19 September 2013

Barbarossaa's Marxist Feminist Dialectic (Brings All the Boys to the Yard)

I want people to read this post by Barbarrossaa, exposing just how similar his values are to that of feminism and Marxism. Many ideologues fabricate the notion that romantic love and marriage started in the medieval era, and was further used to control certain classes in the industrial era, with the aim of propping up the church and the state.

Friedrich Engels outlines the Marxist perspective on this in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State”. It is an expansion on Marxist historical materialism, and a textbook example of ideological revisionism. Aside from historical confirmation bias Engels’ theories are discredited by the fact that modern science has proven that love is a biological incentive for bonding, with massive benefits for raising children in a K type reproductive strategy that is safe and secure, maximising the success of the next generation. Yet Marxist influenced ideologues believe love is little more than a weapon that the bourgeoisie use to oppress the masses.

Marriage has often been rooted in love for the lower classes, even as far back as the medieval era when the nobles were forced to marry for convenience, and made to set such emotions aside. It was the upper class pseudo-intellectual founders of feminism and Marxism that rebelled against these arranged marriages and used the lower classes to do it by reeling them in with demagoguery. This has me wondering whether Barbie and Starry are like the upper class feminists that corrupted feminism with poisonous lies about love and intimacy – such as Simone de Beauvoir, who had a dysfunctional open marriage with Jean-Paul Sartre which included various sexual liaisons with teenaged girls. The feminist criticism of marriage based around bourgeoisie rebellion, where well-to-do women wanted the same power as men, would eventually spread like wildfire through the movement, creating fear of intimacy verging on autistic. These upper class women were scarred by the emotionally crippled loveless world that was all they knew, and projected this onto everyone else. Sadly they were very successful. Why? Human beings are always a stone throw away from their primal consciousness, and it takes the barrier of virtues like loyalty and fidelity to keep it at bay.

It gets worse when we realise that upper class circles have always had a cruel attitude to raising their own children, using wet nurses and nannies to isolate them from the most natural and necessary bond for a healthy upbringing; that of their parents. These emotional cripples want to destroy the bond of parenthood through the state because they fear a world based on love, and they do this by perpetuating the dysfunctionality that has wrecked the psyche of the upper classes for centuries.

The best way to fight this is to raise your children with all the love in the world, and to do it through a marriage founded on the same premise. The pseudo-intellectuals that drive the state and collectivists ideologies, like Marxism and feminism, simply can't stand this, which is why they are constantly interfering with the family by providing incentives and support to gay people, single mothers, and disincentives towards fathers in the home. These tactics diminish love and drive people apart by appealing to base selfish desires like lust, greed and narcissism. This is the realm of the lizard brain, and has no place in civilisation. Every happy marriage and every child raised with love is a blow to feminists, MGTOW, and other hateful anti-family ideologies. The psychopaths and sociopaths advocating these ideologies hate to see the virtue of love prevail, because it reminds them that they are incapable of feeling it.

We need to fight back against the regression of polyamory, which the moral primitive Barbarossaa believes in. We need to stick by our children’s sides and raise them with as much love as we can give, and most of all we need to fight against the ghettoisation that fatherlessness leads to. Barbarossaa, being the narcissist he is, cannot keep his story straight when it comes to his upbringing. One minute he is a guy from the Bronx, the next he isn’t. One thing’s for sure, the Bronx, which he claims is not all bad, is an area with nothing worth emulating when it comes to raising our children. This can be demonstrated in the fact that 69.4% of children in the Bronx are raised without fathers in the home.

It’s easy to blame only women for this reality, but it takes two to have unprotected sex, and it’s clear that men raised without fathers in the home are far more likely to be degenerates that believe screwing around is cool. Maybe Barbarossaa and Stardusk do come from a two-parent home, and are just rebelling against their pampered upbringing. Maybe they’re more like the spoilt upper-class feminist leaders of the first and second wave, trying to increase their street cred by using the proles as a platform. Whatever the answer, Barbie and Starry are most certainly narcissists emulating some of the worst elements of post-enlightenment philosophy to manipulate their followers; Marx’s deterministic scientific socialism, Shopenhauer’s hypocritical asceticism, Nietzsche’s psychopathic will to power, Hobbes’ totalitarian denial of natural rights, and other forms of junk philosophy.

Love is the greatest weapon with which to crush those that commit our children to a life of struggle and misery. Embrace it with all your heart, and see the wicked repel from its might.

14 comments:

  1. Two observations about Bar bar.

    1) Word salad. In his commentaries he often throws in obscure words that come straight out of the thesaurus. Good luck trying to get any meaning out of this. In fact, he reads so fast I often have to pause the video to try and decipher his meaning. That and awkward sentence construction make his videos a chore to listen to. (20:40 "The problem is as follows." Bwahahahaha. The problem is nobody speaks that way unless they have a massive inferiority complex.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bygrscbj98E

    2) Big words + length =/= sophisticated ideas. Bar bar is anything but brief. His videos often run over 30 minutes of rapidly read text. He does repeat himself but it doesn't really clarify. Never have I heard him succinctly state the arguments of his opponents. Granted, Rockin Mr E reads quickly also. But his videos run about 10 minutes. That and the blessed lack of superfluous verbiage (see how it's done?) make Mr E much easier to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People that take a long time to make minute points are clearly trying to baffle so they can create the impression of superiority and expertise. Barbie is indeed as you describe. He cannot make concise and clear points because his arguments lack depth and logic. Just listen to his recent video "On Natural Rights". What the hell does infinity have to do with a right? Sure they are both concepts but that is all that binds them - they have nothing in common other than this. It's like comparing two totally unrelated words, and saying they are the same because they are both words.

      So why bring this up and make mathematical equations on his vid? Because as I said, he's trying to come across as knowledgeable, when in truth he makes unrelated points to fill out his arguments and deceive his audience into believing he has substance.

      Delete
  2. Whether or not the references to BarBar at al carry weight - and I can see they do - the defence of Love and Bonding you provide is valid and persuasive. It is a 'good' thing to stress the means to fight back against the nihilistic forces that have gained the upper hand in our society in this era.

    Where I find most of your otherwise excellent essays and arguments lacking lies in your own 'blind-side. I say that with all the admiration I can muster for you as an individual (and virtually unique) MRA in an otherwise individualist movement. You root most of your arguments in a philosophy which inexorably leads right to the sort of nihilism that BarBar et al exemplify. Atheism.

    It is born out of a fine understanding and analysis of the 'Enlightenment' era philosophies with many of their contradictions, side roads and dead-ends. But The entire Western Civilisation is based on a Christian understanding of Love, family, and the relation of Man to all of his aspects, physical, emotional, mental AND spiritual, and that is what the 'enlightenment' aimed to undermine and replace. It is this last part you neglect. It is not only at your peril but weakens your stance. It is a Christian perspective, and indeed rooting, that provides the foundation needed for the defeat of Marxism, feminism and nihilism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your positivity in many instances, but I am somewhat surprised that you would call me a nihilist after observing so many times how morally objective my conclusions are. So I'm afraid I will have to clarify:

      My views are not rooted in "atheism". They are rooted in observing the natural world. Perhaps it might help if you watch my recent upload "Natural Law" to see my perspective in this regard. Also, Judeo-Christian values are an explanation for nature and these observations did not occur in a vacuum. Calling natural behaviour religious is thus a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. One clarification in this regard is the K type reproductive strategy leading to monogamy and the nuclear family. This is not thanks to "religion". It always happens in nature when the conditions allow it, which is why non-Christian cultures also often have this dynamic in their families.

      So I am no nihilist because I do not reject natural law. I believe nature and reality have objectively observable truths and values for us to extrapolate. I do not expect you to be an atheist, but it is equally unnecessary to be a theist when defining objective values. I do however expect others to respect the unalienable natural rights of the individual, because without this we are all slaves.

      Delete
    2. I didn't say you were a nihilist Mr E. I said it would lead inexorably to...

      The 'natural' and observable aspects of human Love, Bonding, relationships etc are 'codified' in Christianity. They are not imposed. Simply rejecting the codification - and its extension to God - is not allowing yourself to consider the positives inherent. It is not simply a 'Religion' but a philosophy we call a religion.

      Delete
    3. Religion does codify elements of natural behaviour called love and bonding, as you say. But religions of various stripes do this, and various scientific and philosophical schools do also. So there is no monopoly on the truth in this regard.

      Delete
    4. You may be interested to read this article. http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/09/a-z-of-feminism-f-is-for-family/

      Delete
    5. Pretty much just reiterates the same dialectic we've grown accustomed to in gender ideological circles, feminism OR MGTOW.

      Delete
  3. Hello Mr E ( my comment has nothing to do with the post above). I read this comment by a lady called Sara on chivalry. She is a single mother from the Bronx with three children and a huge fan of chivalry. Her comments irked me to no end, hence my rant. I'll post her comment here for you:

    "I am all for chivalry. I have 3 young boys who are already being taught the rules of being a gentleman. I expect them to open doors for women, always let women go first, and eventually I will teach them proper dating rules. I will not stand for them to mistreat women in anyway. And should they be present on a sinking ship I damn well expect them to let every woman, child, and elderly escape danger before they even think of themselves. I am neither old fashion or right winged but this isn’t about that. This is an issue of basic respect. I don’t tolerate them disrepecting anyone but they are taught to stand up for themselves when necessary. Being a young mom in NYC I always appreciated when a man would offer me assistance. I didn’t take them up on their offers unless it was necessary (I am extremely self-reliant) but I always appreciate the gesture."

    My parents raised me in a completely different manner: where the respect was not limited to only women. If in a situation where I am required to rescue people, I will make sure everyone gets off first before I do, regardless of gender, real self-sacrifice. Not this pseudo-respect garbage known as chivalry. It seems she is trying to insinuate that there are only two alternatives: disrespect or chivalry. You can refuse to be chivalrous and honour self-sacrifice. Sorry for the rant, I've always found comfort in your forums and your responses. Hope you and your family are keeping well,

    Kind regards,
    Jonathan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The truth is Jonathan, that chivalry was always about protecting the vulnerable, not just women. It was a knight's code, where men of honour stood up for the downtrodden. It is not as singularly focused on women as many try to suggest, whether it's women like the above or, sadly as time goes by, many in the MRM.

      Delete
  4. Rocking MrE

    Chivalry got perverted in the 12th century:
    http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chivalry was never perfect because, like everything, it can be corrupted and abused. However, it's simplistic to say that it was "perverted in the 12th century". See my post here:

      http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2013/10/faux-chivalry-black-knights.html

      Delete
  5. Hello MrE! I've binge-watched a ton of your videos lately and agree with you on most of your points, however, I'm not sure how exactly polyamory is bad in your view. Let me explain. I definitely agree that children should be raised with both the father and mother, preferably biological, and that the mother and father should work together as a team with respect to raising the kids and would also preferably live together. One of the main thought processes behind polyamory (or at least the one I believe in) is that love is limitless (though time is not) and just as it is possible to have many deep friend relationships while being committed to a primary partner, why not romantic relationships as well? So I guess this is a hybrid of monogamy/polyamory. Furthermore, assuming you stay committed to your primary partner in raising children, and commit to keeping that relationships strong and healthy, outside partners can even be an asset to raising kids. The responsibility as always remains with actual parents, but outside trusted partners can act as babysitter-type guardians just like close friends or family would. As long as the parents don't lean on others too much (and therefore interfere with healthy biological family bonding) what are the issues you see?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but that's rather utopian. The loving bond between mother and father, serving as the foundation for raising children, makes for a solid unit that can act as a barrier from exploitation. This also acts as a means of sacrifice for the benefit of children, rather than the destructively selfish desires of egotism.

      It's not a coincidence that totalitarian social engineers try to break down this unit first and foremost. Unless it's gone they have no chance of acquiring absolute power. Maybe that's something you should think about before you open Pandora's box.

      Delete