Countering the Feminization of Men's Minds
Time and Space
The attack on ‘toxic’ masculinity was an attack on men. But it didn’t start with the #MeToo era. The feminist crackdown on masculine thought started long before, around the time of Karl Marx’s revolution in 1850, with a wholesale attack on masculine thought, from physics to mathematics, from philosophy to contemporary art.
Once you recognize the process, the feminization of the past 175 years can be undone. It begins with the recognition of the three most fundamental aspects of our physical reality; time and space. Both have been under attack by feminist revisionists.
My personal beef with all this is that, for a long time, I merely assumed a lot of modern thinkers were “just wrong”. Now I see the combined attack for what it is: a wholesale Marxist attack on the masculine mind, and on the understanding of reality itself.
Space: Penetrable or Foldable?
Alexander Grossendieck was a half-Jewish “genius” mathematician who spent the latter half of his life dressed in a robe, as a mystic hidden away in an overgrown cave like a hermit. His legacy, however, had been to rewrite much of 19th century algebra into a new, modern form. Then he disappeared into the woods.
What few appear to grasp is that Grossendieck had effectively rewritten a masculine perception of space into a feminine conception of space. He created a geometry “without fixed points”. According to the Guardian,
“At the heart of [Grossendieck’s] work was a new conception of space, liberating it from the Euclidian tyranny of fixed points and bringing it into the 20th century universe of relativity and probability.”
(Notice that everything masculine men—which the ancient Greek certainly were—do is either a tyranny or an authoritarian patriarchy. Not because they were wrong, but because they were right.)
Space, as masculine men understand it, permits, the trajectory of a spear flying through the air from one’s hand toward a moving target. It bridges a distance from point to point. Masculine space is about how to get somewhere, how to hit a target, how to find a new pathway. This kind of space permits penetration and conquest, an important aspect of the successful hunter’s life.
A feminine conception of space, however, permits, all of a sudden, the folding of space, such as famously shown in the movie Inception with Leonardo DiCaprio. In the Star Trek universe, the warp drive machine that allows space travel moves the whole universe instead of the spaceship.
These kinds of ideas flow from a ‘Grossendieckian’ reinterpretation of space, and should be considered feminist propaganda. The foldable world is a phantasmagoria. Ultimately, Grossendieck, “[m]oving beyond distinct disciplines such as geometry, algebra and topology, … worked in pursuit of a deeper, universal language to unify them all,” but failed to do so.
These kinds of universalistic ideas aren’t original at all. The father of George Soros, for examples, wanted to make Esperanto the universal world language. And Bill Nye wants to make all the races a “universal human race”. This universalistic thinking is the hallmark of every Marxist-feminist-communist thinker. They all do the same thing. To them, everything is to be fused back into some kind of universal whole, the singularity, or rather: a woman’s womb.
Interestingly, Grossendieck believed mathematics was God (a female deity, in his view, of course), but this unoriginal idea harkens back to Philo Judaeus’ idea of an “unchanging God-Mind” (writing in Alexandria around the time of Chirst).
Grossendieck also believed his wooden desk was sentient and knew all about him.
Verdict: space is penetrable, not foldable. Inception is an interesting visual spectacle, but like Star Trek, its physics are imaginary.
Time: Sequential or a Giant Now?
As much as I appreciate the German philosopher Martin Heidegger for his extreme intelligence, he, too, was involved in universalism’s attack on another masculine perception of reality, namely the attack on time. In his book, What Is Called Thinking?, based on a series of lectures he gave to a present Hannah Arendt, his later mistress, Heidegger dismissed the “traditional Western notion of time”.
Traditionally, time, in the West, follows the path of past, present, and future. But Heidegger questions it, by asking, “Was it always like this?” The 19th century thinkers before him began seeing the past as an actual place one might visit, for example using a time machine. Heidegger could no longer accept the physicality of a past, and rather preferred seeing time as a Giant Now.
For a long time, the Western movie industry held on to time as a progression from past through a present into a future, such as, famously, the Back to the Future trilogy. The idea of time as a Giant Now has been explored in another Hollywood movie called Arrival (2016).
In Marvel’s Avengers: Infinity War, a concept of alternate timelines is explored. Here, the story goes that every possible alternative timeline exists and can be visited. Rather than going back in time with a time machine, one may side-step into alternative timelines without affecting the current present.
Taken together, of course, all these alternative timelines form yet another Universal Giant Now.
A Breakdown of the Space-Time Continuum
As one may begin to understand, the feminist attack on reality has long reached Hollywood screenwriters. They have long begun to dismantle the traditional conception of space and time as penetrable and linear, into one that is a foldable present moment.
Albert Einstein went even a step further by fusing time and space into a single spacetime continuum, blurring the lines even between what time and space are.
There is a philosophical viewpoint that says that, indeed, both masculine men and feminine women can each perceive physical reality, and interpret it, in their own way. Or that male and female minds may effectively ‘whip up’ different kinds of reality.
However, the feminist attack on space and time constitutes a reversal and thereby a potential breakdown of reality’s fabric. Namely, if the world of men was traditionally always the outside world, a world penetrable by “spears, words, and penises”, and if the female world was the indoor world of the household, “an unchanging, folded-up present moment”, then the reversal of these must lead to the collapse of physical reality itself.
If we were, for example, to make the outside world the female world, folded up and universalized into an immutable God-Mind, then the outside world would no longer permit the existence of a different, penetrable masculine reality. And as such, reality would cease to exist.
Everything would be absorbed and consumed by the “Devouring Mother” of feminist physics. But now that I’ve made you aware of this danger, we can ridicule feminist physics, and prevent the collapse from happening.
An excellent piece.
They've worked really hard to undermine men haven't they.