Wednesday, August 31, 2016

The test of societal fitness

The West has failed its evolutionary fitness test, to put it mildly:
The late nineteenth century, Victorianism, demonstrated that emancipated women without the welfare state means a whole lot of women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain to a fatherless child.

Victorianism was an effort to control this problem by dialing up censorious sexual moralizing to eleven, while simultaneously denying fathers the power to control their daughters and husbands the power to control their wives. Dialing up the sexual moralizing failed, and failed spectacularly. Recall Florence Nightingale’s wealthy gentleman friends, and Queen Caroline attending a ball naked from the waist up, and going back to her hotel with a man she picked up at the ball. Both of them needed a good whipping. No amount of pious moralizing will substitute for a father or a husband equipped with a stick no thicker than a woman’s thumb. Victorianism failed, and failed hilariously badly.

If you give women freedom of choice, a great many women make such terrible choices that men have little alternative but to pay for women’s choices. If you emancipate women to make their own decisions, you have to pay for their decisions, have to have a welfare state, because their decisions are frequently so bad. This profoundly impairs the freedom of men, that they have to pay for bad choices that they have no power over and receive no benefit from. Some thug knocks up some idiot, and the man with a job has to support another man’s child and a woman who is not giving him sex and domestic service.

This is pretty much what “Les Misérables” was about. “Les Misérables” argues that we need a welfare state to take care of criminal men and immoral women. And indeed that is true, if you reject the obvious alternative of coercively, involuntarily, and forcibly subordinating criminal men and immoral women to good men, of enslaving bad men and shotgun marrying independent fertile age women.

Since we don’t want to pay for eighteen thuglets, and we don’t want women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain, we have to keep women under male authority that supervises and restrains their sexual choices.

The eighteenth century system of guardianship was in large part a system for coercively marrying off young women who would have otherwise become independent women of property. They were generally married off to their guardian, or their guardian’s son. Guardian/ward marriages were the normal outcome of guardianship, and though theoretically consensual were usually clearly involuntary or the result of rather forceful manipulation. When the ward was taken into the guardian’s family at a very early age she was usually married off to a family closely related to their guardian’s family as soon as they came of age, to avoid psychological incest. Psychologically incestuous marriages between guardian and ward, in effect adopting a child with the intent of marriage at puberty, were not illegal but were subject to social disapproval, immoral but legal. Though legal, seem to have been extremely rare. If it was necessary to raise a female ward from an early age, she was raised in a household separate from her intended husband and transferred to her intended husband’s household at puberty.
At the present, the West is facing the choice between the brothel and the burqah. It is also heading straight for collapse if men do not end this failed experiment in female emancipation. At some point, reason has to be silent in the face of literal decades of consistent failure.

And if women are not amenable to reason, then that is simply additional justification for men taking the steps that need to be taken if the West is to survive. This is not a theoretical matter or a discussion of abstract principles, it is an existential struggle.

32 comments:

Matt said...

I feel sorry for men who try to reason with the women in their lives. They don't realize that even of they do change the woman's mind, it was only because he struck am emotional chord. No woman should ever be in a position of power.

dc.sunsets said...

A society will always fall to its least common denominator. The more heterogeneous a successful society becomes, the faster it will slide toward the rotten apple level. This is a fairly obvious condition, because society is nothing more than a statistical abstract of the sum of its members.

Our women-run and minority-run polity exists entirely because majority-men indulge it. Without majority-men (in the USA, white men), women rulers and minority rulers would find themselves without agents to enforce their petty diktats. Women cannot force anything, anywhere, and minorities lack the numbers (and intelligence, albeit not the savagery.)

American society as we knew it is doomed. An updated version will sprout from the seed of families who understand from where prosperity arises and raise their kids to cast off Village Idiot fantasies like Blank Slate, Misandrist-Feminism and the folly that fuels it, fiat money.

dc.sunsets said...

@ Matt, in rare circumstances a woman can be both feminine and lacking in prototypical female behaviors. I don't know for sure how to tell if a young woman is predisposed to this; a few possible clues may be:
1. She has few (or no "real") girlfriends.
2. She's never in the middle of girl-drama.
3. She never induces white-knighting urges.
4. She clearly prefers the company of men-as-friends.
5. She sticks with one romantic interest and doesn't flirt with other men.
6. (guessing on this one) She desires a traditional life: Lifetime husband, kids, house, white picket fence, dog, etc., and structures her life to that goal.

It helps if she was an ugly duckling (or geographically isolated from the social milieu, e.g. with a chronic illness) during her post-adolescent years (13-17), thus avoiding the mind-warping influence of being orbited by a retinue of young men.

A girl like this is "available" for a very brief time before someone locks her down for the long term. She is the unusual: a woman with the capacity to reason, and (generally) zero interest in running (or ruining) other's lives.

Yes, this exists. I've met one (proven over decades) and am sincerely hopeful my sons found three more. The proof will only come in decades. Most people are of the Masses. Non-Mass-Men should try to find a Non-Mass-Woman. Assortive mating is the only way to go.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Yes, we're certainly going to have to make some tough, unpopular choices coming up.

My expectation that White American men will make these choices is actually pretty low. Hope I'm wrong.

I'm predicting civil war over these and other issues.

john smith said...

The West is in the beginning death throes of its 1,000 year life cycle. Historical forces are at work and they are, unfortunately, irreversible. Read Spengler. Western society and culture cannot be saved. Therefore, the only sane course is to save yourself. Hence, MGTOW. It is really all rather simple. Cheers.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

MGTOW is not an option. How would I face my comrades, and my ancestors, knowing that I did nothing?

M. Bibliophile said...

dc, they do indeed exist exactly as you described. I know because I met one in my and her early twenties and asked her to marry me six weeks later. 15 years on, she is still the most level headed, practical, and honestly religious (read: Godly) woman I know, who keeps her hair covered and insists that I am head of household despite how much it obviously irks her from time to time (a corollary to these, or at least to my woman, is a very independent frame of mind. Not rebellious, else life would be very different). In her case, the key to her lack of undoing was a very Midwestern-German mother and homeschooling throughout her teen years.

TL;DR: you're exactly right pretty much across the board. Find a girl who was raised religiously and kept largely isolated from our rotten culture and that's your best bet.

M. Bibliophile said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
liberranter said...

At the present, the West is facing the choice between the brothel and the burqah.

At least that's the choice that modern western women should be confronted with: be turned into common property/everyman's cum dumpster (which, contrary to what they read in their trashy romance novels, will be ANYTHING but a titillating and sensual experience), or become the chattel property of one man who is her absolute master, a virtual prisoner in his household.

Unless, of course, they're amenable to a third option: the restoration of benevolent patriarchy.

Unless they choose option three, then it's one of the other two, at which point the average rebellious bitch might as well just slash her carotid artery and be done with it. It just might reach the point where the western female herd will have to be heavily culled. Feral animals can rarely ever be domesticated.

It is also heading straight for collapse if men do not end this failed experiment in female emancipation. At some point, reason has to be silent in the face of literal decades of consistent failure.

liberranter said...

[Western Civilization] is also heading straight for collapse if men do not end this failed experiment in female emancipation. At some point, reason has to be silent in the face of literal decades of consistent failure.

Posted too soon on my last...

I think you really meant to say that reason HAS BEEN silent in the face of literal decades of consistent failure. What is recommended in the OP is reason. What has been practiced for the last several decades is foolish, destructive madness.

Dalrock said...

No amount of pious moralizing will substitute for a father or a husband equipped with a stick no thicker than a woman’s thumb.

This is dumb. We don't need to beat our wives. We need to stop creating legal and moral incentives for women to eject the father of their children from the home. We need to stop paying a cash bounty for wives to destroy their families, and we need the church to stop tearing down husbands and fathers while cheer-leading single mothers and wives who divorce. Moreover, the whole "rule of thumb" claim is feminist propaganda.

Timmy3 said...

Is society so dire that we must force girls to marry upon puberty? This is not a realistic choice. Birthrates are way down. Single motherhood is way down. Even the birthrates of the non-white populations are declining. The West might just survive, but not as we expect. The collapse that is often attributed to mature societies is one of economic in how do we care for our senior citizens that often do not have enough offspring to care for them. This is a separate issue that will not determine whether the West will survive.

John said...

Dalrock,

And what happens when your wife/daughter goes whoring?

Removing bad social incentives (how would this be achieved without suppressing womens' vote...by force?) doesn't fix the biological incentive of hypergamy.

Xoph said...

In any catastrophe, there is a myth of root cause. The reality is root causes, plural. We are a rich society that has been successfully kicking the can down the road so we don't have to pay for our foolish choices. As Vox has said, Western Civilization is based on 3 pillars. All 3 have been under attack.

The aging population is a result of feminism rejecting the family.

I've been married to the same woman for 28 years and have 1 daughter, so my sample set is somewhat limited, but from time to time I have to damp the emotion down. The two together are exponential on the emotional scale, not linear. I know my choices in voting influence my wife, and left to her own she would completely support the feminist agenda because it feels right.

Women, I think, used to understand they were the mothers of civilization and understood why a "benevolent patriarchy" was necessary. Logic over emotion used to be taught as what separates us from the animals. But instead of reason, we now glorify feelings. This is the essence of the feminine (not feminism, which is the essence of hating masculinity) You still see a few mothers dragging their boys to sports to learn masculine behavior, but they are few and far between. To be fair, most sports today are feminized as well.

In any event, women used to want manly men, but too many young girls are taught relationship rubbish. To be truthful though, so are most young men today. There were obligations on both sides of the isle that have been erased. Today, very few youngsters know how to treat one another.

As long as we glorify selfishness, living only for ourselves and our emotions, we will be nothing more than short sighted animals. Raise a pet, any animal can rut and have babies. Western Civilization was about understanding how humans are different from animals and making sure those lessons of rational planning and consequences were passed down.

VFM #7634 said...

The West is in the beginning death throes of its 1,000 year life cycle. Historical forces are at work and they are, unfortunately, irreversible. Read Spengler. Western society and culture cannot be saved. Therefore, the only sane course is to save yourself. Hence, MGTOW. It is really all rather simple. Cheers.

@john smith
Yeah, okay, if you're an incorrigible Gamma, go right ahead and MGTOW. Bye.

Jed Mask said...

"And if women are not amenable to reason, then that is simply additional justification for men taking the steps that need to be taken if the West is to survive."

Okay. So... how are men supposed to shift this rift of societal collapse in Western Civilization?

The problems defined but... the solution is quite "unclear"?

Individually, I suppose men can live in accordance to the Word of God (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV]) as they should always be expecting to be able to endure and manage the societal pushback and persecution they'll receive.

Now on the "collective scale" men have to organize themselves in their homes or places they normally congregate as the "modern Church" won't really let a "masculine Church body of men develop openly in the midst" as it is in most locations.

God-willing, I'll be thinking on this some more as I make the time and receive revelation from the Lord.

Hoping to here your possible "solutions" Mr. Vox sometime.

~ Sincerely,

Bro. Jed

Athor Pel said...

If I am to be responsible for a child or wife then I also must have the authority that goes with that responsibility. No authority then no responsibility. Imputed responsibility but without authority is slavery

It is this reason many men are avoiding modern marriage like the plague that it is. If you try to get those reluctant men to marry it's like trying to sell cars where no gasoline can be purchased and making your own is illegal.

malcolmthecynic said...

This is pretty much what “Les Misérables” was about. “Les Misérables” argues that we need a welfare state to take care of criminal men and immoral women.

I don't see how. In "Les Miserables" Valjean is first yelled at by Fantine because he doesn't intervene when she is fired from her from her job after being falsely accused of making advances at the foreman. Later, in penance, he raises the child himself. After being saved from prison by a kindly bishop, he repents and lives a life of good works and penance.

Obviously Hugo takes time to criticize the government for keeping people in poverty, but Valjean's entire penance is to become a personal father figure to a young girl. Not sure where the welfare thing comes into it.

dc.sunsets said...

I'm just a man. I cannot save Western Civ. All I can do (is what I've done) is marry a nice girl, have several kids, raise them well, see them mature to adults, encourage them to find nice girls, rinse and repeat (with emphasis on them raising my granddaughters and grandsons well, and so on.) Parenting is a skill that can be taught, or (in time of need) determined by logic.

The world will go as it goes. Withdrawing from it (MGTOW) is a dead end. Every man who chose that path in the past had his line die with him. Only those who did the hard work anyway had any chance of seeing their descendants make it to our time. We do the right thing. It increases our odds of leaving the only mark that matters, a growing familial lineage. It also tends to be the Path of Happiness, at least in my experience.

camillacameo said...

Even with a woman who is as dc.sunsets described, what Matt said about her only changing her mind if a chord is struck with her emotions is still largely true. I may be convinced of something intellectually, but I cannot get myself to really believe it, much less act on it, until I bring my emotions into line with it. This can be done with enough control over oneself, but still, that's just how a woman's mind works. That actually helps understanding in the area of raising young children, but it's one reason why we shouldn't make decisions affecting all society. I'd give up my vote in a heartbeat if it meant no female suffrage.

crossphased said...

I think what is lost and shouted down in these discussions is the fact that mgtow is a necessary stage of development of a man. You absolutely have to be willing to go your own way for a woman to even be interested in you at all. I'm not talking about the bitter, pick up your toys and go home mgtow. However, mgtow is a stage of development every man has to go through in order to not need a woman. I suspect that for natural alphas this occurred young enough that they don't remember the transition, and they are really blessed. For the rest of us, by all means, go your own way; it's quintessential masculinity. Just don't take the poison pill of bitterness and despair; instead, develop yourself; work on being there best you can be in every area of your life.

Aeoli Pera said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aeoli Pera said...

That's an excellent take on Les Miserables. I'd thought it was simply incoherent, now I know it's evil like Don Quixote.

Aeoli Pera said...

Speaking of, thanks to John C Wright for writing Swan Knight's Son. It's 10 times shorter than Don Quixote and 100 times better.

Aeoli Pera said...

Les Miserables: 1200 pages of cuckservation.

Durandel Almiras said...

A democratic system can't solve this. Democracy can only be enacted among a moral and principled people. The West has not been selecting for such a populace for 60+ years.

We will need an nationalist aristocracy again, to set the example for the lower classes, and enforce policies that create a eucivic and eugenic selecting society.

Kona Commuter said...

Years ago I was a Claytons supervisor. All the responsibility but no authority. I learned a valuable lesson - never accept responsibility without authority. If I can't fire / punish (last resort) someone for not doing the right thing I'm not accepting responsibility

Dexter said...

It is flatly wrong that Victorianism denied fathers the power to control their daughters and husbands the power to control their wives. Also wrong that dialing up the sexual moralizing failed, and failed spectacularly.

Victorianism did not fail - it was a highly successful social system - but the UK abandoned it anyway.

Jed Mask said...

@Arthur Pel

"If I am to be responsible for a child or wife then I also must have the authority that goes with that responsibility. No authority then no responsibility. Imputed responsibility but without authority is slavery

It is this reason many men are avoiding modern marriage like the plague that it is. If you try to get those reluctant men to marry it's like trying to sell cars where no gasoline can be purchased and making your own is illegal.

^THIS. Exactly. Society as deceitful and self-serving as it is already instinctively knows this. From child, to woman to man.

All this "irresponsibility" of society's degradation is being "pushed on" men who know the wicked, evil self-serving demands of a fallen society so arrogant as to put men "under the bus" and expect them to "carry on" like there's no trouble and they don't give the men the RESPECT and HONOUR of the AUTHORITY they must have to actually carry the "responsibility".

lol It's like asking an "alpha male" walking into a group of fearful, directionless people to "lead them" when they don't know him, nor respect him or give him the "authority" to lead backed up by their support. He's just a slave "serving them" and for what, their lack of initiation because they are SCARED to make the tough risks sometimes needed for survival and not just own but the sake and survival of the TRIBE. Amen.

It really IRKS ME when MEN and WOMEN put all the burden and responsibility on men to "take care of them" *but* at the same time oh no they don't want to accept the "AUTHORITY" the men of responsibility should and MUST have to rightly manage handling their responsibility.

They just want somebody to "take care" of their lazy, selfish selves but they don't want to have to "answer to" an AUTHORITY that oversees them as well in compliance.

Want their cake and eat it to... Smh... I opt of that wicked evil game; people only benefit from me by the Work I do unto the Lord. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Jed Mask said...

I agree with @crossphased on what he says about "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW). I'm a Christian and though I don't feel led of the Lord to marry I haven't personally made it a goal to "opt out of society" for the sake of "opting out" cuz "women suck and I hate society" diatribe. Not that kind of negative, though still somewhat truthful talk.

People would be "concerned" if women chose not to have kids out of their own freewill but even so it's THEIR CHOICE and as usual society will continue on because enough people exist to make babies and it's people's desires and all.

Just cuz a few people don't reproduce doesn't make it a big deal. Talk about "over population" they say and still, there's abundance of people on earth who still don't have their basic needs met. There's no shortage of people; why more people that can't be taken care of?

I'm in the world but not of the world. It doesn't really bother me what people choose to do with their lives; I don't see why people have a problem with men deciding to "go their own way" and opt out of society if they want. Just like people have the right to make their own choices or decisions. Live and let live.

What really disgusts me about people "talking down" on MGTOWs is that the real reasons why they don't "like it" is because of their own selfish, self-centered, thinly-veiled motives and for men to "sacrifice their lives" for other people's vain selfish lives in CONVENIENCE. ADMIT IT!

So what if men GO THEIR OWN WAY"? So what if men "don't want to be married and have children"? I don't care. Not my choice or my personal responsibility of another human-being's freewill.

Even biblically, not all people are *called* by the Lord to be married and reproduce children. The apostle Paul and the apostle John and many others did not marry and have children. Even "Mary Magdalene" the "harlot" of times past didn't marry and have kids (to my knowledge by Scripture). It was get this *NOT THEIR CALLING*. Yeah, they could have in the flesh, but just because "you can" doesn't always mean it's (get this) *GOD'S WILL* for your life.

Spiritually-speaking, even some people who resisted God's Calling on their lives to devote themselves to God's Service married and because of certain "tragedy" in their lives their spouses and/or children died or serious "complications" happened throughout their lives because they went ahead and married when God told them "I don't want you to marry; but I have separated you unto Me from the world to be holy unto your God" and like forth. Thus, Joshua the son of Nun, a true alpha male to my knowledge by Scripture did NOT marry and reproduce his seed of descendants but Caleb the son of Jephunneh did as God Foretold in Scripture. Joshua was SANCTIFIED wholly unto his God and was tasked with the great calling and responsibility of his life to lead his people into the Promise Land; which he did by God's Grace. Amen.

Jed Mask said...

Thus, men, like women can choose to marry and have kids if they want. It's a choice. Society will always carry on as it has because it's *GOD'S WILL* for humanity to increase and multiply the earth. To say otherwise is "silly-speak" even if folk don't marry they'll carry on into their heathen ways and "fornicate" and babies are made. Society keeps going... Thus...

What really bothers me is the people who are "guilt-tripping" and "shaming" MEN who don't want to marry and have kids; that's really SELFISH *CONTROLLING* behaviour they are projecting being "pushed on" people's free will choice. It's a personal VIOLATION.

So for all the people out their who have a problem with MGTOWs (I'm not one of them), you are free to your own personal opinions as they are to theirs. Leave the MGTOWs alone they aren't bothering you, but maybe you are bothering them. Leave people ALONE. There. Amen.

Also, I don't care to "shame" or "guilt-trip" men into "fighting to save Western Civilization", their nation, or any other vain cause; they are free to fend for themselves and do what they want; especially if they don't try to sabotage or interfere with men who choose to fight for their nations of their own personal convictions.

I don't feel "hurt", betrayed or "angry" if someone doesn't want to join in a fight. They just don't want to. I don't FORCE myself on people to do what I want them to do. If someone doesn't want to do something, you don't force people to "do YOUR WILL" you LEAVE THEM ALONE and DO IT YOURSELF or with those who are WILLING TO JOIN you in your efforts without force.

To the men and women who have a problem with MGTOWs: Please QUIT shaming them because YOU WANT THEM to DO WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO for YOU and NOT really with THEIR BEST INTERESTS IN HEART as well. It's SELF-SERVING behaviour on YOUR PART.

Don't "force people" to do what they don't want to do. Have "WILLING PARTICIPANTS" in your affairs. Amen.

A lot of this issue I have with people is they are trying to FORCE men who do NOT want to fight, to fight for their country or vainly "save Western Civilization" they are not "connected to" and have no personal validations to sacrifice their lives in vain for the livelihoods of self-centered, selfish people only concerned for their own welfare and "run away" from backing their brothers on the frontline of warfare. It's that "sneaky freak" betrayal I despise in people.

Quit trying to "force men" or people to do what YOU WANT THEM TO DO, do it YOURSELF!

I don't ever "force anyone" to help me with anything if they don't really want to help me out in the first place of the *FREEWILL* of their hearts because they actually *WANT TO HELP ME*. That's *KEY*, okay.


Not because men feel "obligated", "forced", "coerced" and "manipulated" to do society's duties. That's what society does that ticks a lot of men off from wanting to "sacrifice themselves" for what "betterment or society" if there's nothing worth the sacrifice in a godless, decaying, society that doesn't value human life or human dignity or properly honours the sacrifices of the men who gave their lives for the country and nation they were born into or accepted?

Jed Mask said...

Society's "honour social contract" with men is BROKEN in these Last Days as prophesied in God's Word (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV]).

Men are NOT obligated to vainly sacrifice their lives for a nation and society that doesn't hold it's end of the bargain: "Contract" BROKEN! No authority, no responsibility on *MEN'S BEHALF*. It's every "man, woman and child for theirself" in the actual, savage society we are living in the reality of. Unfortunate but TRUE. Amen.

Now for the men who fight "fight" for their own different reasons. I'm not "fighting to save Western Civilization" as some people are here. I'm fighting for the Cross of Christ, the GREAT COMISSION and the KINGDOM of GOD. As a result it may just happen that "Western Civilization" may be "prolonged" from it's eventual collapse but even so, Christ's Kingdom is coming so I'm not concerned for making "Western Civilization" an "idolatrous priority" on my priority list; yet at the same token I'm not "kicking down" or "belittling" the men and people who choose to save Western Civilization. Though in my reasoning seems like a "vain effort" of uncertain "low reward" in this earthly life.

My reward is Eternal. Amen.

There's NO RESPECT, NO HONOUR and NO AUTHORITY given unto men in Western Society as a whole for men to be unjustly and *unreasonably* burdened with the RESPONSIBILITY of society without the AUTHORITY to keep people in check of the responsibility. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.