The notion of patterns transcending the material world is the cornerstone of tradition and of any sane brand of spirituality. Plato, for one, held that all materially existing things necessarily decayed and that the only thing universal behind them was the Idea.
Therefore, the serene supple skin of the healthy and well-developed female body expresses the essence of the female nature; soft, caring and pleasant. A good woman is one which brings out the qualities of the female being and brings to them to their fulfilment – in which the essence is realized. Therefore, the whim of a woman, if it strikes her mind, to go around prostrating how she is independent and autonomous and doesn’t need any man at all, is a step away from, instead of towards the fulfilment of this essence.
Last time (The End of the World Anthem) I discussed about the future of the State, and how this State relates itself to whims. For the State, whims are not good or evil. Whims are seen as absolutes that the machinery of State uses to calculate the movements of its subjects – that is, the consumers – like a physicist predicts the trajectory of an atom based on the quarks. So too, we are now atoms travelling on trajectories that are not virtuous or vicious, but that need to be channelled by the State in order to balance its own existence.
One might say that this means the State has broken away from the tradition of finding patterns transcending the material universe, and seeking to express this pattern through the organisation of the public life. That one would conclude that the State has no connection to a higher ordering principle outside of itself and is, as such, directionless.
The point is not direction. The point is directionlessness. Which demands perpetual stabilization. Random whims need to be funnelled, our civilization decrees, so that people have an occupation. It just works in circles. There are no grand objectives for humankind or nations just live to work and work to live. The State finds its duty in the need to hold these whims in check before they endanger the whim-pursuits of others. No qualities are ascribed to these whims other than ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’.
A writer recently stated:
“I’m in the American military. Guys still cannot grow their hair beyond their ears and neck. Yet I’ve seen very mannish women buzz cut their hair. Yuk! Girls have to be feminine and men masculine to tell one from the other–everyone knows that clear role patterns allow for the most order and harmony.”
Obviously, any good Amerika.org reader who sometimes engages in debate about his thoughts instead of keeping them private, can see the following objection coming:
“It could be said that clear differentiation between the sexes adds colour to our world and no one appreciates a beautiful woman more than me. Yet having free rights and free choices means that someone may look as he or she wishes, so long as it doesn’t infringe on others. Looking like an alien is an unalienable right.”
Objections like these, as I will make clear, inevitably rest upon short-term thinking. Liberty only exists by grace of societies’ moral fabric in which it lies embedded. Accept gradual poisoning of the moral fabric, and the institutions as well as the laws will shift away from the original spirit behind them. “Do as you wish as long as you don’t bother me or others with it”, can never be the foundation on which Liberty rests. This is because any society is held together by a sense of morality and aesthetics (we appreciate aesthetics because it means that thing depicted so eminently expresses its essence – usually meaning a fulfilment of its potential) before the laws are written (codified).
By saying: “Liberty is the license to do anything as long as one doesn’t violate the law,” one pretends as if the laws are the foundation of morality while it is really the opposite way around: Laws shift with the shifting of morality. Accept the degeneration of clear role patterns within the family (men flourishing with the qualities and abilities of men and women excelling in those of women), and eventually you will find yourself with a majority of proles who will change the laws anyway.
And then by proles I don’t mean ‘a member of the working class’, but people with no time or patience to explore history, culture and philosophy, as such have no affinity with the spirit beneath the laws of their countries’ legal system, and instead will focus on the immediate satisfaction of the desires they find surfacing in them: “Let me wear stockings and petticoats on military service else it is an infringement on my individual authentic expression,” etc…
And, another important point, (Western) societies are held together by a strong sense of civil society. That is, people participating in institutions out of a sense of the common good, such as low-level government. People participating in such organisations always do so because they are driven by certain values which they seek to uphold. If a government resorts to sticking to the letter of the law, such as tolerating despicable behaviour because there is no specific law against it or because the despicable behaviour is deemed part of someone’s inalienable rights, this will estrange the populace from the public institutions and thus destroy the motivation beneath valuable civil society.
People’s motivation to participate within civil society is always to imbed their values in it, or at least to act on its behalf in accordance to one’s values. By saying: “The letter of the law is the letter of the law, and everything is OK unless the law says otherwise”, one replaces the moral fabric of society by regulated indifference, and almost nobody will feel burning zeal to defend that.
It has been said that moral law transcends and predates civil or criminal law: Certain behaviour is never right even if there is no law against it. The presence or the absence of a specific law does not mean people need it defined in order to follow it. Moral behaviour is found, for example, in religious thought. In the American Constitution there are few negative liberties and most of them are laid upon the federal government. The vast positive liberties rests with and within each State. The old saying that “we cannot legislate morality” is true because the moment people won’t obey a moral command unless it’s made into a law, it is already too late; laws are too general and can never account for specific circumstances. This is why Plato wrote:
“Good people do not require good laws to do the good, and evil people will always find ways to practice their evil around those laws.” – Politeia
This saying could be said to apply to criminals who can hire expensive lawyers to twist the explanation of laws in their favour and use legal loopholes. The saying also concurs with my ‘Liberal’ conviction that man nor society are malleable and that it is therefore folly to try and nail down everything shut with laws, regulations and procedures to cover for every possible violation – this creates a vast bureaucracy and destroys common sense. The best thing is probably to educate people in general civil society and then if some disgusting abuse occurs to stomp down on it, setting an example. This, however rests on people’s readiness to recognize that that authority recognizes the moral law transcending the civil and criminal law, and in a society conditioning us to think of ourselves as unique and equal this is unlikely. So we only rally behind ‘transparency’ which is in fact boards upon boards – smokescreens. We all want to have a say, we want to have our ‘perspectives’ taken into account, but none of us want final accountability – this is typical of the democratic citizen.
Personally, I don’t think at the moment we have any authority that could recognize moral law transcending civil and criminal laws. Therefore, the authority figures will first have to be replaced with men educated to think in Truth-claims. But for more about this see: ‘The Inviolate Truth‘ and ‘Characterless Society II’.
Now where was I? Oh yes, I was making a point about masculinity and femininity, and I better do so before this article becomes so long that people will feel disinclined to read it – which I fear happens frequently as 85% of our comments are left by The Crow. Unless of course the majority of our readers are teachers who print texts like these and discuss them in class instead of at the page’s bottom – speaking frankly I would have a lot of respect for that, as I used to teach myself; until I encountered this website and gave it up in order to write the articles.
After hearing my response, the hypothetical interlocutor might claim that I had misrepresented his statement. After all, he did not profess: “Do as you wish as long as you don’t bother me or others with it,” but said that every individual should have the right to live their lives as they see fit best for them, provided the exercise of their natural rights does not infringe on any other individuals’ natural rights.
From this position he will then argue that not allowing to wear whatever hairstyle one chooses is nonsense; in 1776, (thus far, by my humble knowledge concerning the matter, not one of the many accursed historic dates frequently used by Brett Stevens to refer to those nightmarish visions he considers most defiling) many men wore powdered wigs, and those who didn’t had much longer hairstyles. That fact is relatively meaningless in any intellectual conversation, other than as a historical footnote, and that the next step might be to say that girls have to be feminine and men masculine, and if not should be forced to be so, for the good of society?
But then again hairstyle is part of dress code, and dress code is part of the military, so it exists already. Playing on the sentiment that forcing people to do something is bad and evil is a dishonest way of manoeuvring around an elaborate argument which rests upon confirmation by the empirical facts of history. Fact is that families with clear role patterns produce children with better performance in education, and that societies which drifted away from the standard marriage pattern have always done so at the stage of perishing. Read Montesquieu if you won’t take it from me.
The history of philosophy and statecraft itself backs this up. The idea of inalienable freedoms is part of contract-philosophy and comes from John Locke, who held that these rights were given to men by God. The contract-philosophy itself comes from the fictional idea of Thomas Hobbes, who postulated the existence of a lawless, anarchistic ‘natural situation’, in which people lived and did as they pleased without being subjected to a higher authority. According to Hobbes, the result was that they fought each other to the death over the appropriate ways to please their gods, over conduct they found dishonouring, and over all sorts of property quarrels.
This anarchy was only subsided, Hobbes imagined, once a higher authority was put in charge, and this institution would carry out the law. Not because it was morally better to act according to those laws, but because people had consented to transfer some of their sovereignty to the authority. Before they had agreed to the specific content of civil and criminal laws, they had agreed to obey them in order not to destroy one another (here you see the highest regulating principle, the last common ground of our society – that we shall at least not destroy each other).
This is basically Hobbes’ conviction that there is no moral law and that expressions regarding it are fictional statements said by speakers to manipulate others into backing their power claim. “So,” Hobbes thought, “let’s just regard anything that anyone can say as a claim said by that person to trick others into serving his interest” (as Thrasymachos argued in Politeia), and for this reason it’s best to condense all of these claims into just giving a vote to a person. “Yes,” or “no”. Simple enough. Or, hell, give nobody a vote. Just appoint one sovereign as the head to the body that is society. (Thing is just that this latter aspect of the contract-philosophy was a little too undemocratic for the Americans, hence they heralded Locke and not Hobbes.)
As pointed out, the contract-philosophy itself comes from the fictional idea of Hobbes, who postulated the existence of a lawless, anarchistic ‘natural situation’ – this fictional idea in an absolute sense is the idea that “every individual should have the right to live their lives as they see fit best for them, provided the exercise of their natural rights does not infringe on any other individuals’ natural rights.”
That this is fictional becomes clear by taking a look at for example the philosophy of Aristotle, who observed that a stable family life is a requirement in order for a society even to arrive at the political stage (unless there is an exceptional situation such as men planning to found a city, as under Romulus, yet even Livy makes clear that Rome’s leader could not succeed without the virgins accepting their domestic position). This means that reverence for one’s parents, among things, are all underlying, non-fictional values already at work before the political process begins to make those values ‘hard’ through legislation. This is a very roundabout way of saying that the legal system and the public order shouldn’t allow masculinity and femininity to decay as long as they do not want to dismantle the very requirements of their existence.
But I’m honestly very curious about the ideas of the reader – what do you think about the remark that men wore powdered wigs earlier in history? I mean when I think of powdered wigs I think of make-up using men enrolled in French court intrigues, backstabbing lackeys courting each other through homosexual affairs while setting up diplomatic conspiracies – no wonder they couldn’t see the Revolution coming. Do you think it is utterly insignificant or is there more to it?
Alright, alright, before we get more complaints about our self-debasement; it’s not 85 but only 62%.
MRAs may be victim of one thing, and one thing alone: the media blitz.
The news-entertainment media is a product with zero obligation to truth. They keep up the image of truth because it’s part of what keeps you buying the product, but they have no obligation to truth.
They’ll do whatever sells papers, TV minutes, movies, magazines, video games and books.
MRAs have absorbed from these people certain notions that infect all of their other reasoning. The primary one is that liberalism (more individualism, fewer social standards) is the solution to all problems.
Marriage difficult, laws favor women? Let’s do away with marriage then!
Affirmative action blockhead? Let’s demand that we get the right to sue, too!
Society sees men as predators? Let’s insist society doesn’t judge anyone by appearance!
Basically, MRAs end up saying the same dumb stuff that feminists and other liberal lapdogs do: you can’t judge a book by its cover, so treat everyone like a genderless, raceless, cultureless, sexless, and soulless being.
As a man, that defecates all over your hopes and dreams. You want to be known for what you did do: you took a stand on something and defended it. You set up a family and led it a certain way. You created some things, had some ideas, fought hard and rocked on.
Instead, you get all of that thrown out so you can be “equal.”
As an MRA, you have to be truly brain-fucking-dead to endorse this viewpoint, but most of you will because as said above, you’ve absorbed thousands of hours of media telling you this is the only solution.
Who else likes only solutions? Tyrants: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
And instead you miss out on a traditional role for a man, which goal-based and not appearance-based.
In a goal-based society, you always have a purpose: career, family, self-development, nation, and possibly religion.
In an appearance-based society, you must always try to look better than the other guy, and you do that through shallow and insincere acts. Giving bums a few bucks. Donating to the famine in the horn of Africa. Cheering for the feminists. Crying over events in far-off countries.
In other words, everything that’s not you becomes important in an appearance-based society. On the other hand, everything that defines who you are as a person — underneath the appearance and the social group — is totally lost. You don’t exist. A social clone of you does.
Sometimes it’s better to have a goal, and because you’re on the path to that and in the right place, not worry about appearance or the details.
When I’m having sex with someone, I want it to be an unencumbered journey of exploration with a very specific person. I want no map, no “to do” list, no expectations and no goals. Just all in, focusing on the moment, not on the finish line.
In my mind, the focus on the orgasm rather than everything leading up to it, is like focusing on the wedding but not the marriage – pretty much missing the point.
I did my best to explain the performance pressure around having an orgasm. That in many cases, women feel like they have to get there to please the guy, like the guy will feel like a failure if he can’t make you cum. And, of course, we feel like a failure, or like we are flawed and not good enough if we can’t get there. Then the whole focus becomes this one thing, and it’s just too much pressure. Frankly, it’s incredibly hard to have an orgasm under that kind of pressure.
One of my friends is clearly getting it. He explains how he sometimes feels so much pressure to perform, that he’s almost not having fun – which has it’s own obvious repercussions on his performance and pleasure. It’s not dissimilar.
“Imagine if you could remove all that?” I said. “Imagine sex with no pressure, no disappointment, being truly in the moment and not worrying about achieving a goal.” – BlogHer
It’s an interesting parallel.
In the feminized-MRA world, you are a commodity who tries to make your buddies think you’re cool by having sex with underconfident drunk chicks who don’t remember your name.
In the world of men not boys, you are someone who matters because of where he’s going and what he does to get there — not some trivial details of appearance.
A woman feels best having sex with a man who makes sense in all parts of her life. When she’s a girl, that may be the boyfriend of the semester, but then she grows up. By the time she’s 21, she wants a real man. Someone who not only takes her out on dates, but might take her for a lifetime.
In that context, the orgasm is a detail. Without that context, all you have is pressure to perform, and when it’s over, you have nothing.
Think of the diagnostic process. You use this to fix your stove, figure out why your computer has weird pop-ups advertising Viagra, or understand what’s making your six-year-old upchuck so expressively at 4 am.
The process is straightforward: First, you recognize a problem; then, a series of symptoms; then, whatever states keep renewing those symptoms — here you eliminate a lot of false positives; finally, the causes of those symptoms come to light.
When they conduct a postmortem on the West, “they” will probably not be human. With the West will fall the brightest chance for humanity to rise above its own half-chimpanzee nature. Asia and Africa face problems that although farther away, dwarf our own. Those who examine the corpse of this civilization will probably come from far away, and be on some kind of civics field trip. “See, Xllggvxzxzort, this is how a mid-stage species passes on into the hereafter…”
What killed this civilization is not a thing, but an idea. This idea spread like wildfire through the citizens. It was an undoing of the contract which forms society, which is people trading some freedoms for the advantages of collective action.
This idea was the notion that the individual matters more than the process. Like materialism, it’s an insistence that what we have here and now is something more important than the eternal, even if we can feel the material stuff and see how solid, present and undeniable it is.
What built the West was a focus on the eternal. We investigated the natural laws like gravity that define how our world works; we built great empires on the principles of politics, philosophy and religion; we focused on the consequences of our actions, not the methods we had to use.
As a result, we built a great empire. This empire in turn made more people citizens than should have been citizens, and made prosperous even the stupidest among its ranks, and so soon drowned in idiots. They immediately insisted on equality, which is the notion that the vote of a genius is equal to the vote of a retarded person, criminal, idiot or pathological obsessive.
It’s no mystery that the West began its downward spiral as a result! Picking up momentum in 1215 with the Magna Carta, then going hog-wild with the storming of the Bastille in 1789, and finally reaching a passive-aggressive “peaceful” form in 1968, this idea has kept rolling and grinding us into the earth.
As a recent writer puts it adroitly:
Freedom wasn’t perfect here, but unlike the preponderance of world history, freedom abounded. America has seemingly forgotten what made her a beacon to the world. We downplay this bold experiment in favor of overblown tales of oppression. In the revision, America wasn’t unique because of its unprecedented liberty and resultant prosperity. According to cultural elitists, America was singularly vile for exploiting workers, enslaving blacks, robbing Indians and oppressing women.
As previously highlighted on Forbes, this reflects blatant cultural Marxism. Historically, few Americans found class antagonisms convincing. The Left substituted race, sex and other factors for the class conflict of orthodox Marxism. Under the guise of diversity, the Left seeks ideological uniformity uniting assorted grievance bearers in collective resentment against America’s cultural heritage.
Today our children are indoctrinated into perverse revisionism. Schools harp more on the KKK, slavery and Jim Crow than extol the heroism and unrivaled restraint of George Washington, the inventive genius of Thomas Edison or the innovative business acumen of Henry Ford. Our young know plenty about America’s perceived national sins, but little of her astounding achievements.
In an Orwellian redefinition of virtue, those who love America are smeared as intolerant bigots while those degrading the culture which sustains them pass as caring and compassionate. Most Americans intuitively perceive the hypocrisy of politically correct dogma, but few dare articulate their dismay, cowed into obsequiousness by the ubiquitous thought police. – Forbes
While he talks about free markets and freedom, both of which are somewhat fallacious as notions, his point is well-taken:
When we let nature manage us, and focused on creating, we did well.
When we turned into a moralistic society more concerned with wealth redistribution than creativity, all went to hell.
Nature is not PC. Nature is inherently Social Darwinist; in fact, nature is outright Darwinist. This means that those who adapt, prosper and reproduce offspring who can do the same are those who create the basis of the next generations. Nature recognizes that evolution branches, and some social groups and social classes in every society are more privileged, with higher abilities than others.
Our goal-oriented society, with its focus on the eternal, was entirely compatible with nature. It rewarded the good and smote the bad, and ignored those who did not distinguish themselves. It had a goal. It had a social hierarchy, rules and a value system. We have deposed all of these things in the name of “equality.”
The revolutionaries did not tell us that the price of equality was the destruction of our civilization. However, when you think about it, it makes sense. Equality should be granted in reward for performance, not before performance. Further, we need to reward those who do better at something than the rest. Everyone has a place (except sociopaths, incompetents, perverts, etc.) but in order to make a society that can do that, we need to push the best above the rest.
We have turned our back on the values that made us succeed, and traded them for values that make us “feel good” (if we’re not winning at life on any level):
Countless technological innovations we take for granted today are also result of the US space program and Shuttle research. The Space Shuttle program alone has generated more than 120 technology spinoffs, including miniaturized heart pumps that save lives, thermal protection system materials, bioreactors (help chemists design new drugs and antibodies), compact laboratory instruments, sensitive hand-held infrared cameras, light-emitting diodes for treatment of cancerous tumors, lighter and stronger prosthetic limbs, an extrication tool to remove accident victims from wrecked vehicles, and many more. (NASA has an entire website dedicated to spinoff technology.)
Now the Shuttle is gone and there is nothing to take its place. The US no longer has the ability to put astronauts into orbit. NASA will have to rely on the Russians to hitch a ride to the International Space Station – on the old-fashioned Soyuz spacecraft, at some $50 million per ride.
It wasn’t supposed to end like this. A few years ago George W. Bush announced the return to manned space exploration with the Constellation program. Missions to the Moon (by 2020) were to be followed by a manned flight to Mars and beyond. Then came Barack Obama who, believing in social programs and wealth redistribution rather than science and exploration, promptly cancelled Constellation, the country’s only chance at continuing with human space flight.
In any case the space program no longer seems appropriate for today’s America. Space exploration was a symbol and inspiration for Americans who believed in excellence, courage, self-reliance, achievement, science (hard science, not the politically correct pseudo-science of today). That country no longer exists; its spirit has been broken. The “virtues” America, and the West, worship today – equality, diversity, feminism – are a fast-track to a third world status, not to the stars. – Money Honey Blog
And what caused us to shift this direction?
The oldest problem in humanity: people gaming the system.
Instead of choosing what is best, choose what is best — for you.
The two do not always intersect, and if you place yourself before all else (a condition called individualism), you will sacrifice the interests of the whole.
A death of a thousand cuts results. Society is dismantled, detail by detail, until we have “equality” — a keyword for individuals doing whatever they want and demanding the rest of us pay for it.
Another phrase for this is motivated reasoning, or people letting their self-interest skew their sense of logic:
University of Southern California academics Dan Simon and Nicholas Scurich couldn’t have known months ago that they would be unveiling the results of their “exploratory” study, “Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision-Making,” smack dab in the middle of a furious debate over the nation’s debt and deficit. But it turns out that their timing is impeccable. For here, in one place at one time, we are (again) reminded why government so often seems so broken to so many of us.
It’s human nature, folks. Our founding documents and governing institutions may aspire to Locke, but hundreds of years later we’re still chock full of Hobbes. We respect officials when they do what we want them to do. We disrespect them when they don’t. We are far less objective and justifiable than we think are with the rationales we endorse and employ. And everyone is looking out for themselves. No wonder there is so much cynicism toward law and politics. It’s not just coming from the top down, as angry citizens like to claim — it’s coming from the bottom up, too. – The Atlantic
Our democratic illusion is that if something is going wrong, the big dogs — government, politicians, “the rich,” corporations, religion — are to blame.
The reality is that if something at the top level is dysfunctional, it only is so because so many clueless voters allow themselves to be easily misled. By what? By self-interest while ignoring conventional knowledge and impact on the whole.
What is a criminal or sociopath? An extreme example of someone putting self before society, common sense, science and future consequences.
What is a narcissist? Someone oblivious to everyone around them and the consequences of their actions, because they are focused on themselves.
Together, what do these form? A more extreme version of the idea that undid our society.
Josh Foster (of the University of South Alabama) and I are releasing a study today showing that narcissistic traits are increasing even faster than we previously thought. From 2002 to 2007, college students’ scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) rose twice as fast as we’d found in an earlier study that covered changes between 1982 and 2006. (The NPI measures narcissistic traits among the normal population, not necessarily rising to the level of a clinical diagnosis).
Then there’s the shocking data recently released by researchers from the National Institutes of Health. They surveyed a nationally representative sample of 35,000 Americans about symptoms that can add up to Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), the more severe, clinical form of the trait. They asked if someone had ever experienced these symptoms in their lifetime, so you’d expect that older people would have a much higher rate than younger people since they’ve lived more years. However, the data go the opposite direction: Only 3% of people over 65 had ever experienced NPD, compared to nearly 10% of people in their twenties. It’s possible that older people forgot some symptoms from earlier in their lives, but that would have to be a large amount of forgetting to account for this big a discrepancy. With almost 1 out of 10 people in their twenties already experiencing NPD, it’s sobering to realize how high that number might go in the coming decades.
So the whole society has become more narcissistic – not just the people, but our entire value system. – Psychology Today
Equality makes individuals narcissistic.
They no longer have anything to prove; they have no reason to better themselves. They find external targets for their rage, like more successful people, instead of improving themselves.
And they breed. Both by influencing others to their worldview, and literally, by producing more legions of angry useless people.
The West has been drowning in these angry useless people for some time. In the old days, we sent them out to the fields and had them do work for hire, because unless told what to do, they did nothing.
Now we have to figure out a way to take away the power they wield — votes and consumer dollars — so we can rebuild the society they and their dogma has ruined.
This diagnosis is not as simple as blaming the rich (the left) or blaming a lack of Jesus in our modern world, but it lets us see what actually did us in: an idea, which produced a herd of militantly useless and selfish people, a.k.a. narcissists.
All of us who love living in a successful society, and not a third-world failure, value things like the space program, the military and other forward-thinking objectives. We are opposed by those who want the entitlement checks to keep coming.
The battle lines are drawn. Finally. We live in exciting times.
Scientists don’t really know what Black Holes are. Then again, there are a great many things that scientists don’t know. They have their theories – often ideas dreamed up over coffee and doughnuts – and in the manner of scientists, they then set out to convince themselves, and those of us who take scientists seriously, that their theories are facts.
They think that these Black Holes, far from being the absence of anything, are, in fact, a whole lot of somethings, so densely compressed that not even light can escape the gravitational wells of their aggregated mass. Who knows? Maybe they are right.
But there are other kinds of Black Holes. Some are, indeed, the absence of something…
I’ve often wondered just why it is that Left can not accommodate Right, and vice versa.
Why must there be this never-ending, never-resolved schism between two sides of a whole?
Why this seemingly inevitable, interminable, unresolvable conflict that serves only to sap the fabric of each, resulting in ever less?
What the hell is going on here, anyway?
As it happens, I had an idea over coffee and doughnuts, the other day. Well: not doughnuts, since a gluten-free doughnut seems not to exist. Yet. A theory, you might say, burst out of nowhere, and into my mind. It was an interesting one. It went something like this…
There seems to be something missing in the makeup of those who tend to the Left. Being missing, this nothing is utterly unable to imagine the missing thing. What is not there, is unable to see what is not there. Something not-there is unable to grasp the absence of itself.
It seems obvious, really. But not until it becomes obvious.
Those who tend to the Right, have this thing that is so obvious, to them, that to imagine it not being present, is impossible. These people are unable to fathom a state in which something they take so much for granted, simply is not there, for others.
So what is this thing, that the Left does not have, and that the Right does?
Imagine it as a lack of ego.
The Right sees itself as part of a whole.
The Left sees itself as the whole.
To the Right: its identity is subservient to the whole.
To the Left: its identity is itself.
Self-importance has consumed the Left, to the point where not even common-sense can escape. It lies, crushed and trapped, inside a body that continues to operate – to a degree – without it. This body does not know it lacks common-sense, or even what common-sense is. While the Right observes this phenomenon, and can not imagine what is going on, or why.
There seems no escape from the consequences of this condition, other than the obscure possibility that the Left will suddenly, inexplicably realize that its own ego is destroying all it depends upon for its very survival. Indeed, the survival of everything it seems not to realize it is a part-of. And this, it would seem, is rather unlikely. Such a realization would require an ability to be reverent to the natural order of things; to step aside from being unquestionably correct, and prostrate oneself before that which is greater: Civilization, Love, Life, Nature, Planet, Cosmos. And, dare I say it: the concept of God…
Reverence, or the lack of it, is at the heart of this Black Hole. Without this thing, nothing works. Lacking this baseline, this reference, this context, everything must inevitably cave in upon itself and be lost. For the momentary and worthless pride that is all that ego has to offer.
The schism we see, seems a final state of decay. Whether or not this condition will ever right itself and allow the two opposed states to re-integrate, remains to be seen. But I have to say: It doesn’t look good.
After a long, intensive, exhausting survey of history, politics and philosophy, I have finally figured out how civilization will end. I could have used a wide array of quotes to pump this article up, but I have decided not to, so that this message could be as simple, concise and accessible as possible.
Everywhere around us we see the rise of technology. Already our communication goes largely through text messages, emails and various forms of social media, rather than face to face. There is no reason to suppose this steady trend will not continue in the future – since we can order everything we require by means of the internet, from clothes to foods to entertainments.
It might not be long before we will be carrying around with us a small microchip implanted in our underarm. This is of course very convenient, because it triggers the lights when we step into our house, it acts as a credit card and as our public transportation permit. It might even record various medical data to tell us and our doctors when we are sick.
However, what if you do an action that goes against the government? Supposedly, Julian Assange of Wikileaks has been cleared of all charges but has been suspended to stay in his house. Isn’t this a strange idea, that someone is placed under house arrest, in a Western society? Previously, it were usually party-leaders or nuclear scientists that somehow fell out of the regime’s favour. And then not in Occidental countries but in China or Russia. In the future, this might very well mean that as soon as you do something that the government could interpret as a violation against itself, or as a violation of the rules, that the information in your microchip is suspended. This will effectually mean that you will be unable to use public transportation, log in to the internet (since your chip will send out a disturbing frequency) or purchase articles.
In the Netherlands, government officials had already played around with the idea of installing a black box in every car, that would monitor the data of that car’s travels. This black box would be linked to a satellite. With other words; anyone with access to that data could immediately see wherever you are at precisely which time. However this proposition received a lot of negative press, so the government called it off. But I suspect this was just for testing. And, I have grounds to think, if in a few more years consumerism will have completely infatuated society, the common man will have lost feeling with what it means to fight for ‘self-sovereignty’, and such microchips might steadily become part of our daily lives.
As soon as anyone violates the rules – bang – that’s it; you’re out. Effectually stateless and cut off from all forms of digital communication, or at least forced to camp inside your house. And, when the time comes, don’t object: “I violated this rule, but who is to say this rule was just to begin with? I question the justness of this rule.” Because this is no longer a matter of the morality, ethics or standards beneath a given rule, that you can call into question. It will simply be: “This is what the majority decided; this is democracy. This is law.”
These rules won’t have anything to do with a vision (like in the past, a Liberal governments wanted to bring their citizens to live in self-interest properly understood, Socialist governments aimed to educate their citizens into acting for the good of the whole, and Conservative governments expected their citizens to live devoutly) these will be the rules, simply because a majority said so.
If you try to speak out and raise questions about the moral foundations of the procedures, your questions will fall upon deaf ears. Because you are trying to express yourself in a language that no longer applies to the government of the future. The government of the future won’t have anything to do with morality, ethics or enlightened judgement. It will be one big bureaucratic machinery of official regulations – in which the individual citizen is reduced to a single atom – but he does not object to this because all he asks for is a little innocent pleasure and private vice, every now and then.
And you would be wise to remember that all of this will not be brought upon you in the name of Communism. It will not be brought upon you in the name of Fascism. It will be brought upon you in the name of Capitalist Democracy.
Perhaps you are right, and have I not described the end of the world properly, and will it instead continue to last. But it will do so for no higher reason than the simple fact it happens to exist.
People — especially those who write — often like to quote other people.
I have often wondered about this, and what makes them do it.
Perhaps to lend a supposed importance to what they, themselves, write.
Out of everything that has ever been written, or said, by everyone who ever lived, there is generally something, somewhere, to support what is now being written, by the one writing it.
And so here is one, for those people, from the beak of a crow…
“I do not come seeking knowledge. Please resist the urge to dress up what you think you know, and offer it to me, as such.”
Well. That’s an odd thing to say, don’t you think?
But is it?
I will tell a story, lost to time, and to a humility that has long been lost.
Once upon a time, there was a garden. This garden was Eden. It was, in all respects, perfect. Fruitful, abundant, vibrant and eternal. The sun shone, the dew formed, and balance was its nature.
Into this garden was born a man, and from this man was born a woman. From nowhere, and in a way unknown to those who would come later.
There was no need to labour, or to shelter from storms. For no labour needed performing, and there were no storms from which to shelter.
But there was, in this perfect place, one tree which was poison.
The man knew this, as did the woman. And one other…
There existed a serpent, in this perfect place. A harmless serpent, but for its built-in nature. This nature was temptation. It existed to tempt.
The man and the woman needed nothing, for everything was provided, by the garden itself. Yet the serpent appealed to something dormant within them, that they did not need. And where they might have dismissed the serpent, and its tempting nature, they did not.
Try that tree, advised the serpent. The fruit is like none you have tasted. And more, once you have tasted it, you will become more than you are now. You will know Knowledge, and be as great as the creator of this wondrous place…
The rest is history. It is known to everyone. But is it?
Knowledge. What is this thing? Men seek it, desire it, must have it…
But knowledge is not a thing to be gathered, stored up, or consumed.
It exists, independent of man. It is there, always, like a library, that one must visit in order to access. The books that contain it must remain within the library, lest others, coming later, be denied their content.
To leave with the books is theft of the most dire kind. A crime against all that follow.
One needs merely to read, as and when the need arises, this eternal resource.
Man is possessed of a mind, and this is well, for a mind is an integral part of what a man is. A mind, however, is not what a man is.
A man is an indefinable thing, independent of his mind. A part of a larger thing. A part of all creation.
Knowledge gives a man the notion that he understands. When in fact, such a thing is not possible. Knowledge gives man the notion that words can stand-in for what is, when such a notion is patently absurd. Worst of all: Knowledge gives man the notion of being able to define God…
Long before Christianity, an eastern sage observed this:
“It is older than God”.
He also observed, speaking of the state of people who possessed “Knowledge”:
“It creates confusion in those who think they know”.
And what is this very old thing?
A word that means nothing, and makes no claims to. Just a word, handy for signifying that which it is not possible now, then, or ever, to convey.
And so the word does not matter, at all.
Like the apple, on the tree, offered by the serpent, in a place that was Eden:
When I was a little kid, they told us to pray for world peace. Since generally anything else I would pray for was stupid stuff like more candy or a BB gun, I stuck with world peace.
It is such a comforting thought. You’re there ready for sleep, in your comfortable suburban house with parents and pets. You want everyone to be OK and everything to be OK. It’s too much to hope for immortality so you hope for a good life, one not interrupted by terrifying wars and stuff.
What they don’t tell you is that you have skewed your thinking. Instead of thinking “I want to pay attention to the situation and enact the best outcome possible” you’ve said “I’ll ignore the specifics, and apply a general rule: I’m so afraid of war I’ll do almost anything to avoid it.”
This type of thought-reversal is central to all of the failing aspects of modernity. We pick methods, not goals. We pick universals, and ignore what’s in front of us. We live in these comforting notions in our heads instead of paying attention to reality.
And so far, we get away with it, because there’s a huge group of people who will purchase these ideas as surely as they’ll purchase a new vacuum cleaner. They purchase them with friendship, comradeship, the endless books and movies on these topics they buy, and worst of all, with votes.
But it’s not working.
Some of the richest countries have the highest rates of depression, new research suggests.
An international team of researchers collected the results of face-to-face interviews of nearly 90,000 people considered representatives of their population. The interviews were conducted in community settings in 18 countries, and the interviewers used a standard diagnostic test from the World Health Organization to assess depression.
In the 10 countries considered high-income, an average of 15% of participants said they’d experienced a depressive episode in their lifetime. France, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the U.S. all had rates higher than 18%.
But among the eight low- to middle-income countries surveyed, the rate was 11% — the lowest rates were found in India, Mexico, China and South Africa.- LAT
Journalists are underpaid because they are masters of stating the false obvious while missing the obvious. They often confuse this with objectivity.
Rich countries are miserable because, in their drive to become rich, they focused on the individual. Now we’re all rich and have nothing to believe in. Culture? New mountains to climb? Achievement?
These are all dead. We are rich, so just pick which portion you want, sit down and eat comfortably. Forget about striving or any of that crazy stuff. It just leads to war!
Warfare, triggered by political conflict between the fifth century B.C. and the first century A.D., likely shaped the development of the first settlement that would classify as a civilization in the Titicaca basin of southern Peru, a new UCLA study suggests.
Charles Stanish, director of UCLA’s Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, and Abigail Levine, a UCLA graduate student in anthropology, used archaeological evidence from the basin, home to a number of thriving and complex early societies during the first millennium B.C., to trace the evolution of two larger, dominant states in the region: Taraco, along the Ramis River, and Pukara, in the grassland pampas.
“This study is part of a larger, worldwide comparative research effort to define the factors that gave rise to the first societies that developed public buildings, widespread religions and regional political systems — or basically characteristics associated with ancient states or what is colloquially known as ‘civilization,'” said Stanish, who is also a professor of anthropology at UCLA. “War, regional trade and specialized labor are the three factors that keep coming up as predecessors to civilization.” – Science Daily
Without conflict, we have nothing. Conflict requires we believe in something, otherwise it’s just theft (“Nice island. I’ll take it.”).
Believing in something requires we believe in something more than the individual. At the best level, this is an abstract values system tied closely to an organic reality, like our identity as a people.
Most of the thoughtless talking heads out there will suggest that you achieve “freedom” by believing in nothing. Yet you are believing in something: yourself, your job and the stuff you buy.
In other words, you’ve swapped belief in something real (even if it seems unreal and distant) for something that is not only worthless in the long term, but making you miserable.
It’s better to find an organic civilization to believe in.
A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things that, in truth, are only one, make up this soul, this spiritual principle. One of these lies in the past [Continuity], the other in the present [Solidarity]. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is the present consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to validate the heritage that has been jointly received. Man is not improvised. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination for a long past of effort, sacrifice and devotion. This makes the cult of ancestors all the more legitimate; it is our ancestors who made us what we are. A heroic past, great men, glory (genuine glory, I mean), that is the social capital on which a national idea is founded. To have common glories in the past, and a common will in the preset; to have done great things together, and to seek to do so again, those are the essential conditions for being a people. One loves in proportion to the sacrifices to which one has consented, the evils that one has suffered. One loves the house that one has buld and passes on.
A nation is thus a great solidarity … It presupposes a past, yet it is summed up in the present by a tangible fact: the clearly expressed consent and desire to continue a common life. – Gornahoor
We have been trying to fake this type of zeal for life for a long, long time.
Developing nations — those that are actually developing, not stagnating — have this because they have a common purpose: to rise above the morass of the past. Al-Qaeda has it: they have a clear ideology that’s as much anti-modern as anti-USA/Israel. Even poor people in the first world have it; for them, rising above the morass would be a huge achievement (which very few manage).
But you poor over-salaried people have nothing — you are lost because your only direction was money/self, and that ultimately doesn’t make the difference.
What makes the difference is time, care, love and all those intangible things. Intangible things, I should add, that a bureaucracy will never understand.
Yet much of what kids need to thrive doesn’t require hefty expenditures, according to child development experts. “Parents are throwing resources at their kids and getting caught up in ‘everybody else is doing it,’” says Po Bronson, author of NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children. “We’re not talking about rich parents, we’re talking about regular people who otherwise wouldn’t be spending this kind of money on themselves and didn’t spend this kind of money before they had kids, and now they’re milking their bank accounts and saving nothing to do all these things for their kids.”
Overall kids from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to do better in terms of test scores, college admissions and economic advancement, according Bronson. But at some point additional spending makes no additional affect. For example, there’s little evidence that very wealthy children generally do better than upper-middle class kids.
He says that many activities that cost parents nothing help with child development, including exercise, art, reading to a child, or playing with legos. “Parents feel a competitive instinct that they’re depriving their kids because they’re not doing as much as other families,” he says, “but it’s about learning to resist that urge and say, no, my child has a great life.” – Fiscal Times
This is a parallel to us in the West: we have the raw ability, like any upper-middle-class kid, but we’re acting as if wealth will somehow rocket us above the rest of the world alone.
In the mean time, many people are depressed from lack of mission and thus purpose and meaning in life.
My solution is simple: re-invent our purpose, restore meaning, and stop worrying about the money — if we find an actual goal, we will work toward that like fiends and as a byproduct, generate wealth.
The inequality of life troubles us. It does not seem fair that some have more, and others less. It also seems cruel that some are born good-looking, intelligent and healthy, and others not.
In our dark moments, we hope for an end to this state. We do not see a purpose in it; to a human individual who has lost faith in life, it seems insane and horrible.
We think that if we eliminated inequality, all conflict would cease. All people would be one; we would join hands and just do what needs to be done. We would be equal souls as well as equal beings.
However, this requires we ignore the causes of inequality. Some are born with great ability; some not — most of us fall in between. The effect is inequality; the cause is unequal ability.
Even more importantly, we all benefit from inequality. The best rise above the rest and yes, they get more stuff. They also get more power.
They also tend to use that power toward better ends. Their choices of stuff to buy forces higher standards on the stuff-providers, and so we all benefit from better stuff, eventually.
When we try to fix inequality, we are ignoring its real cause and instead making one up. This fake cause feels good to us because it explains us all as innocents. But it poisons our thought process.
After years — or even centuries — of crusading against inequality, the West has failed. We are still unequal. Even worse, the problem has expanded because we have undermined our economies and stopped rewarding people for being competent, which means we are ruled by incompetents.
Who suffers most? The poorest.
The wealth gap in the United States has grown wider in the wake of the Great Recession, with black and Hispanic American households faring much worse than white households, according to a study published Tuesday.
Based on data from the Census Bureau, the study highlights how blacks and Hispanics have been disproportionately affected by the collapse of the housing market, the financial crisis and the recession that marked the period from 2005 to 2009.
It found that the wealth gap between white households and their black or Hispanic counterparts was the widest it has been since the government began publishing such data by ethnicity in 1984. – CNN
Before we go into CNN’s explanations for this situation (which we won’t; their reasons are advertising, not logic) we should look at what has already been said:
Our attempts at making equality have failed and made greater inequality.
When we spend our money on those who need to be “brought up” to a higher standard, we wreck the system of the whole, and so damage all that we do.
This issue is larger than race. Inequality first and foremost occurs within a race, and then multiculturalism is invented to give those unequal people someone to feel above:
People in the HBD-blogosphere tend to group all whites together and say that they have a median IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15.
Let us divide whites into two groups.
Group 1 is prole whites. These are all whites with IQs of 104 and less. They comprise 62% of whites.
Group 2 is middle class and upper class whites. These are all whites with IQs of 105 and more. They comprise 38% of whites.
The median IQ of Group 1 is 92.5 (similar to the IQ of mestizo Mexican immigrants).
The median IQ of Group 2 is 113 (similar to the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews).
I assume that all of my white readers come from Group 2. What do we really have in common with the stupid people from Group 1 except a similarity of appearance? (Although I guarantee you that if I photographed a hundred white people with IQs of 113 and a 100 white people with IQs of 92.5, everyone would instantly be able to identify the smart group and the stupid group.)
Ironically, liberal HBD-denialists as well as white nationalists would group us all together. The liberal HBD-denialist would say that we are all beneficiaries of white privilege, and the reason that the whites from Group 1 don’t do well economically is because they were too lazy to go to college (ignoring the implausibility of someone with an IQ of 92.5 being able to learn college-level material). – Half Sigma
We are not all the same. Even within the group “white,” we are radically different.
No amount of government aid will fix a lower IQ; you don’t want your brain surgeon, lawyer, architect, general, president or economist to have an IQ that low.
Trying to make people equal with wealth redistribution sabotages our economy. The wealthier, appalled not so much at their tax rate but this vast waste of the money they do pay, tend to move on to greener pastures.
The impoverished are given what they don’t need — a temporary fix, a band-aid — in place of what they do, which is jobs that are tailored to their abilities, and some restraints on the habits of lower-IQ people that can sabotage them.
You need to stop Joe Bob from buying a $50,000 pickup truck when he makes $34,000 a year. If you give him welfare so that he makes $60,000 a year, the truck will start to cost $75,000 and the situation will be basically unchanged. When you devalue money by giving it away, prices go up.
Inequality is a complex moral topic. Simplistic answers do not work. As we go bravely into this new century (barely a tenth complete) we will be facing this problem in a clearer form than ever before.
We need to pick solutions that are logically correct, and provide for the best possible outcome, instead of letting our troubled emotions lead us someplace destructive.
That is a popular stance with those who are confused, but it’s not policy. Policy is how you make society function by setting up values, rules and procedures.
No area is this more clearly seen than the topic of marriage. MRAs want you to think all marriage is bad; as I’ll demonstrate, they are actually working against their own best interests.
Society automatically paints a stereotype on men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry. They are labeled as:
A) Womanizers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
B) Selfish, childish or irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.
No other explanation is ever explored.
– all quotations from Do-Not-Marry.com
Let’s reverse this. Reasons a man would not marry:
Self-satisfied. This includes both selfish (including solipsists, narcissists and megalomaniacs) and literally self-satisfied. If you are a genius painter, you have no use for marriage or sex.
Incompatibility. You have not encountered a compatible partner. The more personality you have, the harder this issue is.
Failure. You would otherwise marry, but have been unable to get your act together.
You either cannot marry, want to marry but cannot, marry or fail to marry. That’s it.
The first question is: are you someone who wants to marry?
People can do this for the wrong reasons, such as fear of aging and death. Nothing can stop that. Or social fear. Nothing can stop that, either.
Most people marry for a simple reason: it makes life better.
Any repeated process, task or technique gets boring. You are not learning anything new. It’s a dead-end rote route. No matter what your age, unless you’re pathological, after about a dozen first dates you get it. What next?
A significant number of 20 and 30-something women spend most of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of designer label clothing, purses, shoes, etc. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.
Why would any MRA even consider such a woman? She advertises that she has no control over herself.
The only reason you would attempt to marry one of these: she has entrapped you sexually. You are excited by her drama, her sensuality, and most of all, her competitive effort to be sexually appealing and thus, when she has you, you feel like the focus of all of this intense sex energy.
This puts you in the position of beggar and receptor, not creator and initiator. You might as well sell yourself for passive intercourse by baboons.
Like anyone else in life, women mark themselves by their behavior. You are what you do, and that doesn’t mean career. It means how you spend your time. If you spend it on surface activities, whether mainstream (consumerism) or underground (hipsterism), you are a directionless person. E.g. you have no direction but you.
The people in this life that you want to know have started the process of self-actualization. They are comfortable in their own skins, and recognize their limitations and the limitations of being human. As a result, they are not interested in egomania, narcissism, megalomania and solipsism.
Instead, they direct their energy toward productive things. They will have a job, and a home of some kind, like everyone else. But instead of ineffectual “hobbies” — tv, sex, drugs, drink, vids, etc — they are directing that energy toward some constructive end.
One person commented to me once that there are three places to hunt modern woman: in education, in volunteer groups, and overachievers in the workplace.
You want to find one of those, not the modern female narcissist (MFN) as discussed above.
Immediately after buying a ring, the man may be rewarded with demands of financing all or part of a lavish wedding… (Depending on the size of his bank account.) The costs of today’s weddings exceed that of a house down payment. (Or in certain parts of the country, the house itself.) If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched from right from under him. Many men may object to spending this sum of money on a one-day party.
Here is the logical fallacy: the trend is x, therefore you must do x.
Don’t do x. Independent of trends, people have been getting married in small local ceremonies and asking their parents to pay half or more — for centuries.
If she insists on x, you are marrying an idiot. Don’t do it.
The injustices can go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If the man can afford to carry the entire financial burden, the woman can elect to stop working. (Regardless of how the man may feel about the decision.) The day the woman stops working is the day all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets thrown onto the man’s head. If the woman has racked up credit card debts, these are now his payments. If the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these also become the man’s responsibility. (Stomach-churning irony = the man is stuck paying for her degree, and she’s not even working anymore!!) And can the man object? Can he say, “No, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead.” No, the payments can’t be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself (besides, that day may never come), not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home.
Did he take the nails out of his hands to write this?
You will inherit her debts. She may have them. So may you. You will also get some financial breaks at tax time, and increased likelihood of promotion in the workplace, to deal with this.
If you start off your marriage by treating your wife as chattel — “she should be earning me money,” which is what a pimp says, not a man — you will poison that marriage forever.
Your kids will be healthiest and happiest with a stay-at-home mom. As a result, you need to transition from single-guy-with-an-apartment mode (cut all costs, live day to day) to adult mode. Adult mode isn’t just a setting on your cable box.
It means that you are planning for a family, for stability and a future. It is a prerequisite to marriage that you be ready to do this.
If you treat marriage like extended dating, it will fail.
Marriage is starting a family. On the downside, you will be obligated to this family.
On the plus side, you get a family, and unless you alienate that family, it will be the greatest source of joy in your life.
Webster’s defines slavery as “the state of being under the control of another person.” If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality, and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the men who have been left holding the financial bag find their options limited. They may find themselves stuck in careers they hate, or working for abusive exploitative management, working excessively long hours, working in jobs that are physically threatening, that have no growth potential, enduring prolonged commutes, etc. At this point, considering the corner he’s been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any change in his own life.
This is true whether you get married or not. This is a debt-based society. If you stop working for more than about a month, you go bankrupt in most cases. In the best cases, where you have saved up enough, you may be able to take a few months off, but not much more. This is independent of marriage.
What you gain with marriage however is a greater understanding of your career needs. Most likely, your boss is married. His most valuable employees are probably married. Marriage is for stable people who are committed to having families. For this reason, married people are sought-after employees.
In addition, you now both live a more efficient life. Instead of paying for two places and two commutes, you pay for one house, one commute, and one set of all bills.
If you aren’t a selfish idiot like an MFN, you want your children to grow up in the most stable and nurturing environment possible. That does not include a working mother. Nor does it include divorce or parental instability.
In other words, marriage — which leads to family — is not about you. It never was. It’s about making a family. If you try to treat it as permanent dating, you will fail.
If a married man cheats, he’s the scum of the earth…A selfish jerk who has jeopardized the family unit. However, when the woman cheats, she’s conveniently portrayed as the victim. Poor thing. It’s for her empowerment, or to help her self-esteem. Worse yet, her cheating can be the man’s fault. How? He doesn’t compliment her like her new man does. Or he works too much. (Yes, the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and cars she may have demanded is now considered negligent. The man who may be working 2 jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered negligent.)
Your problem above is a political one. Feminism and liberalism together always favor the perceived weaker party, and have in them an entrenched hatred of the stronger.
Femninism ruins women and leaves them with wrecked lives. If you are marrying a feminist, or a woman whose friends are feminists, expect to be divorced (acrimoniously) and vilified within the decade. Whether you screwed it up or not.
It’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand a man make a certain salary, to be deemed “marriage material”, and provide stability. Likewise, if a man demands the wife do the cooking/cleaning, he can now be labeled a sexist misogynistic PIG. If he asks her to carry her weight financially (just like he does), he can be criticized as an inadequate provider. What exactly deems a woman “marriage material”?
To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannies as their husband can afford. Yes, they stay at home, and hire someone ELSE to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers. This is not all women, but certainly the odds increase if the man can afford it. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?
Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.
He wrote this as he held his severed penis and admired the fineness of the cut.
Traditional roles are your one salvation. They give each partner a domain in which they can be valuable. This is the only lasting form of stability.
You do not want your wife competing with you for authority, so delegate. She handles the home and the kids, which is a full-time job.
If you marry an MFN, she will screw this up because you screwed it up. You married a moronic narcissist. How many men are out there talking about how they realized their wives were dangerous morons after the divorce?
They didn’t recognize the truth because they were in victim-mode. Victim mode is when you decide to ignore vital information because you’re afraid of it. It always ends up with you getting screwed.
No sane woman marries with the intention of failing at it. If you find a woman has a cavalier attitude toward divorce, you get what you deserve if you marry her. She warned you.
As he says, not all women are like this. If you read that with a critical eye, you realize this means you have an option to pick a woman who is not an MFN.
However, you won’t exercise that choice because being in victim-mode also puts you in weenie-mode. You are not encouraged to stop, think and take responsibility for your actions. No — you can always blame someone else.
“Women did this to me. Heartless modern women ripped away my soul,” he said, holding his dismembered penis. “I knew she was a stripper who loved cocaine, but I never thought she’d cheat on me. I thought I was different.”
Women are like men. They are individuals. Most of them are shitheads. Most men are shitheads. The two go together. If you’re not a shithead, don’t pick a shithead wife.
This leads us to the one valid point he makes, and then underwhelms:
If a man insists on a prenuptial agreement, he is selfish and unromantic. When is the last time a woman who demanded a prenuptial agreement was called “unromantic”? On the contrary, if a woman requests a prenuptial agreement, she is fiscally responsible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenuptial agreement, run for the hills. She has just shown her hand.)
If you and your wife come from the same mindset or religious community, you are one of the fortunate few who do not need to worry about such things. You do not intend to divorce. The penalties for screwing up are high, so you make the choice carefully — both of you. She chose you and you chose her.
Remember that half of marriages do not end in divorce, and the number is probably even higher since “half of marriages” includes a huge number of second-fourteenth remarriages that have no chance of succeeding either.
If you screw it up once, you’re likely to screw it up again, usually by the same method. (I have zero sympathy for a man who hooks up with a married woman, helps her cheat on her husband, then marries her and seven years later is shocked — shocked, I tell you — to find her in the sack with the pool guy.)
However, if you’re a normal person who is hoping to survive this broken time of feminism, litigiousness, dysfunctional government and society and so on, you may want a pre-nuptial agreement. Think up a fair one.
If the woman rejects it, move on. She is not of the mindset for marriage.
By the same token, many men want to create a pre-nup agreement that preserves the pre-marriage perpetual single-guy-in-an-apartment lifestyle. This arrangement usually says, “If we get divorced, I walk away with what I earn, and you get nothing.”
This is too extreme.
Realistically, she will have given up her career to be your wife and mother to your kids — if she doesn’t, your kids and you get inferior attention and she is more likely to stray, drugged on the power of her spending, forgetting how you providing a stable home allows her to enjoy that income. You want her to give up her career and become a Mom now. You give up your reckless lifestyle and become a Dad. See how there’s a trade in evidence there, equally for both parties?
This is why the courts hand money to the woman: she has sacrificed to become a wife.
They are overcompensating, of course, because we live in a time of liberalism and that encourages subjugation of the more powerful party. We get “equality” that way.
She will be compensated because she has given up a lot to become married.
Your only defense against this is the exact opposite of what this guy and most MRAs recommend.
Do not become a victim. Become a victor.
You do this through two methods: (a) insist on traditional roles and (b) pick the right woman.
Men need to stop and ask, “Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today’s world?”.
It is no longer a lifelong commitment, because it can be reversed overnight.
To be a man who insists on acting like a victim, and then avoids the one state of life that escapes this process, and then also refuses to get politically involved to fix the situation, is to join the culture of weenies who are also behind feminism, the nanny state, sit-when-you-pee, etc.
Feminism is liberalism. If you drift toward liberalism, you are supporting feminism.
Modern life is derived from liberalism. The idea of equality is its foremost concept.
Traditional roles are derived from a different concept, which is that of roles. Roles make each person sacred for what they do that is not the norm, instead of making both people the norm and then making them compete.
The woman reigns over the house and children. This is her responsibility.
The man reigns over income-production and family direction. This is his responsibility.
Any healthy marriage involves the two partners being able to discuss each others’ zones of responsibility, but not sabotaging each other by micromanaging. Any healthy marriage involves knowing that raising kids and taking care of the home is a full-time job that is biologically and culturally more important than bringing in a paycheck. This is at least how adults look at it.
What’s a mom worth?
According to one report, $138,095 a year.
That’s the figure in a study put out by Salary.com, which calculates the wages that would have been paid a stay-at-home mom in 2007 if she were compensated for all the elements of her “job.” That total was up 3% from 2006’s salary of $134,121.
The job descriptions that Salary.com used to determine a mom’s salary includes 10 jobs that moms do on an average day: housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO and psychologist. – MSN
While the above estimate might be extreme, the point is well-made: to be a wife and mom is hard work, if it’s done well.
If it is not done well, a sensible husband takes it up with the wife. Don’t wait for her to get to this stage:
To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannies as their husband can afford. Yes, they stay at home, and hire someone ELSE to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers.
These people are behaving badly. If you’re in command of the home, lay down the law. You need to confront the wife about her bad behavior. It’s not normal to be a lazy wife. Get her ass in gear.
If she cannot follow through with it, tell her you cannot afford the nanny and cancel the payment. If you’re uncomfortable with that, look for evidence that the nanny is botching the job. Force the lazy wife to panic and have a tantrum, then document it. She will either come to her senses or reveal herself to be an MFN, at which point you look like the sensible party: she refused to take care of the kids.
Traditional roles are your defense, and enable you to enjoy marriage as two people working toward a goal, instead of two selfish people manipulating and using each other for selfish ends.
Liberalism is about the ego. Me, me, me. We’re all equal means “But I’m more equal.” Traditional roles are the opposite.
Pick the best woman you can. This starts with getting out of victim mode:
Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?
Do not listen to this poisoned voice. You are going to attend a job, and work to get ahead, whether you are married or not. The question then is whether you come home to a happy family or a dismal bachelor apartment, too tired (and eventually, too old) to go out and score some idiot for a few moments of sexual pleasure.
It pays to work and get ahead, and to use the one power you will always have, which is choice.
MRA includes “game” which is both a way of talking morons into bed, and a way of managing the upper hand with your spouse. “Game” is a subset of manipulating human psychology. If you’re a white hat, you do this to make good things work out; if you’re a black hat, you run scams. Most of us are greyish white hats.
You use psychological manipulation every day on people who need to be manipulated. Talking your kid into putting down the pretty snake (around here, we get coral snakes) is a fine art. So is working with subordinates or bosses.
Your “game” is psychology game, and it’s the opposite of what society tells you to do — which is lie back, enjoy it, become a victim, and then after you’ve been nailed to a cross, demand reparations. Society is designed to control you, not make sure you get what you need.
When looking to marriage, you cannot use “game” (scare-quoted for being such a goofy phrase) in the same way you con women into bed. It’s not a con. It’s about maintaining the male role as leader and dominant creature that makes a woman feel safe:
The point is, if I had been nice, I would have never had married Jennifer. I would have just seen a pretty girl with a not so great boyfriend bugging her and done nothing of interest. Being nice is a very important aspect of your personality, having no nice in you just means you’re an asshole. Adding in a little of the jerk / Alpha Male trait is the key to building attraction though.
At some point in your courtship, you likely did something that was a little crazy, a little wild, something over the top that made your wife to be sit up and take notice of you. Maybe all it was happened to be fronting up to her, and making it plain being just friends with her wasn’t an option you where going to be able to live with.
Marriage can easily fall into a rut. When was the last time you made it plain being “just friends” still isn’t an option you can live with? That you want a passionate connection to her. Make sure she knows with her you have no half-way. If you don’t do this to her at least once in a while, you leave the door open for someone else to do it to her. Emotional connections are serious things and sometimes not even your best friend can be trusted with the woman you love. Do not let the moment pass.
The fundamental mental aspect of game is mental toughness: you need to set a goal and pursue it aggressively. This is the mental aspect our ancestors called vir.
You are the man. You choose the woman, you woo the woman, and you make it clear what the roles are. Any woman who has problems with this is defective, and in healthier times, would be relegated to prostitution or other careers for flake-out nutjobs who cannot commit.
As part of this decision, you need to not screw it up. How many men do you see on a college campus who sought out the non-confrontational female? Usually you see white nerds with fat girls or Asian girls, because they think these will be easy and not force the man out of his single-guy-with-apartment comfort zone. This is of course insane because both fat girls and Asian girls are women, and women are humans, and all humans operate within a range of the same psychology.
Pick the right woman. Pick someone who is honest, realistic and (ideally) has traditional values. That is the kind of woman you can base a relationship on.
If you are looking for an easy score, you face a trivial problem. You need to find some girl who has gone to a bar with the intent of getting drunk and (although she can’t admit it) getting laid.
Women like this do not actually believe they will ever achieve marital happiness. If anything, they are certain they will not, and are self-pitying, and thus prone to all sorts of bad mental habits.
If you are looking for a wife, you have to change your thinking. This is no longer coerce some idiot into bed time. This is no longer single-guy-in-apartment time. This is an important choice.
To claim that marriage is bad, because many if not most women are bad, is the height of stupidity. Here you are, sacrificing something good that you could have for yourself, in the name of what other people do. Might as well dice your penis and make chili with it because you have no right to own one.
The Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) movement is doomed as long as it chooses to put men in the position of passive victim. This is the opposite principle of what it is to be male, which is active conqueror.
Until it figures that out, there will be people like the above-quoted “Do Not Marry” dude who pander to your fears, insecurities, doubts and sense of self-pity. His goal is to make a buck off you and he doesn’t care if it ruins your life.
My solution earns me no money, and is simpler: act like a man. If you don’t think you can, use discipline to force yourself into the role. Get out of the role of victim and passive half-man at home in his apartment, with his boring job and shitty video games. Get out there and fight.
Inertia is an odd thing. When an object is at rest, its tendency is to stay there. When enough pressure is applied, a certain inevitability takes over, and its tendency shifts toward the explosive.
The West has spent the past two centuries in inertia because it has never fully accepted the events of July 14, 1789. Liberalism split civilization in two: there was the social order, and then there was an entirely new way of living based on abstractions.
These abstractions justified themselves with morality, but at essence, were justifications. They were not forward-reaching reasons, but reasons-why that looked backward and dug around until they found reasoning that supported what individuals desired.
Since then, the West has been conquered in progressive stages by extreme individualism. In this, the individual creates rules that demand equality for all people — so the individual can always demand whatever is at hand. It is like a nagging mother not permitting locks on bedroom doors.
When individuals band together to enforce these rules — a state called Crowdism — they take over all politics, society, academia and even the very words we use to express ourselves. It is a pervasive, evangelical and paranoid movement that is convinced of its absolute moral correctness.
During the time it has been active, the West (Europe, USA and related societies) has declined like a cancer patient. Our technology has surged forward, but like doctors treating symptoms in an illness that is otherwise fatal, it’s a show of strength and not a cure.
In the meantime, our society has degenerated from within. We are now a bazaar-culture, having replaced national culture with commerce, advertising and government pamphlets. Our cities are ghettos covered in advertising. We commit ecocide through the selfishness of individuals. And yet we have no goal.
But of late, things have been changing. Words that once took an inconceivable amount of courage to utter are now being said. Questions that were once considered the domain of society’s rejects and assholes are now being asked. Inertia is reaching a tipping point when inaction becomes action.
[E]xperts say a frank debate about immigration may be the best way to prevent similar explosions of violence.
But experts argue overly aggressive political rhetoric and scare tactics have inflamed passions rather than address the many complex, underlying problems.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy have all declared in recent months that multiculturalism has failed, in speeches that were otherwise careful to highlight the contribution of immigrants.
But critics say such statements at best do little to offer solutions to tackle the economic and societal pressures that stem from increasing immigration and globalization, and do even less to harness the benefits of a multi-ethnic society.
“What has clearly emerged from recent speeches and ensuing public national debates on multiculturalism is a sense of confusion, malaise and often contradictory messages,” said Sara Silvestri, lecturer in religion and international politics at London’s City University, in an article dated June 8. – Reuters
If you look carefully, you can see the tipping occurring. It’s like a see-saw.
First we are told how complex it is, how amazing multiculturalism is, how multi-ethnic societies have obvious benefits.
We’re also reminded that the far right are terrible Nazis, monarchists, elitists, Charlemagneists and probably fascists, but we get enough of that from our TVs that we’re actually ready for that be glossed over.
Finally, we start to get actual debate, and people ask the “Emperor has no clothes” questions: we assume there are benefits to diversity, so what are they? Are the problems we find on the way caused by irrational people, or a design flaw in diversity itself?
As you know when reading this blog, we’re fond of pointing out that diversity contains a design flaw. It is popular as a way to import voters, cheap labor and future consumers. But it requires that each person have no culture except mall culture and government pamphlets, or for us to have a society that replicates the order of the world — many Chinatowns, each one per nationality, religion, political inclination, sexual identity or lifestyle choice.
That type of society doesn’t hold together well because it has no unifying principle. Saying that our unifying principle is some abstract hoodoo-voodoo like “equality” only works so far, because that’s really a political concept and not a practical daily-life belief.
That type of society is guaranteed to have perpetual internal war, just like how the USA now has 150+ years of race riots under its belt with none in sight, and Ireland has several centuries of religious warfare continuing ad infinitum, and Pakistan and India will be at war covertly over the Muslim-Hindu fracture, etc.
Many of us do not want to live in such a society. We would rather give up some freedom — the right to do just about anything — in favor of a lesser number of permitted activities, and greater stability. This allows us to focus on what well-adjusted people: build things.
We build careers so we have interesting things to do to pay the bills. We build families and invest heavily in educating and rearing our young. We build religious centers, learning centers, community centers and interesting new technologies. This is the creative force of life at its finest.
But doing that requires an organic society. We don’t want a centralized authority enforcing rules on us, or a snitch culture where people cut us down for not following rules to the letter. We want a cooperative culture where people come together and work together based on mutually-held values, ideals, goals and notions about life.
The best examples of organic culture are the traditional ones. Hinduism for India; Judaism for Israel; England for the English; Germany for the Germans; Christianity or “Christian atheism” for Europe; Islam for the middle east.
But that offends people who are so unstable that they think having infinite options is a substitute for having a path.
For a long time, we’ve listened to such people. We are worried they might riot, or break out the guillotine (or gulag) again. They are like a capricious Crowd of houseguests we keep in the front room, always hinting we want them gone, but never brave enough to say “here, my need is greater than yours, so you need to leave.”
Until now. The cracks in the facade are widening.
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.
The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”
As an example, the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt appear to exhibit a similar process, according to Szymanski. “In those countries, dictators who were in power for decades were suddenly overthrown in just a few weeks.” – PhysOrg
As our society faces its tipping point, we’re going to climb back up the ladder of assumptions that we slowly descended to get to this state.
Also called multiculturalism, but more conventionally known as internationalism, diversity is the idea that heritage does not matter, that all people are biologically equal, and thus we can assemble a country of random people and — with the right laws, police force and economy — make it into a prosperous, Western-European style nation.
However, we are seeing that diversity does not work on many levels. First, people are not biologically equal, not even within very specific ethnic groups. Some rise above others, which is why school is hard and not everyone is a neurosurgeon. Most people end up at where they are in life because of what their abilities are, including that nebulous ability called “judgment” which includes delayed gratification.
Second, diversity requires people give up what they know to be necessary — culture, including values, religion and heritage. This their identity and how they know what will be valued and accepted in their social group. It is how they explain their lives, and understand their importance in the world. It is their role. With multiculturalism, they must either give it up (and adopt the generic mall culture) or retain it and be marginalized like Amerinds.
Finally, having a consensus — a shared set of values, customs, languages and ideals — forms the most stable society. You need fewer laws, and fewer cops, when there’s a standard of behavior that isn’t written in legal language but understood as a form of common sense. Multiculturalism destroys this, as it destroys the identity that conveys it to people.
If we tell people that they are politically equal, they remember that as equal. We are all the same, they think. Well, then how did my neighbor end up rich and I end up poor? It cannot be a difference between their actions and my own; instead, it must be witchcraft, subterfuge or theft.
This creates a social tsunami of people who want to redistribute wealth. The problem is that this takes money away from those who can earn more of it, and transfers it to those who are unable to do that. Several problems arise as a result: first, there is no longer incentive to exert oneself, which drives smart people away or into boredom and self-destruction. Second, you produce a large captive population who are not particularly good at anything, and more in subsequent generations. Finally, you remove your mechanism for picking those who are competent above those who are not. Mediocrity results.
Our favorite notion is that all people are equal in ability, so should be able to do whatever others are able to do. The problem with this is that people vary in competence, so putting them all in cars on the same road, for example, means that everyone waits longer. Putting them all in the same lines means that every person waits for the slowest person with the most convoluted issues.
Even more, we are making the assumption that people given freedom will not abuse it, when they have never done anything to earn it. They view it as a right that they can then test through abuse. They know it cannot be taken away, so why bother applying it only to good things? Try some destruction.
The final result here is that people become accustomed to moving in mass culture, where the presence of the slower and less capable forces everyone into a one-size-fits-all lowest common denominator. They adjust their expectations and behaviors accordingly. Society plummets downward as standards of behavior and competence fall.
The last taboo to fall will be the one idea that the French Revolution in 1789 was based upon: the equality of all people, with none given any privileges or powers because of their greater degree of ability or moral character. Equality manifests itself as democracy, consumerism and endless competition for rising socioeconomic status.
The result is chaos. Where people formerly had a guaranteed place, they now can be usurped by any other equal person — so they become controlling, territorial, manipulative and deceptive. Since the masses will throng anywhere they can, and seem to have less to do than they need, elitism of a nasty sort arises as some people try to insulate themselves from the mess with money.
Even more, the notion of equality is psychologically destructive. People need to know that they fulfill a specific local place, a specific role in that place, and are valued for who they are. Saying we accept everyone equally sounds good until you realize it is also by extension saying that we deny what makes people exceptional, not in a linear sense, but in the sense of being great at being who they are.
We have held onto these sacred cows for too long. (And unlike real cows, they do not produce delicious milk.)
They make us miserable, but because we assume they are necessary, we put it out of our head and struggle onwards.
They make us psychologically unstable, and create an ugly and controlling society, which hides behind a facade of “freedom”,”justice”,”peace”,”love” and anything else it could put on a Hallmark Card.
Right now, people look at us as heretics when we oppose these things. That is nothing more than the sheep instinct: they perceive a threat to the group, and so react against it as individuals, without realizing that the group in which they are assembled is a false group.
However, we’re reaching that tipping point. It takes a few brave people to speak up, and to do so without emotion or drama, taking the argument away from being about them personally and their self interest. Instead, they focus the argument on what is best for society as a whole.
As this happens, people begin to see. A few at first, but each of them invites a friend to ride along. Soon the movement begins momentum.
For the first time in two centuries, we are moving closer to that magic 10% (probably more like 2-5% who are local experts and born leaders) and there is the hope of change.
If you close your eyes for a moment, and forget your vertigo, you might find something new: a sense of fear and joy intermingled, the rush of finding yourself again in charge of your future. The thrill of exploration and possibly, better things.
Any time dark thoughts visit you, remember that this universe for all the darkness it contains seems to be guiding itself toward ultimately a good and loving end. This tipping point is just one small step on that journey.