The “shit test” spoken of in the manosphere is really just an inversion of the male/female roles in the garden of Eden. Adam named things. He named everything. He even named Eve. But a “shit test” is essentially when a women tries to name something; namely (heh), the man. She tries to “frame” him, to define him, to redefine him. In biblical context, naming is controlling. To name is to define, to determine the limits, purpose, uses, status, and so on. One of the curses God pronounced on Eve was that her “desire” would be for her man, but that he would “rule” over her. Contextually, this meant that she would seek to rule over the man but that he would dominate or rule over her. When a woman tries to name a man or shit test him, she is seeking to rule over him. Hence, following the very pattern God gave in Genesis 3, he must rule over her, he must impose his “frame” both on himself and back upon her. The manosphere calls this “reframing.”
From Martin Van Creveld’s Equality: The Impossible Quest
8. Minorities Into Majorities
In many ways, the most interesting modern experiment with equality is the feminist-instigated one concerning men and women. Nothing similar has ever been tried before. In all historically known societies, women have always been subordinated to men. That was true both inside the family and in public life. A century-and-a-half of contact with civilization has made it impossible to say whether women of the Andamanese, the simplest society of all, were permitted to be shamans. But there is no doubt that male shamans outnumbered female ones. That is not necessarily to say women were oppressed. Some women dominated their husbands, as they still do. For every disadvantage under which women labored there were almost always was, and still is, some privileges they alone enjoyed.
The most important privileges were the right to be supported by their husbands (often, in case they had no husbands, their brothers) and the right not to go to war, not to fight, and not to die for their dearly beloved rulers, polities, and countries. In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy— not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous Islamic variety—seems assured.
Over the ages there have been many “utopian” schemes for putting men and women on an equal basis. Plato wanted his male and female guardians to receive a similar education and engage in similar work on behalf of the city. He could not change the natural inequality that results from pregnancy, childbirth and childcare. But he did propose to take children away from their mothers (and fathers) and have them raised by the community. Starting with the Stoics Zeno (334-262 BC) and Chrysippus (279-206 BC), many other utopian writers, including not least some modern feminist utopias, have followed his suggestion. Other authors sought to maintain the family, and with it, women’s traditional position, as did Thomas More. Some even proposed an end to sex, as in some medieval utopias and a few American utopian communities, or suggested that the link between sex and procreation be cut, as in Brave New World….
Thomas Hobbes believed that men and women in the original state of nature had been equal. However, since his main concern was with order, he had little to say about the position of women in society. Neither Locke nor Rousseau nor Montesquieu extended the kind of equality they envisaged to women. When Abigail, wife of John Adams, asked that the Declaration of Independence be modified to read “all men and women” he ignored her. One of the few, and most interesting, voices calling for gender equality was that of the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814). Today Sade is remembered mainly for his name which gave rise to the term sadism. In reality, though, he was a radical thinker and a good writer who deliberately moved from the banal to the sublime and back again. To Sade the quest for liberty, which at the time stood at the center of public discussion, could not be complete until men and women were put on an equal basis, sexually speaking. Each person, limited only by his or her power, should have the right to do anything with and to anyone he or she liked. Only by carnal knowledge could they learn who they really were and realize their full potential for good and evil alike. In the event, the realization of Sade’s dream had to wait until the invention of the pill in the 1960s. Instead of execrating him, as many of them do, feminists should erect a statue in his honor.
The mother of the present-day drive for women’s equality is often said to be Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797). Wollstonecraft was a disciple of Rousseau whose “sensibility” she greatly admired and whose grave she visited. She was, however, disappointed by his failure to make women equal to men. In her 1792 volume, “A Vindication of the Rights of Women”, she demanded women’s social, professional, economic and political emancipation. Born to a father who did not, as she saw it, carry out his duty to feed his family in a satisfactory way, Wollstonecraft did her modest best to live by her pen without male support. Where she differed from many subsequent feminists was in that she did not blame women’s allegedly sad condition on men alone. Reviewing books for the Analytical Review, she claimed that “lady authors” were “timid sheep.” In their work, “weakness too often is exalted into an excellence”. The problem persists—mainly among feminists who, even as they demand “equality,” often present women as foolish, psychologically vulnerable, and unable to stand up to the machinations of wicked men who somehow succeed in misleading them and subjugating them.
The problem, Wollstonecraft thought, was not natural ability but education. From the beginning of history on, women had been made into “little, smooth, delicate, fair creatures.” They were taught “to lisp and totter” so they could “inspire love.” She felt little but contempt for them. To help them develop “courage and resolution” they should be subject to a “masculine system of education.” As the ancient Spartan agoge demonstrates, though, such a system was likely to be rather harsh, physically and mentally. Probably few women would have chosen to enter it, let alone successfully completed it. In one modern Canadian experiment, out of 100 women who joined a full infantry training course just one graduated. Conversely, no sooner are women admitted to any field then it starts losing much of its rigor, as has happened to basic training in the U.S armed services from about 1980 on. Mary Wollstonecraft herself was well aware of these problems. Having joined her sister in running a school for girls, she believed that most women were only too happy to accept the privileges that men, seeking sex and love, were offering them. Never mind that the price of privilege was subordination.
Generations of subsequent feminists have seen “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” as the starting-shot for a quest of equality that is still going on. Like so much else in the modern world, feminism—the term, incidentally, was invented by Charles Fourier whom we have already met—started in what is now known the West. From there it spread to the rest of the world, with very mixed success. Nineteenth-century European and North American feminists focused on questions such as property rights, divorce, and child-custody. They also demanded admission to educational facilities and the professions, the vote, and the right to serve in public office. By the end of World War I many of these fights had been won, more or less. Even so, the number of women who did paid work outside the home remained much smaller than that of men. Unless they were members of the lowest classes, few married women worked at all. Female politicians did exist, but very few of them rose to the first rank.
During World War II the proportion of working women went up. Still, except in the Soviet Union where they formed a majority even in the mines, they were greatly outnumbered by men. The vast number of casualties their country had suffered forced Soviet women to keep on working even after 1945. Elsewhere, most female workers and soldiers were happy to go home. Communist countries had their own separate version of women’s equality. The Communist Manifesto denied that there was any intention of abolishing the family and instituting a commonality of wives. The leader who took the greatest interest in the question was August Bebel (1840-1913), one of the founders of the German Social Democratic Party. His “Women and Socialism” (1879) remained a bestseller for decades and was translated into some fifty languages. To Bebel, history was a sad tale in which woman had been prevented from participating in society’s productive labor. That in turn forced her into an inferior position inside the family as well as in society. Accordingly, he suggested making men and women equal in respect to family law as well as granting women the vote. Child-raising and cooking would be taken over by the community. As women’s economic dependence came to an end, for the first time in history people of both sexes would be free to choose their partners and live with them for love alone.
In many ways, Bebel’s work formed the basis for the policies adopted in the Soviet Union from 1918 on. Having seized power in a country ruined by war and revolution, the Bolsheviks’ most immediate concern was to restore production. They believed the fastest way to achieve this goal was to draw upon what they saw as the country’s chief untapped source of manpower, i.e. the vast number of women who did not do paid work. It was primarily to enable, not to say compel, them to do so that the nascent communist state carried out some of the most thorough reforms in the situation of women in history. Men’s position as the heads of households was terminated. With it went the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. Expecting women to work for a living on equal terms with men, the government made divorce so easy that the family itself was all but abolished. Two prominent women, Alexandra Kollontai and Lenin’s wife Nadezha Krupskaya, drew up utopian plans for communities in which private housing and domestic life would be abolished. Children were to be taken away from their families and raised in dormitories. As we saw, some of those plans were later put in action in Mao’s China, with disastrous results.
However, Soviet women refused to give up their children as Kollontai and Krupskaya, neither having children of their own, wanted them to. If only for that reason, little came of the plans. Even so, the results of communist-style equality between the sexes were not slow to make themselves felt. The number of divorces exploded. That of deserted wives and children desperately trying to survive without male support rose into the millions.
Poverty bred crime as a generation of youngsters was thrown into the streets and forced to live by theft or prostitution. In the late twenties the authorities performed an about-turn. Family law was re-tightened. Kollontai’s works were banned and she herself banished to Sweden where she served as Soviet ambassador. She may have owed her life to Stalin whose mistress she was reputed to have been; several of her collaborators were arrested and shot.
The most important part of the original program to survive this turn-about was the one that sought to take women out of the household and make them take up paid work. Under Stalin the percentage of female workers in the factories skyrocketed. Whereas, under the Tsarist regime, women had not been permitted to enter the universities, now hundreds of thousands of them did so. To make all this possible, free kindergartens were provided. These efforts notwithstanding, the Soviet Union was like all other countries in that women remained over-represented at the bottom of the political and economic hierarchy and greatly underrepresented at the top. The same thing happened later in the Soviet-satellite countries of Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile cramped housing, the need to spend hours queuing for even the simplest consumer goods, and the continued burden of housework made the lives of many women all but intolerable. In the 1930s, women began to respond to the burden equality had imposed on them by having fewer children. Around 1900, the average Russian woman lived in the countryside, looking after the household as well as doing the less onerous kinds of agricultural work. During her lifetime she would have six to eight children, of whom four usually survived. Under the equality regime, the typical Soviet family was urban, with two working parents, one child, and a grandmother to look after him or her became the norm. Around 1980, the regime realized it had a problem on its hands. It tried to put back the clock, but it was too little, too late. The dearth of children affected the urbanized parts of the USSR where the Slavs lived much more than it did the outlying Moslem ones where patriarchy and inequality still reigned. This contradiction, as Marx would have called it, led straight to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989-1991.
In 1963 Betty Friedan, author of the “Feminine Mystique”, jump-started the so-called Second Feminist Wave. During an interview she told me that what really got her going was the fact that, working as a journalist, she was twice fired because she was pregnant. Friedan’s main point was that women who stayed at home were likely to suffer from depression, or take to drink, or have an extra-marital affair. To retain their sanity they should leave their homes, work like men, and earn money like men. Exercising a hobby, or doing voluntary works of the kind many upper class women had always done and still do, was not good enough. Conversely, non-working women were responsible for many of society’s ills. If, at the time, the Soviets were ahead of the U.S in the space race that was because more Soviet women worked. If many American men were homosexual, that was because, in their youth, they had been spoiled by bored stay-at-home mothers with too much time and not enough to do. In the view of Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir, and many of their followers, Arbeit macht frei and non-working women scarcely deserved to live.
Since then, so relentless has the quest for women’s equality been that a google.com search on 30 October 2013 yielded 152,000,000 hits. The movement has even brought some change to many Moslem countries. Slowly, and often screaming at the top of their lungs, they are being dragged into the twenty-first century as their women demand equal rights with men. As millions of women took jobs they discovered two things. First, the road ahead was often much harder than they had thought. Men, with good reason as it turned out, feared that their own work would be devalued. Almost always they resisted. Quite often male resistance could be overcome and some sort of equality attained, only through the aid of the courts. Second, working closely with men in an environment originally created by and for men exposed women to “sexual harassment.” The precise meaning of the term has never been clarified. In practice, it meant any attempt to communicate with a woman that she, for whatever reason, did not like and decided to report to her superiors and to the justice system.
At this point a Catch-22 situation emerged. Success in the workplace requires drive, aggression, and a tendency towards dominance. Getting mileage, and often enough money, out of sexual harassment suits presupposes presenting to the world a certain kind of helplessness and vulnerability, real or make-believe. As Wollstonecraft might have written, in such cases weakness, even stupidity as women claim not to understand what men want of them, is exalted into excellence. The two sets of attitudes are contradictory. How can a woman who suffers, or claims to suffer, a life-long psychological trauma because somebody at work tried to make a pass at her be trusted to withstand the pressures that business life very often involves? Perhaps even worse, a woman who complains and fails will never again be approached by any man. A woman who wins her case will be seen as dangerous and men will avoid her as if she were a leper. However one looks at it, the price of equality at the workplace is a truly high one indeed. No wonder many, probably most, women do not complain. Of those who do complain, quite a few are persuaded, if not coerced, into doing so by their feminist sisters.
Of course, women who wanted to work needed someone else to raise their children for them. That was how the Israeli kibbutzim used to operate. Early on, kibbutz women worked in the fields along with men, though it goes without saying that men always did the harder kinds of labor. Later, as children were born, they increasingly found themselves relegated to a life in which they were endlessly rotated between children’s home, kitchen, and launderette. Kibbutz women participated in the kibbutz general assembly and voted in it. However, as in the rest of Jewish-Israeli society, practically all important public positions were occupied by men. In the 1970s, kibbutz women raised the standard of revolt. Some took jobs outside the kibbutz where they did work they found more interesting. They also started demanding to have their children back at home. Once that demand was granted couples again turned into families. Families needed larger houses with kitchens and other amenities to live in. As differential salaries based on performance rather than needs were introduced, communal life started falling apart. As it declined economic inequality between members grew, threatening the kibbutzim’s very existence. Whether they will survive remains to be seen. In all societies, the vast majority of those hired to mind children and do housework were themselves women. The traditional gap between mistresses and maids (paid or unpaid as in the case of grandmothers), continues to exist. More equality for some led to less equality for others. Much worse still, in all known societies since the world was created practically all new discoveries and innovations have been made by men. By adopting men’s life-patterns women mounted a treadmill where they were forever running behind, trying to catch up.
Once they were on the treadmill another problem emerged. For men, money, fame and power have always been the strongest aphrodisiacs of all. For women things do not work in the same way. As Rousseau once put it: “the more you become like us, Mesdames, the less we shall like you.” Almost the only exceptions are women, especially the exceptionally attractive, who succeed in fields where they only compete with other women; such as dancers, singers, actresses, models, women in some kinds of sports, etc.
Women’s quest for equality has even led them into fields for which they are simply not suited; principally to war and the military. There are many physical reasons why women are less suited for war than men. While women may forge ahead and ignore those reasons, experience shows that doing so is dangerous to their health. Judging by the fact that among veterans of the war in Iraq, women are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome than men, war is also dangerous to their mental health as well. Some psychological studies reported such a large difference between the sexes that a new kind of disorder, “military-sexual trauma,” had to be invented to explain it away.
In any case, not every woman may feel that attaining the sort of equality ”that the military in particular offers is worth being made to travel seven or eight thousand miles from home, spending months or years in a foreign, mostly underdeveloped, country, and risking death in combat. For many, perhaps most, women the attempt to gain equality by doing as men do has caused more harm than good. It is even now causing the difference in life expectancy between them and men to decline. The point has been reached where many women, by focusing on their careers and refusing to have children, are literally waging war against their own genes. The better educated they are, the more true this is. As has been said, the feminist movements’ cathedrals are the abortion clinics on one hand and the adoption agencies on the other; neither of which enjoy a particularly good reputation.
Throughout all this, the quest for equality has hardly caused the basic relationship between men and women to change. Today, as ever, men protect women and feed them, which itself entails a certain kind of inequality. Today, as ever, the higher one climbs, the fewer women one meets. And some of those one meets are there to create the illusion of equality, not the reality. Many feminists who demand equality do so primarily because they despise women and admire men. Others, by suggesting that women not have children, are bent on making the human race commit suicide. If present trends continue, the societies in which the movement towards women’s equality is strongest are simply doomed to disappear. In fact, as Plato wrote, men and women are similar in some ways but differ in others. The differences are as important as the similarities. Furthermore, a good deal of the attraction between the sexes rests on both the similarities and the differences. Women who try to gain equality with men by acting like men, living like men, and being like men will end up by becoming (second rate) men.
Women who try to exploit the advantages nature has given them to obtain the protection of men and be fed by them cannot and will not be equal with men. Women who are equal with men will in many ways cease to be women at all. The see-saw between equality and protection is as old as human history and is unlikely to ever come to an end. Each of the two approaches, when taken to extremes, has the potential to inflict endless misery on both women and men.
The symbol of feminism’s ideal America is a woman’s submission to Islamic men. This symbol was used and paraded by the recent women’s march in protest to Donald Trump in America by women who supposedly support women’s rights and freedoms:
This image is prophetic, as that is precisely what Ontario’s PM recently did at a mosque, as well as Sweden’s PM on her trip to Iran.
Western liberal feminist women are desperate for masculine men. They bow before strong, dominant men. They gave up their safety with men at home for the protection of men in the state, and they will give up their entire civilization of men for ideological protection and safety. Case in point:
A Western liberal feminist woman went to Turkey with her Muslim boyfriend, whom she met while helping refugees. There, he dominated her, beat her, forbade her to speak to people, and raped her. What did she do? For a while she submitted and even covered for him. In her own words:
“I honestly think that one of the reasons that I have been silent about this for two months has been that I did not want to feed into the narrative of Muslim men being aggressive. I didn’t want to fuel hatred or racism. But silence breeds complicity, and am now telling this story in order to heal.”
Translation: “I didn’t want to feed the narrative of anti-Muslim hatred or racism, so I covered up a story of a hateful, abusive Muslim man feeding the narrative.”
Now, she is “healing” merely. Her overall opinion of reality has not changed.
Feminism is the cry of weakness looking for strength, confusion seeking clarity, loneliness pining for natural relationships, and lostness looking for order. It will even submit to Islam to get what it needs.
Islam is the powerfully entrancing Bacchus, and feminists are the dancing bacchants mad with lusty rage. They are willing to do the work of their future Muslim overlords for them.
Feminism is pro-sharia
Domination In General:
Liberated Woman demands to be dominated. She is desperate for men – so desperate that she actively searches for tyranny. It’s so obvious, the evidence so ubiquitous, the scene so tragic, that someone should make a documentary or write a tragedy play about it.
“A New data reveals that women in their droves are searching for porn with tags like “extreme brutal gangbang”, “forced” and “rape”. A quarter of straight porn searches by women are for videos featuring violence against their own sex. Five percent of searches by women are for content portraying nonconsensual sex.”
“If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women…”
“But why are so many women so keen to see videos tagged with, say, “painful anal crying”, “public disgrace” or “extreme brutal gangbang”? Or content marked as “forced” or “rape”? The feminist porn movement – one focusing on equality and empowerment – might be thriving, but the data shows, proportionally, women are also consuming much more of the most extreme misogynistic sexual material available online.”
As Dalrock records, Fifty Shades of Grey is written by women for women. It shows that tens of millions of women are driven by sexual desire, and it shows that they “desire to be objectified by a powerful dominant man.” But somehow, it is the man’s fault. The woman is only at fault by inference.
Sexual Liberation = Personal & Social Chaos
- Dyonisius (Euripides) – nothing controlled Pentheus except lust
- Samson w/ Delila
- David w/ Bathsheba
- Solomon w/ many women
- Cicero – “it’s easier to conquer people who surrender to pleasure”
- Augustine – slave to one hundred vices. Promote vice = promote slavery, which is political control
- Burke – intemperate minds cannot be free people
- James (Bible) – lusts carry people away
- Aquinas – lust dumbs people down, stupefies them
- Marry Wollstonecraft – early fem, reason will extinguish itself to rationalize pleasure
Social Chaos requires Social Control
- Le Marquis de Sade control passion = control behavior = make people do what you want
- Freud – sexual motives are at the root of everything we think and do, control sex = ctrl all
- Reich – destroy religion through sex
- Huxley (Brave New World) – control people’s labor through sex
- MTV founder quote – control people’s emotions, habits, values
- Michel Foucault – recreating the self through sex
- Solomon – foolish youth led away by woman like ox to slaughter
- Quote from Libido Dominandi
Feminism has taught women to be masculine competitors – they are not taught any of the feminine virtues… Modern education (installed, also, with plenty of feminism) has taught men to be feminine subservients – they are not taught any of the masculine virtues. (Dalrock)
Three waves of feminism.
1) Not to be oppressed by Men
2) Be equal to Men
3) Be Men, Dominate Men
- Late 1800s-early 1900s. Right to vote, equal dignity with men, right to work, marriage is slavery, right to preach/minister. (Seneca Falls Declaration)
- Mid 1900s-1960s. Sexual freedom, radical liberation, right to opportunities to be equal with men and male roles. Need abortion to be unencumbered to compete with men. Wage gaps. Sexually interchangeable. No difference between women and men. Redefine family and gender roles, radically. Woman will overtake man. Woman will be bread winner.
- Late 1900s to Today. Do not need men. Men are obsolete. The end of men. Demonization of men. Right to power. Run the world. Right to orgasm. Right to free healthcare. Absolute Autonomy. Remake Womanhood itself. (Pornography is women exerting power over men.) Examples: Dworkin, Firestone, Solanas. Feminism is popular and powerful.
- RedStockings Feminists.
Cultural or social Marxism is an ideology that stirs up grievances and turns society into a bunch of squabbling factions (HT: CH). Marx divided society into oppressor and oppressed. What he meant in economic terms – bourgeois and proletariat – cultural Marxists replace with any terms they please: men/women, white/black, heterosexual/homosexual, native/immigrant, majority/minority. The terms are different but the categories are the same. As are the methods of the oppressed overthrowing the oppressor. The goals are also the same: a classless society.
However, although Marxist movements did succeed in destroying the previous classes, they failed to destroy class itself. Rather, they merely replaced the old classes with new ones. Instead of the bourgeois and the proletariat, they replaced them not with the equality of classless society but with a political elite class and an impoverished masses class. So also, instead of doing away with race, the social Marxists who push racial grievance do not equalize the races or do away with race. Rather, they amass all minority races into what they call “multi-ethnicity,” in order actively to oppress the majority race whom they term supremacist, racist, white privileged, and so on. These are all Marxian usages of language. Yet, for all their rhetoric about racial equality and reconciliation, they’ve merely created new masters and new servants, and have further alienated instead of dialectically synthesized the races. Likewise, those social Marxists who focus on gender have not done away with gender but have sought to arrogate power to the “oppressed” in order to destroy the “oppressor” whom they term the “patriarchy.” They have not done away with genders but segregated them, opposed them, set them at variance and war. The same goes for self-styled sexual revolutionaries and homosexuals who gather all the “oppressed” “sexual minorities” into one group they call LGBTQ+ to fight against, shame, threaten, silence, intimidate, and excommunicate their cisgender heterosexual traditional-marriage oppressors. The present immigration debate, likewise, swirls around oppressors and oppressed classes and aims at destroying definitional and physical boundaries between the two classes.
Finally, all social Marxists each in their particular rivulets have begun to realize that they really are all members of one ideological stream and thus they have begun to see that their movements “intersect.” “Intersectionality” is the new term for gathering all the social Marxist branches into one potent, unified torrent to fight their common enemy: the bourgeois, white, Christian, heterosexual, traditional, monogamous, Western male.
Feminism Came After Men Built The West
“It is possible to interpret much of history as men oppressing women, especially if one does not look too closely and seeks only confirming evidence. But just as plausibly, one can spin a very different interpretation. Here’s another possible way to tell the story. Women kept themselves conveniently apart from the brutal, risky, and often painful strife and competition. Men fought bloody battles. Other men risked their savings in commerce, with some making fortunes and others going bankrupt. Men fought, risked, struggled, sought, suffered, and triumphed. Women mostly kept out of that.
Certainly in the early years there was nothing to prevent groups of women from forming into military groups to fight battles for territory. Nor did anything prevent groups of women from engaging in manufacture and trade to create wealth. In fact a few women did, but only a very few.
Only after a long wait, when the men had built up society into magnificent social structures with large corporations and other institutions, then only did the women come forward and demand to be given a place at the table they had not helped to build. Only after most of the risks and costs had been greatly tamed and everything was fairly safe did women venture forth. And even then they were not satisfied with getting an equal place: They demanded that the social structures the men built must be revised to make them more hospitable to women. Women insisted on affirmative action, special centers and support groups, and the changing of rules to suit their needs. These demands continue today and seem likely to go on forever, as women insist that there be special offices and accommodations and oversight bodies to take care of their special needs and demands and feelings. Women have played on men’s natural love for women and protectiveness toward women, exploiting men’s concern to convince men to switch things around for the betterment of women.”
— Roy F. Baumeister, “Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men”
- Lower birth rates
- Lower marriage rates
- Less mothers raising their kids.
- More loneliness
- More sadness
- Less happiness
- They can’t work forever like men
- They’re not independent like men
- Life is not actually like Sex and the City, where you can ride the carousel until your mid-30’s and still somehow easily snag Mr. Big and then have a happy family once you’ve “had your fun” and “found yourself”.
- Women increasingly become leftist, liberal, radical, etc. (Voting patterns)
- Leads to the Destruction of civilization.
- Women’s liberation destroys nations. How this happens.
Effects of Feminism:
- They don’t want a provider. So men stop becoming providers and start becoming players.
- They don’t want commitment. So men stop being responsible, stable, trustworthy, adn become clever, cute, fun. MGTOW
- They don’t want traditional dating. So men don’t even know how to date, they vascilate between friends and sex with little to no romance. The dance is over.
- Most of them aren’t all that excited about the idea of having a family or anything serious like that. So no one prepares for having families by learning household economics, or quickly gaining skills for long-term employment.
They have been sold a lie that it all lasts forever. But wait until they broach the age of 30 and that is the script that gets flipped. By then their male peers have wised up and are not eager to play along with the new paradigm, especially when there are plenty of younger gals acting out the aforementioned plot. Sad situation, really.
Feminism’s search for equality. – Martin Van Creveld
The Market Place
The Market Place Then, Now
- Like the economy
- The American dollar could buy as much bread in 1800 as it could in 1900, but considerably less in 2000. Similarly, a sexual encounter is less meaningful, significant, valuable today than it was in 1900. It purchases less goods – less commitments, less security, less relationship, less marriage, less love, less family, less kids, less prosperity. Further, women’s bodies are less valuable, their feminine virtues as well, women are needed less as women, men are needed less as men.
- More on comparison to economy
- Hank Williams Sr. sang about the sexual market place long ago: Window Shopping
Required reading for high school seniors:
Women reach their sexual market peak in their early 20’s while men don’t reach theirs until their mid to late 30’s.
- Hard Dating data from Ok Cupid
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters. — Jane Austen, Pride And Prejudice
More and more women continue to postpone marriage past their late 20s, and those who do so are finding it harder to marry in their 30s.
- Women taught to be men. Feminized SMV chart.
- Roles reversed: Women want independence, men want relationships
- Many are raised to be precisely the man women now seek to distance themselves from. Men taught to get in touch with their feelings, make commitments, etc.
- Women taught to be strong, independent, dominant, determinted, wealthy, don’t need a man.
- Today, men actually want LTRs and women want unattached relations.
- 29/31 song.
Due to changes in mating behavior and pair bonding brought on by technology, shifting demographics, migration to cities from rural towns, universal suffrage, promotion of sexually promiscuous behaviors, and destruction of traditional sex roles, most men do not have the ability or knowledge to successfully reproduce with a modern woman on a comparable attractiveness and socioeconomic level. Their “natural” self will lead to reproductive failure without purposeful intervention that increases their attractiveness in the eyes of women who are actively encouraged to seek out high-value males. “Game” is a collection of socially-based tactics and reproducible behaviors that increase a man’s sexual attractiveness to women and therefore his access to reproduction. It can range from a trivial aid like an opening line that starts a conversation with a woman in an interesting manner to a physical move that escalates intimacy in the bedroom in a way that is most likely to lead to sex. Its primary goal is to give men a set of tools and beliefs that allow him to more easily enter sexual relationships with the women he desires. In modern Western societies, a man who doesn’t at least subconsciously understand game concepts is unlikely to have sex at all. Game is ultimately a response to signals that women in any environment are displaying, giving them what they want in sexual partners based on their desires and tastes of the day. These desires are undergoing regular change, meaning that game is a constantly shifting set of outward rules and practices while the inward game beliefs governing those practices remain mostly static, based on known biological truths that stem from animal reproductive science and studies based on female human sexual behavior.
Vox vs. Chateau Heartiste Translator:
Vox Alpha : CH Apex Alpha
Vox Beta : CH Alpha
Vox Sigma : CH Lone-Wolf Alpha
Vox Delta : CH Beta
Vox Gamma : CH Damaged/Lone-Wolf Beta
Vox Omega : CH Omega
(Apex) Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he’s usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha’s gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.
(Alpha) Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren’t as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy’s friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don’t have a lot of illusions about them either. Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha’s former girlfriends.
(Beta) Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can’t attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them. Gets friend-zoned, put on lay-a-way for marriage later.
(Damaged Beta) Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there… sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.
Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They’re not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone’s mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.
(Lone Wolf Alpha) Sigma: The outsider who doesn’t play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don’t accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance. (NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can often enrage an alpha by doing nothing more than smiling at him.) Everyone else is vaguely confused by them. In a social situation, the sigma is the man who stops in briefly to say hello to a few friends accompanied by a Tier 1 girl that no one has ever seen before. Sigmas like women, but tend to be contemptuous of them. They are usually considered to be strange. Gammas often like to think they are sigmas, failing to understand that sigmas are not social rejects, they are at the top of the social hierarchy despite their refusal to play by its rules.
- Boundriless Sex and Birth Control. Much of American political, economic, and cultural life is an attack on traditional boundaries. Here is an article from several years back penned by my friend, Bret, on birth control. See the quote from the Washington Post on the Lambeth Conference, a meeting of Anglicans wherein a major Protestant denomination first blessed birth control use. The comment, in a secular newspaper, represents a far more traditional offering than you would hear from most Protestant ethicists today. “Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous.” The Washington Post, March 22, 1931
- Hypergamy – marrying-up. 80% of women give their attention, hopes, affections, time, themselves to 20% of men. Another site with similar chart. (Social Scientist Dr. Baumeister of Florida State confirms)
“In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to m*** and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.” — Michel Houellebecq, father of the sexual market place
The free market intrudes into relationships. “A free market has winners and losers, and the same applies to relationships in a society that does not enforce monogamy.”
- First Gen – This began from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, in which the modern nation states of Europe were created, until the American Civil War in 1861. Think of it like the orderly lines and columns of the Napoleonic Era in which armies meet on a pre-defined battlefield aiming to win a decisive battle.
- Second Gen – This began with the French in World War 1 after trenches, barbed wire, artillery and fast firing guns made open orderly charges suicidal. Think now of the trench warfare of WW1 in which the artillery pounds a position for a week and then the infantry runs in to occupy the battered enemy lines. The goal is to kill enemy soldiers, destroy his equipment, and advance the line.
- Third Gen – This developed concurrently but developed by the Germans and is best embodied in the Blitzkrieg. Defensively, it sought not to hold a line but to instead draw enemies in and cut them off. Offensively it sought to bypass (rather than destroy) enemy strongholds then roll them up from the rear. This is “maneuver warfare”.
- Fourth Gen – This style existed before the Peace of Westphalia and has come back again now that the ordered nations are breaking down. Wars are no longer fought as one state army against another – they are fought by clans, gangs, tribes, and ideological fanatics. There is often no clear distinction between “military” and “civilian” participants. On the ground it resembles the hit and run of guerrilla warfare.
Article from Vice arguing in defense of bro-alphas. Real men are no longer needed, so males stop being traditional men who go out and dominate and serve and protect and marry and provide. They turn inward and focus on male appearance, male beauty, male sexiness, male posturing, male fun, male friends – hot male bodies, hot male looks, hot male fun, hot male friends….hot male sex.
Feminism —> Women should be like men —> men are not needed as men —> men stop producing, creating, dominating, heterosexual nature —> men become aimless, play things, effeminate, homosexual
- Women should be like men —> women are men (become more masculine) —> women are stronger, smarter, better than men (they become more masculine, forceful, direct, domineering) —> women do not need men (self-sustaining, independent, workaholics, enslaved to wages, jobs, careers, bills, debt) —> women need other women (in every way: support groups, “just my friends” mentality, “you go girl” mentality, sexually).
- Men are not needed as men —> men stop playing the traditional male role of strong, protective provider, confident leader, creative risk-taking adventurer, romantic warrior poet, etc. Men are actually becoming weaker (see here also). All of those traditional male-roles are going away. Males no longer want them nor even know what those virtues and traits are or where to find them.
- Rather, men become male-less, masculine-less, soft, playful, fun, irresponsible, aimless, effeminate, emotional, sensitive, concerned with appearance, beauty, looks, pleasure, friends — male looks, male appearance, male beauty, male pleasure, male friends —> they become concerned with the male sex and thus with male sex itself.
“This article is actually correct in its factual analysis, but wrong I think in its normative judgement. The article recognises correctly that men nowadays do not produce concrete things or serve higher causes, as such they engage in bro behaviour and alpha posturing. However the creation of an overt hypermasculine culture where man are conscious of themselves qua man as a group is reminiscent of classical cultures and the article confirms this with a gay sexual scene between “bros”. This is actually an observation I’ve made on several occasions, hypermasculinity inevitably leads to homosexuality. That an obsession and love for masculinity amongst men will lead to man lovers seems like almost a trivial truism. When men no longer create families, manufactures, or serve the will of God, this is the inevitable result. Perhaps the correct solution is that humanity, especially men, do need to realise that there exists causes and ends greater than themselves, not narcissistically turn inwards towards themselves to love themselves. Men may be at the head of various social settings but in the end unless they realise that they are still subordinate to God, an inward narcissistic turn is the inevitable result. This is why I view chadism or honour cultures in general with a certain skepticism, it seems like a lot of vacuous posturing.” — Foo
The thinking of an alpha male who gets married:
He was lots of fun, free, successful, risky, adventurous, dominant. Now he’s married with kids, and so he starts to plan, think long term, take less risks because it make hurt the kids or put them in danger. Maybe because of this he starts to fail in some things. His confidence is taken aback. He’s unsure of himself. His wife no longer sees the confident, sexy, powerful, dominant male, but something else – someone else. Basically, he’s now a Beta. But that’s not who she married.
- Question for the ladies: do you nag him? Take out your disappointment on him with nagging bitterness? Do you in other words do nothing to help him? Or do you pray for him? Do you encourage him? Do you tell him you love him no matter what? Do you even notice this about him? Do you leave him for some other hot dominant sexy confident risky adventurous guy?
- Question for you guys: If this were you, what would you do? Do you lay down and whine and feel sorry for yourself? Or do you get back up and try again?
The same can be applied to romance. Maybe there was romance before marriage or kids, but after it gets busy and that tingling feeling doesn’t come around as often. What do you do? Do you let it fall away or do you rekindle it? Ladies, do you complain? Criticize him for not being the alpha exciting man anymore?
On being a Christian Alpha.
Take Dominion. Genesis 2-3. Be fruitful and multiply. Take over the earth. Take over whatever area of life you get into. If it’s school, dominate it. If it’s a career, fishing, sports, marriage, whatever, do it with all your might. Every man wants to dominate, to win, to excel, to succeed in what he does. No one begins something in order to fail. Prepare, plan, practice, train, fight, win. Don’t give up. This isn’t a pep talk, it’s a way of life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk
- Men and Women are different.
- Can’t be friends. Never go the friend-zone route (pic). Notice his posture, his body language.
- Women won’t tell men how to be men; they’re expected just to know and already to be a man. Don’t look to her to set the line of purity, of limits, of when to do X. You lead her, like a dance. THE WHOLE THING IS LIKE A DANCE.
- Don’t be needy/desperate, be independent. Don’t be the beta, especially the damaged-beta. Don’t sing those “Oh, save me” songs.
- Don’t be the chivalrous white knight. More on Courtly Love. More on knights-errant.
- Stay away from girls that pursue you. They’ll dominate you. They’ll pursue other guys. Girls generally don’t play the game. They are played. However, they do have a passive aggressive role. They manipulate in millions of little ways. They strategize, plot, set a man up to get him to think or do things without the girl being explicit.
- Watch out for s# tests. Woman asks man question to gauge his manhood. Not always conscious on the woman’s part. But they all do it.
- The more a man fails these tests from a girl, the more the girl will test him; over and over and over.
- Don’t follow her emotions. Don’t let her induce in you any emotions. You are her anchor, emotionally. You steady her storm. She throws a test at you, you take it with ease.
- Two types: 1) Bitter from past failed relationship now Feminist taking it out on you. 2) Beta Bait: trying to see if you’re beta or not: assuming you are, trying to put you there to see what you’ll do: trying to lower your status, especially beneath her.
- More examples, but indecent.
- Feminism Is The Final Shit Test
- READ JANE AUSTEN. Love is in the details.
- Make your mission your prioirity, not finding a woman. Women don’t want to be the center of a man’s existence. They want to be caught up along a man’s destiny as his helper. So many songs idolize women, make them the man’s savior, the thing he has been looking for, what gives him purpose. A woman – even if she says she does – does not want to be your purpose, your energy, your savior, your reason for existing. She is made to be your helper, not your project; your supporter not your savior.
- Don’t play by her rules. Women want to be led. Come up with a goal, plan, and execute it. Lead: morally, spiritually, materially, relationally. You set boundaries. You plan dates.
- Don’t apologize unless you are absolutely wrong. Don’t use apologies to make things better or win her over. It’s weak and wrong.
- Be irrationally self-confident.
Lewis on Chivalry
The sentiment (of chivalry), of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love. The lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady’s lightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence in her rebukes, however unjust, are the only virtues he dares to claim…
French poets, in the eleventh century, discovered or invented, or were the first to express, that romantic species of passion which English poets were still writing about in the nineteenth. They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature. There can be no mistake about the novelty of romantic love: our only difficulty is to imagine in all its bareness the mental world that existed before its coming—to wipe out of our minds, for a moment, nearly all that makes the food both of modern sentimentality and modern cynicism. We must conceive a world emptied of that ideal of ‘happiness’—a happiness grounded on successful romantic love—which still supplies the motive of our popular fiction.
Even our code of etiquette, with its rule that women always have precedence, is a legacy from courtly love
The love which is to be the source of all that is beautiful in life and manners must be the reward freely given by the lady, and only our superiors can reward. But a wife is not a superior. As the wife of another, above all as the wife of a great lord, she may be queen of beauty and of love, the distributor of favours, the inspiration of all knightly virtues, and the bridle of ‘villany’; but as your own wife, for whom you have bargained with her father, she sinks at once from lady into mere woman. How can a woman, whose duty is to obey you, be the midons whose grace is the goal of all striving and whose displeasure is the restraining influence upon all uncourtly vices?
“After them the Queen mounts her horse, taking a damsel with her. A maid she was, the daughter of a king, and she rode a white palfrey. After them there swiftly followed a knight, named Erec, who belonged to the Round Table, and had great fame at the court. 13 Of all the knights that ever were there, never one received such praise; and he was so fair that nowhere in the world need one seek a fairer knight than he. He was very fair, brave, and courteous, though not yet twenty-five years old. Never was there a man of his age of greater knighthood. And what shall I say of his virtues? Mounted on his horse, and clad in an ermine mantle, he came galloping down the road, wearing a coat of splendid flowered silk which was made at Constantinople. He had put on hose of brocade, well made and cut, and when his golden spurs were well attached, he sat securely in his stirrups. He carried no arm with him but his sword. As he galloped along, at the corner of a street he came up with the Queen, and said: “My lady, if it please you, I should gladly accompany you along this road, having come for no other purpose than to bear you company.” And the Queen thanks him: “Fair friend, I like your company well, in truth; for better I could not have.”
Marriage = Foundations of Society
“Whether we consult the soundest deductions of reason, or resort to the best information conveyed to us by history, or listen to the undoubted intelligence communicated in holy writ, we shall find, that to the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.… To that institution, more than to any other, have mankind been indebted for the share of peace and harmony which has been distributed among them. “Prima societas in ipso conjugio est,” [“The first bond of society is marriage”] says Cicero in his book of offices; a work which does honor to the human understanding and the human heart.” – “James Wilson’s Lectures on Law”
“The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.… How is it possible that children can have any just sense of the sacred obligations of morality or religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their mothers?” — John Adams, to his wife
“I consider the domestic virtue of the Americans as the principal source of all their other qualities. It acts as a promoter of industry, as a stimulus to enterprise, and as the most powerful restrainer of public vice. It reduces life to its simplest elements, and makes happiness less dependent on precarious circumstances; it ensures the proper education of children, and acts, by the force of example, on the morals of the rising generation; in short, it does more for the preservation of peace and good order, than all the laws enacted for that purpose; and is a better guarantee for the permanency of the American government, than any written instrument, the Constitution itself not excepted.” — Francis Grund, 1825
Realms grow out of provinces. Provinces out of cities. Cities out of towns. Towns out of families. Families out of marriages. Marriages are the beginning of society. “It cannot be denied that provinces are constituted from villages and cities, and commonwealths and realms from provinces. Therefore, just as the cause by its nature precedes the effect and is more perceptible, and just as the simple or primary precedes in order what has been composed or derived from it, so also villages, cities, and provinces precede realms and are prior to them. For this is the order and progression of nature, that the conjugal relationship, or the domestic association of man and wife, is called the beginning and foundation of human society. From it are then produced the associations of various blood relations and in-laws. From them in turn come the sodalities and collegia, out of the union of which arises the composite body that we call a village, town, or city. And these symbiotic associations as the first to develop can subsist by themselves even without a province or realm. However, as long as they are not united in the associated and symbiotic universal body of a province, commonwealth, or realm, they are deprived of many of the advantages and necessary supports of life. It is necessary, therefore, that the doctrine of the symbiotic life of families, kinship associations, collegia, cities, and provinces precede the doctrine of the realm or universal symbiotic association that arises from the former associations and is composed of them. In practice, however, all these associations are to be joined together for the common welfare of the symbiotes both individually and corporately. For the public association cannot exist without the private and domestic association. Both are necessary and useful in order that we may live advantageously.” — Johannes Althusius, Politica
“The records of history show a series of different societies, in different places, each rising to civilization as they become absolutely monogamous, achieving high culture while that absolute state is preserved, and falling into decline as it is modified or discarded. Just as societies have advanced from savagery to civilization, and then faded away into a state of general decrepitude, so in each of them has marriage first previously changed from a temporary affair based on mutual consent to a life-long association of one man with one woman, and then turned back to a loose union or to polygamy. The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”~~J. D. Unwin
Marriage isn’t primarily about you. Why does the whole town show up to a wedding? Why is the state involved? Why is the church involved? Why is the town (friends, family, etc) involved? Because Marriage is a social institution.
Men and Marriage, Changning Roles and Disincentives
- Two forces at work: man are disincentivized from marrying at all and women are encouraged to postpone marriage and then to divorce and marry up.
- Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force.
- The simple fact is the moment you attribute moral value to romantic love you are creating a rival to biblical sexual morality. In biblical sexual morality it is marriage that creates a moral space for sex and romantic love (with romantic love not separated from sexual passion). We have overturned God’s order here, and are now claiming that romantic love is the moral space for marriage and sex. This is deceptively subtle, and at the same time demolishes the moral meaning of marriage.
- “A man who is holding down a menial job and thereby supporting a wife and children is doing something authentically important with his life. He should take deep satisfaction from that, and be praised by his community for doing so. If that same man lives under a system that says the children of the woman he sleeps with will be taken care of whether or not he contributes, then that status goes away. I am not describing a theoretical outcome, but American neighborhoods where, once, working at a menial job to provide for his family made a man proud and gave him status in his community, and where now it doesn’t. Taking the trouble out of life strips people of major ways in which human beings look back on their lives and say, “I made a difference.” — Charles Murray. “Coming Apart.”
- Marriage 2.0 – https://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/
- Dalrock: The wage gap is shrinking, but because men are earning less. Men are earning less not because women are out-competing them, but because they have increasing incentive not to over-produce for provision for families they are no longer sustaining. The state does that for women in their stead, so why should they do it for women?
- Scroll down a bit for the content. Essentially, women are encouraged to divorce and marry up, but it doesn’t happen.
General Decline in Marriage (and Society)
“In many modern societies, the advent of feminism has caused men and women to be placed on a more equal footing than ever before. The catch is that, in most of the societies in question, women, desperately trying to achieve what they see as equality, no longer bear enough children to maintain the population. Some countries, such as the U.S., are making up for the deficit by importing millions of foreigners. Others, such as Japan, seem resigned to gradual demographic decline and hope that robots will make up the difference. If demographics count for anything, the future of patriarchy— not the comparatively mild form of patriarchy that is said to have characterized the West, but the more rigorous Islamic variety—seems assured.”— Martin van Creveld. “Equality: The Impossible Quest.”
Civilization is collapsing. Stop fucking around. Be courageous. Get married. Have babies. Save Western civilization.
*All charts taken from Charles Murray’s Coming Apart.
- Repeated studies show that a marriage is more likely to fail based on higher number of sexual partners a woman—but not a man—had before marrying (1, 2, 3, 4), a fact that should be obvious to any man who has experienced the highly impulsive and shallow behavior of easy women. The results of these studies clearly show that a marriage is at high risk of failure if a woman had more than two sexual partners before marrying.
Single–Parent homes destroy children and society.
- A Department Of Justice study found that 70% of incarcerated youth came from single parent homes.
- A newer study with a sample size of over 16,000 shows that children raised by single mothers are 70% more likely to develop Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
- Children raised in single parent households are 82% more likely to be raised in poverty than children raised in nuclear family homes.
Women left the authority of a man at home and placed themselves under the authority of men at work. Furthermore, when women do what men normally have done, women find they need men less and therefore marry less and aim to marry less. Men also find that as they are needed less as providers, they do not work as much or produce as much or mature or take added responsibilities as though they were going to be husbands, fathers, providers, protectors – brave, selfless, stable, monogamous. They remain children, irresponsible, lazy, underachieving, poorer, wasteful, fun, healthy, sexy, mobile, uncommitted, etc.
- Increase in labor supply forces wages to go down.
- Female hypergamy, female independence, and opportunity cost reduces the marriage rate and the average birth rate, while increased male work hours and work-related romantic opportunities increases the divorce rate.
- The reduced birth rate has a negative effect on consumption, and therefore the demand for labor, 20 years before the consequent negative effects on the supply of labor can help balance it out, putting further negative pressure on wage rates.
More on the same subject:
- Working class white Americans are now dying in middle age at faster rates than minority groups
- ‘The Collapse of the White Working Class’ A new study explains why economic distress has led to mortality-rate spike for white, middle-age Americans without a college degree.
All of this, because we no longer have traditional gender roles, marriages, families, homes. The sexual revolution has and is destroying our minds, our bodies, our souls, our families, our economy, our civilization.
It’s not good for man to be alone.
Be fruitful and multiply.
Fill the earth and subdue it. Take dominion of earth.
Honor your father and mother, so that you will live long in the land.
When to marry? When am I ready to marry? When do I know I have reached marriage stage? When to marry her/him?
- Questions to ask a prospective wife – Dalrock
- 21 Questions for a Prospective Wife – Wilson
- 21 Questions for a Prospective Suitor – Wilson
From Libido Dominandi:
Writing at the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, St. Augustine both revolutionized and brought to a close antiquity’s idea of freedom by connecting it with morals. “Thus,” he writes in the City of God, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.” Augustine revolutionized the concept of freedom by connecting it to morals: man was not a slave by nature or by law, as Aristotle claimed. His freedom was a function of his moral state. A man had as many masters as he had vices. This insight would provide the basis for the most sophisticated form of social control known to man, and the Marquis de Sade was the first to formulate its basic principles. Like St. Augustine, the Marquis de Sade would agree that freedom was a function of morals. Freedom for the Marquis de Sade, however, meant willingness to reject the moral law. The project of liberating man from the moral law would have far-reaching consequences, all of which were consonant with the use of sex as a form of social and political control which Sade was proposing in “Yet Another Effort, Frenchmen.”
“The logic is clear enough: Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido led inevitably to anarchy, as recent events in France had shown. A revolutionary state must foster immorality among its citizens if it wants to foster the perpetual unrest necessary to foment revolution. Morals meant the advent of tranquillity, and tranquillity meant the end of revolutionary fervor. Therefore, the state must promote immorality. Given man’s natural and inordinate inclination to pleasure, the immorality most congenial to manipulation is sexual immorality. Hence the revolutionary state must promote sexual license if it is to remain truly revolutionary and retain its hold on power.”
Over the course of two hundred years, those techniques became more and more refined, eventuating in a world where people were controlled, not by military force, but by the skillful management of their passions. It was Aldous Huxley who wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that “As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” Sade’s claim is related to Huxley’s: The best way to make men unaware of their lack of political freedom is to indulge their sexual passions. Both Augustine and Sade would agree that moral behavior has certain political consequences; both would agree that immoral behavior has certain political consequences as well. What they disagreed on was their vision of the ideal state. Augustine establishes the fundamental options here as well. There is the City of God on the one hand, which espouses the love of God even to the extinction of self, and the City of Man, which espouses the love of self even to the extinction of God. Sade, the apostle of atheism, was clearly a proponent of the latter city. Since the City of God was based on Christianity’s exaltation of love and service, as its highest ideal, the City of Man, as its opposite, could only be based on domination, a point which Augustine makes clear at the very beginning of the City of God. “The earthly city,” Augustine tells us, “lusts to dominate the world and…. though nations bend to its yoke, it itself is dominated by its passion for dominion.”
Libido Dominandi, to give the Latin original, is the essence of the revolutionary state. When Lever calls “Yet Another Effort, Frenchmen,” “nothing less than a reductio ad absurdum of the theory of revolution and a radical mockery of Jacobin philosophy,”25 he is being far too clever, more clever than the text itself, which evidently embarrasses him because of its frankness. In “Yet Another Effort, Frenchmen,” the Marquis de Sade gives the rationale for the revolutionary state, which is indistinguishable from Augustine’s City of Man, which is based on the gratification of passion in general and the gratification of libido dominandi as its highest expression: “Insurrection,” Sade writes, “thought these sage legislators, is not at all a moral condition; however, it has got to be a republic’s permanent condition.”
The potential for both control and insurrection, however, undergoes a quantum change when sexuality is deregulated and allowed to act as an stimulant for “perpetual unrest.” In fact since the revolutionary regime is based on the subversion of morals it can only exist by exploiting sexuality in this fashion. What it proposes to the unruly mob as freedom, however, is really only a form of political control. The Marquis de Sade makes this perfectly clear: “Lycurgus and Solon, fully convinced that immodesty’s results are to keep the citizen in the immoral [again, his emphasis] state indispensable to the mechanics of republican government, obliged girls to exhibit themselves naked at the theater.”
Sade’s politics, like Weishaupt’s, is the classical tradition turned upside down. The key insight of both the Marquis de Sade and the Christian West is that the moral man is in a state of peace; because he is not in motion, he is, therefore, impossible to direct and control from the outside. The revolutionary’s very restlessness, his very rebellion against the moral order, which is the source of his restlessness, holds within it the seeds of control because once in motion the state need only manipulate the revolutionary’s desires by controlling his passions, and it succeeds in manipulating and thereby controlling him. Sade is not slow in drawing this very conclusion.
Lust, in other words, is the force which keeps the citizenry of the republic from succumbing to the inertia of tranquillity which is the fruit of adherence to the moral order. At this point we enter into something like a circular argument. Both political systems are self-contained. Morals lead to order; passions lead to revolution. From the revolutionary point of view, lust is good because it fosters the restlessness of republicanism, but republicanism is also good because it fosters lust. Either way what we have here is the rationalization of desire as an instrument of simultaneous “liberation” and control; what was hitherto deemed pathological is now to be seen as the social norm:
We are persuaded that lust, being a product of those penchants, is not to be stifled or legislated against, but that it is, rather, a matter of arranging for the means whereby passion may be satisfied in peace. We must hence undertake to introduce order into this sphere of affairs, and to establish all the security necessaiy so that, when need sends the citizen near the objects of lust, he can give himself over to doing with them all that his passions demand, without ever being hampered by anything, for there is no moment in the life of man when liberty in its whole amplitude is so important to him.
We have here in a nutshell the rationale for the pornographic entertainment consumerist culture which would become the dominant culture in the world by the end of the second millennium. The project at its heart concerns arrangements whereby passion may be satisfied in peace but with someone making a profit from its gratification. “Liberty,” according to this line of thought, is not the ability to act according to reason, but rather the ability to gratify illicit passion, which means that in the very act of attaining his “liberty” man becomes the thrall of the passion he gratifies. Before long, it becomes clear that Sade’s politics is in many ways just the physics he says it is. Man at the beck of passion is in many ways like a particle with no will of its own, since reason, especially morals, is the sole source of man’s ability to govern himself. Once gratification of passion becomes the definition of “liberty,” then “liberty” becomes synonymous with bondage because he who controls the passion controls the man. Liberty, as defined by Sade, becomes a prelude to the most insidious form of control known by man precisely because it is based on the stealthy manipulation of his passions. This was the genius of Enlightenment politics, which is in reality nothing more than a physics of vice: Incite the passion; control the man. This is the esoteric doctrine of the Enlightenment, one that has been refined for over 200 years through a trajectory that involves everything from psychoanalysis to advertising to pornography and the role it plays in Kulturkampf. Sade clearly understands that sexual liberation leads to social control and sees this liberation and subsequent control of passion as the basis of the permanent revolution that life in France would become once Frenchmen “Would Become Republicans.”
“No passion has a greater need of the widest horizon of liberty than sexual license,” Sade writes: here it is that man likes to command, to be obeyed, to surround himself with slaves to satisfy him; well, whenever you withhold from man the secret means whereby he exhales the dose of despotism Nature instilled in the depths of his heart, he will seek other outlets for it, it will be vented upon nearby objects; it will trouble the government. If you would avoid that danger, permit a free flight and rein to those tyrannical desires which, despite himself, torment man ceaselessly: content with having been able to exercise his small dominion in the middle of the harem of sultanas and youths whose submission your good offices and his money procure for him, he will go away appeased and with nothing but fond feelings for a government which so obligingly affords him every means of satisfying his concupiscence.
We see in Sade’s articulation of principles the system by which the regime can placate sexual interest groups and thereby maintain its hold on power.
There are a number of ironies here some obvious, some not. One irony is obvious: Once man is freed from the moral order, he is immediately subjected to the despotism of those who know how to manipulate his desires. This is the essence of the Enlightenment regime; not to prohibit, but to enable, to encourage motion or restlessness, and direct the flow of that activity by manipulating desire. This is the political genius behind a regime that is based on advertising and pornography and opinion polls and the other instruments which control “liberated” man.
Sexual liberation leads to anarchy, chaos, and horror, and chaos invariably leads to forms of social control. The regime which promotes attempts to tame the sexual passion in much the same way it controlled steam, electricity, and the atom can never be sure that the passions they “liberate” won’t return to destroy them. Instead of peace based on the tranquillity of order, the revolutionary regime offers “liberation” from the moral order followed by chaos and totalitarian control. We find, then, in Sade a perverse corroboration of the trajectory of horror adumbrated in the epistle of James. Passion leads to sin, and sin, when it reaches its fullness, gives birth to death. The trajectory of horror remains the same in both the classical and Enlightenment traditions. Sade’s only dispute with St. James is the values he places on the milestones of the same trajectory. Both admit that sexual passion released from the moral order leads to murder, terror, and death; Sade, however, remains firm in viewing these phenomena through the lens of sexual desire, which is so imperious and all encompassing that it fails to see them as evil. Vice, it turns out, and not self-interest, is the gravitational force which both moves men and allows the revolutionaries to manipulate them to their own ends. This is the great discovery of the Enlightenment. Those in the grip of sexual passion, as Sade testifies, know how powerful it is. It was the genius of the Enlightenment to make that passion an instrument of political control, and that discovery was so ingenious because vice as a form of control is virtually invisible. Those who are the thrall of their passions see only what they desire and the not the bondage those desires inflict on them. Sexual liberation is, as a result, the ideal form of control because it is virtually invisible.
Liberalism, radicalism, political ideology, poor acting, unheard of movies, wasted talent.
Liberalism seeps into previously existing institutions, turns them from their original purpose, causes the patrons to flee, and sinks the whole thing in boring irrelevance. It is salt that has become flavorless. Worse: it strips everything of flavor.