Wednesday, July 11, 2012

President Obama proves how different the leftist mindset is

President Obama has written an op-ed for Newsweek magazine celebrating Title IX, a law which reads:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...

As I understand it, the law has been used to force American universities to cut male sports teams in order to have equal numbers of women participating in sports. There has been no allowance made for men having a greater interest in sports or for male sports teams having a greater following.

But that's not what's so signicant about Obama's op-ed. Since Title IX was introduced women have come to dominate graduate numbers at American universities. The situation is now as follows:
According to the Census Bureau, 685,000 men and 916,000 women graduated from college in 2009 (the latest year for which statistics have been published). That means 25 percent fewer men received college degrees than women.

So women are now vastly overrepresented at American universities. And what is President Obama's attitude to this? He thinks it's just great:
In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men. This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.

Having more women than men graduate from college is what Title IX is all about, he writes. We're supposed to believe it's bad - it's discriminatory - if there are more men than women playing sports on campus, but that it's a "great accomplishment" for America if there are 25% more women than men who actually graduate.

And Obama goes on to write:
I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it.

And this:
We have come so far. But there’s so much farther we can go. There are always more barriers we can break and more progress we can make.

It's at moments like this that you are forced to recognise just how differently the leftist mind perceives reality. Obama's religious feelings are centred on a secular drama in which society must always find the next barrier to break, so that a woman's sex does not limit her power in society. This is the measure of the progress and greatness of a society, and the issue on which a nation's destiny hangs.

The word "equality" is used more as a symbol within this little drama - it refers to the progress of women's power in society rather than to finding a counterpoise between men and women.

There is not a lot of consideration given within such a mindset to how a society might successfully order itself in the long term. There is a great blank, for instance, in considering what role men might have within such an ideologically driven society, or, for that matter, what role the average non-professional, family-oriented woman might have.

I suspect that the longer the mindset endures, the more tensions it will generate. At what point, for instance, do you have to recognise that women are actually advantaged in education rather than disadvantaged? At what point do you have to recognise that Western countries are declining relative to other nations rather than progressing? At what point do you have to recognise that "permanent revolution" doesn't make for a great religion, or that there is more to life than career ambition?


  1. They won't recognize the disaster EVER. All or nothing. It's taboo in this nation to even have critical and rational debate. Shaming language, labels, and marginalization are used to keep any and all discussion irrelevant to the root causes of our decline. Free speech is gone. Hence why I recommend that men simply drop out and enjoy the decline. And do their best to bring about the total collapse of a dysfunctional government, the programs, and an entitled society that have brought down a once great nation.

    Shame on the USA for allowing itself to become what it is today. It's not my country.

  2. At least someone is standing up for men:

  3. After reading your post, I found this:

    Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013. The White House has promised that "new guidelines will also be issued to grant-receiving universities and colleges" spelling out "Title IX rules in the science, technology, engineering and math fields." These guidelines will likely echo existing Title IX guidelines that restrict men's percentage of intercollegiate athletes to their percentage in overall student bodies, thus reducing the overall number of intercollegiate athletes.

  4. Jim,

    I don't think dropping out is an option. If you're a white American man, you have a tradition to work to uphold, and the only way to do that is to marry and have children and to contribute in some way to a more traditionalist counter-movement in society.

    Also, I don't think it's going to be plain sailing for the liberal ideology. If trads were better organised we could have cleaned up over the past 30 years. Even now, there are liberal men joining the men's movement because they can no longer stomach the disparity between the claim of male privilege and the reality of what they observe in their own lives.

    How much greater will the tensions be in, say, 10 years?

  5. "At what point, for instance, do you have to recognise that women are actually advantaged in education rather than disadvantaged? At what point do you have to recognise that Western countries are declining relative to other nations rather than progressing? At what point do you have to recognise that "permanent revolution" doesn't make for a great religion, or that there is more to life than career ambition?"

    I get the impression that more people in the centre/centre-right recognise this now than 10 years ago. It's certainly a lot more obvious. But the '60s-'70s Leftists currently have an iron grip on power, and their ideology is politically dominant. I get the impression that most younger people in the Anglosphere don't think the same way, however they are a much smaller cohort and do not have a strong political voice. Also the children of the elites are now much more cut off from the mainstream than in the past, and cleave much more to their parents' values - which are BBC-Leftist values.

    There is a tension along these lines in the current British government. The old Tory Party elite is represented by the likes of Ken Clarke, very socially Liberal and pro-EU. They are right at home with the hatchet-faced commissars of the Leftist Liberal Democrats. But most of the younger Tory MPs like Michael Gove have a very different attitude, and seem closer to the mood of the nation. The Prime Minister David Cameron himself seems to have no strong views, blowing with the prevailing wind, somewhat closer to the Liberals but perhaps balanced by his inner circle, mostly a few years younger than him.

    I've started seeing words like 'restoration' in the papers. A few years ago that would have been inconceivable.
    "If Michael Gove really is planning to bring back O-Levels then that’s not just Conservative red meat, but T-bone steak. There’s something profoundly satisfying about the idea of restoration, marking the end of a period of misrule or anarchy. The concept appears throughout myth and legends (and in modern myths, such as Star Wars) and throughout history, from the return of Charles II to the re-emergence of Russia in 1991, it has had something magical about it."

  6. Equality should be the norm. Yet the president treats it as if it were special.

    If it's special, it isn't normal. Don't fool yourself in to thinking that. That let the line blur.

    This plan isn't going to work because it doesn't have a core belief that touches both sides of the spectrum. It's all one-sided, leaving the other side behind. It will grow and grow and grow and it'll be applauded for growing. And then it will fall over due to lack of support from the other side and the other side will be blamed, even though the other side was forbidden from interfering.

    Some say that the over-representation of women is a good thing because it introduces men to the discrimination that women once faced.

    They call it "positive discrimination".

    Let me tell you: that is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing positive about discrimination. Not ever. This is one of the very few things in the universe that you can call an absolute. There is no such thing as "positive" discrimination.

    There is only discrimination. And it is always bad.

  7. Eh, feminist femalesand males for that matter with power, logically equates to large wastage of economic fortunes. A knowledge economy doesn't generate GDP, it transfers finance around, whilst increasing artificial productivity, with increasingly joblessness. Manufacturing, which adds astronomical GDP to primary materials is where the economy grows.

    Computerisation and off shoring will do to current female jobs, what the industrial revolution did to men's jobs. Computerisation will see many College/University educated females, jobless, highly indebted, and unattractive brides to boot.

    I'd like to have a radical Trad come back, unfortunately, I believe the system will break first, and we may never reach the technological heights of today again. In this great breaking I do see the degeneracy being washed away, with radical trads taking it back.

    Much to the fears of the feminists and the colourful coalition.

  8. check this out:

  9. Interesting how in this case the old leftist schtick about equality of outcomes seems to have been largely co-opted by the traditionalist right. Seems to me to be a case of a bad policy ('positive discrimination' at university) causing a bad counter-reaction.

    I'm in favour of equality of opportunity, but don't care for equality of outcomes at all. Seems rather silly, really. Nobody will ever have lives that are exactly the same, and nobody would want to either.

  10. Bongo's real father is most probably Frank Marshall Davis, a depraved negro communist. Bongo's job is to destroy what remains of the U.S., & set up a Stalinistic tyranny there, in order that the way will be clear for the imposition of a communist world dictatorship. This sort of thing (the new policy & Bongo's op-ed regarding it) serves to demoralize those who would be most likely to offer resistance, whilst simultaneously strengthening the regime's psychological hold over the majority of the women. They see the state as their protecter, helper & very often, in the case of divorce as their attack dog. As many have already pointed out, they don't take marriage seriously because they can always fall back on state assistance if their current emotional state demands that they destroy the marriage (that is they bothered to marry in the first place). This destruction of the family brings about a society in which the nightmare of Huxley's Brave New World could very easily become reality, which is exactly the point. Feminism is far more than a great mob of stupid spoiled women throwing a collective fit & thus fouling everything up thoroughly, unintentionally as it were. Its purpose from the very beginning was to act as a solvent on non-communist societies, liquidating them so that a communist society can be set up in their place. Most modern people have been conditioned too well to ever come to a right perception of reality. They'll always maintain that well-organized movements that make use of carefully thought out plans of attack & subversion just happen, rather like a bird just happens to choose your car to empty his bowels onto, rather than another. As the Freemason & crypto-communist Franklin Roosevelt said, nothing in politics happens by coincidence. Whatever it is, you can bet that it was planned that way.

  11. Anon,

    I don't think you have to reach to anything hidden to explain what's happened - if you look at the openly stated political, philosophical and theological beliefs of the Western political class the wonder is that we didn't get here sooner.

  12. Well, that's certainly true, but it would be good if everyone in the Traditionalist movement made it a point to ask whence came these ideas, so enthusiastically adopted by the western political class. By far the greater part of modern western politicians & the pseudo-intellectuals that abound in the universities are far too bestial in character to have thought out how to set up a Marxist-Leninist society themselves. They're always much too busy engaging in some act of depravity, fornicating, snorting dope up their nose, perhaps having an unborn child brutally murdered &c., &c. They simply parrot what someone else tells them, in return for more concubines, drugs &c. In other words they're nothing but useful idiots as Lenin called them, but who are the men that pull the strings that make these contemptible puppets move? Once traditionalists begin to discover the answer to this question, they will have finally stopped hacking at the branches, & will have begun rather to dig the evil tree up by its roots.

  13. To understand the leftwing midset you have to understand that the modern leftist thinks like a hindu.

    The left carves the world into castes. You are born into these castes and it is very difficult to leave them. Your membership in the caste has nothing to do with anything you did, but everything to do with the actions and experiences of your ancestors. In the leftwing caste system the actions of your ancestors generates karma. If they suffered oppression they generate positive Victim Karma. If your ancestors were successful they generate negative karma known as privilege.

    If your caste has alot of Victim karma you are considered to be morally superior and your needs and desires are considered to have priority. A criminal from a caste with higher victim karma is considered to have greater inherent moral worth than a law abiding citizen from a lower victim caste. Thus Billy Bob Jo, the unemployed white coal miner who lives in a tent is considered to be in the same victim caste as white billionaire Donald Trump. As such, his needs are not considered to be important and since his caste has Privilege, he is not seen as a worthy victim with good karma, but just a loser who could not make good use of his privilege. He is Unworthy Poor. Oprah winfrey however, is considered to be in the same victim caste as an unemployed single black mother. She has high victim karma, and her needs are seen as important.

    This is why the left is so big on labels. You aren't just a are a white, physically normative, cis gendered woman. This precisely identifies you victim caste and status and displays your victim karma. Thus everyone fights to see who is the biggest loser, failure, the most oppressed in order to find out who's caste has the best victim karma and is more deserving of goodies.

  14. As far as Title 9, the key problem is football. Despite only having 11 players on the field, football soaks up 80+ athletic scholarships, all male of course.

    We can blame Title 9 interpretations for forcing the balancing of individual scholarships, but who is to blame for privileging football so it gets all the male scholarship?

    At Arizona State University, for example, men's programs were cancelled in tennis, gymnastics, soccer, wrestling, swimming/diving, volleyball, and water polo.

    Those scholarships could have just as easily been subtracted from football, still leaving football with enough to put plenty of guys on scholarship. Who is at fault for this? Men, no?

  15. A college football stadium on Saturday is a temple of worship of black gods. It's sacred. Don't even think about cutting football!!

  16. Obama is a feminist lackey. His policies are based on female chauvinism and sex discrimination.
    A commenter above mentioned quotas limiting the number of male students in science. This is a clear case of discrimination. Its a kindof proposed "Jane Crow" law. I believe most students enrolled as doctor's today are female but notice how there no proposed quotas to limit the number of females in medicine.

    If they enact this policy I think it will be much easier to begin the war on feminism. There will be many guys who will be disgusted & anti feminism will no longer fall on deaf ears.

  17. Discrimination is the basis of FREEDOM.

    No discrimination, no choice, no distinction, no freedom.

    Equality is usually motivated by ENVY-- the desire to bring down those you perceive as superior or obtain what they have.

  18. "I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it. "

    They already have.

    "Interesting how in this case the old leftist schtick about equality of outcomes seems to have been largely co-opted by the traditionalist right."

    Co-opted where? It is asking why is suddenly the so-called equality forgotten by the left who was its unabashed champion back in the day.

    "I'm in favour of equality of opportunity,"

    And how can that be assured when women have to face sexism everyday, which is reflected in the outcomes?

    "We can blame Title 9 interpretations for forcing the balancing of individual scholarships, but who is to blame for privileging football so it gets all the male scholarship? "

    Why for all the co-ed education do the sports scholarships have to be sex-segregated?
    Title 9 stands for equality in education, but the POS feminists sneaked the athletics part in.

    "Who is at fault for this? Men, no?"

    Yeah, for being so blind and letting the blame fall on boys for their own failure.

  19. "Shame on the USA for allowing itself to become what it is today."

    The Title IX weapon, with its beautiful simplicity, has been sitting there waiting all along, but no mere man has dared touch it. Why? Almost none of them, if they happen to be aware, will even admit publicly that there’s a problem. These mighty American male warriors will wade into the deadliest video game on the market, but they won’t stand up for their own sons if it means going up against the most fearsome entity in the Universe – American women and their enormously powerful lobbies.

  20. With feminism making more and more bold advances into the male space, how much further will they go? It seems to me they are like the borg that is absorbing everything in and around its path. Will the borg eventually consume itself? Some say feminism has peaked. But, I find it hard to believe that it is indeed the case. In this current economy it does not seem mathematically possible to sustain these priviledges dished out to these women combined with the monies required to upkeep the ever expanding welfare state!!

  21. Another question:
    Could the over representation of women in the US Olympic team a result of title IX, since a significant number of traditional male sports have been sacrifized by colleges and universities at the alter of equality?