A year ago this video was put out by one of Proctor and Gamble’s subsidiaries. The Gillette razor company. A company that counts men as its customer base. The head of Gillette, a male, greenlighted this propaganda video, by a feminist, for two reasons. To seek female acceptance and validation and to support the prevailing agenda of destroying masculinity as the last remaining barrier to the down fall of western hegemony and civilization. Overstand that there has never been a narrative of homosexuals, transsexuals’, transgenders or females that have ever built or managed civilization, based on being females, or being sexually confused. Greece and Rome are two of the more famously known western civilizations of ancient times, that was not built on or by homosexuality or females. However, both have been destroyed due to the loss of masculinity and the embracing of an anti masculine set of behaviour and sexual confusion, causing consecutive leadership to mismanage and lose sight of the original purpose of the nation.
Modern society try to use the term, “toxic masculinity” to bludgeon and attack masculinity and masculine men. In reality, toxic masculinity was and is never a real thing. However, if one wants to use this made up attack on natures natural order of things. If one wishes to use this false narrative, one would be ignoring how masculinity over the millennium is today celebrated in various literatures, historical books and oral traditions, from the tip of South pole, to the North pole. From Madagascar on Afuraka’s eastern coast, going east around the globe, to Afuraka’s western coast. In fact toxic masculinity most definitely describes males that are sexually confused about whether a penis goes in a vagina or an anus? Whether he should put on boxer brief or shorts … or panties? Whether he is a leader of himself, his home, of his woman and society? Whether one is a detriment to, or a functional contributor to modern society. Toxic masculinity describes bitches with tiny wee wee, who are self serving, conniving and destructive, as opposed to presiders, providers and protectors of nations, homes and the earth. A toxic male is also a beta cuck, simpanzee and noodle back followers of the pedestalizing of vagina and females. In other words a contrary stance to all things in nature. In a world of the insane, the sane stands out as a threat.
“IN MEMORY OF A ONCE FLUID MAN, CRAMMED AND DISTORTED BY THE CLASSICAL MESS”
The above was a symbolic eulogy, Bruce Lee made to the death of the natural fluidity of combat, since become distorted and stilted by the ritualism of “organized” rankings, forms and the spirit of the martial way. What Bruce lee was bemoaning was what one of his idols, Shinman Miyamoto Musashi once encouraged those seeking the “way”, to embrace!
If one was to be bold in summing up the great man’s insperience and experience of swordsmanship, into a few lines, one would reiterate Musashi’s classic line: “Do not let the enemy see your spirit.” Combat is life, you cannot keep them separate: “In all forms of strategy, it is necessary to maintain the combat stance in everyday life and to make your everyday stance your combat stance. You must research this well.”!
Looking at Musashi’s words, my mind sees the following; Do not let the enemy see your spirit. “Masculinity is an intricate part of life. You cannot keep them separate: “In every aspect of of life, it is necessary to maintain your masculine presence in your everyday life and to make your everyday presence a masculine one. You must research this well.”
I am reflecting on these words of wisdom after reading of the passing of actor Chadwick Boseman, specifically, but in general, on the team of Avengers in the Marvel Universe, and how the image and symbol of this kind of masculinity has been poisoned by feminism and the pedestal worship of Cultural Marxism. Most people don’t know of Cultural Marxism. And if they do, fail to overstand or grasp the significance of Cultural Marxism’s infiltration and strangle hold on modern society, popular culture and all we think we hold dear. You may think this is hyperbole, but follow this white rabbit into the hole of the Matrix, and you will see what Alice saw in wonderland.
Lets start with what is Cultural Marxism: According to those who embrace the philosophy of Marx and his disciple, Engels, “the aim of socialism is man”. It is to create a form of production and an organization of society in which man can overcome alienation from his product, from his work, from his fellow man, from himself and from nature; in which he can return to himself and grasp the world with his own powers, thus becoming one with the world.
Yet until a few hundred years ago, men were never alienated from nature. Men were tasked biologically to coexist with nature at best. “Tame” nature at worst. But never to feel alienated from what he is a natural part of. Once man thought he was above or was different from nature, this was when he stated competing with nature. And by man i am speaking specifically of the Euro savage, who’s very nature, out of the trauma of the ice age is that of competition and competitiveness. And as the savages colonized the planet, their very influence and indoctrination forces or tricked cultures and nations, previously living symbiotically with nature, to take on that same competitive behaviour with nature.
On the surface the philosophy alluded to above reads as a classic goal of Marxism. Until you put on your reading glasses and peep the fine print, between the lines of the rhetoric of Karl Marx and every single disciple of his. From communist to capitalist and all theories in between. Social Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.
…..Pay attention to this line. I will come back to it later…..
To put Marx himself in perspective, overstand that he is a Khazar. What the ignaramous of today call a Jew. An eastern European warmongering tribe, that many strive to associate with the Phantasmagorical [a description of something with a dreamlike, fantastical, unreal, deceptive, or shifting appearance, like an optical illusion] biblical fairy tale of the equally fictitious children of Israel.
To overstand who and what the Khazars are (not were) one should read the classic The 13th Tribe, a 1976 book, written by Arthur Koestler, in which the author, a Jew himself, explains that Ashkenazi Jews are NOT descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a Turkic people. That is if you can find the book in circulation. Many Jews hated Koestler for writing this book. And the hate placed on him culminated in his alleged “suicide” in Paris, a few years after enjoying a brief period of celebrity from the publishing of the book. It is a belief that his suicide was similar to numerous other suicide of anti establishment warriors of note. Such as reporter Gary Web. The Grey State director Erik Nelson as two examples.
These “suicides” includes those of numerous black men and a small number of black women, sitting in the back of a police cruiser, hands cuffed behind them, who managed to break through the reinforced shield that separated the drivers well from the prisoner’s seat, opening the cruiser door from inside. Doors that can only be opened from outside, overpower both officers, wrest the gun from those same two “ossifer”, and proceed to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back right quadrant of the skull, twice. Even though they were left handed, it was impossible to shoot yourself directly in the back of the head and they were handcuffed. Unless you moonlight as Reed Richards, the elastic man, these “suicide” tales are as fictitious as the poison of socialism being an antidote to the poison of capitalism.
And after reading The 13th Tribe, search out the equally and even more hated and banned, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion. The protocols, an insidious set of blue print not only penned specifically for the overthrow of the Czars of Russia. But for world domination afterwards. The Czars represented masculine order in a country historically beset by invasions and internecine conflicts. The protocols was also an inspiration of Karl Marx, who using some of the same philosophy started the machination that brought Czarist Russia to its belly and unleashed Communism, Socialism and eventually Cultural Marxist on to an unsuspecting world. To ask a follower of Marx what is the difference between the three would be a waste of your time and only cause them to full your ears and brain with rhetorical bullshit. One can just sum up the three by stating Communism is hardcore. Socialism is a softer version. And Cultural Marxist is the crowning glory of world domination, as envisioned by the Elders of Sion, and laid out in protocols.
In 1923, Marxist scholar Carl Grünberg founded the Frankfurt Institute, initially financed by another such scholar, Felix Weil. The Frankfurt School scholars are known for their brand of culturally focused neo-Marxist theory—a rethinking of classical Marxism updated to their socio-historical period. This proved seminal for the fields of sociology, cultural studies, and media studies. 👈🏿👈🏿👈🏿👈🏿 reread this line again.
Yes! Pay attention to that last line. Then pay close attention to the following passage. Let it permeate your membrane, and then you will see where the white rabbit was going.
In the aftermath of Marx’s failed prediction of revolution, the architect of the Frankfurt school, became dismayed by the rise of Orthodox Party Marxism and a dictatorial form of communism. They turned their attention to the problem of rule through ideology, or rule carried out in the realm of culture. They believed that technological advancements in communications and the reproduction of ideas enabled this form of rule. Their ideas overlapped with Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony.
One of the core concerns of the scholars of the Frankfurt School, was the rise of “mass culture.” This phrase refers to the technological developments that allowed for the distribution of cultural products—music, film, and art—on a mass scale. (Consider that when these scholars began crafting their critiques, radio and cinema were still new phenomena, and television didn’t exist.) They objected to how technology led to a “sameness in production and cultural experience”. In other words, a rise in the leisure class. Something attainable even by the lower economic class. In their view, technology allowed the public to sit passively before cultural content rather than actively engage with one another for entertainment, as they had in the past. The scholars theorized that this experience made people intellectually inactive and politically passive, as they allowed mass-produced ideologies and values to wash over them and infiltrate their consciousness. In other words, technology has allowed the masses to be less cult driven via politicizing.
Yet is this not what Communism, Socialism have been forcing on people? And Cultural Marxism now continues to force on us under the guise of equality, anti racism, anti sexism, and this so called social justice campaign? The Frankfurt School also argued that this process was one of the missing links in Marx’s theory of the domination of capitalism and explained why revolution never came. They took this framework and applied it to consumer goods and the new consumer lifestyle that had just become the norm in Western countries in the mid-1900s. He argued that consumerism functions in much the same way, for it maintains itself through a creation of false needs that only the products of capitalism can satisfy.
Since culture essentially is whatever is being done at the moment as a collectively agreed upon activity by the masses, why not use culture as a vehicle for Marxist ideology and the promotion of socialism, instead of politics. One of the boogey men Communists and Socialists uses to confuse people and to get them onside, is the specter of “patriarchy”. Patriarchy is synonymous with men. And as i stated before, its easier to conquer, colonize or enslave a nation and people, if strong men are eliminated and weak men are left as examples of manhood. Such men, can only breed a succession of weak men, thus ensuring rebellions and revolts are eliminated. Patriarchy and strong masculinity have always described men who have placed their stamp on civilization. For good or bad. Keep in mind, without patriarchy … or men, civilization would not rise, nor fall. Dictatorship would not be overcome. Women and children would not be provided for, protected, or lead into different periods of glory. In fact history and ourstory have often shown that so called matriarchy has been non existent, and have been confused with the limited system of a matrilineal line of succession. A line of succession that still looked to male rulership for salvation, protection and provision.
The second wave feminism was encouraged to grow into an anti men, anti establishment, shrewish, berserker mayhem filled satanic spawn, that birthed radical feminism. It also defecated out, ass wipe rags like S.C.U.M ( society for cutting up all men) magazine, the physical attacks and actual bombing of arenas and speaking engagements of opponents of radical feminism. Which included both male AND female opponents. The S.C.U.M Manifesto is a radical feminist manifesto by Valerie Solanas, published in 1967. It argues that men have ruined the world, and that it is up to women to fix it. To achieve this goal, it suggests the formation of SCUM, an organization dedicated to overthrowing society and eliminating the male sex.
The period of radical feminism was seized upon by the CIA and the shadow governments of Europe and amurdikkka, to train skanky white fefails like Gloria Steinham and kneegrow traitors like Michelle Wallace to infect the black radical movement of the 1960s. All Afurakan people must up their knowledge of who Michelle Wallace was. In her book Black macho and the myth of the black superwoman, Michele Wallace attacked the masculinist bias of 1960s Black politics, showing how women remained marginalized by the patriarchal culture of Black Power. She describes the ways in which traditional, male-identified myths of Black womanhood block the development of a separate female subjectivity.
To be fair she was partially right in that black women were marginalized during this period of social activity. However, she either failed to or choose to ignore that every single organization, except for Martin Luther King’s organization of that period, was either socialist ideologically, like the Black Panthers, who embraced whites, Hispanics, Asians and homosexuals as alies in the so called black liberation struggle. Or were religious/Arab extremists, like the Nation of Islam under Elijah Muhammed and other lesser known of such groups.
In so doing these so called leftists use the ideological different behaviour of a few to condemn men in general. This patriarchy that Michelle Wallace spoke about, was the classic amurdikkklan kneegrow’s attempts to imitate his white hero’s marginalization of his own woman. And even European history has more than enough evidence of white men treating his women as valuable contributors to their society. Just not in the way these fembots yearn for. As usual, some will magnify some negativity and ignore many positivity to strengthen their case. In the early 1950s, marginalization, ironically occurred inside the amurdikkklan communist movement and this was what spurred the rise of radical feminism, lesbianism and hatred of men. Many of these communist, both male and females were college professors, thus were able to infect the fertile minds of the next generation of amurdikkklans. Folks, context is everything and everything is contextual.
The only black organization in the 20th, now 21st century that was never accused of patriarchy or of the marginalization of black women, was and still is the UNIA of baba Marcus Garvey. Still the most relevant and significant black organization in the history of the planet and of ourstory. Why is this so? Because the UNIA was peopled with masculine men and feminine women. People who embraced their specific gender roles and Afurakanness. And association with Afuraka and not amurdikkka or any island. Peopled by men who stood on the frontline and exchanged gun shots with members of the Klu Klux Klan, with nary a skanky skettel, there to distract them by twerking, or telling men how to be men. These where black masculine and heterosexual men, who raised strong black masculine boys and strong black feminine girls.
After the signing of the civil wrong bill, that included a passage that allowed homosexuals and white women to insinuate themselves into what should have been a specific set of amendment aimed at and for black people, the proverbial shit hit the fan. Once this bill came into effect, the cultural Marxism that had laid in the cut, whispering in the ears of the dissatisfied outsiders, ramped up its rhetoric and embolden first the white fefails who ran around naked at Woodstock and every other “peace and love” concert, fucking any and everything that moved, breathed and had a genitalia, to striving to undermined her counterpart. Note i said genitalia and not just a penis. Then they infect the black liberation movement to get kneegrow fefails to do the same. This period in history was where homosexuality came out of the literal and figurative closet with some of the most significant groups including N.A.M.B.L.A. The North American Man/Boy Love Association.
If you must ask what does feminism and homosexuality have to do with masculinity in general and black masculinity specifically, consider the narrative around “toxic” masculinity. Consider the fact that terms like manspreading and mansplaining has become part of our modern day lexicon, but never woman splaining or woman spreading. Fembots and fefails, most who lack the ability to be home makers, positive pair bonders to their own children or mate, spend their time making up shit like, street harassments, #metoo and write bloody articles about physically fit men, being toxic because they “intimidate” fat, unattractive, bellicose or emotionally damaged sows, who’s womanly values tends to be based on their high sexually body count, their useless education in women’s studies, their lack of self reflection and personal accountability or their ability to oppress boys and men.
When women get together to support or celebrate their femininity, it is expected that the cheerleading section erupts with encouragement and financial influx to keep various organization alive. When men get together to celebrate their masculinity, they are called toxic and vilified for meeting without women and even accused the meetings of being an homoerotic excuse. Ironic still, considering that the leftists celebrate homosexuality, males dressing as women, males getting cut up to parody women as normal, and men not wanting to “date” males in drag as discrimination.
While we look side ways as these shrews bellow incessantly about feminism, homosexual rights, toxic masculinity and a bevy of strawmen arguments. It is the toxic males that are allowing all of this shit to fall out of the bottom of society. The same judges, folly tricksters, and soy boy, noodle back, simpanzee beta cucks who legislate and support the attack on manhood who are the real toxic element in all of this. Politicians who are anti gay, but are caught fucking other men. Governmental officials who are anti crime. Who are being caught daily in criminal activities. Anti rape advocate who are caught soliciting under age children and groping their secretaries. All supported by gynocentric fembots and social climbers, who are willing to open their legs, mouth or ass cheeks to these socially high value men, as long as they can extract resources and “justice” in both the courts of public opinions and legal courts. Unless we as concerned men who embrace authentic masculinity leave these fefails and soy boys to their own hubris, we risked getting sucked into a maelstrom of entropy. It will hasten to end of masculinity and civilization. At least in the west, where civilization is a notion and not a reality. There are still parts of the planet where femininity exist. Where masculinity exist. And neither has anything to do with muscles, vagina or competition in the work place. Or for that matter, any philosophy of men and women being gender equal.
There is nothing outside of yourself that can ever enable you to get better , stronger , richer , quicker , or smarter . Everything is within . Everything exists . Seek nothing outside of yourself .