I was pleased to see that the talk by William Collins (Rick Bradford) makes a similar argument about the connection between radical sexual ideology and the larger recent takeover of our political institutions by authoritarian government. He starts from the past and works forward, whereas I start with the present and work back. But the point is the same. But I was disappointed at not seeing the planned talk by Paul Elam, whose argument about marriage would have added an important dimension to those of Rick and me.
Thank you, Dr. Baskerville. I like your points that the men's marriage strike can effect profound societal change. But how can this be done? Would MGTOWs/MRAs produce a list of demands about the dangerous family court system? Who would the demands be presented to? My take is that there are too many players lurking in the shadows, which would make this task very difficult. Thank you again.,
Birth rates are already falling in the West, and our governments have accordingly increased immigration significantly. An effective marriage strike will cause this trend to accelerate. Having said that, for individual men, living alone is a rational response to the injustices of family court.
Those who are actively disincentivising marriage for men are also proposing fiendish alternatives. See Sophie Lewis (Feminist, of course) "Abolish The Family" and "Full Surrogacy Now". This push towards communes and ending the parent-child relationship is behind all the talk of 'polycules' etc
This will also blow up in their faces. Those fiendish alternatives aren’t worth fighting wars over, thus any synthetic choice the left proposes will rapidly collapse.
The collective farms in Isreal started off with children living together in separate houses. The parents would visit the children at set times during the day. Many of these farms have gone back to the children living with their parents.
Stephen Baskerville has pointed the way forward. We must indeed move from commentary and complaint to action in pursuit of a positive outcome. And the so-called sexual revolution is the black heart of all that has followed and so it is this that must be unraveled.
that would be ideal. except you can't take proper action when they can't even see and acknowledge the problem. there is still to much gaslighting and misandric abuse towards men. studies that are biased and have very...selective interpretations. on top of that the increased normalization of degeneracy and incompetence that opened the door towards corruption, segregation, hate and oppression. Unless those things get dealt with I'm part of the "let it all rot and burn" crowd. If people aren't willing to hear and understand what we're saying... then maybe they'll listen to a language they do understand. The downfall of society and all that their power is based on...the things we build and maintain and get no gratitude for. We're dehumanized and treated as nothing but workhorses and walking ATM's to women and governments. let those entitled parasites crumble because of their own hubris and toxicity. even the so called professor keeps blaming us as they always do....and then wonder why we have no interest in their abuse and no longer care for their words. because of this a dialogue is no longer an option. you can all keep demonizing, insulting, shaming... but we don't have Stockholm Syndrome and we're done with it all. your hollow words are meaningless.
This is what "the Human Race " needs to really understand, and get a genuine grip on. Thank you sir - none of us can safely ignore these key detailsnany longer !
like they all do... and that is why nothing will change. they can't even see and understand the real problem and just blame us as the easy scapegoats. one day we'll have their heads
@@GiblixStudio I think he called for MGTOWs to present a list of demands to the people in charge of the system. But to whom? And what shoiuld the exact demands be?
@@rootcanal7188already have been, for 20 years. End the family courts, make all prenups eternal and unbreakable, and 50/50 default custody without EVIDENCE of abuse. That's basically the minimum. In addition, eliminate the Duluth model of DV, and actually imprison female abusers. Make false DV and...forced cuddling...accusations major felonies. Make paternity tests at the discretion of the man who the woman says is the father. In other words, no consent from the mother would be required. Either that, or make them mandatory before a man can be put on the BC, married or not.
Patriarchy (though in excess) is the primary strength of Islam. Originally, Christianity was a form of gentle patriarchy, and is one major factor as to why it was able to revolutionize the civilized world. When Christianity abandoned patriarchy, it chose weakness and sealed its own fate.
12:30 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.
In western rhetoric, as per western dichotomy thought styles, if one is the author (fully agentic, sovereign, power, Subject), then the other must be the writing (fully subjugated, vassal, powerless, Object). This black & white, binary, dichotomous, thinking only conceptualises in extremes, in one-sidedness, narcissism, zero-sum-game, Psychopathy. So, you can see why western feminism is an acorn that didn't fall far from it's oak. Don't try to change the west before first understanding us fully.
absolutely correct, at last some american telling the truth about the anglo american feminism and the impact is having on society and not only on american society.
Marriage is over. Period.
For western indigenous culture, but not for those from other incoming cultures having 6 or 7 kids. The indigenous west are sleep walking off a cliff.
@@cyclist68Even the immigrants see their birthrates drop.
The Social Contract has been violated.
I'd be interested to hear what this erudite gentleman would say to the "Let it burn" crowd.
not sacrificing my good mental health to modern women nor my finances good luck.
Excellent talk, very on point!
Hear hear ! !
Greetings from Melbourne, Australia.
They're treating us all like chickens in an industrial high-density farm.
If his message is " get married anyway" yhen that's a big fat nope.
I was pleased to see that the talk by William Collins (Rick Bradford) makes a similar argument about the connection between radical sexual ideology and the larger recent takeover of our political institutions by authoritarian government. He starts from the past and works forward, whereas I start with the present and work back. But the point is the same.
But I was disappointed at not seeing the planned talk by Paul Elam, whose argument about marriage would have added an important dimension to those of Rick and me.
Thank you, Dr. Baskerville. I like your points that the men's marriage strike can effect profound societal change. But how can this be done? Would MGTOWs/MRAs produce a list of demands about the dangerous family court system? Who would the demands be presented to? My take is that there are too many players lurking in the shadows, which would make this task very difficult. Thank you again.,
Birth rates are already falling in the West, and our governments have accordingly increased immigration significantly. An effective marriage strike will cause this trend to accelerate. Having said that, for individual men, living alone is a rational response to the injustices of family court.
I love how no matter how shit the birth rates are in Japan and South Korea, they won't use it as an excuse to take other nations surplus population.😊
Those who are actively disincentivising marriage for men are also proposing fiendish alternatives.
See Sophie Lewis (Feminist, of course) "Abolish The Family" and "Full Surrogacy Now".
This push towards communes and ending the parent-child relationship is behind all the talk of 'polycules' etc
This will also blow up in their faces. Those fiendish alternatives aren’t worth fighting wars over, thus any synthetic choice the left proposes will rapidly collapse.
Jeez
The collective farms in Isreal started off with children living together in separate houses. The parents would visit the children at set times during the day. Many of these farms have gone back to the children living with their parents.
Jean Jacques Rousseau mean much?
Couldn't agree more. Blessings.
Stephen Baskerville has pointed the way forward. We must indeed move from commentary and complaint to action in pursuit of a positive outcome. And the so-called sexual revolution is the black heart of all that has followed and so it is this that must be unraveled.
that would be ideal. except you can't take proper action when they can't even see and acknowledge the problem. there is still to much gaslighting and misandric abuse towards men. studies that are biased and have very...selective interpretations. on top of that the increased normalization of degeneracy and incompetence that opened the door towards corruption, segregation, hate and oppression.
Unless those things get dealt with I'm part of the "let it all rot and burn" crowd. If people aren't willing to hear and understand what we're saying... then maybe they'll listen to a language they do understand. The downfall of society and all that their power is based on...the things we build and maintain and get no gratitude for. We're dehumanized and treated as nothing but workhorses and walking ATM's to women and governments. let those entitled parasites crumble because of their own hubris and toxicity.
even the so called professor keeps blaming us as they always do....and then wonder why we have no interest in their abuse and no longer care for their words. because of this a dialogue is no longer an option. you can all keep demonizing, insulting, shaming... but we don't have Stockholm Syndrome and we're done with it all. your hollow words are meaningless.
This is what "the Human Race " needs to really understand, and get a genuine grip on. Thank you sir - none of us can safely ignore these key detailsnany longer !
The largest age group among registered sex offenders are 15 year old males resulting in a lifetime description applied to a immature youth...
Nicely done.
So in the end, our dear professor blames the men ;)
like they all do... and that is why nothing will change. they can't even see and understand the real problem and just blame us as the easy scapegoats. one day we'll have their heads
@@GiblixStudio I think he called for MGTOWs to present a list of demands to the people in charge of the system. But to whom? And what shoiuld the exact demands be?
@@rootcanal7188already have been, for 20 years. End the family courts, make all prenups eternal and unbreakable, and 50/50 default custody without EVIDENCE of abuse. That's basically the minimum. In addition, eliminate the Duluth model of DV, and actually imprison female abusers. Make false DV and...forced cuddling...accusations major felonies. Make paternity tests at the discretion of the man who the woman says is the father. In other words, no consent from the mother would be required. Either that, or make them mandatory before a man can be put on the BC, married or not.
It all started with misandric feminism.
Patriarchy (though in excess) is the primary strength of Islam. Originally, Christianity was a form of gentle patriarchy, and is one major factor as to why it was able to revolutionize the civilized world. When Christianity abandoned patriarchy, it chose weakness and sealed its own fate.
Islam is insanely gynocentric. If I were you, I would talk to an actual Muslim man who is not wealthy.
12:30
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.
In western rhetoric, as per western dichotomy thought styles, if one is the author (fully agentic, sovereign, power, Subject), then the other must be the writing (fully subjugated, vassal, powerless, Object).
This black & white, binary, dichotomous, thinking only conceptualises in extremes, in one-sidedness, narcissism, zero-sum-game, Psychopathy.
So, you can see why western feminism is an acorn that didn't fall far from it's oak.
Don't try to change the west before first understanding us fully.
absolutely correct, at last some american telling the truth about the anglo american feminism and the impact is having on society and not only on american society.
So the 'act' encouraged toward the close of the Profs lecture is to not marry? Am i right?
Yes. Except that only not marrying is not enough. It must be accompanied by a clear demand for reform of marriage laws, family courts etc.
I travel, see the world and date foreign women only.
@@paulbunyan9436 Pro-tip, marry one 20 years ago, staying in her country. Works for me :)
Is here a discussion page for the conference?
Sorry Jeffrey, no.
😮🤔😱