they toe the line and don't make too much noise that they can have reasonably happy, safe and appliance-filled lives. This is a powerfully appealing option to a most people. Most people don't crave democracy, they crave security and comfort.

Of course people have to know what the party line is. Someone has to tell them what it is they are supposed to think, and therefore what they are not to think. To help people with this, television stations and the broader media helpfully provide an unending stream of propaganda designed to explain to people exactly what they are expected to think. The do not lecture us, bludgeon us and demand that we concur. That would engender resistance. It is more effective to just subtly repeat the message over and over until we just begin to believe it to be true. Consequently, over time, we learn from television that if you are female, coloured or homosexual, then you are Good. It follows then, that if you are not female, coloured or homosexual, then you must be Bad. This is where the class warfare, a prerequisite of all forms of Marxism, comes into play.

Western media can be constantly found fanning the flames of class warfare. Women, racial minorities, homosexuals and just about any other minority you care to imagine are being constantly encouraged by the babbling box to foment feelings of oppression and resentment. If there are not enough oppressed groups available we can simply invent new ones. Be the oppression real or imaginary it doesn't much matter, there are plenty enough people who are willing to accept a free ride in exchange for their participation in a lie.

The very same media also works hard to ensure that dissenting viewpoints are never allowed visibility in the public arena. Any dissent that slips through the net is quickly shouted down, the dissenter often slandered and subjected to ritualistic public humiliation. This phenomenon has come to be known as "political correctness". In Stalin's Russia, it was known simply as "censorship".

Accordingly, to publicly express non-approved thoughts in a sufficiently grand fashion is to invite upon oneself the threat of lawsuits, fines, public embarrassment and possibly even the loss of ones job.

Or put another way, the loss of the Sony Lifestyle.

Political correctness is a mechanism to force groupthink onto individuals. For Marxism Lite to prevail, one must simply not allow people to express viewpoints that are not pre-approved by the People Who Know What Is Best For You. Our schools are no longer used as institutions of learning so much as indoctrination centres designed to inculcate within children a complete understanding of what is Good. Good being defined by The Good of course. If you were to tell your children that you think that multiculturalism might not in fact be the best thing since sliced bread then they would likely recoil back in horror. If they were to learn that deep down you don't think that feminism has been entirely a cause for good in this world they would probably ask you why you hate their mother so much.

So, over time, most people choose to simply shut their mouths and distract themselves by slipping the DVD of "The Lord of the Rings: Special Directors Cut Super Extended Edition" into their five thousand dollar home theatre system. Life just wouldn't be the same without it.

Any group that might offer to the populace an alternate frame of reference, a different window through which to view the world, or a support framework that is not controlled by the People Who Know Best, is systematically attacked by the media. For decades now church groups have been routinely ridiculed and mocked by the media. Religion has been all but driven from our schools. People must not be allowed to show allegiance to anything outside of The Good.

Likewise, families are being systematically destroyed. Families without fathers are forced to rely on The Good for their continued survival and to provide them with the Sony Lifestyle. An absent father is unable to protect his children from being defacto raised by the government. Women comply willingly because they have been told that they have been oppressed by the fathers of their children. They consequently allow The People Who Know Best to take responsibility over their lives. The oppressors, the straight white men, are forced to foot the bill through draconian child support and alimony rulings.

In return for our Toyota 4x4's, plasma screens and designer clothes, we live in increasingly homogenised, sterilised, safety certified boxes with propaganda piped in 24x7 disguised as entertainment. One unarmed woman really can kick the asses of ten armed men dontcha know, I saw it on the box. We lap it up as if it were ambrosia.

Meanwhile, the controlling elite, a loosely defined, ethereal glob made up of academics, judges, bureaucrats, special interest lobbyists, business leaders and the media, cook up ever more subtle ways to manipulate us to their own ends.

They know what is best for us after all.

At all costs we must continue to think Good thoughts and buy new Toyotas. An unthinking populace is an easily lead populace after all. It is much easier to convince a person who is unaccustomed to thinking that she simply must have this particular brand of deodorant lest she smell like a wharfies armpit in summer.

You just gotta love the Sony Lifestyle.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Objectify Me!

It occurs to me that there are an awful lot of TV programmes on the lobotomy box these days whose sole reason for existence would appear to be that of offering to women the chance to be objectified. Furthermore, there seems to be no shortage whatsoever of women clamouring to be objectified.

I wonder what all the bile spitting purple haired feminists think about this?

Most of the shows revolve around giving women the opportunity to “compete” with each other over which one of them is the most objectifiable, with the winner being offered a cash prize and a lucrative modeling contract.

Modeling, you just can’t get a more objectified woman than one who is a model.

According to feminists however, “objectification” is one of the greatest sins that can be perpetrated against women. It’s up there above death itself, apparently. If we were to listen to feminists, we would think that the very thought of being objectified is so abhorrent to women that the only reason for it happening at all is due to the evil machinations of the Evil Brotherhood Of All Men, whose sole goal is the oppression of all women.

So, where do the hordes of vacuous bimbos come from, all scrambling like mad for the chance to become totally objectified? Perhaps they are created in dank laboratories filled with test tubes and severed body parts by the Evil Brotherhood, and they are put on these shows just to make the rest of womynkind look bad. Or perhaps not.

Perhaps women really do want to be objectified.

The simple answer is, of course, that women really don’t mind being objectified at all. It is after all a ludicrously easy way to earn a living. If a woman is sufficiently objectified, then she won’t be required to actually perform any useful function in this world at all.

She can be paid good money for simply existing.

One so-called supermodel was famously quoted as claiming that she won’t get out of bed for less than ten thousand dollars. What person wouldn’t dream of being paid to get out of bed I ask? Men don’t have quite the opportunities to become objectified as women, but I’m sure you could find plenty of men willing to do just that if it would mean being paid just to keep on breathing.

Wouldn't you like to be objectified too? Mebbe that's what the purple haired feminists real gripe is, nobody in their right mind would ever want to objectify them.


Monday, December 13, 2004

Ticking Bombs

Marriage today is not a good deal for men, divorce rates are at historical highs and the so-called "Family" Courts are unabashedly hostile in their attitudes towards men. The odds are that, if you are a man, you will get burnt, and burnt badly.

It gets worse if you marry older, or more specifically, when you marry a woman who is in her thirties or older.

Typically, your 30 something woman will either already have children, or be absolutely desperate to get her hands on some. In the first case, having to take responsibility for another mans offspring is hardly an attractive proposition. In the second case, a woman who is desperate to have children before it is too late is a nightmare waiting to happen. By the time she turns thirty a childless woman begins to notice the ticking of her biological clock. As the twilight of her childbearing years approaches the ticking becomes increasingly loud and she will begin to panic.

She becomes a ticking bomb.

If you are a man who is considering marrying a childless 30 something woman, then there are a few things you should consider.

Ask yourself why your blushing bride-to-be has waited until her mid-thirties before realising that she would like to make some babies. Usually you can boil the answer down to only one of two reasons. Either she will have been chasing the feminist dream, that of pretending she is a man and "having a career" or she will have been partying hard until her looks gave out and she stopped being able to pick up casual partners at will. In either case, you can be sure she will have been living on her own terms, without having to consider the needs, wants or feelings of anybody else. Especially those of a lowly male like you.

In short, there is a very good chance that she will be a totally self-centred bitch.

Adult women who have lived alone since breaking the apron strings become set in their ways. So do men of course, but men, generally speaking, are more adaptable, more tolerant, and more likely to just "live and let live". Women on the other hand tend to like things to be orderly and regimented, with everything kept "in the right place". They like the toilet seat to be down at all times and they like having sole control over the TV remote. They like the coffee jar to be kept on the "correct" shelf in the pantry and they like the floor to be vacuumed like so. Add to that the fact that all women these days have been constantly subjected to the feminist media telling them that they "can have it all", "need a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and "all men are pigs". In more extreme cases they may even suspect that "all men are rapists, paedophiles and wife abusers" too.

So, you want to marry this woman.

After you get married, the first crisis you face will be the "we must have a baby before I get too old crisis". You may be able to stall for a while and until you acquisce to her demands she will indeed remain on her best behaviour. She will tolerate various toilet related transgressions, she will allow you to choose some programmes to watch on TV and she won't berate you for constantly putting the coffee jar on the wrong shelf.

She might even partake in sexual relations reasonably regularly. Sometimes even with you.

Things sure will seem swell and you will become relaxed being around her.

But the baby-making demands will continue unabated. She can hear her biological clock ticking and it is only a matter of time before the bomb goes off.

If she doesn't suddenly have an "accident" with her birth-control first, you will eventually aquiesce to her demands because life seems so comfortable and she seems to be such a sweet girl after all. You may even begin to think that having a kid of your own might be a good thing anyway.

Uh-oh, bad mistake.

Once the decision has been made you will find your opportunities for sex will quadruple immediately. This will be the high point of your marriage, so you had better enjoy it while it lasts fella.

Once she is pregnant, most likely the frequent sex will slow to a trickle, or even stop completely. If you are like most men this will be a difficult period, but being a tolerant and understanding chap you will probably treat this as a passing phase.

Over the next 9 months the pregnancy will drag on. She will get more and more irrational, and less and less tolerant of your many transgressions. This will climax when the time of childbirth arrives, where you can count on being subjected to a torrent of abuse, both as an individual and as a man in general for getting her pregnant and putting her through such intolerable agony. The fact that her becoming pregnant was entirely her idea will be totally lost on her. Women have a talent for such things.

Now the "fun" part really starts. The baby is demanding. The baby is smelly. The baby is insatiable. You both become tired. Baby rearing is something that is more naturally suited to younger people. Instinctively people used to know this, today we have forgotten. For people who have become accustomed to unfettered freedom for many years, caring for a baby can be a rude shock indeed.

Nevertheless, the odds are that after a while she will decide that she wants another baby before it's too late. Junior should have a little brother or sister after all, so the sex starts up again until she once again she is pregnant again.

Once she has decided she has had enough babies, here's what will most likely happen.

Firstly, you will both be tired, bored and will have long ago forgotten what it was like to have a social life. Life will be confined to dealing with screaming, attention demanding babies and commuting to and from soul-destroying jobs.

Before long, she will start wondering about what happened to her old life. The life where she never had to put the toilet seat down. The life where everything was kept in the "right place". If she doesn't work, she will resent you for "escaping" by going to work, if she does work she will resent you for not doing enough to help her around the house.

"Not doing enough to help" is usually code for "not doing stuff the way I like it done".

Remember what I said at the start about her spending the last 15 years doing stuff her way? Well, herein leis the rub. Quite simply, she will at some point tire of not being able to do stuff her way. This can manifest itself in a few ways and usually will. There will be the aforementioned toilet related angst and all those other little trivialities that women enjoy getting upset over.

Where things will really come undone is if you choose to take an active hand in raising the children. Now, you can be sure that your wife will demand that you change plenty of dirty nappies (diapers) and get up to do the 2AM feeds and such. This is what she means when she says "she wants you to be more involved in raising the children". What she does not tell you is this is exactly where she wants your involvement to end. She does not want you interfering in any of the actual decision making to do with the raising of her children, and you can be damned sure that they will be HER children and not yours. She's gotten this far in life without sharing anything other than a bed with a man, and you can be damned sure she's not going to start now.

You will be relegated to the role of combination hired help and interested bystander.

The point where you realise this is the point where you will begin to think that maybe getting married might not have been the smartest decision you ever made.

In the meantime, your blushing bride is probaly cursing the day you were born. You constantly leave the toilet seat up, you miss the bowl, you have crap taste in television and you leave the coffee jar in all the wrong places. On top of that you have ambitions of actually being a parent to HER children. This last one is the clincher.

It won't take long before her already divorced friends start telling her how much better things are without a man around the place (but with the added bonus of a monthly "child support" cheque to sweeten the deal of course). She will recall the days when she was carefree and single, and will begin to blame you for her loss of freedom. Things were so much better before she married you. Accordingly, she will want that freedom back, and since the only reason she got married in the first place was so she could get herself some babies divorce will seem like the obvious next step for her to take.

Chances are that by the time your kids are walking and in daycare, you will be kicked out of your home and you can look forward to having your wage garnished for the next 15 years. You will be allowed "visitation rights" to your children at best, at worse she will use them against you.

Your experiment with marriage will be but a bitter memory.

My advice is just don't do it.