Tag Archives: The Long March

Normalization

You’ve probably seen that Salon has put out a pro-pedophile article. You might have seen #cuckservative Charles CW Cooke defending Salon at NRO. (Interesting, that the #cuckservatives are less condemning of leftists mainstreaming pedophiles, than of viral, cultist Trumpkins). Two years makes for a lot of change on this issue at NRO, although, at least Goldberg is not (yet) cucked enough to jump on this particular bandwagon, although he is cucked enough to think “Salon made a mistake running that piece” rather than knowing that this is intentional. It is “not, to [his] mind, commendable” to promote pedophilia, but normalizing pedophilia is not enough to fight a war to break-up conservatism, unlike backing Trump.

Anyway, #cuckservatives and Trump are not the purpose of this post, so I’ll hold off. You may remember I wrote on pedophilia a couple of times about a year ago when the NYT and TIL wrote their normalization articles. As I said there, I’m not unsympathetic to those struggling with pedophilic tendencies, sometimes people just get dealt a shit hand in life and no temptation exists that is not common to man, including this one, which about 20% of men are afflicted with to some degree.

So, am I a hypocrite? What’s the difference between what I wrote and what Salon wrote? Although, Cooke doesn’t get it, Goldberg almost seems to get it, so I’ll explain.

The difference is normalization. As Goldberg said, pedophilia is currently taboo, and for good reason, sex with children is an unnatural and wrong act. Breaking down that taboo, normalization, is dangerous.

Taboos (or their violation) can really only be discussed without blanket condemnation privately with trusted people, through humour, or through disinterested analytical conversation with the occasional caveat of ‘I’m against this, but to play devil’s advocate…’. As an example, racism is the greatest taboo in today’s religiously egalitarian society, and nigger is the ultimate profane word. Hence, racism can only be discussed in polite company if one is lamenting how horrible it is and nigger can only be used in trusted conversation or by comedians (although, even that is often not safe anymore) by anyone other than blacks themselves.

Pedophilia is currently taboo, as homosexuality was only a few decades ago. (Side note: although, the media will ignore or paper over it, the original platform of the gay rights movement included the end of age of consent. The homosexual movement’s acceptance of NAMBLA continued until they were purged in the 80–90’s). You can’t discuss it outside dark humour or academia without expressing disgust.

Any public discussion of pedophilia needs to be unabashedly denounce it as evil. It can be sympathetic, but it can not be accepting, it must condemnatory. If someone is struggling with pedophilia, the proper place to talk about without condemnation is privately with a close friend, priest, psychiatrist, or an anonymous support board on the internet. Any public discussion of the issue should make it clear that talking about this publicly is not allowed. It is taboo.

Just as you currently can make racist jokes with your drunk uncle, but can’t say them to your coworker; you can tell your friend that you struggle with pedophilia, but you can’t tell the public that children make you hard.

What Cooke fails to get is that the Salon article is not reinforcing the taboo, it is destroying it. It is actively giving a clinical pedophile a stage to say “be understanding and supportive… Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster.” But he is a monster. As I wrote, someone who wants to have sex with kids is broken on a fundamental level. Treating pedophilia as a handicap rather than innate evil proclivity, is removing the stigma from it, it is breaking down the taboo.

Once the taboo is gone, acceptable public discourse will move from “he’s not evil, just troubled, be understanding” to “he’s not evil, he was born that way, be accepting” to “he was born that way, don’t judge him for his sexual orientation” to “it’s only natural to act on your sexual orientation” to “pedophobe”. And unlike Goldberg’s assertion this is a mistake, Salon know exactly what it is doing. This is planned.

You can publicly discuss pedophilia and those suffering that temptation sympathetically, even compassionately, without normalizing it, by making sure a public statement is condemnatory of that evil. Non-judgmentalism is for private conversations.

The left is enacting the Gramscian long march with the ultimate goal of destroying the family, which is the strongest bulwark against the state, so that the managerial state can replace it. Salon and all these other sites are either knowingly or unknowingly in on this. They are not making a mistake, they are purposefully enacting their ideology. Legalizing pedophilia will be another blow against the family and for the state, and this is what they want.

If we don’t crush this now, in a few decades, you will be denounced as a pedophobe for objecting to a 40-year-old man fucking your 9-year-old daughter or sodomizing you 6-year-old son. Then the leftists will start in on normalizing the final sexual taboo: rape.

****

Post-Script: Contra Cooke’s proclamation that “the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.”, Todd Nickerson has not shown he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Someone honestly trying to avoid acting on his pedophilic proclivities would not be making “little girl friends” then bragging about it on the internet. Someone honestly trying to help themselves, would be actively avoiding being alone with unrelated little girls.

Post-Christianity and Frankfurt

Mike’s recent post on the Frankfurt School ignited a discussion which I haven’t commented on yet because the idea the Frankfurt School caused modern progressivism seems nigh undeniable; I thought his post was simply a restatement of the basics rather than anything controversial. That being said it also undeniable that progressivism preceded the Frankfurt School. It wasn’t Frankfurters who beheaded King Charles.

The puritan hypothesis seems like a good explanation for the general current of English progressivism that has slowly been leading to liberalism and “enlightenment”, while the Frankfurt School created a particularly virulent strain of the progressive mind virus that increased the viciousness and destructiveness of the ideological meme. I don’t really see how these are in contradiction.

On a similar note, when discussing the general trend of puritan-derived progressivism around here we tend to use the terms ultracalvinism, hyperprotestantism, puritanism, non-theistic Christians, etc. This brings up objections from many Christians who object to the use of these terms as nonsensical verbal games or simply wrong because there is no Christianity without Christ.

I’ve written before. the identification of ‘non-theistic Christians’ is not a verbal game but I have also written before of how the essence of Christianity is Christ, so I can identify with the objections to talking of a Christianity apart from Christ. As I wrote before, the concept of the ‘non-theistic Christian’ is useful as it illustrates the fundamentally religious nature of progressivism as well the mental confusion of self-proclaimed ‘rationalists’ and ‘atheists’ engaging in such religious absolutism.

So instead, of ultracalvinists, hyperprotestants, non-theistic Christians, etc. I propose we start using the terms post-Christians or post-Puritans. This illustrates progressivism’s cladistic lineage while also avoiding the objections that progressivism isn’t Christian in essence.

Teenagers Don’t Exist

Recently the topic of teenagers, and how awful they are, came up in a Twitter conversation I involved myself in. While I’ve mentioned the topic in the past, I thought I’d write a bit more on them here.

Adolescence is a modern invention/perversion. Until about the 1800s or so, a person of about the age 13 was considered an adult. Since about that time, better nutrition has led to puberty occurring earlier (in the 1800s it occurred at about 15-16, it now occurs at about 12-13), but at the same time independence has also decreased. A teenager is a biological adult. (Mentally, a person continues maturing until sometime in their mid-20s).

The problem of rebellious or destructive teenagers is not a fault of the teenagers, but rather a fault of society. A teenager is an adult being treated as a child. A 14-year-old should be learning independence and self-sufficiency by going out into the world on his own (on an apprenticeship, to college, to his own shack on the family farm, etc.) and should be looking for a wife shortly therefore after. Instead, in our modern world teenagers live under the dominion of their parents as a child.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24 ESV)

Of course teenagers rebel, any adult treated as child will rebel against being infantilized. They lash out because they know at some level that their parents having dominion over them is wrong, because an adult still under their parents is against the natural order. It is not teenagers that are the problem, it is the parents and the society.

Now of course, teenagers are not always going to make the best decisions because they are new at being adults and are learning the basics of adulthood, but in our current order, instead of learning about adulthood at age 15 so they are responsible adults by their 20s, people are now making the same failings in their early-20s and sometimes even their late-20s/early-30s, so your average person is not a responsible adult until their 30s.

Despite this, most modern teenagers would probably break is left on their own. This is, again, not the fault of the teenagers, but most children nowadays are so thoroughly over-protected and over-controlled by their parents and infantilized by the school system that they have never been learning the kinds of independence a healthy adult needs.

Children nowadays are being raised to learn a horrible combination of lack of freedom and lack of discipline. A child learning both will be the most self-actualized and most successful. A child with freedom but no discipline will generally pick up some level of discipline through trial and error, and a child of of discipline but no freedom will usually be able to survive although possibly not thrive, but one with neither will drown.

Ideally, we should start training our children to become adults when they should do so, in their mid-teens.

****

This is not going to happen on a society wide scale because infantalized adults are useful for the long march.

Adolescence gives the public school system an extra 4-6 years (8-12 extra if he goes to university) to condition a person to the docility and obedience necessary to get a man to be willing to work in a cubicle or factory for 3-4 decades of his life. It conditions a man to accept schooling and academics as being the primary measures of worth, so that he is willing to feed his mind, time, and money into the progressive college system. It prevents early family formation and helps keep the squeeze on the family so the state can continue to interject itself. It conditions dependence and a slave mentality in a man so he is more likely to see dependence on the state as normal. Adolescence is just another case of how its all related; the long march continues.

Victimization

Two recent controversies have shown a particular pathology of the left. The first is the fight over the Washington Redskins, and how the Redskins have lost their trademark for being disparaging. The second is the strong reaction of the left to Miss Nevada saying women should learn to defend themselves from rape.

First, the Redskins. Look at their logo:

Are those logos in any way disparaging or insulting?

No. The first shows a strong, proud man with a calm, dignified bearing, the second shows a a strong, proud warrior raring for action. Both are rather complimentary to Aboriginals.

I am part Norse, so the Vikings team has a mascot of my heritage.

Is this disparaging? No, because, as with the Redskins logo, he’s a strong, determined man. In fact, although I don’t follow NFL at all, my team(an extremely shallow allegiance) is the Vikings, simply because they are the Vikings, and they celebrate my heritage.

So the question is why do leftists think portraying Aboriginals as strong, proud men and celebrating their strength is disparaging?

****

Next we come to Miss Nevada. She stated a very sane and rational opinion:

But I think more awareness is very important so women can learn how to protect themselves. Myself, as a fourth-degree black belt, I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. And I think that’s something that we should start to really implement for a lot of women.

The feminists freaked out.

Here’s one example that really shows the absurdity of this condemnation: a male feminist condemns a man who teaches women to protect themselves from rape as a misogynist, while at the also praising someone who raped children.

So why do leftists think that teaching women to be strong and to protect themselves is misogynistic?

****

The answer to both of these is the same, the words ‘disparaging’, ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, etc. are not used for their literal definition, they are used merely for their exo-semantic meaning of ‘bad’. They carry the same semantic meaning as a pack of monkeys pointing and hooting.

The words don’t mean much in themselves, but the reason for the pointing and hooting is what’s important.

The left needs women and minorities to remain victims.

If one points the Aboriginal back to his heritage, the proud brave, independent, strong, and free, the impoverished and beaten-down Aboriginal on the reservation may look at his life and ask, “Why are we so broken, so dependent, when our ancestors were so strong, so proud?”

If a young woman learns to protect herself and avoid drunkenness, she won’t have need of the rape hysteria of feminists. If she learns self-responsibility and takes control of her own life, she won’t need feminism and its war against personal responsibility at all.

This is what the leftists fear. They fear Aboriginals might decide to get off the reservation, that women will stop feeling victimized, that blacks will leave the welfare plantation, etc. Leftists need people to feel like victims so they will cry to others, ie. the government, for help.

The leftists strategy is and always has been to expand the state. Victims are dependent on the state, they need the state to protect them, to provide for them. If leftists run out fo victims, they no longer have the cover they need to continue expanding the state.

Leftists hate the Redskins because they need Aboriginals to feel victimized and to not be able to remember the proud warriors and leaders their ancestors were. They hate women protecting themselves, because a confident self-realized woman does not need the state to protect her and provide for her.

Without victims the state is unneeded; without those who make their livings in the victim- and welfare-industrial complexes would not have such cushy jobs.

Leftists need victims to continue their long march.

The Strong Horse

Legionnaire has a post up on acting progressive to subvert the progressive machine. While I think has strategy has merit, I think it is not the correct path.

The first objection is simply the lefter-than-thou complex of the Jacobins. The Jacobins will happily cannabilize their own and their allies the instant they show any sign of impure thoughts.

You may be able to succeed in infiltration for a while, but eventually something you say will be outside the warren’s acceptable limits and you will be ejected. The strategy will simply not work long-term on an individual level.

But, far more important is that it will be counter-productive in the long-term.

****

The Jacobins succeeded by being utopian and nice, then slowly expanding the definition of nice. The original Jacobin revolution ended rapidly after they began the Terrors. The more moderate Gramscian Joacobins succeeded by inches. They positied one small change as “nice”, “fair”, “equal” and this didn’t seem so bad, so people went along with it. (ie: a small pension so the nearly dead don’t spend their last couple years in miserable poverty). Each little “nice” thing added up until we came to our current cruel, inhuman behemoth. (ie: A pension system where rich 65 year-olds play golf on their non-existent, unemployed grandchildren’s dime).

Reaction can not win that way. It is not nice and never will be. Reality in this fallen world is harsh and ugly; those who are putting forth reality will be putting forth something harsh and ugly, not something nice.

Violent restoration is near impossible and even if it succeeded, what we’d end up with in the end would hardly be what the reaction desires. I’m sure the Jacobins neither desired nor foresaw their revolution would end with a Corsican dictator and a Europe-wide war.

So we have to restore gradually, but we can not restore in the same manner the Jacobins ushered in their gradual revolution.

****

If we look at the current state of the Jacobins, we can see they keep their power mainly by control of the cultural institutions and by barely hidden aggression (such as that used on Watson, Richwine, Card, etc.). Neither of these can be defeated through Legionnaire’s form of subversion. It only plays into the Jacobites power.

By acting progressive you are further cementing the Jacobin’s apparent control over the cultural institutions. Know this, the apparent control is far weaker than it seems on the surface. A number of times in univerity after I made some right-wing (but not yet reactionary) point I was told after the fact that the person agreed with me but didn’t want to say anything. Others currently in the system have told me that people in the university system are not as left-wing as it seems, as its mostly a few really loud people and others simply going along to get along. The illusion of the Jacobin’s control is what builds the Jacobin’s control. By acting progressive you are furthering that illusion. By being open, you are shattering that illusion of consensus and control.

We will here go to Asch’s conformity experiments, which demonstrate that most people will conform to the group even when the group is objectively wrong in an easily verifiable way. Think about what kind of conformity can be manufactured for something as amorphous and hard to verify as politics.

But the more interesting part of the experiment was when the subject received a partner. The addition of a single confederate confirming the truth dropped the incidence of conformity by 80%.

If the Jacobins can force the illusion of progressive conformity, this will simply build the conformity, but if one person simply stands, the illusion is shattered.

As for the punishment, it is primarily social and economic. They can not use naked violent force, for that would shatter the “nice” stereotype they’ve built for themselves, so they weild social pressure instead. If reactionaries show an unwillingness to bow to this pressure and willingly accept the consequences they show the weakness of the actual threats (such as in Vox’s McRapey saga).  This cripples the threatening power of the punishment.

I made numerous crimethink in university. My favourite was when I stated, regarding affirmative action, “why should I be punished because my ancestors were better than others’ ancestors?”. One young women’s mouth, literally, fell wide open in speechless shock. Other than some minor attempts at shaming, I never received any punishments for my crimethink. My grades didn’t suffer, my friends remained my friends, my classmates mostly remained friendly. There were no real negative consequences apart from some easily ignorable shaming. If others see this, the threats will be robbed of their nonexistent power.

In addition, if reactionaries stand with those being punished, then suddenly the social and economic consequences aren’t so bad. If, for example, the right goes to see Card’s Ender’s Game in theatres en masse, this will further rob the Jacobin’s threats of their seriousness.

Reactionaries need to stand strong as individuals to destroy the illusion of control the progressivists have.

Reaction is the ideology of reality and of strength. If we look unconfident of our views, we will lose before the battle begins. If we show weakness we are dead. Hiding the reaction, even with the intent of subversion, will fail, because it will paint us as the weak horse.

Reaction need to be the strong horse.

Look to Islam; the West, especially the Jacobins, falls on its knees mouth wide open before the Islamicists, when what the Islamicists desire for our society is far more contrary and repugnant to the Jacobin’s stated beliefs than even the most extreme reactionaries. Yet the Jacobins bite the pillow and present themselves.

Why? Because Islam is strong. The Islamacists do not quaver, they do not worry about social ostracism, they do not worry about their jobs. They simply fight.

What we must realize is that the modern Jacobin is a spineless, emasculated sham of a man, and he knows it. He allows his women to control him, he licks the boot of his strongest enemies, and he worships those who would do him harm. He beats on conservatives because he knows they will play by his rules and fold in the face of his cultural power. Refuse to play by his rules, refuse to fold, and he will kneel. He knows he can do no other when facing his superiors.

The modern Jacobin women longs to submit to a real man. She is so disgusted with the eunuchs around her that she often chooses her career, or to be alone, rather than marry one. Lead and, even if she won’t follow, you will have respect, which is more than she will give the eunuch, even if she does marry (and divorce) him.

If reactionaries want to win, they must become strong, like the Islamicists, so the men kneel and the women respect.

The Real Meaning of Zimmerman

There is a subtext to the Zimmerman controversy that I have yet to see fully explored, but is probably the most important aspect of the trial.

Steve Roney (h/t: SDA) almost touches upon it, but it gets lost in his larger argument that Zimmerman was a working-class man acting uppity:

Of course, this is more or less what the police would do; and it is obviously not a hanging offence when they do it. The problem is that Zimmerman, though in fact legally entitled to do this, was not formally qualified. He was acting above his station, in the minds of the professional elite, including “professional” journalists.

One can see how this would ring all kinds of bells, if subconsciously, in the typical newsroom. What professional group is more threatened by citizen volunteerism these days than the media? Zimmerman and those like him are to them an existential threat. It was in their vital interests to take him down by whatever means necessary.

While Rebel University touches upon the fringes of the issue:

By suing the HOA and winning this settlement, Martin’s parents have helped ensure that the crime rates go up in their own community, since other HOAs will learn from this and determine that having a neighborhood watch is an unaffordable risk. Having a neighborhood watch guarantees that there will be confrontation between the watchers and the “suspicious people”.  That creates the possibility that the watchers will be attacked by the “suspicious people” and that creates the possibility that some of the watchers will defend themselves with lethal force.  It is unavoidable.  The HOA lawyers will determine that having any sort of neighborhood watch is unaffordable.

If you’ve been following the Zimmerman trial even slightly, you’ve probably seen the accusation that he was acting like a ‘wannabe rent-a-cop’ or something similar a number of times, due to his involvement in his local neighbourhood watch. As The Crimson Reach stated, the entire premise of the moral outrage against Zimmerman was due to the fact that “Zimmerman found Martin suspicious, followed him in his car, called it in, got out of his car.”

This is what the left finds offensive. This is what the Cathedral finds offensive. This kind of behaviour is what the Cathedral is trying to eliminate through Zimmerman’s show trial.

They do not want you to get out of the car.

Zimmerman did.

****

If we look at the history of Zimmerman, he was a model citizen with a minor black mark or two from his youth:

At the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice. In one of his interviews with police he stated his goal was to become a judge.

In early 2011, Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty “disgusting” and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments.
…
From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times. During the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times. On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men’s race without first being asked by the dispatcher. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin’s death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.

In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program’s coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.

Zimmerman was a normal person who cared about his community and acted to protect it. He voluntarily took on the mantle to watch his neighbourhood for suspicious activity and to stand up against police corruption.

George Zimmerman worked to build organic community. Any normal person would be thrilled to have a neighbour like Zimmerman keeping an eye out on things.

That is why he was made an example of.

****

In this particular case, he saw this suspicious-looking individual in his neighbourhood after a period of break-ins and other crimes. Like a concerned citizen who cared about his community, he reported the incident to police, then followed to keep a look out on the suspicious individual.

That was his crime. He cared about his community enough to try to keep it safe. He got out of the car.

And that is the whole point of this fiasco. It is the whole reason they rage against “stand your ground”. It’s the whole reason they fight gun freedom.

The Cathedral does not want you to get out of the car. The Cathedral does not want you to protect yourself or your community. The Cathedral does not want you to be able to trust your neighbours.

If you see Kitty Genovese, the Cathedral wants you to walk past. If you see a crime being committed against someone else, the Cathedral wants you to ignore it. If you see a suspicious person in your neighbourhood, the Cathedral wants you to ignore him.

Why?

So your neigbourhood loses social capital. So you can not trust your neighbours to watch out for you and your home. So you are forced to rely on the police and the state for safety rather than your neighbours.

They want you to destroy your trust in your neighbours and your local community so you become dependent on the state for security.

The Cathedral can not simply outlaw organic community-building and looking-out for your neighbours because that would enrage too many and would show their hand, which depends, in a large way, on being subtle. But someone died in this case in a possibly questionable manner, so the Cathedral had an opportunity to make an example. Zimmerman was the example.

Zimmerman was persecuted by the state for the purpose of making you think twice about helping your neighbour.

If I see someone suspicious in my neighbourhood and think of keeping an eye out on him? I remember Zimmerman: maybe I shouldn’t, it could escalate and I could become the next 2-minute hate target.

I hear what might be a cry for distress? Not my problem, it’s probably nothing and even if I intervene I could become the next Zimmerman.

I see someone rooting around in my neighbour’s backyard? If I intervene I could be the next Zimmerman.

Then, once everyone’s to afraid to intervene, out come the Kitty Genovese stories. I cried for help, why did nobody came to my aid? Someone robbed my house in broad daylight, why did no one intervene? A dozen people saw me being mugged, why did no one help me? Crime and drugs are rampant in my neighbourhood, why is nothing being done? This is the tenth time my garage has been tagged and my garbage overturned, why are my neighbours doing this to me?

The inevitable conclusion, I can’t trust my neighbours. I’m not safe in my neighbourhood.

Whatever the useful idiots might parrot, that is the whole purpose of this farce.

They want you to question yourself when you hear someone in trouble. Eventually, when enough people question themselves and do not intervene because they do not want to go risk a year-long trial, death threats, and public opprobrium, community trust collapses, because nobody is intervening to keep neighbourhoods safe.

Eventually, organic community dies, and the police and the state can step in.

The long march progresses.

“You can’t trust your neighbours, but you can trust us. We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

MGTOW, MRA, and the Long March

I’ve written on the long march before and how the progressivists goal is to have us dependent on the state, how the alt-right, manosphere, and their issues are all related and at war with progressive unreality, and how we can fight the progressivists, or at least protect a remnant to rebuild when state-backed unreality is no longer sustainable.

The goal of the long march is to get us dependent on the state. The most effective way to do this is by destroying the community ties that bind us and create civil society. These voluntary, local ties to the individuals around us allow us to live free and independent from the state.

The strongest of these social ties are marriage and the nuclear family, so these are the ones attacked the most by the anti-civilization forces.

One tool in destroying the family is destroying male-female relationships, so that they never join together to become families in the first place. So, you end up with men writing things like this. Through feminism making modern marriage inhospitable to modern man, man stops caring about and for women and preemptively removes himself from the family.

But feminism is not the end goal of the state-worshippers, it is but one step in the process. The next step is the adoption of Men’s Rights and/or MGTOW. As No Ma’am outlines:

So, what’s next? What were the original goals of this Cultural Marxist plan? Well, in regard to the ladies, it was to achieve “true equality” by putting women back into the public work force, thereby destroying the entire concept of the family. In order to do this, women must be relieved of their biology as mothers, which is why V.I. Lenin instituted such things as no-fault divorce, easy abortion, community kitchens, sewing centers, housekeeping services, and state-run daycares. The goal of this, however, was not to “empower” women. That’s just what was said. Quite frankly, if you want to argue that Lenin was altruistically helping women be all they could be, you would be sorely mistaken. The goal was to take children away from their parents and bring them under the control of the state, instead of parents. Families, say Marx, Engels, Lenin and Feminists, are the founding cornerstone of Capitalism, and therefore all discrimination and oppression ultimately stems from the family.

But, no matter how much women hate men today, and no matter how much money they make shuffling papers around mindlessly in their cubicles, do you think that women would ever willingly give up their own children?

I think not!

The way to remove children from their mothers, via Marxist techniques, would be to abandon the cause of women and take up the cause of men. It can easily be pointed out now that it is men who are not treated equally, and dialectically speaking, it is quite easy to see how disenfranchised fathers could be manipulated into thinking shared-parenting (or, marriage 3.0) is in everyone’s best interests, and thereby empower the government to take custody of children away from mothers and place them in the custody of the State –  who will then decide a baby-sitting schedule for the sperm and egg donors. It is also not a stretch for oversight committees to be erected to ensure the “ongoing best interests of the child.” Heck, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s thesis compared children in the family to the corruption Indians experienced on the reserve. That wingnut Marxist believes that the government should create a new bureaucracy to represent children separately from their parents. In other words, each child ought to have a legal-aid lawyer representing them, so that their parents don’t abuse their power over them.
…
The idea of government taking custody of children today, however, is much greater than in the past. As the Bull Market in Anti-Feminism develops, more and more fathers are going to demand the government grants shared-parenting, which is quite obviously the foundation for government taking custody of children. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to see courts appointing government representatives – an unelected bureaucracy – instead of parents, who will decide what is “in the best interests of the child?”

Just because a backlash is developing against feminism does not mean it is a good thing, nor that it can only benefit men and society. Many of the things the MRM are requesting is in line with feminism – DV shelters for men is one example, and would only serve to increase government power in the home, not decrease it.

I can’t bear the thought of men being manipulated into becoming Useful Idiots who further feminist and Marxist goals.

Can you?

We have no great love for MRA’s here. While we do agree with some of their goals, fighting progressivism with greater progressivism (excepting in the case of well-executed black-knighting) is a fruitless endeavour. It will simply further drive another nail into the coffin of Western civilization.

MRA’s are not the solution, they are a distraction.

As well, going your own way is not the solution. With MGTOW, the family is even further destroyed. By removing himself from society, the MGTOW only further helps lessen the importance of family.

Same with PUA’s who are only the other side of the self-destructive hook-up culture.

As a man, you are meant for more than burning yourself out on the hedonic treadmill to feed the tyranny of the state.

****

Now, I am not encouraging you to ‘man up and marry that slut’. In fact, do not marry a slut or a women with baby rabies; a destructive marriage ending in divorce is worse for society than no marriage at all.

Find a good wife if you can.

In fact, I’m not telling you not to be a PUA, an MRA, or a MGTOW. You are free man, do what you want. Besides, there are probably not enough good wives out there for every man, so many will have to find an alternative.

All I want, is for you to think about it. To know that by fighting progressivism with more progressivism or by simply stopping caring, you are not helping the problem and are probably hurting yourself in the long run.

If you decide trying to fight the system is too much of a pain and want to be a MGTOW, I won’t condemn you, in fact I sympathize. If you decide that fucking sluts is too much fun, that is your perogative, but will you think the same a decade from now when every pussy feels the same and the mechanical sex is little better than emotionlessly masturbating into a very realistic sex doll?

Make an informed choice that is all.

Then again, maybe the system is doomed, and the PUA’s, MRA’s and MGTOW’s are simply hastening its inevitable collapse and hopeful rebirth. In which case, maybe they are doing civilization a service.

It’s all Related

The Captain has a post up where he argues economics and the manosphere are one and the same.

I agree, but would go further.

All the fights we in the manosphere/alt-right/traditionalist blogosphere pick are the same fight. Free-market economics, anti-feminism, traditional marriage, game, human bio-diversity, opposition to public schooling, gun freedoms, IQ, the paleo diet, anti-environmentalism, anti-internationalism, anti-egalitarianism, etc. are all facets of the same thing: the fight against government-backed unreality.

****

The fundamental truth underlying human existence is evolutionary biology/psychology and/or man’s fallen nature, which are essentially the same for all practical purposes. Humans were evolved or created to have a genetic structure which expresses itself in certain drives, abilities, and proclivities which we refer to as human nature and these will express themselves differently in people of varied genetic structure. Human nature can be, to some limited extent, controlled and directed by society and environment.

Up until sometime in the 18th century, this view of human nature (with some variation and minus the genetics) was well-accepted. This began to change when Rousseau argued that human nature was heavily malleable and Marx argued that human nature did not exist. The rejection of human nature became increasingly accepted in certain circles, until the 1960’s and 1970’s, when the long march through culture triumphed. Progressive ideology was wholly taken over by those denying the existence human nature and over the next few decades this progressivism became the dominant ideology of the West.

Under this ideology, human nature does not exist, rather man’s nature is determined primarily or solely by the social environment. Man could be perfected through better social institutions, particularly the state. So, the progressivists began to expand the state to

Meanwhile, traditional social institutions, such as the church, family, the nation, etc. were seen to be hindering the perfection of man. They either needed to be co-opted (as the mainline liberal churches were) or destroyed (as the traditional has been).

The elites with political and financial power, realized the power they could gain by expanding the state and jumped on the progressivist band-wagon whole hog. Other groups, such as environmentalists, whose ideology depended on state control, joined the progressivist band-wagon.

The left, which traditionally had been hostile to the state, became the vehicle of the state. Various interests, many diametrically opposed, rallied around the cause of the state to expand thier interests and power. It is now to the point where the original goals are barely more than smoke-screens to justify furthered expansion of the state.

Meanwhile, conservatives, who work to preserve current reality, are generally busy fighting to defend the progressivism that has already been put in place. They are softer progressivists unable and unwilling to fight the underlying progressivism of society.

****

That leaves the manosphere, the alt-right, and other such fringe movements to fight against progressivism on their own, and everything they fight comes from the belief in either the denial of human nature and the desire to perfect humanity or the expansion of the state.

Feminism is predicated on the belief they are no real psychological differences between the sexes that could lead to different outcomes.

Game is the application of insights from evolutionary psychology to sexual, to counteract advice stemming from the denial of psychological differences between the sexes.

The destruction of traditional marriage and family comes from the desire for perfectibility.

The public education system is the most direct attempt to remake man in man’s image, the glorification of the state through learned helplessness, and the agitprop to sustain the beliefs in the perfectibility of man.

The denial of HBD and IQ and egalitarianism is necessary to believe in the perfectibility of man and the denial of human nature.

Modern environmentalism (as opposed to traditional conservationism) is a justification for the expansion of the state and the international bureaucracy.

Internationalism is the expansion of the state through the creation of new super-states.

Keynesian economics is an ideological tool to justify the expansion of the state.

It is all the same.

****

Of course, as science develop, it becomes increasingly clear that the existence of an intrinsic human nature is very much a reality.The shibboleths of egalitarianism, feminism, and the like become increasingly unsupportable.

As economic evidence piles up from the former Soviet Union, from Germany, from Korea, from Estonia, from Europe, from the US, from Canada, etc. it becomes increasingly clear that statism is bad for society. Thus support for communism become support for socialism, socialism become progressivism, progressivism become keynesianism. Each ideological change cedes more intellectual capital to the free market, but the centrality of the worship of the state remains.

As the schools continue to fail, the perfectibility of man becomes increasingly far away. As the traditional family fails and the problems of divorce and single-parenthood become clear, the function of traditional institutions become increasingly transparent.

The state has propped the ailing progressivist structure up, but as the state goes increasingly bankrupt, there will be no fallback.

The structure of lies is failing and the manosphere, alt-right, etc. are there to prevent, ameliorate, or simply explain the collapse. At the very least, we help others who wish to see, see and benefit for themselves.

****

Why is the manosphere involved?

Because, the single most dangerous organism the world has produced is the single young adult male. The best way to control society is to control and destroy the male. If not restrained, males could overthrow the balance of society and destroy the edifice of lies that has been erected.

Of course, this restraining has negative impacts on males. As well, to the consternation of females, leftists, and conservatives, men respond to the incentives of such a structure in a logical way.

The manosphere is involved because males are the major target of the progressivist campaign. They are also the major losers in this campaign.

****

The problem is, too many, in the manosphere and in allied blogospheres, only focus on a single factor facing us. The red pill is not a single factor, picking and choosing too focus on a single factor, while ignoring the others misses the larger picture.

Game is only a stop-gap and MGTOWs have abandoned the fight entirely, we need more. Focusing only on economics,as many libertarians are apt, misses the underlying culture that allow a free market to function. Conservatism that buys into feminism only works to undermine what conservatives supposedly stand for. Big government conservatives who focus on culture, but ignore the free market, only undermine the culture; you can have society or the state, not both. Those who ignore the public education system or simply avoid children, hand the future to the progressivists.

We need to swallow the red pill whole if we are to win, not just a few parts of it.

47%: The Liberal Goal

Recently, all the big political news has been about Romney’s 47% comments.

It has already been noted that this is true, the vast majority of federal income taxes are paid by the rich, while almost half pay noting. Even liberal “fact-checkers” don’t disagree.

Some liberals quibble that the poor pay comparatively more in payroll taxes, but this is a fallacious comparison, as payroll taxes are specifically designated to social security, unemployment insurance, and medicare. These are not general taxes (or at least shouldn’t be), they are taxed premiums dedicated to providing  insurance and retirement guarantees and should be treated as such. Comparing payroll taxes to general taxation is idiotic.

****

Everybody reading this already knows that a society where more than half the people do not contribute to general taxation and a significant population receive more in government benefits than are contributing can not sustain itself for long. Eventually the ability to pay for bread and circuses collapses.

The US is on it’s way there. 1/16 people are on disability, 1/7 on food stamps, and almost alf of people receive some sort of government benefits. Half of young workers are either unemployed or underemployed. In addition, the government controls about 2/5 of the economy and 1/5 of the employed work for the the government. Almost half of people don’t pay income taxes.  And government  is growing.

That’s not what I want to talk about today. If you can’t figure out why this is unhealthy for society, I’m not quite sure what I could say to convince you.

****

It has also been noted that getting people dependent on government is the liberal strategy and has been the liberal strategy since FDR.

So why are liberals so angry over Romney’s quote, when it’s been their strategy for decades?

For exactly that reason; they do not want people to understand their strategy. Liberalism is the ideology of the state; that is all the various interests that make up liberalism have in common. For a core of elite individuals, the expansion of the state is their reason d’etre. Their purpose is the Gramscian “slow march through culture” to destroy traditional “oppressive” institutions and replace it with the state.

But pointing that the expansion of the state is the goal, harms their ability to expand the state. They can’t come right out and say their purpose in the anglosphere. Englishmen are culturally suspicious of and hostile towards the state and inclined towards classical liberalism or liberal conservatism, with American Englishmen being the most hostile.

Even most liberals do not agree with the end goal of the Gramscian march. They are mostly decent people (ie: the “useful idiots“) who want to help the poor (or some other cause) but are either too lazy, too soft-hearteded, and/or too misinformed to realize the final outcomes of the policies they propose.

So, the left-liberals  can not come out and say their true goals, which is the expansion of the state. So, they cloak their desire to expand the state behind other justifications: keynesian economics, feminism, anti-poverty, anti-racism, the environment, equality, etc.

No matter what justification they use or what problem they say they want to solve, though, the answer is always the same: expand the state.

And the the useful idiots all line up in support.

****

The Gramscian strategy works well. Each time the government expands, it is almost impossible to destroy that expansion in the future, so you only have to take it a bit at a time. A temporary expansion here and a minor intrusion there and eventually the government controls half the economy. As the government takes over more control of life, opportunities to live life outside government decrease. Individuals become increasingly dependent on government at levels they themselves don’t even realize. Eventually, the government becomes the only thing holding society together, however poorly.

The government begins to replace parents, it replaces family, it replaces local charity, it replaces local churches, it replaces local community. Eventually,  it replaces the entirety of civil society.

If you want to see the end state of the Gramscian march, simply look at the black community in the US. Their families are destroyed, most of their children grow up without a father, a large proportion of their males end up criminals, dependence on the state is high, and their civil society is destroyed. The black community has been destroyed by the welfare society government has put onto it.

And guess what, blacks vote almost entirely Democrat, the party that fought for their enslavement and for Jim Crow, just so the state benefits that are destroying them keep flowing.

****

The left- liberal ideologues are intent on forcing the government on you, so that you become dependent on it, so you will support government’s further intrusion into and control of your life. That is and has been their strategy for decades.

They want you dependent.

Romney simply pointed out the results of the strategy. This is why they are attacking him so violently, because once you know that government dependency is, you might ask why it is.
If you ask why it is, you might understand their strategy. Once you understand their strategy, you might resist it.

So, the question is, do you want to be dependent on government as they manipulate you?