Modernity offers us few truly potent metaphors because it is an anti-metaphorical time. We like our truths cut up into little bits that we can control, not vast unsettling realizations that spur us on to do more with our time.
A simple Obey! Consume! Reproduce! Vote! Equality! is the kind of message we like, and not surprisingly it’s what we find in most of all movies, books, TV shows, YouTube videos, greeting cards, short stories, poems, plays and interpretive dances. Freedom means do these things and don’t rock the boat.
However, one metaphor that endures with us is that of the zombie. What is a zombie? A zombie is a human parasite, a person whose brain has been replaced by a mechanistic, repetitive and incessant need to consume and then seek more consumption.
Zombie movies are a subset of horror movies, and a good example of the genre’s metaphor. Whether you are watching a vampire film, insane murderer film, weird monster film, alien invader film or creepy disease cinema, each has roughly the same attributes of the zombie narrative, but not as clear in metaphor.
Some others on the right have started to realize how powerful this metaphorical vision can be:
The “liberation” of pornography runs in precise parallel with the “liberation” of the arduously suppressed appetite for blood-spectacle. Technology abets the moral slide by creating simulations of torture and murder indistinguishable from the actual thing. Nowadays, close-up cinematic exploitations of gross violence like the endless Saw franchise, aimed at high school and college audiences, pull in those audiences and pile up receipts at the box-office. The excuse for these is that the acts are “not real.” But because they are indistinguishable from reality, the excuse rings hollow. What the people who visit the theater or rent the discs to see such movies are saying is that they like to observe the torture and murder of human beings. – The Thinking Housewife
All beliefs can become so infested with distrust in the world that they become insular and self-referential, and therefore when they encounter something unknown, first generate dogma against it and only later try to figure out what it was about.
In this case, the writer of the text above is barking up the wrong tree. Horror films are about a simple idea, and if we are able to see that idea, we will see why Saw and other films do not qualify. Saw and its ilk are about frustration with humanity rising to a boiling point.
Horror films, on the other hand, descend directly from the Gothic-Romantic story. Who wrote the original plots? Mary Shelley, Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, Bram Stoker and H.G. Wells. How do we categorize those plots?
- Confrontation with the unknown. A new force arises that both science and religion cannot explain. Unlike humans, who live in a moral/commercial world, it plays by the rules of power and begins laying waste to the morally-hobbled humans.
- Technology fails us. Whether we confront it with the flintlock rifles that were the best weapons of the day, or use nuclear weapons on it and watch them fail, it is beyond the reach of our devices and knowledge.
- The herd tendencies of other people fail us. Confronted with something outside the social/commercial sphere, people panic and begin to act as mobs do, e.g. by obstructing those who might save the situation. Most also feature panicked people sabotaging each other.
- Things get really out of hand. The threat needs to be big enough that society at large is threatened. That can either be a worldwide attack (War of the Worlds), a pandemic, or some idea or entity so infectious and powerful that if it escapes the local area, it will consume the world.
- The evil is averted by subversion. The evil can either collapse from within, or be crushed by human beings who find its weaknesses, but either way the point is not to confront it head-on. Most protagonists in horror stories do this at first and watch in horror as it gets other people killed. The best horror films leave us thinking that but for a weakness, this evil would have conquered us.
- The truth is then again concealed. In the best stories of this tradition, after a lone group of independent thinkers destroy the evil, they either decide to or are forced to conceal what has happened. In many modern films, there is no hope and total human destruction is assumed.
Where modern movies like to deliver a “message,” e.g. a propaganda/dogma item disguised as a homily, older literature liked to immerse us in metaphor. A metaphor is like an innoculation: it’s a simpler, more obvious, version of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Literature of this metaphorical bent tends to hint at where a cure might lie but never explicitly states it. It does this to avoid being propaganda; much as a textbook can tell you how to think, but not what to think, and propaganda can only tell you what to think, literature aims to inspire.
In particular, it wants to tell you the story of how an evil was conquered, a good learned, and how from this worldview there is hope of solving our problems and making clarity out of a world of ignorance and obscurity. At least, literature used to do this. Currently, it’s Crowdist propaganda like the movies.
The metaphor of zombie movies is that of modern humanity. They need to be in a group to have any direction, and cannot think outside of that context, so they become mindless consuming machines whose only purpose is to destroy those who have risen above that miserable state.
When people first decided to make horror movies, they turned for inspiration to a literary tradition that goes all the way back to Beowulf and Gilgamesh, as interpreted through the late writers of Romantic literature and their own Gothic horrors.
If conservatives take a long hard look at real horror movies (not hate porn like Saw) they will see what are essentially conservative documents in film. Our salvation is not in the herd or technology, as liberals posit, but in the moral struggle of individuals. And it can be beaten only through moral action.
We make zombies in our own image, says Durham University social scientist Dr Nick Pearce, and he reckons that the braindead machine-gun fodder zombies of today ain’t a good sign…He thinks we need to reassess the undead hordes… for our own self-esteem as much as anything else.
…Zombies used to have a fighting chance back when they first staggered onto our screens in 1932 film White Zombie, he argues. Yes, they were the demoralised, undead slaves of voodoo priests, but they were slaves who had a hope of breaking free, as they do in that film and several others from the era.
He says that now the zombies have no controller, they have no hope of ever being free. JUST LIKE US. “Zombies may well be popular today because they speak to a similar feeling of powerlessness shared by many members of our society.”
…”In the past, zombies wandered around consuming brains, but today’s zombies are encouraged to wander around consuming the latest, heavily advertised, branded goods.” – The Register
Almost all of Hollywood’s output focuses on the individual feeling mistreated by society, and so needing to create an alternate society (combine Fight Club and Napoleon Dynamite and you’ll see they are the same film) in order to overthrow the elites, take revenge and gain power.
In contrast to this degenerate propaganda, horror movies offer another insight: perhaps it is our feelings of being mistreated, and our own desire for “freedom” at the expense of common sense, that turn us into horrible zombies or weak creatures who cannot repel even the most basic monsters.
Most of us can focus on one thing at a time. What happens when both parties in an interaction are wrong?
For example, Dan and Dave are neighbors. Dan wants to put in a new fence, and thinks it should be two feet closer to Dave’s house than it is now. Dave thinks the fence is in the right place now. A surveyor shows the border between their land is one foot closer to Dave’s house than where the fence is now.
Both parties are wrong. If you are watching as a bystander, you are tempted to — like at a football game, political rally, or street fight — take a side and cheer for it, filtering out any information that suggests weakness or inaccuracy on your side.
The result is that all three of you miss the truth.
As this passage from a writer I respect demonstrates, this situation happens more often than you might think:
Men don’t “refuse to grow up”. They drop out, (or rather, beta males drop out), and with good reason, because the sexual market has been reconstructed to pander to female hypergamous impulses. Men can no longer achieve the clearly-defined status over hypergamous women they once could because the traditional field of battle that afforded them relative supremacy and, thus, attractiveness, to women — the corporate office — has, via managerial despotism strengthening PC and diversity to a state religion, lopped their balls clean off. And so men retreat from the corporate drone working world to achieve their status elsewhere.
Men don’t avoid marriage and family because they have a “maturity deficit”. They rationally avoid marriage and family because, as the institutions are currently constituted, they are a raw deal for men. Marriage is a risk made too great by misandrist divorce laws, and kids are a cost made too high by falling wages and tightening housing markets, of which part of the blame must go to women who have been voting for increasingly leftie and feminist-friendly governments since suffrage. – Heartiste/TAFKAR
When you are trying to loosen a rope, and it comes loose suddenly and hits you in the face, you may be tempted to lash out angrily at life itself. Someone hit me! Grr…
But that’s an extreme reaction based in your fears for yourself, and your reaction to the pain, but not in your desire to find a sensible, intelligent response.
TAFKAR has a point, above: men are in a bad situation because of the rise of feminism, which is a sub-set of liberalism. The idea of universal equality in liberalism demands we provide subsidies and political protection to groups which never quite felt equal, and women don’t feel equal to men.
A huge industry exists to this end. Not just the sale of feminist products, starting with their odious chattering books, but also a vast swathe of our government and its NGOs and non-profits are made wealthy catering to “feminist” needs.
However, it’s possible that TAFKAR is both right and wrong. He could be telling us only part of the story. Let’s look more at feminist flakiness:
More to the original point, women have demanded and been given the ability to make every conceivable choice about how, when, and by whom they become a mother. Being the one who makes the decisions is called having authority. Women now have as near total authority on the conception and raising of children as is possible. This is an incredible amount of authority, and having an incredible amount of authority comes with an incredible amount of responsibility.
Anyone who has been trusted with a very large amount of responsibility knows that it is a very heavy burden if you are taking it seriously. Yet women don’t feel this burden. Commenter Chels was outraged at the very concept that she was responsible for picking her future children’s father wisely. How could she possibly be expected to do that? Yes, this is an extremely difficult task. If women were truly embracing their responsibility here it would be a very heavy weight on them. Young women would feel a solemn sense of duty.
But for the vast majority of women this simply isn’t the case. The search for the father of their children isn’t undertaken with a solemn sense of responsibility. It is taken as a time for fun and excitement. The overriding feeling is no matter what choices they make, if there is a bad outcome it isn’t their fault. Someone else needs to take responsibility. – Dalrock
We see a parallel here: both women and men are reacting as if they got hit in the face with a rope that broke loose. Ouch! Now it’s time for my tantrum!
MRAs are repeating the same error that women made. Feminism has not given women better lives. It has given them jobs and second jobs as single mothers. It has guaranteed that their penis count will be so high when they hit 30 that chances of a permanent union are nil.
Men face the same problems. Both parties are outraged. Could it be possible that both parties are wrong? And that both parties are having an emotional reaction, rather than thinking of a coldly logical solution?
It is. Even more: that’s the most common outcome in human affairs, and explains why incompetence and confusion often reign for centuries until someone sets people toward the right direction.
For some time on this website there has been a raging debate about the banking system, the protests, occupy movements, and who’s to blame for it all. In the discussion there’s basically two sides.
Side one points out that the captains of industry got where they are by hard labour and a degree of talent. The proles, meaning the lower classes, generally lack direction in life. Therefore they sign stupid contracts and readily allow themselves to be fooled. The proles try to live the MTV lifestyle and don’t consider longer-term financial considerations. If they wouldn’t be so insipid then the financial situation wouldn’t be so messed up to begin with.
Side two explicates that our current captains of industry are pretty much the entrepreneurs that got into power ever since the French and Industrial revolutions. After the ancient aristocratic order was dethroned it was replaced by a more neurotic system where the impulse to buy now forms the fundament of the economy. The bankers are just as greedy as the proles they are fooling – they want money out of everyone’s pocket and they don’t care if family values, honesty and common sense have to be sacrificed in the process.
It’s time I took a personal hand in this debate, and of course I wouldn’t dare to do so without having personally attended the protest to make up my mind. I’m going to tell you all of the economic and philosophic consequences of this event, which amounts to quite a lot – therefore I’ve decided to cut the review up in parts.
At the very start of the debate, my interest was caught by the analogy of the crack dealer and the party-goer. Both know that the substance is ultimately harmful but the dealer doesn’t care because he’s out to make money, at the expense of others. It is in his interest if the party-goer becomes addicted, even if it means he goes broke, ruins his family by borrowing money, etc. The user knows the substance is slowly killing him but he finds himself somehow powerless to resist it.
Obviously, both are to blame here. Because they could have known that the substance was very harmful. We might say that the dealer is simply being smart. But he does help create another junkie who will roam the streets at night and might eventually slit a girl’s throat during a psychosis that could turn out to be the dealer’s own daughter. The dealer’s just reasoning from the mindset: “I’m gonna make a quick buck and when the shit hits the fan I’m outta here with my money.”
Which is exactly what the bankers think – they have made our nations dependent on their credit. From Greece to France to the U.S.A. – and although everyone knows governments have to cut costs they find themselves powerless to do so. But contrary to the crack scenario, where both know they’re playing a dangerous game, in the credit scenario nobody understands they’re in a game. It’s because: [A] The credit-takers don’t understand the monetary system. [B] The bankers don’t understand the monetary system. [C] The politicians don’t understand the monetary system. [D] Schools don’t teach the monetary system.
Some facts about the monetary system that school doesn’t teach you:
A bank is allowed to rent out one bar of gold it possesses, ten and often fourteen-fold. Imagine ten guys all putting one coin in a jar. They can take it out whenever they want to, they only have to ask the jar-keeper for permission. And he always says: “Sure, it’s your coin, after all.”
A new person comes in and says to the jar-keeper: “Hello, can I please have two coins? Don’t worry I’ll give you back three next week.”
The jar-keeper thinks: “Hmm, since it never happens that all of these ten people come to collect their coins simultaneously, I suppose it’s okay.”
So the guy comes back and he pays his three coins next week. The jar-keeper is happy. He takes out the one extra coin and keeps it to himself.
The week after that four new people come. They all say: “Hello, can I please have two coins? Don’t worry, I’ll pay three back next week.”
There’s still two coins left. So in case someone of the original ten wants a coin back, well . . . Let’s just hope that not more than two request their coin. (This is what a banker calls “risk”. Because he takes risks like any other entrepreneur, he considers himself allowed to make money by producing no actual good or service. This is what the religions call “usury”.)
Next week, one of the guys doesn’t show up. It means a loss to the bank of two coins. That means the keeper officially only has eight coins left in the jar. However the three others each bring back three coins. That means there’s now eleven coins in the jar.
So he made a profit. This is why banks sometimes allow outrageous debts, because in general most people pay their debts. It’s calculated that the bank will take a loss from some clients from time to time. But most will play the role of predictable bourgeois and pay up; they’re too afraid that their families get thrown out on the streets. However, consider this:
Bankers are always covered. If they invest money and make a fortune, they win. The profit is theirs. If they invest money and lose, the government bails them out because the stakes at large are too great. Too big to fail.
You can say: “Hello bank, can I please get $40,000 to buy a car?” Bank will say: “Sure, but what if you can’t pay us back? Oh, then we’ll take the car.” This is a promise to pay.
A bank can count a promise to pay as its own capital. Capital they don’t even have yet. They may rent that out fourteenfold.
Now in most cases people will work real hard and pay the debt back. However when they don’t manage then the bank confiscates the car. Turns out the car was only worth $20,000 when confiscated and not $40,000. That means a loss of $20,000 right there. Money that never existed in physical form. Money that was never printed or made as coins. However if you consider that 20,000 x 14, it turns out that this amount never existed. It vaporised. This explains why during a housing crisis billions of dollars can vanish over night; because the properties were counted as capital for higher amounts than the bank could actually receive for them.
This is why the monetary system is a bubble that must burst. But it gets worse.
You can say: “Okay I’ll take this loan of 40,000 dollars.” But you can give this money to me. And I can put it on my bank account. Then the bank says: “Ah, 40,000 dollars of new capital.” And it can rent that amount out fourteen times again. Even though there was already money rented out over this same money. But the banks can do it simply because of my promise to pay. Money is not created as value, but money is created as debt.
If you borrow 1000 dollars from the bank, you have to pay back 1200 (interest). It means that you can spend the 1000 dollars in the name of the bank. But where do you get the extra 200 from? By working or selling products so that someone will pay you those 200 extra. How do those people get the money to pay you? They borrowed money from the bank at some point. So they too have to pay back interest over that amount. In the end, that amount of money is not to be found in the money pool. It means that even if everyone works their asses of, someone must eventually be bankrupted. It’s a game of vanishing chairs. When that moment draws closer, governments issue new money from banks. Thus creating more debts over which interest must be paid. It’s an ever-increasing cycle.
Economic growth cannot out-grow this. I spoke about this with some elderly professor on my way to the protests. He was talking about Keynesians versus non-Keynesians. He spoke of how people defending the contemporary form of finance-Capitalism selectively shop from the works of Keynes and Adam Smith to justify something that has absolutely nothing to do with what Capitalism really means: It means adding a product or service to the world, delivering good quality worthy of good pay, developing yourself in the process. Finance-Capitalism adds nothing to the world at all, except debt.
However I told him it’s irrelevant because the monetary system itself is Keynesian. Every single dollar or euro is multiplied many times. And with every percentage of economic growth we make, the debt on our shoulders grows exponentially along.
People will probably refuse to accept this, since they think it’s too unlikely that the foundation they’ve built their very lives upon is revealed to be a form of utter parasitism by some unknown guy on an obscure part of the internet. But still it is true – because the mainstream media won’t tell you this. Because they don’t want you to know.
Because society isn’t held together by money – which as I pointed out doesn’t represent value but debt – it’s held together by the alarm going off at 06.00 and you getting ready to teach kids the alphabet, bake bread in a bakery, or chop dead trees into firewood. Because these are basic life necessities. Because you possess a North-European Protestant-Weberian work ethic. Our economy thrives on trust. On you thinking that everything will be alright in the end and that business will continue as usual.
But think again – this is the place where you really could hear the Truth because nobody around here has any interest in deceiving you.
The U.S.A. is the cornerstone of the world economy. Because they can just print dollars and feed them to whoever wants to have them. However this money is covered by nothing, (it used to be covered by gold; see Bretton Woods but that’s abolished) and even the Feds (and Ben Bernanke) isn’t a government organisation, it’s a club of private entrepreneurs. The guy who gave those banks that caused the credit crisis a +++ rating had to do so, or – so he was told by the owners of that bank – his career would be in serious trouble.
It could very well be but a matter of time before nations like China won’t accept the United States’ currency anymore. Then everything starts to shift. Greece might fall, dragging along Spain and Portugal, then Italy and Ireland, and everything you know as economy will be flushed down the drain.
Perhaps I’ll write more about what happened once I arrived with this story on the protests. Because I think it’s seriously time for Amerika.org to change course. We have to stop supporting the myth of the Open Society – the notion bankers are good because some of the deluded see a reflection of the natural born aristocrat in their fraud that seems like success.
We have to acknowledge the closed society, and consequently attack it. The only people who have an interest in defending the closed society by painting it as an Open, meritocratic-based society, are the baby boomers.
People are ready to embrace a serious criticism of the finance situation, the credit crisis, the economy and the monetary system. The typical socialist-anarchists are pot-smoking nutjobs that ramble incoherently. We have to jump into that hole.
We have to hijack the protests, so to say, and replace them with better-argued, more clear criticism towards the current economic system. When something is found rotten, voices will be raised to amend and replace it. That gives a window of opportunities for new visionaries to climb up the ladders.
Ladders that are withheld from us now.
Parts: I II III IV
Last week, something vastly important happened to the men’s rights movement. It turned on itself, and through this, it will grow.
So far, the movement has been mostly hijacked by FMRAs (Feminist Men’s Rights Activists), who are people who want equal rights for men, with the high cost of making men feel that they are victims.
Your average PUA, equal righter, or false rape accusation watcher fits into this category. They buy into the narrative of our feminist-dominated society, and demand a feminism for men. We’re rape victims too!
This psychologically unhealthy approach has not surprisingly never caught on with healthy men. They have zero need for it. In fact, they view it as somewhat distasteful, like a man on a camping trip who cannot fall sleep without the pink stuff bunny he used to hug as a child.
To such men, the men’s rights movement seems to be full of what are playfully called “betas”: not the winners, but the also-rans who also dropped out, and are doing their own thing independent of society.
Let me be frank. I don’t like this society much at all, because I know that it is collapsing. It’s dying because its values are bad and it forgot how to think proactively. I don’t support the notion that grabbing power within this society will make you more of a man, or more of a winner. But I also don’t support the people who are using that logic as an excuse for their own failings and most importantly, their inability to find anything in life they like doing enough to get good at it. This is bigger than career, marriage or money. This is your choice of how to spend your one mortal life (if you are religious, add “in this incarnation” to that sentence).
As a result, many of the betas in the mens’ rights movement are beta because they have chosen to be beta: to back away from finding purpose in life, to flee from competition, to withdraw into a shell of hobbies and compensations, and to possibly “take revenge” on life by indulging in pick-up artistry or even “activism” to invent an alternative feminism for men.
Another take on it:
We live in a society which has tamed most men into betas. Does that mean every man is a natural born beta? Nope. Does that mean men cant explore and develop leadership / dominant traits? nope.
I dont even know if there is a “beta gene”. I think most men can develop alphaness to a certain degree, just like most people can learn to sing. I think its about interest and drive, and of course natural potential. But most men are so, so far from what they would be naturally be doing if they hadnt been brainwashed into forced betaness, that just a couple of touches here and there can go a long way.
So, its not that Game changes the DNA of beta guys. Its that society is molding guys in dissonance with their own DNA, and something is needed to realign those guys into properly displaying their genotype and use what they have got for their own benefit. – Yohami
He takes an extreme “nurture” approach, which assumes that all humans are basically biologically the same and that social conditioning determines their outlook. Others would take an extreme “nature” approach and argue that you are born a beta, or not. I take a middle path.
Some are born less able than others. We do not have to trot out the Down’s syndrome kids to prove this; just look at the relative intelligence of people in daily life. Some people are born to sweep floors for minimum wage, others to have middle-of-the-road jobs, and some to have high-paying high-stress jobs.
However, our society encourages beta-ness because it is afraid of strong leadership, and by extension afraid of men. When your sole purpose for existing is to make everyone equal, the last thing you want is people who rise above. So you try to hobble them, first individually and then by group, such as favored genders (men, the stronger) and favored races (Jews, North Asians, Europeans) in addition to the usual divisions like social class (richer people are statistically/demographically smarter) and place of residence.
The point is that you may be born to sweep floors, but how you choose to spend your time in life determines what you’re going to get out of what is accessible to you. A beta turns tail and runs away from the biggest challenge, which is “What is your purpose in life?” A healthier person does not.
Betas are basically dissatisfied geeks, nerds and underlings of the type you find crowding around twee internet sites like Fark, Reddit and Facebook. They tend to like leftist politics, because those politics identify with the underdog, which all betas want to see themselves as, instead of using the more direct terms drop-out, burn-out or loser.
In fact, most men are this way, because the herd hates those who rise above, and loves to smash them, especially with its media that praises the beta and knocks down the alpha. Our society controls us not with truncheons, but with media images and social shame, knowing the judging eyes of the world are upon us.
In other words, betas don’t do anything “in spite of” adversity. They see adversity, and they slowly back away. They hide in the basements of the world, or in dingy apartments with entry-level jobs. But being a beta means that you give up on all of your own potential.
Yohami’s essay should be required reading because it encourages men to act up to their full potential. So your highest performance level is as a plumber; so what? You’ll have enough money, and a comfortable time of it, if you just man up and face your fears, and find a purpose in life in spite of them.
A good deal of our lives can be wasted raging against the imperfection we perceive in life. It seems that for every good thing, there is an equal and opposite reaction that is just as bad as the good is good.
For example, we are born; thus we must die. To love something means to eventually lose it. Each day seems like two steps forward, one step back.
We are tempted by imperfection to declare life bad, and begin compensating. When we compensate, we become selfish and hoard the rest of our time and objects because we assume the world is bad and more will not be forthcoming. Today is the best it gets; tomorrow, we die.
I like to think of life like the puzzle to the right. Imperfection is the empty space that allows us to move the pieces around, making unique combinations or patterns that help us achieve what we find to be beautiful. Without empty spaces, no motion can exist, and stagnation destroys the whole game.
Although good and bad seem balanced in equal or near equal proportions, life has one final trick she has pulled out of her hat. While the bad and good are both quantitatively similar, life has thrown quality on the side of good.
For equal amounts of good and bad, we accept the bad as a cost of being alive, like getting mosquito bites in the park. But the good we remember above all else and cherish; it has a higher degree of quality that bad never can have.
If nothing else, this is a reason to trust life and its goodness. There are many things we cannot know, but we should assume that they, too, are balanced toward the good. Any life-force clever enough to make us such a delightful puzzle surely wishes nothing but good for us.
“Long, long ago, it is said, there was a mighty civilization, where we now sit.
Beneath our feet, throughout this forest, lay an endless glory of buildings, the likes of which we have never seen.
It was a place of miracles, where a man might live past eighty years, enjoying riches beyond imagining. There was food, all year round. Heat without fire. Great distances could be traveled without walking.
Men could speak to other men, over vast distances. The image of their faces could be seen, by others, over many leagues.”
The assembled children, and a few old women, stared at the shaman, wide-eyed, as they always did, when he told this tale, although he had told it many times before. As had shamans before him, too. For with each new year, there would be born a few new children, and so, in its time, the tale would be retold, that all should know of it.
“Men lived in towers that reached the sky. Their work was easy, and light. They had no need to hunt, no need to sow. No need to gather fuel, and no need to war.
The women walked as men, and did not toil, as our women toil. The children walked as men, and did not sit, as we do, around fires, in the night. For there was light, that came through iron strings, that turned night into day.”
A gasp of perennial astonishment rippled among the audience, as they tried, and failed, to imagine this mystery.
“Men flew like birds, through the sky,” continued the shaman. “Gleaming birds, as big as a whale. A time of wonder. A time of magic.
With such power in their grasp, those people should still be here now. That they are not, has puzzled our tribe, for generations. For their tribe was not like ours, as we are not like them.
There were a few, it is said, that were as we are. Light of skin, with faces similar to our own. But alongside these, were a multitude of different peoples, with different ways, and different appearances. It is uncertain how this came to be. As many things remain unclear, after so much time has passed.”
A child squalled, briefly, as its mother shifted her position. The wind sent icy fingers through the trees. Shadows of orange and yellow played over the earnest faces, young and old, alike.
“What is not known, is the manner of their passing. With so much, what could have happened? Our wisest men have pondered this, for generations. How Gods could vanish, leaving so few remains upon our lands. This, we may never know…”
The shaman stopped, suddenly, his mouth still open, and it felt to him as if in all these years of telling, and retelling The Legend, that he had been deaf, dumb and blind. His eyes flared wide, his mouth snapped shut, and he leaped to his feet as if his years were but months. He cast his eyes around, from face to face, his breathing quickened. He raised his arms and spoke in a voice never heard before…
“The Death claimed the Gods. The Rainbow Death! Children given the power of men. Women too. The power of men removed from men. Men loved other men, and were given power for this. Women loved other women, and were given power for this. Boys taught to love other boys and be rewarded for this. Girls too.
The ancient laws all overturned, and made punishable.
Enemies imported and given power over men.
Enemies placed above the men.
None of them wanting, any more, to hunt, build, forage or cultivate. All expecting to live without making it so. Ahhh…”
The shaman stopped, and there was silence. The scene lay frozen, but for the flickering shadows cast by the central fire.
The silence deepened, as the shaman saw his vision, and grasped for understanding. Finally he spoke, his voice the voice of reason, once more.
“They died because they did not care about living. Life, to them, became so lacking in value, that they simply stopped living.”
He stopped, again, as he decided what he must do, with this new revelation.
Here was nothing to be revered and retold. This was ugliness beyond ugly. There was no good in it.
It was time to let the age of wonder go. This time, forever.
With great sadness, and great resolve, he gathered himself and spoke one last time.
“The Gods were not Gods at all. They were less than us. They were finished with living, long before they no longer lived. They fell from The Way, and did not care. And so they died.
This, I know, is the way of it, for I have seen it, finally.
And so, each one of us, may give these ghosts their final rest.
By never speaking of them again.
Our lives are hard, and our rewards are few. We must toil to live, and live to toil.
Yet in this, we are richer, by far, than the ancients. For we know this thing, while they allowed themselves to forget.
So, henceforth, we will tell this tale no more. We will begin history again, and honour our own accomplishments. For it is certain, that none of the wonders the ancients possessed, could prevent their complete extinction.”
He smiled at each face, in turn, moving slowly around the circle. Nodding to each. Taking his time.
“This, and only this, is what is important,” he finished. “Our tribe. Our children. Our circle. Our fire.”
The underlying tension in the men’s rights movement has reached a boil, with PUAs on one side and more comprehensive advocates on the other.
PUAs want you to believe that the symbol is more important than the reality. This way, even if you’re Corner Office Joe with a meaningless job, meaningless apartment, and lack of connection to anything you truly believe in, you’re a Man if you’re out there picking up the sluts and taking them home.
Comprehensive advocates point to the more fundamental problems men face: as the perceived stronger sex, we are discriminated against to the point where our futures have been sabotaged; we are deprived of family through divorce and biased divorce courts; and finally, we are under media assault that seeks to crush our self-esteem.
For the purpose of comparison, I’m going to lump the feminist-MRAs in with the PUAs because both of them are waging a defensive strategy. Feminist-MRAs (FMRAs) are men who want to adopt the feminist method for men, which means making men see themselves as victims and forcing them to adopt a defensive strategy.
Why are PUAs and FMRAs similar? Both have adopted this victimhood outlook and defensive strategy. PUAs have given up on making changes for men in society; they figure that since there’s no hope of real change, they might as well get laid and feel like Real Men instead. FMRAs have given up on making change in society, and instead want to make mens’ rights another victim’s group like feminists, rape survivors, etc.
Many of us are cynical about PUAs because they are not a recent phenomenon. They started appearing in the early 1970s, after the hippies brought us “sexual liberation” for political purposes (equality). PUAs have always been men who mysteriously have not succeeded under other circumstances, and who tend to have shattered family lives, but have convinced themselves they are Real Men because they get laid a lot.
In the past, real men did not need symbols to convince themselves of their value. For them, the equation was simpler: they were real men because they acted like real men and did the things real men accomplished, like acts of bravery, keeping families, and being honorable, powerful leaders.
When you give up on that possibility, you can prove yourself as a man either by extreme displays of symbolic manliness (weightlifting, martial arts) or by trying to demonstrate your ego through sex. However, you’re still going about it backwards; instead of being a real man, you’re trying to look like one.
Paul Elam gets to the heart of it:
It’s a tad ironic, isn’t it, that in a culture where women are slinging ass like free hydro at a Pink Floyd concert, that we have men out here actually selling the idea that getting laid is an “art”?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against the high profile PUA’s and Gamers. I also have a healthy respect for people who can sell designer lint removers when a patch of masking tape and some common sense will work just as well. But it has to be said, must be said, that both of these kinds of sales people are targeting a similar demographic; ignorant, gullible customers.
Since his article is long, I’ll use G.L. Piggy’s far more efficient synopsis:
Elam’s argument is that Gamers wrongly assess their own value through women’s reactions to them.
Right there is all you need to know.
PUAs define themselves by how women see them.
In the same way, FMRAs define themselves by how feminists act.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
The study of masculinity and what it is to be a man could take thousands of pages. The basic idea however is that men are defined by how they lead and keep the team together. Of the two complementary gender principles, the masculine is that which projects and asserts. It is aggression against potential problems and a supportive but rigid foundation to civilization itself.
This masculine principle is entirely destroyed by making it a slave to what sluts in bars think, or what feminists think. It would be hard to find a less competent audience.
(Women have another role which is that they are the masters of adaptation and the weavers of details. They take the rough draft of masculine projection and apply it, weaving in all the stuff that falls between the cracks and making sense of all the contradictions. Without women, men are lost, but only to the degree that women are also lost without men.)
PUAs and FMRAs are the dropouts of the men’s rights movement. They have stopped agitating for men’s roles and started instead demanding compensation. What’s the difference? Roles are activities reserved for you which you try to fulfill to the best of your ability. Compensation are the toys, trinkets and short-lived pleasures you seek if you cannot have a role.
While our friends are busy tossing around sex as proof of their masculinity, in the time-honored tradition of those who stay home from battles and hide in the bushes to avoid facing their ex-wives, real issues confront men:
According to The New York Times, Dieter Krombach was married to Bamberski’s ex-wife, and hence stepfather to 14-year-old Kalinka. French police say the German doctor raped and then killed his stepdaughter at his home in Germany. But Krombach has resisted French officials’ requests that he come into their country for questioning for the past 29 years. The German government, claiming there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest he played a role in the girl’s death, has likewise refused to extradite him.
You do not need some kind of lengthy argument or “proof” (almost no one using this term understands it) to see the obvious here: real issues confront men; PUA and FMRA run away from those issues. In addition, what defines us as men is that we are not the whining passive victims that PUAs and FMRAs, by defining themselves through how women react to them, apparently are.
You never get far by allowing your opponent to dictate your responses. If you make your actions depend on what the other guy does, he (or she) has the upper hand. Pathetically, this is what PUAs/FMRAs want to do to men’s rights as a movement: make it a bitch to feminism and the cult of anti-masculinity.
Men’s Rights remains a new field because it only exists since feminism has triumphed in the media, the courts and the social sphere. However, if you’re going to fight, fight to win, instead of looking for some way you can avoid that burden and hang out in bars with mentally defective women instead.
In a previous post, our two options for future civilization were revealed:
- Managerial. Like attending a job, days at an American high school or going to a mall, the managerial state consists of people who have nothing in common except wanting to make money and not get murdered. As a result, a strong nanny/police state is needed to make lots of little laws, enforce them, and subject children to intense propaganda for the “morally right” way to behave.
- Organic. More like an extended family, this society has an organic values system arising from culture in the form of shared values, customs, language, heritage and beliefs. As a result, less police enforcement is needed and commerce is restrained by what the people value based on their shared ideals.
Naturally, government and commercial interests hate the latter example. It doesn’t need them like an addict needs heroin, a battered wife in a codependent relationship needs her husband, or Bugs Bunny needs Elmer Fudd.
Cops need robbers to chase, government needs problems to legislate, and commerce needs fears to sell products. An organic society rewards each of these with less in the way of power and future options. In fact, an organic society forces government and commerce to serve the people, not the other way around.
This problem became obvious shortly after the French Revolution in 1789. The solution they saw then is the same as the one seen now: smash, destroy and deconstruct all culture and values and replace them with “social values” of the “we must all get along” variety you remember from kindergarten and pre-school.
In other words, instead of trying to find answers to our problems and a direction for our society, we are forced into increasingly restrictive structures to force us to get along with each other. The totalitarian future will not come under a swastika or hammer and sickle, but a picture of Gandhi and John Lennon.
Globalism arose from this movement. A form of liberalism taken to its logical conclusion, globalism aims to destroy all national cultures and replace them with commerce and the nanny/police state. Through consumerism, and a mass media that teaches us anything but globalism is racist and evil, this new empire will compel us to enforce it through our own self-interest.
In a social values system, you get ahead by convincing people that you are nice and inoffensive. This means approving of everyone, always demanding compromise, always getting along and never having any conflicting opinions. The result is utterly conformity, compliant and easily manipulated people.
However, a backlash has begun:
Prime Minister David Cameron, who said this year that multiculturalism has failed in Britain, is calling on immigrants to learn English fluently, “make a contribution” to the economy and society and avoid being a “burden on the welfare system and the taxpayer.”
Labor Party leader Ed Miliband recently conceded that his party “got some things wrong” on immigration during its 13 years in power. He acknowledged public concern that a rapid influx of Eastern Europeans in the past decade has driven down living standards in Britain.
“This clearly had effects on people right up and down the country, and we’ve clearly got to learn those lessons for the future,” Mr. Miliband told the BBC. – The Washington Times
Our leaders have told us since 1945 that blending ourselves into a uniform shade of tan and doing away with culture, religion and strong moral beliefs is the right way to “get along.” The problem is that getting along sacrifices getting anything done, and destabilizes societies like the UK.
What is clear is that there are presently many more people in Westminster demanding a referendum on EU membership than in the City complaining about capitalism. I have just spoken at a rally of the People’s Pledge, at which more than 2,000 people were present. What’s more, we know that those 2,000 are representative of the country as a whole. They are a fraction of the 100,000 whose signatures triggered Monday’s proposal for an In/Out referendum – a proposal which, as a poll in today’s Daily Express reveals, more than two thirds of voters want their MP to back. A further 80,000 have pledged to vote only for pro-referendum parliamentary candidates.
It will be interesting to compare the amount of coverage generated by the two protests. Will the People’s Pledge get ten times as much attention as the anti-capitalist sit-in, on the basis of the number of people at Westminster? – The Telegraph
The idea behind the EU is the same as the idea behind the “new” United States for which a vast Civil War was fought in 1861-1865: we will unify the entire nation on a uniform standard, create a managerial morality so we all get along, and then use those people as fodder for employment, consumerism and government. Europeans are starting to realize what a dark and soulless path this is.
The proposal, put forward by Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president, would be the clearest sign yet of a new “United States of Europe” — with Britain left on the sidelines.
The plan comes as European governments desperately trying to save the euro from collapse last night faced a new bombshell, with sources at the International Monetary Fund saying it would not pay for a second Greek bail-out.
It was also disclosed last night that British businesses are turning their back on Brussels regulations to give temporary workers full employment rights, with supermarket chain Tesco leading the charge. – The Telegraph
Magically, the agenda never changes because liberalism is globalism. Liberals have one solution: enforce more equality. Unfortunately, that causes society to deviate from reality by replacing actual goals with a political agenda. The result is further social schism.
Ms. Fisher’s lawyers filed a petition seeking a Supreme Court review last month, and legal experts say the justices will probably agree to hear it, setting the stage for a decision by June. Such a decision, given changes in the membership of the court since 2003, is likely to cut back on if not eliminate the use of race in admissions decisions at public colleges and universities.
Diversity is the last man standing, the sole remaining legal justification for racial preferences in deciding who can study at public universities. Should the Supreme Court disavow it, the student body at the University of Texas and many other public colleges and universities would almost instantly become whiter and more Asian, and less black and Hispanic
A judicial retreat from diversity would be deeply symbolic, too. The term — a gauzy, unobjectionable way to talk about the combustible topic of race — has had a remarkable run. If the diversity rationale falls apart in university admissions, it could start to test the societal commitment to it in other arenas, notably private hiring and promotion. – The New York Times
Civilization is a zero-sum game. If you do not stand up for your own interests, others will replace you. While human life as a whole is not a zero-sum game — other civilizations exist, one for each culture — the self-destruction of European-Americans shows us that the well-meaning “diversity” programs we so enthusiastically supported since 1945 have become a war on the majority. Slowly, the majority is nibbling at the edges of this vast political establishment.
Recognition of speech codes is occurring as well:
Upon leaving the conference I hailed the closest taxi and as the driver carried me safely home, I reflected on what was a very long day.
What struck me the most about the day was the tone of the conference and the people there. I admit that my preconceived expectations were probably tethered to an imagination gone wild. It’s not that I was expecting to see people burning crosses or singing Nazi anthems per se, but I anticipated a little more anger, a little more foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of non-whites.
Instead, the attendees were friendly, even a little shy. They seemed happy to be able to speak so freely on topics considered by most of society to be taboo and ideas so extreme they at times resembled science fiction. It felt a little like a failed comic book convention, sparsely populated by introverted patrons shuffling in quietly and clutching an obscure book they want autographed or hoping to see a celebrity known only within their narrow cultural circle. – Media Matters
While it is still taboo to mention that diversity is destructive (regardless of the ethnic groups involved), it has become more popular to speak in private about it. Just to express doubts. Much as in the final days of the Soviet Union, when people finally felt confident enough to speak their discontent, Americans of all races, creeds and backgrounds are speaking up about diversity: it will destroy our culture, and make us a mechanical civilization overseen by an all-powerful moral nanny/police state.
We face a powerful and determined source of corruption in globalism. By disguising itself as government by the people, it makes itself the target of much criticism, none of it directed at the legitimacy of its rule. This makes globalism safe from attacks from within.
Attacks from without are difficult as well. Citizens of globalist states are propagandized to fear anything smacking of communism or extremism, which means the globalism media is incentivized to sell newspapers by finding fascists under every rug.
Awareness within the population is also difficult, since globalism operates more like a social fashion or trend than a culture. It motivates people to push others down for failure to adhere to the dogma; those who display the best obedience are those who are blameless, and thus promoted and socially popular.
It is a perfect reign of control. It pits us against each other, and makes us fear anything but it. Like a domineering parent, it sabotages our self-esteem and then makes us addicted to its comfortingly secure but unsettling domain:
There is an old true story told about financier Jay Gould. When asked what he would do if there were ever a threat of a genuine revolution in America he answered, “I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.” This is not a facetious statement. He was deadly serious because this tactic always works. It has been refined since then to encourage letting off steam rather than letting off gunpowder, yet it is generally the same. – Taki’s Magazine
Despite this near-total control, the backlash has begun the best way possible: by whispered conversations, by general grumbling, by a lack of faith in a system that has failed to produce the Utopian results it promised, but has instead brought us a society laden with crime, corruption, advertising, ugliness and fear.
So far, using the most powerful media establishment in history, the globalist elite have managed to keep this criticism to a minimum. They are counting on the selfishness, lack of attention span and general apathy of the citizens around them. But as the days pass and the misery intensifies, even oblivion loses ground.
As mentioned in a previous post, globalism is an extension of liberalism, and since 1789 it has been re-making the world in its own image.
Globalism is a method by which individuals unite into a crowd to demand no oversight, no social hierarchy, no shared values and no requirements for interacting with civilization except the bare minimum (job, rent, don’t murder). It’s an empire of selfishness made of the fears of many individuals whipped into a mob.
When analyzing globalism, it is important to be wary of what it says it is versus what it is. It says it is a movement for the equality of all people everywhere, and that is true, but it wants that equality so that no other system of power can exist.
Globalism is the ultimate evolution of control because it bases its power on the absence of leadership and ideology, not on a particular leader or ideology. It is controlled anarchy: we all agree we should be equal, and after that every other decision is made by convenience.
In other words, globalism is a contradiction that hoodwinks us because it is schizophrenic. It says one thing on the surface, but that thing is the cause to an effect, which is the actual goal. In this case, individual equality creates a chaotic society that then demands strong leaders.
It also demands strong social, as opposed to values-based, cultural codes. It is no longer about agreed-upon values as in “What should our legacy to history be?” but the type of kindergarten-teacher logic that asks “How do we all get along?”
There is no goal. The only possible direction is more equality. Except that, like all social reasoning, this surface attribute creates unintended consequences in its wake.
A recent Vatican estimate suggests that 100,000 Copts may have fled the country since Mubarak’s fall. If Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood consolidates political power, that figure could grow exponentially.
This is a familiar story in the Middle East, where any sort of popular sovereignty has tended to unleash the furies and drive minorities into exile. From Lebanon to North Africa, the Arab world’s Christian enclaves have been shrinking steadily since decolonization. More than half of Iraq’s 1.5 million Christians have fled the country since the American invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
More important, though, this is a familiar story for the modern world as a whole — a case of what National Review’s John Derbyshire calls “modernity versus diversity.” For all the bright talk about multicultural mosaics, the age of globalization has also been an age of unprecedented religious and racial sorting — sometimes by choice, more often at gunpoint. – The New York Times
Democracy destroys diversity, but not in the way the article above suggests. Democracy insists on a single compromise which is acceptable to everyone, and thus forces a settling on the lowest common denominator.
In the middle east, right now, that’s Islam and free AK-47 ammo for everyone. In another two years, it will be Coca-Cola, strip clubs, fast food and cable TV. The people will grow just as fat and bloated as Americans. That was always the plan: neutralize the opposition by exporting our own disease.
The goal of globalism has always been to enforce uniformity through conformity. It hopes to achieve this by wrecking any idea or thing that makes one place separate from another. Culture, religion, language, heritage, social class, hereditary roles, customs, values… they all must die. For equality!
In fact, the notion of equality itself is toxic because it creates an inherent enmity between people and their society, and individuals against individuals. Society can never make us physically equal, including equal abilities which are the consequence of mental wiring. Thus we say one thing, mean another, and create from the tension between the two a state of constant internal warfare.
Today’s mixing of peoples, cultures and ideologies, whether resulting from world trade and immigration or improved communication and social fission, is moving our world closer in important ways to the one Ibn Khaldun knew than the more cohesive one with which we have long been familiar. Such changes will affect our politics profoundly in ways his writings can illuminate for us.
If there are no strong overarching loyalties, mixing of populations causes men to lose the social cohesion required for the self-rule of a free society and to withdraw into small groups in which they can maintain a coherent and predictable way of life. Common loyalties firm enough to create the civic order of Western Europe needed time and stability to evolve. It took 40 kings to make France, and no less time to grow what Burke once called the British oak; in the parts of Europe subject to invasion from Asia or North Africa nothing similar arose.
The gifts of the past may not be ours forever. Common loyalties make a people, and the common culture and history that support a people’s identity are needed to make loyalties endure. Success in transplanting a British society to America and absorbing European immigrants into it is no sign that the American civic order will survive abandonment of a common or at least dominant identity; a social setting like the one Ibn Khaldun knew will be a more likely consequence. Immigration and the end of national boundaries could bring about similar results within the European Union by replacing ordered diversity with bureaucratically- administered chaos. – Turnabout: thoughts in and out of season
The point here is made succinctly — you have two choices of society:
- Managerial. In this, people share no values except wanting to make money and not get murdered. As a result, a strong government is needed to impose values through penalties, bribes, and propagandistic education starting at a young age.
- Organic. In this civilization-type, society is organized around shared values, beliefs, customs, language, heritage and tradition. There is less of a need for police and no need for propaganda; the culture is inherent to and arising from the people.
In other words, nationalism is not about disliking x religious, political, ethnic, racial or social group — it’s about wanting to have an identity of one’s own so that society is held together by something other than a police state/Nanny State.
When we give up on that ideal, we follow many other empires into slow but inevitable decline.
It really doesn’t matter what race you are or what your national identity is. What matters is the cultural adaption immigrants make once they arrive. In America in the 21st century, we make it far too easy for immigrants not to assimilate, taking on the values and language of what has been a common and uniquely American culture for most of our history.
He also rightly points out that the America of tomorrow, demographically speaking, will closely resemble today’s California. Having lived in California for 25 years before fleeing, I can tell you that is a very scary thought.
California is a basket case. There the population has figured out that they can vote themselves benefits and sustenance and all kinds of goodies without any personal consequences – because only a tiny minority of Californians, as well as other Americans, are responsible for picking up the costs.
Can you imagine what America will be like when its demographics more closely resemble today’s California? – World News Daily
Globalism loves diversity because diversity shatters national culture and ensures that we need a strong nanny/police state to rule over us. It would be best if it were international, because that way all people would be equal and uniform, and there would be no barriers to commerce (McDonald’s) and the nanny state.
We have a choice about our future every second of our lives. The same is true of our civilization; we can choose the nanny state or the organic society. But are enough people still intellectually awake enough to tell the difference?
A word from experience: do not emulate your enemies. They are better at their tactics than you are, and they are your enemies because you are from the opposite side of the values spectrum. Otherwise, you’d be allies.
At GROIN we have for some time lamented the tendency of MRAs to merely imitate feminists, initiating the process of becoming a leftist movement and thus, following the same path that led us to the place which MRAs find so objectionable.
In fact, they will get very angry and say nasty things about you if you criticize them, much like leftists. Their view is not a realistic one; it’s an emotional view. If someone has something they don’t, they want to make themselves into victims and use that victimhood to demand “equal” or greater treatment.
It’s a tempting narrative because it is the dominant narrative of our time. Since the French Revolution in 1789, the name of the game has been to construe yourself as a victim, and gather other victims together to overthrow your leaders and take what they have.
This has of course had mixed results, because it’s not a plan so much as a tantrum, trend and social fashion combined. In fact, it is the direct ancestor of feminism, which is (you got it) a movement based on victimhood and joining victims together into an ad hoc army of the righteous.
The problem with the current movement is that it is attempting to play by the rules of its adversaries. MRAs seem to have said, “Gee, look how successful the feminist movement was! If we do the same thing, but with men’s rights, we should get the same result!”
This approach has given us a men’s rights movement thoroughly steeped in the vocabulary and tactics of radical left-wing activism. As it’s currently constituted, it is doomed to have close to zero impact on the world outside of itself. The tactical and strategic environment that MRAs must fight in is completely different from the world in which the feminist movement lives. – In Mala Fide
MRAs are moving in a circle. they are upset at feminism, which is a result of liberalism, so the MRAs are demanding liberalism be extended to men. The result of that will be the state immediately before feminism, and so feminism will be re-created.
If you want to escape the vicious cycle, break out of the loop. Stop talking about equality and start talking about adaptive complementary roles. Stop defending the sexual revolution and start talking about a more elegant male-female interaction.
This is the only way to escape the same pattern coming up over and over again. I don’t think most MRAs honestly want to break free, however. They just want to join a long list of victim’s movements and get “their share.” And as for the future? They’re not thinking about that.