Truth
Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle. A lie is the lack of truth that develops in the absence of manliness. The more honesty a man exhibits the more manly he becomes.
As our society becomes more feminized, which in reality means becoming less masculine, truth gives way to lying. I can remember in the early stages of my business career even large orders were figured on the back of an envelope and given verbally. Then purchase order numbers became a requirement, then written purchase orders became necessary, and finally the purchase orders included pages of legalistic fine print. Men understand the spirit of the law, women believe in the letter of the law. (One is seen and the other is unseen). Since there is always someway to circumvent the letter of the law more lawyers and legalese are required to conduct business as women have increased their presence in the labor force.
Men used to do business on a handshake, the modern equivalent of let your yes be yes and your no be no. When’s the last time you heard a woman say yes and no? Children no longer receive training concerning right and wrong, instead they are taught legal and illegal. They no longer know a lie from the truth.
Since increasing numbers of our society are raised without knowledge of right and wrong, living with a lie has become increasingly acceptable. Four internationally known lies that we have accepted are: Roe versus Wade, The Gulf of Tonkien Resolution, Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the Duke rape case. All four of these situations were based on lies. The plaintiff in Roe versus Wade was never raped; nothing happened at the Gulf of Tonkien, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and the plaintiff in the Duke case was not raped. Nothing has been done about any of the perpetrators of these lies. Nothing.
As an aside, I will point out to women who read this article and who might have sons, know that the number of men in prison unjustly accused and convicted of rape numbers in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. The true rape occurs when they enter prison. Before you embrace feminist rhetoric and lies, think about what might happen to your sons, brothers and fathers.
We take sides on the four issues that evolved as a result of these lies, but we do not address the lie at all. The destruction in human life that the first three lies created has been enormous. The emotional effect on those accused of rape at Duke was devastating, and had it not been that their parents had money they would have become penal institution statistics and forgotten by the general public.
As you might be surmising by now this article is written to further address the response to my article Pictures and Points made by a separate article written by Joyanna Williams. In comments made to my original article Joyanna indicated that Hedy Lamarr had made a superb invention in communications that affects the entire telecommunications industry to this day. I mentioned to her that a friend told me our telecommunications industry is based on many inventions developed by and stolen from Nicola Tesla. I showed no animosity towards her and my words were, “I trust you to do the research.”
And what was her response? She writes a separate article and headlines it “Hedy Lamarr: Silly Bimbo? Or Inventor? Nobody Answers Elder George.” What she meant was Look at me, that is, ME, It’s ME Joyanna and I want everybody at MND to see that my sword is drawn and I’m going to offer Elder George’s head on a plate. Watch ME.
Her article provided another forum for my ideas and I am elated at the response. I am somewhat amused as well, for that 500 word article was written in haste to meet a newspaper deadline four years ago.
Getting back to Joyanna’s article, it had no proof of her contention at all. She did however prove my article in that she didn’t get the point. I have no axe to grind with Joyanna. One of the readers sent me an E-mail that stated, “Genetics probably prevents Joyanna from getting the point, but what excuse do the men have?” I will refer to the male response later, but first a few material considerations for Joyanna’s understanding.
A few years ago I called the U.S. patent Office and asked what percentage of patents are given to women. The response was that there are no gender statistics on patents. That might seem strange inasmuch as, the government can give a gender breakdown on most everything else. But most patents come from men and the feminist dominated government does not care to provide that statistic. I pressed the contact I had to make an estimate and he indicated that maybe 5% of the patents go to women. Shortly after that I obtained a copy of all the patents granted in New York State the preceding year and went through it name by name. After deducting the John and Mary Smith joint patents from the list, I arrived at a figure of about 5%. My contact’s estimate was a good one. Now how many of these patents were conceptual in nature? Probably none. In my article the term I used was conceptual inventions, not patents. Women are adaptable and they make adaptations to the world men created for them. (That’s another point.) Hence they get patents for the Barbie Doll, disposal diaper, and White Out.
So desperate are feminist influenced women to prove that they can do what men can do that they will grab at any straw just as Joyanna did. When asked to prove women’s competence in science the name always brought up is that of Marie Currie. Even if Marie Currie did everything on her own without any direction or help from her husband, what does it prove about the likely hood of women succeeding in science? Marie Curie is not of this century or the last. She was born two centuries ago. Since her birth about 10 billion people have been born, half of them women. For those who have studied statistics, when something happens once every 5 billion times it is not even considered a possibility that it will happen again. The event is considered to be an aberration. Babe Didrickson Zaharias was also an aberration. Men recognized the performance of these two women without any feminist or governmental prodding. Men always recognize performance. But when the likelihood of one woman in 5 billion becoming a great scientist is compared with the fact that 4.9 billion of the women became mothers, it does not take deep thinking as to what to train the women for. The aberrations somehow rise to the top on their own.
Google will contain commentary that Hedy Lamarr was a great electrical engineer and inventor. She was not an electrical engineer nor was she an engineer. She studied acting in school. Nor was she an inventor, even though her name is on the patent. That information is a much a lie as Roe versus Wade.
Joyanna, I am asking you for the third time, name me a woman who made a conceptual invention on her own. I’m not saying you will never find one, but you will have to search long and hard, and its frequency of occurrence will fall into the category of aberration and will prove my point.
Now for some male logic on Hedy Lamarr’s invention. Firstly, Hedy’s major contribution to the cinema was that she was the first woman to be completely nude in a film and the first one to act through having an orgasm. Her husband was so embarrassed by these pictures that he attempted to by up every one of the films. She did not study engineering nor was she a tinkerer. When she ran away from her first husband and came to America she continued her acting career. Supposedly one night in working with a composer she got the idea for an invention. Now if this was a great invention that would affect the telecommunications industry of the world, is it reasonable to conclude that after that she went on with her acting career? That would be the equivalent of a man writing a great concerto and then going into the floor waxing business for the rest of his life.
We were also at war with the Axis powers at the time, wouldn’t our government have pressed this inventive genius into service for the war effort? Also, wouldn’t this great mind have produced great or intelligent acting? Hedy was a sex symbol. She never received any nominations and after Word War II her career ebbed. Wouldn’t she then have decided to further her great inventive genius? She didn’t because it wasn’t there.
The whole Hedy Lamarr inventive genius is a lie just as Roe versus Wade and the Duke rape case were lies. Just because the lie is repeated internationally doesn’t make it any less a lie.
Men deal primarily in the unseen and women deal primarily in the seen; that is our partnership in propagating and preserving the species. Conceptual inventions come from the unseen. Standards and principles are unseen as well. I have never stated in articles, in lectures, or in my book any feminine characteristic as a negative, but I do challenge those who say that women are the same as men. We have forgotten our purpose in being and have perverted the natural relationship of men to women.
Do you get the point?
If you want more info on the subject you can contact me through my website at www.mensaction.net. I’m old fashioned; I answer all communications within 24 hours.
P.S. This article contains many points.
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
July 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
PS. Thanks EG, You are areal sport. We may disagree but I have a lot of respect for you. My best wishes to you too.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Cons, the article may well say ’surprising and profound’ but articles tend to do that. Occasionally even the writers of studies say that, but they do so for effect. Quoting passages that are imprecise, interpreted, pre-masticated for the babes, and only slightly relevant doesn’t help your arguement.
Measurement or observation of brain events is in its infancy. The most powerful method available if the fMRI which can show real-time changes in brain activity. Lovely word, ‘activity’. What the machine actually shows is changes in blood flow in blood vessels. From that it is deduced that there is activity in proximally close brain cells but the number, activity, even the effects of the activity are guessed through the glass darkly. fMRI does not show actual brain cell activity. But the hyperbole tends to obscure that.
The idea that this ’side’ of the brain or that is responsible for specific functions is simply that; a shorthand for predominant styles of function, but by no means certain or even well mapped. It definitly does not locate ‘point’ and ‘picture’ as you suggest, and it is mendacious to say so. You are forgiven for that though as even the brain scientists themselves tend to get excited and overstate, enabling lay people to infer where nothing substantiable is being inplied.
The study also ascribes function to the Amygdala and the Hyppocampus, well beyond the range of functions that have been proven. The Hyppocampus is not a ‘centre’ for memory or anything like that. Its functions, to date barely understood, seem to be related to short and long term memory but just how, we don’t know. ‘Centre for’ is hyperbole. It has a contributory effect. It’s contribution my even be necessary but it is insufficient. In fact much of the study is about necessity and sufficiency.
The Amygdala we are fairly confident has a lot to do with memory, particularly memory of emotionally charged events, but again it is not a central feature but a ‘gate’ contrubutor. Necessary but insufficient to explain.
The study, even in its eagerness to relate issues on the basis of gender, completely ignores the corpus callosum, the ‘bus-bar’ between the two halves of the brain. Women’s CC is substantially thicker than men’s; it has some two hundred thousand more fibres for data transmission and is distributed to more cells and regions than in a man’s brain. No one knows quite yet what effect other than integration it has on conceptualisation, ‘point’ getting or ‘picture-making’.
It isn’t a question of ‘that’s not a knife; THIS is a knife’, it is a matter of cautious interpretation of results and proper, supportable, evidence-based inference; and distinguishing between the method and data on the one hand and hyperbole in reporting – even in scientific journals – on the other.
This increasingly common style of attracting attention by using unfounded inference is not confined to Feminist studies. There is an overarching ‘mendacity-creep’. The lay person can be forgiven for making incorrect assumptions, to some extent.
EGs assertions go well beyond even unsupported inference and interpretation. As I have repeatedly said, his ‘point’ is clear, but does not have a fact to support it. He ascribes features to a ‘Masculine Principle’ without ever showing that such an animal exists. His ‘point’ is imaginary. He is all ‘blood-flow and ascription to brain cell’ without defining the activity of the brain cell.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Amfortas, the opening sentences of the article say, ‘The differences are surprising and profound”….where did you read “slight” with regard to the current subject matter.
Somehow I knew that when presented evidence you’d dismiss it. Thats OK.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
MMX – at this point the particulars of this argument are fading. (Even the author has enjoined us to “move on” (comment 48).
But move on to what? EG has already said that his next phase of writing will focus on “action”.
This is a key word for both myself and – obviously – for EG.
But in light of the general hocus pocus around “masculine” this and “truth” that, should I now conclude that all of this subjective talk about “action” is merely another “unseen” event?