Information Warfare Education, Propaganda, and How to Tell the Difference



There is a great deal to unpack, and it’s difficult to know where to start. But beginning at 21:42, where I happened to stumble into Sir Roger Scruton’s lead into the question “why we seek out the oppressor.” He conjectures that for some reason it seems that when we lose sight of the transcendental, we descend into this pit of wanting to reveal the oppressor. He frames this in the context of feminism and the patriarchal oppression of women by men.

Here’s how I see it. As I’ve mentioned before in this forum, there is no such thing as one-way (unilateral) oppression of one gender by another. I can summarize the main cognitive elements behind the feminist obsession with “patriarchal oppression” very easily:

  1. Hypergamy: Women only notice successful, powerful men (as per the “Pareto principle”, the upper 20%). All other men (the remaining 80%) are invisible to women. Do these successful men really oppress women? Or are they just more passionate and competitive in everything that they do, by virtue of their career-based priorities? Are the remaining 80% of men really oppressors? You know, the janitors, the tradesmen, the plodders, the earners, the soldiers that we send off to die in wars, the gender whose suicide rate is four times higher… are they really all oppressors? What is it about the remaining 80% of men that women don’t notice and don’t care about?
  2. Projection: Much of the feminist agenda can be understood from the perspective of projection. “This is what I would be thinking if I was doing what these successful men (the only men that I notice) are doing.” Hence feminist envy at those evil oppressors. Female bullies at heart know how male bullies act out. And male bullies are hot, baby. Hence the female attraction for exciting bad-boy stereotypes;
  3. Neo-Darwinism: My pet topic du jour. Our personalities do not come solely from the bottom-up, from the inside-out. They come from the top-down, from the outside-in… and I argue, this is the more influential flow of determinism. The outside-in begins under the influence of the primary nurturer, especially during the first 4 years of an infant’s rapidly developing neuroplastic brain. The top-down continues throughout life, with culture providing the options from which we choose. This is why I center on the importance of getting our paradigm right. The time to throw out neo-Darwinian, because-genes bullshit is long overdue.

These same basic elements can be extend to all the other dysfunctional things going on in culture:

  1. Hypergamy - pragmatism: Pragmatism is an extension of Peirce’s theory about how we define the things that matter. Where women only notice successful, powerful men, everyone else is doing much the same kind of thing. They are seeing the world from their own levels, from the perspective of their own priorities. They’ve lost the ability to empathize, to try and see the world from other perspectives;
  2. Projection - revealling the inner self: Again, more generally, “This is what I would be thinking if I was doing what Person X is doing.” Anti-white racists are still racists, because they are making assumptions about what I’m thinking, based on what they would be thinking if they were in my shoes. Bigots masquerading as anti-bigots are still bigots, because they have failed to liberate themselves from the original sin that is their culture. Virtue-signaling scolds are no different to their former incarnation as puritan, pitchfork-wielding fundamentalists;
  3. Neo-Darwinism - No, there is no such thing as an oppression gene. There is an oppression context, and mothers abusing their children begins a cycle of abuse that expresses itself throughout, and higher up, for example, men abusing women. Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. Once again, this time with effect: there is no such thing as unilateral, one-way abuse of one gender by another. To suggest otherwise, as feminists are wont to do, is to disempower women, to enfeeble women, portray them as ineffectual imbeciles. They are not. Matriarchal authority is an authority to be reckoned with.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this. Our paradigm is broken. We don’t have a clue. We don’t see the extent to which we are products of our culture. We assume our culture to be “real”, but it’s all a collective hallucination. And all this is unravelling, expressing itself in the shifting politicizations, where once it was the Left against globalization, and now it’s the Right’s turn. They are shifting their stance based on their shifting priorities. When globalization was a corporate business agenda, the Left opposed it. When globalization became an authoritarian left agenda (as coporations aggregated and collectivised), the Right came to oppose it. None of this surprises me. Indeed, I expected it, and I expect it will get much worse. We can’t trust our leaders anymore. The Constitution? It doesn’t mean anything anymore. Our judiciary are joke, as are our other leaders. There’s no-one to respect anymore. This is Clown World, and everybody is a clown now.

So getting back to Scruton’s conjecture. Why is it that when we lose sight of the transcendental, we should descend to this oppression narrative? Answer… all of the above. 1) Seeing the world from our own level, from the perspective of personal priorities. 2) Projection, and the failure to see culture’s impact on our natures, the failure to empathize. 3) Neo-Darwinism, no our natures are not programmed into our genes, our natures are inextricably interconnected with culture. Do we see how leaning towards the Transcendental can ameliorate such impulses?

All terribly stream-of-consciousness… hope it’s not too rambling, it’s difficult nailing specifics on sweeping, big-picture topics like this, and it’s getting late in this part of the Eurozone :sleepy:


As an employer (hypothetically - I’m not actually an employer) I would say “No, I am not denying you anything. You can choose to live your life according to how you see fit. But I won’t pay you to do that. If you have value on the labor market you should be able to quickly get a new job at similar rate of pay at another company that falls in line with your political views. Or, you can choose to go out and get COVID post-haste - and take any resulting sick days without pay because this company does not offer paid sick leave.”

I’m all in favor of employee rights, but I think we have to be intellectually consistent and not just suddenly change 100 years of labor laws and overturn 100 years of employer vs employee court cases just because some people don’t want to get a COVID vaccine.
Honestly, if an employee brings an employer a form like @excecutive linked - he better be VERY valuable to the company so as to be irreplaceable (hint - nobody’s irreplaceable).
There are a lot of variables. Is the employee interacting with the public in the course of their duties? Are they preparing food?
Most of our laws and legal precedents place the benefits of the company over those of the employee unless we are talking about a protected class of rights. Freedom to practice religion in the workplace is one of those things that has been fought in the courts. The freedom to practice religious beliefs is not an absolute right in the workplace, and employers can place limitations (which have been hammered out in the courts).
An example is freedom from random drug tests. Private employers have the right to conduct random drug testing and if the employee refuses they can be fired. You can’t just one day say it violates your religion if someone takes your pee. I personally agree it is an invasive practice and refuse to work for an employer who would require me to submit urine samples regularly. Many people tried to fight in court the right to take religious or sacramental substances that are also illegal - an they have been unsuccessful in the courts. Even if someone claims to be a Rastafarian, they can be choose to submit to random drug tests or be fired.
That’s just one example. The right to wear religious symbols has also been fought out, and many other cases.


I think the underlying difference of thinking is Individual Rights (personal or religious or whatever) vs Employer Rights vs Federal Mandates. Could this be the fundamental rub between Leftists demanding centralization of decision making and control vs Righties demanding individual decision making?

Case in point is everyone I know that is “Anti-Mandate” has also been vaccinated, yet feels strongly that Federally Mandated Vaccinations for COVID19 is Federalization creep that is unacceptable.
Some might call this “Anti Authority” with the most righteous going so far as attempting to completely discounting others concerns with a characterization of “shadows within their Upper Left quadrant that must be eradicated for the survival of humanity” existential FUD.

I joined a COVID trial program this weekend by attending a football game with 100,000 humans in attendance - packed house - lots of shouting, high fiving, back slapping and general elbow rubbing. There were no “vaccine passport” checks nor “enforced mask wearing”. I would estimate less than 5% of the 100,000 were masked.
We should expect to see infections spike, deaths spike, ER bed shortages,and need for another economic shutdown according to “the science”, right? I’ll track and keep everyone posted.



According to Scurton and Peterson, the postmodern existential sky is falling just might be something that we stop trying to find a compromise with and realize our a vast swath of society has fallen prey to a infection of a pathological ideology that has led then down a path of intellectual psychosis.

it’s as if we’re dealing with high school seniors that refused to take the “oppressively hard” classes and now can’t score a 1200 on the “systematically racist” SAT so therefore will not be getting the full-ride law school scholarship after all. So now they want to destroy society and culture so their Underwater Basket Weaving major now does lead to a tenure track professorship in the newly created Underwater Basket Weaving Department.

What if this attempt to compromise suddenly ends. This “bothsidering” stops, and the discussions get called for what they are - a complete waste of time and money and a destructive drain on humanity?


This doesn’t hold water when as I specifically pointed out the “Right” has been consistently against employees having freedom of choice in the workplace.
That’s the disconnect that you don’t seem to get - employee rights has not been a conservative priority until all of a sudden in 2021. I even quoted the Republican nominated Chief Justice who formed the basis of the next 100 years of Conservative policy on the issue.

The rest is all just a shell game.


Indeed, but the place to look is more inwardly instead of rationalizing all one’s problems are cause by other people. Nobody can force you into psychosis. If anyone is there, it is all on their shoulders. The amazing thing about Jordan Peterson is that he is so blind to his own victim mentality, and that he is popular mostly because men feed off of this to legitimize their own feelings as victims.

Indeed again - What happens if you realize your attempts are a complete waste of time? What happens if you instead just stop inventing ways to feel you have been wronged and then no longer have a need to defend then retaliate against being wronged? Yes, do stop bothsidering. You will be much better off. Stop making up the one side and then making up the retaliation against it.


I’ll never write a book, but if I did my first one would be “Who Stole My Balls” - a parable of a little mouse who wakes up missing his balls and can only find them by negotiating a maze filled with big wet hairy monsters and their fanatical feminist drones. Most of the book would describe in graphic detail how he slays them with pathological glee in a gory bloody carnage. The ending would be modeled after “The Wasp Factory” by Ian Banks. The mouse discovers he never had balls to begin with, and in fact wasn’t even a mouse, but is instead a beautiful female guinea pig.

Here is an excerpt from the book:
‘My greatest enemies are Women and the Sea. These things I hate. Women because they are weak and stupid and live in the shadow of men and are nothing compared to them, and the Sea because it has always frustrated me, destroying what I have built, washing away what I have left, wiping clean the marks I have made.’


You do realize, don’t you @raybennett , that feminism assumes women to be “weak and stupid and live in the shadow of men and are nothing compared to them”, don’t you? That’s why feminists assume that women are victims who need protection, freebies and concessions, how could it be otherwise? And by extension, anyone who endorses feminism does the same. And male feminists are the worst, they are the galahads, eager to serve and protect, laying down their jackets over puddles so the li’l ladies won’t get their dainty feet wet. Chivalry… same as it ever was. And male feminists think they have balls? They’re just opportunists seeking the favor of women.

Chivalry before feminism: Opening car doors for the li’l ladies because they are too dainty to open car doors themselves. Remember that? Feminism is just a contemporary incarnation of the same, old same-old.

Gender roles are real because of biology. Different cultures have different ways of expressing them, though. In some cultures the dynamic, in mutual respect with men and women working together, is a delight to behold. In others, cringe. I’ve always found the anglosphere’s chivalry narrative irritating; women are just not that stupid. But at least it makes weak men feel useful and “manly”.

The old mind-body problem of cartesian dualism continues to haunt us. In reality, there is a direct relationship between mind and body, and in this, it is not possible to escape gender predispositions. Men’s and women’s bodies are predisposed to intercepting different cultural priorities. And the more things change, the more they stay the same (for example, equality-obsessed Sweden discovering that men and women continue to migrate to sex-defined roles, despite all their best efforts at “equality”). More feminism, more chivalry. Culture’s original sin remains firmly entrenched, regardless of how hard they might try to expunge it. And the harder they try, the more exaggerated it becomes, the more it becomes a caricature of itself.


What I found powerful about the questionnaire was the liability said business owner undertakes by mandating EUA vaccinations. A liability the drug company’s do not shoulder. The topic of getting vaccinated is a personal choice … mandating EUA vaccines seems very authoritarian.

Imagine if Trump were President forcing this mandate. I think we would see a lot of people on both sides take different stands. Those with passionate views are usually cult-like followers lining up in lock-step with an ideological fervor.

The integral independent thinkers see the disconnects and dangers in ideological blind obedience on either side.


A lot of strong judgements and confident conclusions in your comment. Curious if there is any middle ground in your perspective @steljarkos?

Respect for woman and respect for the elderly was the wisdom of the ages that led to civilized societies. Do you really want the strongest most powerful youthful men to rule the world? A strong view of knowing you are right, is a common trait among the youth, not common among the wise.

Those confident in “their truth” are a danger to everyone who disagrees. Do we really want to promote these base animalistic energies? There is a lot of complexity and nuance that seems to be missing in your comment that may leave you vulnerable to misinterpretation.


And rarely is the half-way in the middle compromise the right answer.


Hi @FermentedAgave … Not sure if this was in reply to my comment?

If so I would opine that those looking for answers will find what they’re looking for. Answers feed our logical mind and rational thoughts to support our belief systems. The connections of civilizations and the complexities of humanity will never be known intellectually as they perpetually evolve and change. I say that they can be felt and acknowledged through observing the interplay of actions, reactions and interactions of it all. Right answer(s) are rarely if ever absolute.

~ Peace my friend :slight_smile:


@excecutive Should have perhaps been a bit more clear.
You’ve hit on the nail on the head so to speak with it’s simply about respect. I also agree with @steljarkos that feminism is essentially a mandated yet arbitrarily and selectively enforced form of chivalry. I think studies have shown that our current form of feminism isn’t really delivering what women really would like in life - not that I would ever be one to tell a woman what she wants :slight_smile:.

You are absolutely correct that perhaps the very best answer is respect, compassion and a bit of tolerance for each other particularly when confronted with our differences.


I concur with the logic but deflect the tone. As I would stating abortion and defunding-police is evidence of systemic racism. Clear to those with open thinking yet is likely misunderstood by the majority on both sides of the political polarities. Which is why we rarely hear these arguments. We can’t debate it or agree with it from either side, less we dare to challenge the world as most people know it.


Respect, always. But sometimes you need to toss out a little grenade to precipitate reactions and get the conversation to open up, divulge positions.


@steljarkos To me feminism is a great big straw man. I’m not accusing you of straw manning. I believe you see feminism as a great threat. But for me I can’t really get excited about feminism on either side of the debate.
With that - you should read the critical reviews for The Wasp Factory. They are hilarious, and the author loved every one because he printed the most venomous ones on the back cover.
I open doors for men and women. Heck, yesterday a woman held a door for me and I said “Thank You”. Do you think maybe she was making a statement that I was too dainty to handle the door? I weigh 220 lbs so that would be funny. Maybe she was a feminist. Should I be angry?

@excecutive Liability is baked into the equation of doing business. People can choke on food and die in a restaurant. Someone sued McDonalds because the coffee was too hot. I would recommend a business owner consult their (nonpolitical) lawyer and not a politically motivated document from the internet. Capitalism is an authoritative system. You go to work and get paid and there is very little freedom of expression allowed in most career fields. If a business owner starts to bring in politics into his workplace, he’s in for a lot of trouble. As an employee - sure. I’d like to express myself in the workplace without any possible backlash. I’d like to get into political debates with clients, or at least challenge them. The workplace could be a non stop forum for debates on religion and politics and every day 10 different people could go into the bosses office with a politically one sided document they downloaded from the internet that explains how they business is open to liability unless they change their policy on the employee’s whims. Then yes, back again in 4 years when another president is in office.
Honestly, that is no way to conduct a business.

I didn’t get this memo. Who mandated what to whom? I think instead you just feel some kind of social pressure. What is the punishment for noncompliance? People might say bad things and you are afraid those things will hurt your feelings? Have you tried to just resist the social pressure? Just don’t open the door? Just stand your ground firmly on a principle? In fact it’s no different than if you stand firm against any other person on any other topic. Some people might try to socially pressure you to accept their point of view. I don’t think feminism is any different than any other social pressure - like wearing what is in fashion, for example.
Here’s a story. I once worked for a four diamond hotel. The way the lobby was designed it looked like you could go one way, but it was a dead end. At least 50 times a day I’d tell people that they couldn’t go that way. Most people would listen and go the way I told them was the correct way. But white women specifically would set their shoulders, determined to go the wrong way. 5 seconds later they’d be back and with a big grin I’d show them the correct way. If she had a husband, he’d usually follow half a step behind and I’d share a little bemused smile with him. When I shared this observation with my liberal feminist intimate partner at the time, we had a good laugh about it.


@steljarkos has a very well thought out intellectual world view that he shares, discusses, argues, perhaps even fights over. IL is seemingly first and foremost an intellectual endeavor where folks get geeky so getting feedback, gnashing about the feedback, and perhaps gnashing around someone elses screwy ideologies.

In an intellectual dialog, I would challenge that “agreeing with everyone” or “everyone is correct” doesn’t move the conversation forward. But being agreeable and caring is an absolutely lovely context when socializing with real people in real life :slight_smile:


You really have a way with women. I’m sure you didn’t exude a smug attitude when you delivered your directions. :slight_smile:
Issue for all the idiots a half step behind is that once you marry a “liberated feminist”, then you have to figure out how to live with her. They might have children together so he’s trying to “get along”.

Personally dating as an adult, I found very quickly that it would be very unlikely I would marry a woman raised in a “liberated” country. The good ones - the ones you would want to be with - are very rare and almost assuredly already married with a happy husband.
I chalk this up to the old axiom that it takes two each giving 100% to have a relationship that’s joyful and growth oriented. Anyone trained at “meet half way”-ness isn’t someone you can grow with.


Mandating employees to get vaccinated I would suggest is doing exactly that … while big Pharma gets a liability pass the business owners open up accountability risks as shown in my previous post.


Yes, men have to carefully consider where they put their sperm. But that should be the case anyway, regardless of feminism. You are creating a human being.
Yes, a man does have to figure out how to live with his wife. Shocking, but true. Some men choose one way, others another way. I find it strange that you call men “idiots” because they find a way to be happy with women that you don’t understand. If I understand what you are saying - two people agree to live their lives a certain way - but you feel the man is an idiot and the woman isn’t giving 100%. But if the genders are reversed you see it as a good, joyful, growth oriented marriage, and the woman is then giving 100%.

Speak for yourself, lol. I lived abroad for over a decade and don’t idealize women from other cultures. I’ve seen a lot of successes but also a lot of failures.
Here is a book about a third way. I read it and don’t agree with it 100% - but there is a lot of useful points of view that destroy the current male victim mythology.

Can Masculine power successfully co-exist with the strong Feminine?
In this book is a model of Masculine groundedness that you can manifest in your relationship with a strong and capable woman.
Such a woman doesn’t settle for mediocre. She needs you to consistently follow through on your word, have purpose in life, remain grounded in the face of her intense emotion, make her feel safe, and provide leadership in the relationship.
When that doesn’t happen, she may start to drift. Things between you will start to feel flat, contentious, or even toxic. To you, she will seem to nag and criticize more, and have less interest in sex. When she gets really angry, you’ll label it as “crazy” and blame her.