Saturday, 28 February 2009


The newsletter of the Atheist Society (Australia)
Vol 1 No. 5, April, 1995

Continuing from the last issue, we again address the most dangerous and destructive of all Gods - the Woman in all.

To consciously set about to destroy an enemy is one thing, for there is at least some controlling force. But to unconsciously destroy . . . as Nature in its wrath . . . as a virulent plague . . . this is the most harmful of harms, because it draws no distinction between the good and the bad, the true and the false, the just and the unjust. It knows no limits, but lays all to waste beneath its crushing feet. It is a mindless harm that continues long after every last single thing is destroyed and forgotten.

So is woman an unconscious and mindless destroyer of ideas. She is like a child who playfully squashes the butterflies which innocently venture into her garden. She is utterly unaffected by the news that this exquisite butterfly is close to extinction, because a child neither comprehends "extinction" nor the value of existence.

When woman dismisses "male" intellectual discrimination she comprehends neither intellectual discrimination nor the lack of it. So discrimination dies, reason dies, truth dies, consciousness dies . . . I die. For I am that fragile, beautiful, and rare butterfly, and ever will I defend myself against forces of Nature who would destroy me in their unconsciousness.

As to "equality of rights", I question whether woman's right to unconsciously destroy reason, truth, and consciousness, is the equal of my right to uphold those very things. If woman cannot bear the burden of a conscious existence, if she cannot exist without reason and truth being squeezed out to make room for her, then I must ask the question: DO WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST?

The destruction of a just and noble idea is infinitely more harmful than the destruction of a person, or a people. We have laws for murder and manslaughter, but what of ideas? What of truth? What value is life without truth? . . . at least, for a thinking person?


Studies have shown that up to 98% of women dare not make advances to a member of the opposite sex. A woman would rather let the opportunity of meeting a man she fancies slip by than go through the ordeal of initiating relations with him.

In other words, for the sake of that which a woman regards as the most important thing in this world - namely, a satisfying relationship - she is not prepared to take any substantive risk. She is willing only to wear a pretty dress and to otherwise look aloof.

Now what does this say about the character of women?


The essential premise of all feminism is that throughout human history men have systematically oppressed women, often violently so, and that this is a situation which must be changed. Men, it says, should develop the courage to change their ways so that women can live their lives as they please, and not as men dictate. In other words, both sexes should be treated as equals.

That this entire premise is nothing other than a complete load of bollocks can be amply demonstrated, and I will proceed to do so forthwith, using the issue of sexual harassment as an example. The whole area of sexual harassment is an issue which nicely illustrates the real and actual interplay between the sexes and consequently illustrates the sheer nonsense which continually passes for feminist thought.

It is stated often enough by feminists that women should have the right to dress as they please and that men should be able to control themselves - the idea being that men are alone responsible for all violence against women. Now, I ask you, what is this but a classic case of feminine logic, designed to avoid all responsibility and consequences? I mean, let's not beat about the bush here - does not a woman dress in order to affect the male mind? Of course she does! Does she not deliberately spruce herself up so as to tease and titillate and generally stir up the male hormonal impulses? What else! O, how she loves to arouse a man's passion! How she loves to transform a robust man into putty with but a single glance of her eye or a gentle swish of her dress. Small wonder, then, when her plans backfire!

Oh yes, it is often said that women should have the right to behave as they please and men should be able to control themselves. But do women really want men to control themselves? That is the crucial question. I say not. You see, women want men to lose their cool and their sense of perspective - oh yes indeed! - but only when they themselves happen to be the master and engineer of this loss. When this occurs, then all of the things that are usually labelled "harassment" - the stares, sexual innuendoes, sly touches, and even rape - magically cease to be harassment and instead become the foundations of a passionate new romance. Hence, woman really does not want the "sexual abuse" to stop. Indeed, what could she despise more than a man who is completely indifferent to her? Rather, her complaint is: "Man should know when it is right to harass me, and when it is not." His real crime is that of being too stupid to read her everchanging whims.

Depending on her mood, a man is either an exciting and courageous hero - or a horrible monster intent on tyranny and abuse.

All of this goes to the heart of why feminism is so utterly nonsensical. Feminism states that men should treat women as equals and with respect. Yet nothing gives a woman a greater pleasure than to have the right man come along and sweep her off her feet. This requires a man to take risks, to intrude, to make advances, to harass. I mean, he will only disappoint women if he does not.

Look at it closely. Basically, women want to have their cake and eat it. They want to live as freely as possible, unshackled by the restrictions imposed by ethical considerations, yet at the same time they want men to shoulder the blame for anything that happens to go wrong. Indeed, as far as women are concerned, this is precisely what men are for - to take on the burden of creating an earthly feminine paradise, where women do as they please and men cop the flak for making it all possible.

Feminism is all about promoting this state of affairs and little else. Its only real concern is the creation of endless fun for women, and all this talk of "equality" and "justice" is just a sort of ruse which only men are idiotic enough to fall for.


What does woman's liberation mean? Does it mean liberation from all delusion? Does it mean freeing oneself from the limitations of false thinking? Does it mean escaping the bondage of ignorance? What about making every effort to eliminate the ego? Or opening up one's whole being to the infinite truth? Or vowing never to mislead a fellow human being? Or does it mean never resting until achieving boundless perfection?

Somehow, I do not feel this is what women mean by liberation. Yet unless women adopt these goals (which are goals of genuine liberation) then how on earth can I treat their feminist movement with any kind of sympathy at all?


By far and away the biggest tragedy of our times, and one which provokes little or no response in people, is the steady erosion of the masculine from the world. Nowhere else in the annals of history has the male spirit been so derided, mocked, jeered at, and otherwise kicked into unconsciousness by grinning, smirking women loudly proclaiming their newly-awakened sexuality and their so-called inalienable rights.

What a horrible state of affairs! It makes me break out into a sweat just thinking about it. Consider what has happened. All of the values which used to be called "noble" - namely, suffering for the truth, sticking to one's principles, uncovering ultimate knowledge, dedicating one's life to overcoming evil, etc - have been completely abandoned.

Women, you see, don't believe in them. Such things are the products of a diseased mind, they feel, or what comes to much the same thing it seems, the outmoded values of male logic.

Men, ever eager to oblige, have said "Sure honey, whatever you say honey" and have promptly given these great and noble values the almighty flick.

And for what? So that women can experience many lovers and have lots of orgasms? So that they can be prime minister or be an executive with lots of money? I mean to say, is this what it's all come down to? I could understand it if women sought to replace the old values with something even better and more noble, but this?

The really sad thing about it all is the incredible lack of resistence put up by men. From all appearances, the masculine spirit has well and truly been broken. Men no longer believe in anything anymore; as a result, they can see nothing better to do with their lives than to submit to whatever women say. Not so long ago, a man was judged by his ability to live up to an ethical ideal; nowadays, he is considered worthy if he is able to shower women with houses, cars, and hugs.

There are no frontiers any more, it seems, either physical or philosophical. The entire planet has been conquered and cemented. The masculine love of exploration can no longer be properly exercised. There is no longer any real purpose to anything.

Science works to make everything relative. Ultimate knowledge is not worth chasing anymore. Men have lost faith in their powers of reason. The masculine spirit is dying.

This is the root cause of feminism, nothing else. I mean, if men were to suddenly decide tomorrow to take away all the freedoms that have been granted women over the last century, there wouldn't be a lot women could do about it. Any rights women have are theirs by the grace of men - or as is the case in this century, by the pathetic fall of men.

Men no longer see the worth of being masculine. Virtually everything they do is greeted with howls of protest by women. Feminism has successfully brainwashed men into believing that their very existence is oppressive and hurtful to women. And as we all know, women are experts at making men feel guilty.

What a sham! For thousands of years, men have literally sacrificed their lives to the cause of creating this wonderful civilisation of ours so that everyone, women included, can blossom and flower in a safe and luxurious environment and thereby explore their inner feelings, articulate their deepest motivations, buy the latest fashions, drive their father's cars, and talk intimately with lovers on skiing holidays.

You see, what is usually forgotten in this enlightened age of ours is that the essential underpinning of all women's lives, the fundamental factor which enables them to have "choices" and "options" and "rights", is man. It is he who stands between her and the untamed forces of Nature; it is he who provides the cocoon in which she is free to play.

Wherever I go in this world of ours, I see women everywhere grinning from to ear to ear in sheer enjoyment of their lives. How they revel in their man-made cars and their man-made clothes and talk into their man- made telephones and caress their woman-made men! And this, feminists keep telling us, is a male patriarchal society which thrives on the oppression of women!

Indeed, if men have a fault, it is that they have done almost too good a job of it. Twentieth century life in the West is almost too safe, too orderly, too predictable, and too luxurious. The physically life- threatening situations, such a regular feature of existence in years gone by, have all but vanished. Very rarely nowadays is the male called upon to protect the female from the proverbial wild animal; consequently, he is come to be regarded as redundant, superfluous, expendable - nay, tyrannical, violent and oppressive.

Men have created an aimless, materialistic society which women love and find great pleasure in. Women, ungrateful as always, have subsequently turned around and, with loud whoops and screams of delight, proceeded to give men thumping kicks in the groin.

Women and Overpopulation

No, I am not about to suggest that ridding ourselves of women would solve the overpopulation problem (though it would), but I will discuss woman's central part in what is the most destructive phenomenon this planet has ever experienced.

It is true that if we people made more intelligent use of the earth's resources, the earth could very likely support a reasonably large human population. Unfortunately we people are not intelligent enough . . . and we don't look like becoming intelligent enough, at least for the next few hundred years. What is more, there is evidence everywhere that we are, as a race, growing dangerously less intelligent. Therefore our problem, and our problem now, is too many people . . . too much breeding. Yet, breeding requires both sexes, so why do I say that woman is the central part of the overpopulation problem?

Judging by her own behaviour, woman's sole interest in life is sex and procreation. By "sex" I mean anything that might lead to procreation, namely the emotional life, which is but the interplay of the passive and the aggressive, the dominant and the submissive, the sexual forces. By procreation I mean breeding.

It is always women who want the children, while men merely accede. Woman believes it is her right as a woman to mother children, and feels incomplete if this is denied her. Men too, are interested in sex, but men are interested in much else as besides. Much else. Importantly, men have little interest in bringing ever more children into this world. Men have children of many species, all of their own.

The simple truth is, the world is overpopulated because women want babies.

It may be objected that I am treating women as though they are capable of thought, responsibility, and will, and therefore proceeding on wrong grounds. Additionally, it could be put that responsibility for all things must lie with the consciousness that conceives of those very things - that is, with men.

It is true that I treat women as they are not. I treat women as they could be. Am I then cruel?

Women are either conscious, responsible beings, or not. If women have potential to be only partly conscious, then they must be regarded as only partly human. On the other hand, if women have potential for the same level of consciousness as men, they should be expected to think and do as men, and to bear the full burden of responsibility for all they do.

So, do women have the potential for consciousness or not? . . . Let us treat women as they could be . . . and see what happens. Call it a scientific experiment.


- General Information -

Office Bearers: Dan Rowden, Kevin Solway, David Quinn

Editor of "The Atheist": Kevin Solway

The Atheist Society is a socially concerned organization. It consists of individuals from various academic and social backgrounds, each having a knowledge of the nonexistence of God and an uncompromising rejection of all concepts of God, be they metaphysical or socio-political in nature. Members of this society do not adopt a non-committal, agnostic viewpoint and are therefore openly anti-religious.

The following is a brief outline of the basic principles and goals of the Atheist Society:

1. To seek the truth in all things.

2. To uphold the principle of intellectual freedom and to encourage freedom of thought and expression both within educational institutions and the broader community.

3. To actively and publicly seek to debunk religious and philosophic mythology using rational and reasoned argument.

4. To uphold the value of truth and reason in all intellectual pursuits and to restore pragmatism to its rightful place within these pursuits.

5. To encourage intellectual discernment and to expose the falsity of the modern nihilistic philosophy of relativism.

6. To challenge any social tradition which is founded upon superstition or false concepts.


No comments: