2014 June 21 Saturday
A Rule For Decoding Feminist Obfuscation

True that.

Sailer’s First Rule for Decoding Feminist Obfuscation is

- When feminists can blame men, they blame “men.”

- When feminists would have to blame women, they blame “society” or “our culture.”

We need more translations and decodings of the major forms of modern propaganda and their purveyors.

A talented observer could write a useful guide book on spotting and decoding propaganda. Who are the major factions which are generating modern propaganda? How do they structure their propaganda?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2014 June 21 09:15 PM 

Gerard Mason said at June 22, 2014 1:40 AM:

I remember reading two articles about ecological changes in Australia, which were published -- I think it was on the BBC website -- relatively closely together. In the first, a recent change was blamed on "the arrival of white settlers"; in the second, a much earlier change was apparently due to the arrival of "humans" in Australia.

Check it out said at June 23, 2014 4:40 PM:


This is a great book I think. Check it out!

albatross said at June 23, 2014 5:14 PM:

A general pattern I've noticed:

Members of group A are being excluded from something (homeless people excluded from sleeping in doorways by evil spikes, teenagers excluded from wandering through the mall by a rule requiring people under 18 to be accompanied by an adult, blacks are being excluded from mortgages by evil racist algorithms, whatever). The story will discuss the hardships endured by group A at length and in loving detail. They will discuss the history of mistreatment of group A. But they will never get around to bringing up *why* anyone would want to exclude members of group A, or what about them might be contributing to their exclusion. That just won't come up.

Libertarian Socialist said at June 23, 2014 5:37 PM:

It all comes down to all those division the few have made believe the many about how "different" we are from one another. There's this weird belief that we'll be better by excluding other very similar to us, but who now seem so different because we have numbed our ability for sympathy.

Same happens with nationalisms. They really make no sense and countries make no sense. South Belgians have more in common with French than with Northern Belgians, Yukonians have more in common with Alaskans than with Quebecois, Southern Mexicans have more in common with Guatemalans than with Northern or even Central Mexicans, East Ukrainians have more in common with Russians than with Western Ukrainians and so on. What does being a national of a country mean anyway?

We have to start to pay attention to all those things that we have in common with other humans. There are no black problems, poor problems, Arab problems, liberal problems or women's problems there are only human problems.

We talk about civilization as though it's a static state. There are no civilized people yet, it's a process that's constantly going on... As long as you have war, police, prisons, crime, you are in the early stages of civilization. You can either have one guy lifting a billion pounds by himself, and it takes many years of planning and preparation - or you can have a billion people, each lifting one pound, and it takes a mere moment. This is the power of unity.

Libertarian Socialist said at June 23, 2014 5:40 PM:

Politics was good a hundred years ago. Today, politicians have no ability to solve any problems because they are not students of behavior. They are not students of agriculture, oceanography, they know nothing about the factors that operate the world. So, they say things that people like to hear. And that gets them elected. Now scientists on the other hand are not concerned with public approval. What they do, even if everybody on earth believe the earth was flat, they would say: 'You're wrong, this is the evidence we have to support the fact that the earth is round' but they don't say: 'it's a little round and a little flat' - that's politicians, and their job is to divide us.

destructure said at June 24, 2014 12:45 AM:

An obvious pattern I've noticed is to look for a 'disparity'. It doesn't matter what the disparity is or what caused it. The mere fact it exists is an "Outrage!" that demands "Redress!" It's not that anyone actually did anything to cause the disparity. It's that those noticing it are outraged that disparity exists. So they see those on the "+" side of the disparity as "evil" and those on the "-" side as "victims". It would never occur to them that such is merely a consequence of ones own efforts. And even if it did then you're a "hater" for noticing.

Check it out said at June 25, 2014 5:19 PM:

Why do women not make use of their intellectual potential? For the simple reason that they do not need to. It is not essential for their survival. Theoretically it is possible for a beautiful woman to have less intelligence than a chimpanzee and still be considered an acceptable member of society.

By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given moments. The minute a woman has made this decision she ceases to develop her mind. She may, of course, go on to obtain various degrees and diplomas. These increase her market value in the eyes of men, for men believe that a woman who can recite things by heart must also know and understand them. But any real possibility of communication between the sexes ceases at this point. Their paths are divided forever.

Check it out said at June 25, 2014 5:27 PM:

Whatever men set about to impress women with, counts for nothing in the world of women. Only another woman is of importance in her world. Man has importance only as the provider. Men have been too willing to buy a woman's vagina for an outrageously huge price.

destructure said at June 25, 2014 7:19 PM:

"By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work."

Child rearing requires resources and nurturing. Parents share this burden in a division of labor. With men providing resources and women providing nurturing. Of course, people have evolved emotional attachment to encourage this. Therein lies the difference between marriage and prostitution. With marriage there is selectivity -- an emotional attachment and commitment for the purpose of child rearing. With prostitution there is no selectivity, emotional attachment or commitment. Prostitution is merely promiscuous sex in exchange for resources.

Check it out said at June 30, 2014 4:59 PM:

"With prostitution there is no selectivity"

Oh really? Of course there's selectivity in prostitution.

"Prostitution is merely promiscuous sex in exchange for resources."

Prostitution is the oldest job, -probably older than agriculture-, whether it be carried out promiscuously or not. Men have been too willing to buy a woman's vagina for an outrageously huge price.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©