They've been around since the Dawn of Man: societies. Wherever two or more human beings are gathered, there it is. It's too easy to think of ancient societies as if they were extremely vulnerable, while at the same time, regarding the current one as indestructible. Perhaps that is because of how humans perceive time. Societies come about and dissipate so slowly in relation to a single human lifetime that perhaps this error is unavoidable. I know it is true for me: I have often remarked to myself how amazing it seems that this society still stands. But this is short-sighted of course. We have but to look at logical consequences of present actions, that, if not changed, will cause a society to collapse and splinter.
Ancient civilizations were vulnerable to collapse from loosening values/morality splintering human connection and trust apart (including but not limited to feminism), warfare, economic collapse, natural disasters, decadence, and so on and so forth. The current world is no different with these vulnerabilities; these risks are always present or at least possible. A few differences I can think of immediately though are the massive amounts of energy sunk into this civilization, the size of it (considering the global reach of it, if not direct and total control of the entire globe, at least not yet), and entrenched powers that keep certain ideas powerful (feminism, consumerism) while keeping certain ideas taboo and despised (masculinity, patriarchy).
These things, which I will call "safety nets for bad ideas" are very good at propping up things like feminism. But how much longer can the beast be propped up? And that is a huge question once all the illusions of this way of life are stripped away and examined.
I think this is one of the great ironies of good societies: it takes a good society to result in a really rotten society. A society of good moral values, trust among people and classes of people, that values work-ethic, creativity, wealth-building, etc. has a lot that can be corrupted after all. And one of the tragedies is that a society going bad must use the resources that it previously built up when it was on the straight and narrow path.
Here's a useful simplification: Good societies are creative, moral, and desire to create all kinds of wealth, from cultural kinds of wealth to literal treasures. Bad societies desire to destroy, take things from those who have created and built these forms of wealth, are distrustful, self-centered, and feel entitled to the fruits of decadence.
Feminism has been about destruction, entitlement, theft, and decadence. As bad societies must do, it takes from what a good society has created and sours it.
So here's a logical - although imprecise - test for how much time a society has left:
How much goodness is left? How are its' values and morals and trust holding up? How much opportunity, ingenuity, and creativity does it have left? How much wealth remains?
Is everything good about the society dead or dying? If so, time is probably running out for it very quickly.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
The Decline and Fall of Marriage, Family, and Home - American Civilization on the Way
It's no news that Marriage and Family Structure are foundations for any civilization, and for decades at least, these things have been in decline in the United States and the Western societies in general. In more recent times, the decline of marriage and the two parent household have sped up. Marriage rates are down, but out-of-wedlock births are increasing. Not only that, but the women having out-of-wedlock babies are increasing in age. In decades past, it was much more often teenage girls who became pregnant outside of marriage. And now, the stigmas are gone, marriage has declined from easy divorce and misandrist laws, and besides those factors, men have been priced out of the marriage market anyway. It's damn hard to find a decent job nowadays, especially for a man.
The culture has been eroded so severely that the stigma of illegitimate births is now absent. We're so fully into the "you go grrrl, so in-duh-pen-dent, I don't need a man" stage of feminism that the culture apparently has nothing left to hold it back. We're in the train heading toward the cliff. And there's no indication anyone is going to save the train.
Consider also another part in the erosion of society: the rise of single occupant households. Along with single-mom households, single person ones are increasing as well. So a large portion of American households are chaotic producers of future thugs, and another large portion are isolation boxes. Great.
But there are still traditional households. Two parent families. A few multi-generational homes.
Fast forward to 2030 for a moment. Those kinds of homes will be all but eliminated then. I'm not being an alarmist. I would write with lots of exclamation points if I was. I see the end game of feminism, misandry, and the destruction of marriage, family, trust, and all those good things which feel so distant.
Society will change for the worse and I am powerless to affect it. So be it.
Some have asked how marriage can be saved. How can society be restored? How can we put right what has been done wrong? And even if one could...
...is there anything worth saving left?
The culture has been eroded so severely that the stigma of illegitimate births is now absent. We're so fully into the "you go grrrl, so in-duh-pen-dent, I don't need a man" stage of feminism that the culture apparently has nothing left to hold it back. We're in the train heading toward the cliff. And there's no indication anyone is going to save the train.
Consider also another part in the erosion of society: the rise of single occupant households. Along with single-mom households, single person ones are increasing as well. So a large portion of American households are chaotic producers of future thugs, and another large portion are isolation boxes. Great.
But there are still traditional households. Two parent families. A few multi-generational homes.
Fast forward to 2030 for a moment. Those kinds of homes will be all but eliminated then. I'm not being an alarmist. I would write with lots of exclamation points if I was. I see the end game of feminism, misandry, and the destruction of marriage, family, trust, and all those good things which feel so distant.
Society will change for the worse and I am powerless to affect it. So be it.
Some have asked how marriage can be saved. How can society be restored? How can we put right what has been done wrong? And even if one could...
...is there anything worth saving left?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
What Does The MRM Need?
In the resistence to feminism, the Men's Right's Movement (MRM) does very poorly when judged by the big picture, away from the "man-o-sphere" of the internet. It lacks any real political and social power, the kinds that feminism had little problem gaining and harnessing and controlling society with. I do not think that the MRM is truly incapable of gaining real power in society, but I do not see the rise of the MRM in the future. (Rather, I see the decline of feminism, and thus a chance for a return to traditionalism of sorts, or at least society being forced to try something other than feminism.)
But what could the MRM make use of that would allow it to gain real social traction?
(I was originally going to write, "what could empower the MRM?" but did not for the bitterness that feminism has forced upon the word.)
Here I will present a few things I think the MRM would need to become influential and powerful:
1. Unification
I think that without unification, the MRM will remain stratified enough that accomplishing anything will be improbable at best. Feminism had essentially one real camp: the unity of the entire gender. Feminism had lots of branches, "theories," and variations, but it was, at heart, a unification of females. Feminism of all stripes was and is a preference for the female always, a deferment to women in all matters, and a favoring of women in all things. Unity was easy for feminism for some reasons. Before too long, there were either feminists or non-feminists. By contrast, I can see a major reason why the MRM is still unsuccessful: there are lots of camps, lots of branches, lots of variations. This itself is not a problem, so did feminism. However, the MRM's camps do not agree like feminism's camps did. The MRM has Men Going Their Own Way, Traditionalists, PUAs, and such, but they are often mutually exclusive: they each desire different things for society. The differences can be vast, not to mention ironic. A post I made recently called much of the MRM feminism for men. Traditionalists want Marriage 1.0, traditional gender roles, etc. PUAs just want to game sluts for as much sex as possible. MGTOWs just do whatever they want. There is no unity. And without unity, the MRM will largely be an internet club for men to vent and discuss.
2. A Hero/Mouthpiece
Feminism had its prominent women. The MRM needs prominent men. The MRM needs a face, or, perhaps, faces. Society needs to see real men working for real justice for real men. Good stories need good heroes. A likely candidate would likely be someone who has a legal background, a career in media, or someone in a high place (or relatively high place) politically. These would be the most helpful, but a man in any of these fields would probably be committing career suicide. So, alternatively, I think a good religious leader would be a good candidate. And because feminist would try to shout down this man from speaking, or even threaten him, it would be good to have multiple Heroes. A support network of MRM heroes. It needs to be shown that the MRM has strength, unity, and real men who are working for the just causes of mens' rights. One man could easily be shouted down, but many would be much more resilient. Any movement needs leaders and heroes, and the MRM is no exception.
3. Facts, Reason, Morality, Justice, Goodness
It's not just playing around, and the lives of men are at stake. Though feminists find facts, logic, morality, and others to be abhorrent, the MRM should rely on such principles. There needs to be goodness at the core of the movement. Merely going for revenge (so to speak) would be a disservice when the lives of real men are constantly being chewed up and destroyed by the feminist machine. Feminists had and have tons of influence on the government, corporations, the media, and religion. The MRM would have to gain influence in those areas. It would need commercials about how feminism hurts men and society, laws that protect men from feminist abuses, corporations which would endorse and support menss' causes, churches that would be courageous enough to stop telling women what they want to hear and preach Biblical gender roles, marriages, and the like. These are merely a few ideas. It would take so much.
But first the MRM has much to come to agreement with.
But what could the MRM make use of that would allow it to gain real social traction?
(I was originally going to write, "what could empower the MRM?" but did not for the bitterness that feminism has forced upon the word.)
Here I will present a few things I think the MRM would need to become influential and powerful:
1. Unification
I think that without unification, the MRM will remain stratified enough that accomplishing anything will be improbable at best. Feminism had essentially one real camp: the unity of the entire gender. Feminism had lots of branches, "theories," and variations, but it was, at heart, a unification of females. Feminism of all stripes was and is a preference for the female always, a deferment to women in all matters, and a favoring of women in all things. Unity was easy for feminism for some reasons. Before too long, there were either feminists or non-feminists. By contrast, I can see a major reason why the MRM is still unsuccessful: there are lots of camps, lots of branches, lots of variations. This itself is not a problem, so did feminism. However, the MRM's camps do not agree like feminism's camps did. The MRM has Men Going Their Own Way, Traditionalists, PUAs, and such, but they are often mutually exclusive: they each desire different things for society. The differences can be vast, not to mention ironic. A post I made recently called much of the MRM feminism for men. Traditionalists want Marriage 1.0, traditional gender roles, etc. PUAs just want to game sluts for as much sex as possible. MGTOWs just do whatever they want. There is no unity. And without unity, the MRM will largely be an internet club for men to vent and discuss.
2. A Hero/Mouthpiece
Feminism had its prominent women. The MRM needs prominent men. The MRM needs a face, or, perhaps, faces. Society needs to see real men working for real justice for real men. Good stories need good heroes. A likely candidate would likely be someone who has a legal background, a career in media, or someone in a high place (or relatively high place) politically. These would be the most helpful, but a man in any of these fields would probably be committing career suicide. So, alternatively, I think a good religious leader would be a good candidate. And because feminist would try to shout down this man from speaking, or even threaten him, it would be good to have multiple Heroes. A support network of MRM heroes. It needs to be shown that the MRM has strength, unity, and real men who are working for the just causes of mens' rights. One man could easily be shouted down, but many would be much more resilient. Any movement needs leaders and heroes, and the MRM is no exception.
3. Facts, Reason, Morality, Justice, Goodness
It's not just playing around, and the lives of men are at stake. Though feminists find facts, logic, morality, and others to be abhorrent, the MRM should rely on such principles. There needs to be goodness at the core of the movement. Merely going for revenge (so to speak) would be a disservice when the lives of real men are constantly being chewed up and destroyed by the feminist machine. Feminists had and have tons of influence on the government, corporations, the media, and religion. The MRM would have to gain influence in those areas. It would need commercials about how feminism hurts men and society, laws that protect men from feminist abuses, corporations which would endorse and support menss' causes, churches that would be courageous enough to stop telling women what they want to hear and preach Biblical gender roles, marriages, and the like. These are merely a few ideas. It would take so much.
But first the MRM has much to come to agreement with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)