Tuesday, 25 December 2012

Why The Men's Rights Movements Should Be Avoided At All Cost (Part One: Hegel as a precursor to Marx)

A warning beforehand. This post is quite possibly, going to descend into a little bit of psuedo conspiracy tin foiled hat mindfuckquackery, so if you're adverse to this sort of thing, then fuck right off ken. Strange people thinking strange things at strange times en aw. It will save yous valuable seconds, at the very least, which so can be spent with all those funny youtube videos of cats farting. Rather, this post is going to involve an application of a bit of theory called Dialectical Materialism, in order to see where the men's rights movement is actually going, and how it's going to be used as the useful idiot, the silly monkey, the S3 if it actually fucking works out. It is my humble view, however original or unoriginal this may be, that the men's rights movement is a group that should be avoided at whatever cost, whether you are a feminist, or whether you are like me, a floating, meandering in the alt right reactionary sphere kind of fiend. If they fail, if they continue to be the sackless bags of vociferous shit that they already are, they make a hole of themselves and that is that.  Some basement dweling frog chokes on his vomit ranting on about the evils of the wimminz? Fine, I don't give a fuck. Franco is still the ledge sitting poolside after all. If they succeed however, then they will cause more damage and havoc and cacophony, and pain and sheer bloody fucken moorder than otherwise they would have. There are going to be a number of parts and ideas building up to the final point of this post. Some of this may seem completely arbitrary, but trust me, hold up shop for the time being. First, I'd like to divert you back to a couple of months ago. Ireland. A certain piece of legislation gets voted in in a children's referendum. I've talked about it before, but I'll just recap on some of the details however briefly:
Again, I'm not an expert on law or anything, but when the supreme court of the country comes along and puts their hands up and says "yeah, lads, your campaign was biased and manipulative. You didn't actually do anything to show the other side of the argument" There is something seriously fucking wrong with the state.

It's a nasty piece of legislation. The rights of the child were always in the Irish constitution. Now, we're allowing ten year olds to have their say (what fucking wee bairn can doo dat?), in order to erode the values of the family, and the fate of something that makes people's lives, falls intae the hands of university psychologists, wrinkly judges, and social workers. 

This new piece of legislation meant that the rights of the child were put above that of the adult. Who decides the rights of the child? Well, social workers, judges with the final say, psychologists, and a plethora of other people. The legislation also shockingly gives equal rights to single mother sluts and married couples. So it goes on and on. You get a few horrible twisted cases like the Roscommon Incest case (that was due to incompetence at a micro, community level, and the unadulterated, unpredictable evil of such a case) and some Catholic Church kiddy fiddling, despite the fact that Ireland is one of the safest countries in the EU and yet, we get this ridiculous, nasty legislation coming into play. So, with the rights of the child being the big one, what happens, if men and women are secondary and the child is the core, the key? Well, here is what happens. Divorce is no longer the clean cut (albeit vicious) procedure that it currently is. Rather, now that we're equal under the law, we have to have someone sort that out, how this equality gets spread out. You know what entity that will be?

The State.

Now, this is where the process of Dialectical Materialism comes into being. So what is it? It IS a bit boring sounding to be honest, and show me a Marxist who can write coherently, and I'll show you a sex fat chick. In reality though, it's a pretty nasty bit of stuff and not even remotely funny.  But to understand it, we needs a bit of background, we have to go trouncing back to this creepy, sick looking guy called Hegel pictured above. It is my opinion that you cannot properly comprehend Marxism without understanding Hegel. They go together like chocolate and sex.

So, to go back even further in time, we get in our super sexy chrome time machine to pick up all the skinny lassies, and we end up in Ancient Greece and chatting to Aristotle. Aristotelian logic goes something like this:

If we have proposition A, and A is correct, then it holds than proposition B cannot be correct.

Hegel comes along, and says, "that ain't the case bro! All truth is relative kid!" If we have an object, or an idea, that idea is going to be in an imperfect state of being. Change is a natural part of life. This is called the thesis. There might be something wrong with this thesis. Science is a good example in the Hegelian world view. So, the opposing argument then comes along. This is called the antithesis. This emerges naturally (the word naturally will be important when it comes to old Marxie boy, so remember it) from the thesis. These two then compromise, coalesce, and you have your synthesis. This is where we find truth. Not in A being right, therefore B being incorrect, but in the synthesis itself. But, the synthesis has its own flaws. According to Hegel, the ONLY (feel free to correct me philosopher majors, I'm a dilettante in this area) perfect being is death. But yeah, history moves like this. Not cyclical. More like a spiral. I'll give you an example there. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but to grasp the idea, this will do just fine.

Thesis: The Earth is the centre of the universe.

Antithesis: Copernicus comes along and figures out the Earth ain't the centre of the universe. Galileo and Newton finally putting the nails in that particular coffin.

Synthesis: The Earth is not the centre of the universe and rotates around the sun.

New Thesis: The Earth is not the centre of the universe and rotates around the sun. We accept Newtonian physics for the most part.

New Antithesis: But what about relativity? The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein comes into play.

New Synthesis: The Theory of Relativity is accepted and is used to do a lot of cool shit like put satellites in space and whatnot.

Due to the fact that most internet surfers have the attention span of a grapefruit, I will split this into three parts. Part 2 will concern Marx, that pathetic crusader, turning the dialectic on its head. Part 3 will discuss Karl Popper's views on Marx and Hegel, taken from his book The Open Society and Its Enemies Part 2.

The post after that will be a funny story about drunk girls. Hey, who loves ya cunts!

No comments:

Post a Comment