Tag: society

This comment on an old post by Laurence Auster is too succinct to miss as it addresses the natural state of Man.

I would also disagree with the idea that somehow family is the natural state of mankind. In reality, the natural state of mankind is a mother and her children (as the feminists claim). The family, instead, is the natural state of civilization. The monogamous marriage of patriarchal control and exclusive sexual access guarantees each man a woman and thus gives him a stake in the civilization around him. This reduces one major source of conflict and allows men to cooperate more easily. In fact, this exclusive sexual access is a hallmark feature of Western Civilization and a major reason why it surged ahead against the various polygamous societies of Africa and the Middle East.

What women want today is a polyandryous society that still maintains a “Sex and the City” civilization. They somehow expect to limit sexual access to the five percent of men they find attractive while the rest toil away to make life easier and more comfortable for them. It ain’t gonna happen.

This summarizes the decline of the West in a nutshell. Every great civilization has not only been patriarchal, but has been necessarily patriarchal as an intrinsic aspect of its foundation. This is logical, because if you think about it, in order to exist, a great civilization must somehow arise from the morass of tribal barbarism that is the human norm. This can only be accomplished if the aggressive drive of the male portion of the population can somehow be successfully harnessed in a manner that builds up a civilization.

Women have successfully attacked the concept of patriarchy under the guise of the equality myth. It has few defenders these days. But, as I have declared on numerous occasions, there is no such thing as equality in any legal, material or spiritual sense. It does not exist and one might as legitimately criticize patriarchy on the basis of rainbow unicorns or sparkly vampires. Unfortunately, what most of these equalitarian women do not realize is that they have been attacking the very core of civilization itself. The collapse is coming, most likely within decades, and the reality is not going to be much fun for anyone, but especially not for women.

It is understandable that the sheltered children of the West cannot fathom the brutality of barbarism and the pointlessness its mindless horrors. Even now, with the barbarians within the gates, they do not quite recognize it. But once the barbarians reach a critical mass, there will be no mistaking that the end of yet another great civilization has arrived. And they will. No civilization ever survives the attempt to replace its children with imported substitutes.

“According to Guttmacher, 35 percent of all U.S. women will have had an abortion by age 45. Guttmacher also reports that 93 percent of all abortions occur for “social reasons” such as a mother’s decision that the child is unwanted or “inconvenient.””

I tend to doubt the historians of the future will find it terribly difficult to determine the cause of the decline and fall of America. Some Christians still like to think that America is a nation for which God has a close regard. I tend to imagine that Americans would do well to hope that the God who has such harsh promises for those who corrupt the young hasn’t been paying close attention lately.

Children have to belong to someone who is responsible for their upbringing. For centuries in the West, they belonged to the father. Thanks to feminist family law, they are now generally assumed to belong to the mother by default. Here’s how well that has worked out:

Welcome to 2011: post-morality and stigma-free. One in eight children under five will never meet the man who donated half their genes. Seventy per cent of young offenders were raised in a lone-parent home. It’s an anguished statistic. “I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection,” said Sigmund Freud. Yet, in some of the poorest parts of the UK, families have been without fathers for three generations. For every feckless Keith, there is an uncertain young dad who would love a chance to be near his children if only their ex-partners would let them. Panorama asked a 20-year-old single mother if she thought her two little boys would miss out by not having a dad around. She could not have been more bemused if they’d offered her a crinoline and a horse-drawn carriage. For young mums like her, fathers are an extinct species. The dadda is deader than the dodo.

The solution is as simple as it is obvious. First, all children must remain in the full legal and financial custody of their genetic fathers regardless of the marital state of the mother and father. Second, no public money will be allotted to the private maintenance of children or their mothers. If private charities and churches wish to provide assistance, they are of course welcome to do so. But either the subsidizing of socially destructive reproductive behavior will end or society itself will collapse. The author’s inevitable recommendation of “education” is as feckless as the reproductive behavior of her poster boy. And if you think the measures I recommend are too harsh, then contemplate the alternative of maintaining the present course.

A CBS News poll reveals the spineless nature of the sons and daughters of the American Revolution:

while three in four Americans say violence against the government is never justified, 16 percent say it can be justified — the same percentage that said as much in April. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said such violence can be justified, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and independents.

Government is founded upon violence, which is why the Founding Fathers, who quite clearly believed that violence against the government was justified, also believed it was vitally important to limit government very strictly. And it is why no one who believes that violence against the government is never justified should be permitted to vote in America, hold political office, or work as government employee. It is an intellectual position that is about as fundamentally un-American as it is possible to hold.

Remember, the present U.S. government is asserting it has the right to assassinate American citizens without trial or even arrest, the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding. This naturally leads to the obvious question: if one accepts that the federal government possesses the right to murder Americans that it presently asserts, (and which is clearly not limited to it under the Constitution), on what rational grounds can anyone complain about individuals like Jared Loughner exercising exactly the same right?

The first thing we do is bankrupt all the prospective lawyers.

YOU WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, YOU RAN UP A LOT OF DEBT, and now you can’t get admitted to the bar because having huge debts and no plan to pay them back fails the “character and fitness” test. What the hell kind of legal education system are we running where we charge people more than they can afford to get a legal education, and then prevent them from being lawyers because they can’t pay off their debts?

I don’t know, it strikes me as a rather good way of preemptively punishing those who thought to make a living by leeching off the blood of productive society. Since lawyers are literally officers of the court, which is to say the state, they’re just another unnecessary and unproductive layer of government. We’ve clearly reached that societal stage where, having plundered nearly as much of the private sector as possible, the various aspects of the public sector is now devouring itself.

In Mala Fide lays heavily into The Thinking Housewife, but to my mind, the primary criticism should be the way in which she missed the point of the reader’s question as well as the larger issue underlying it:

We don’t live in a culture where responsibilities can be ‘imposed’ on persons outside of voluntary choice. So, my question would be, how can you possibly speak of men possessing ‘responsibilities toward women’ (and therefore reject the MRM’s self-focus approach) as a group when our culture doesn’t even recognize ‘groups’, it only recognizes individuals?

Men’s rights advocates say they seek equality with women and aim to redress the inferior status feminists have imposed on them. They seek to counterbalance feminism with “men’s rights,” envisioning some hypothetical state of fairness and justice, or at least saying they envision some hypothetical state of fairness and justice. Feminists also claim to seek fairness, but this is a dishonest pose, a cover for the pursuit of superiority for women. Men’s rights advocates say they want equality too and generally do not argue for patriarchal authority. This may be because they labor under a sincere, but misguided belief in radical egalitarianism or because they know that an explicit affirmation of male leadership entails some formal recognition of male responsibility. Some seem to detest the notion of male responsibility because they genuinely detest women and want to owe them nothing.

Male authority, on a practical level, is necessary. But it is more than a practical necessity. It is rooted in human nature and in the nature of God. Men’s rights advocates do not seek the restoration of the traditional father or male head. That generally does not seem to be their goal although certainly there are men who do advocate this, men who do criticize feminism and who do not fit into the mold of the typical men’s rights supporter. Typical men’s rights supporters speak of equality with women, but at the same time relentlessly assert the morally superiority of men. They offer some token acknowledgement now and then that women may be capable of good, but mostly they demonize women and offer virtually no acknowledgement of the good women may do or the harm done to women by feminism. They would just as soon see women sink or swim their own. Just like feminists, they say women should have a choice to be either careerists or homemakers. This is true. Women should have some choice, but our culture must affirm one of these roles as superior since they are mutally exclusive. Men’s rights advocates will argue that women are not very good at being careerists, but they are remarkably silent on the subject of what women are good at and how they might be enabled to do what they are naturally good at doing.

The Thinking Housewife summarizes the matter by naming her post Does Society Need Men’s Rights. Now, regardless of whether one interprets this question overly literally or with regards to the sense in which she and the reader refer to “Men’s Rights” as the male egalitarian response to the legal overreach of the feminist movement, I tend to see the entire discussion as somewhat beside the point. I am not a men’s rights activist nor a men’s rights supporter for the obvious reason that I do not believe in the existence of equality before the law or any other kind of equality. I would simply describe myself as a historical realist, which is why my general sympathies are with all three of them despite their differences.

The simple fact is that restoring Western society to a genuinely equalitarian state will change nothing about its trajectory, it will merely provide for a nominally more equitable period of decline and collapse. Neither MRA atomists nor traditionalists under the influence of quasi-egalitarianism are relevant to the larger scale problem, which is more related to demographics and debt than who gets what after the divorce or whether men should avoid marriage. That doesn’t make the personal issues any less important to the individuals concerned, but let’s not have the discussion under the illusion that it’s actually significant on the societal level.

At this point, I am skeptical that even banning women’s suffrage tomorrow would suffice to salvage the Western society. And that’s not going to happen until Western democracy collapses as completely as Athenian democracy did.

The predicted consequences of post-Christian society are already presenting themselves in Britain:

What Alibhai-Brown exposes here is not merely a sexual double-standard, but also an ethnic or religious double-standard, where Muslim men have one standard for “our girls” and another standard for white girls, who are categorically presumed to be immoral.

If Alibhai-Brown has been willing to address the vicious attitudes among (some) British Muslim men that helped foster the environment in which the Derbyshire rape-gang flourished, wouldn’t it behoove someone to examine the problems among British whites that contributed to this horror?

The pimps in Bradford who talked to Alibhai-Brown about “cheap” white girls from “the estates” — British vernacular for government low-income housing, what we Americans would call “the projects” — weren’t just making up a stereotype out of thin air. In 2008, 45% of British births were to unmarried women and, in some low-income areas, the illegitimacy rate was as high as 68%. Such figures certainly indicate that a casual attitude toward pre-marital sex is commonplace in the U.K.

All of the airy secular notions about multicultural societies, sexual equality, universal suffrage, and premarital sex are finally running into the hard brick wall of historical reality. The various hypothetical coulds and shoulds are rapidly transforming into can’ts and don’ts. Now that Christian morality has been abandoned in favor of empty moral relevance, there isn’t any means of rationally arguing with the immigrant pimps who are cheefully turning out Albion’s sluttish daughters while guarding their own with all the primitive paternalism of a dragon guarding his treasure.

Now, set aside your instinctive emotional reactions for a moment and think about which of the two cultures a) truly values its daughters more, and b) is likely to demographically outperform the other. Is it the one that forcibly protects young women from their own behavior or the one that aborts them, deprives them of fathers, and generally abandons them to their momentary impulses? And is there any evidence that the positive aspects of the liberation of Western women, to use the rhetorical phrase, outweigh the negative aspects when viewed from a historical perspective?

As for one common argument to which those who admit the reality of the demographic problem often resort, the idea that the West’s scientific lead will somehow allow it to win any long-term intercultural struggle doesn’t hold water; intelligence agencies wouldn’t be assassinating Iranian scientists if sufficient military science didn’t translate across cultures and the same cultural forces that prevent Western fathers from controlling access to their daughters prevent Western universities from controlling access to their scientific technologies.