Criticisms of modern women

The Manosphere has many things to say about modern women, generally rather negative.  I’ll go into depth on some of them, concerning how they originated and how to move things in a positive direction.  I like positive – positive is good!  The fact is, both men and women have their foibles, often quite similar.

Essential differences between men and women exist, and these are complementary.  You don’t have to be a biologist to tell that men are designed to be the hunters and warriors, and women are designed to be mothers and nurturers.  In normal societies, we get along pretty well.  Present-day dysfunction has more to do with our social environment than with feminine nature.  For example, when we’re encouraged to reject our natural roles and be something we’re not, trouble is soon to follow.

The following will be rather US-centric, but it’s likely similar elsewhere in the Western world.  Some of the major criticisms are as follows:

“Women never should’ve been granted the right to vote.  They caused all this leftist nonsense these days.”

Women’s suffrage passed in 1920.  This is striking evidence that radical feminists are lying when they say women have no power in society.  Women form a majority of the US electorate – as of 2014, 125.9 million women to 119.4 million men.  Therefore, there’s nothing stopping them from voting in an all-female Congress if they wished.  They haven’t, because most don’t think in “us versus them” terms, despite a small but very vocal minority telling them to think that way.  Society’s leftward slide began in the mid-1960s, following lots of cultural Marxist influence, or “active measures” as the KGB put it.  Feminism was one of these fronts.  Consequentially, the women’s vote tends to swing a little to the left, though it’s not a huge difference.  Other items – race, income, and ideology – are much larger factors.  Open borders immigration is our biggest problem; fixing that would be the most effective means to stop the leftward slide.

Still, since an election can hinge on even 1%, the difference between male and female voting patterns is worth addressing.  Should we write off women as being hopelessly beyond reaching?  Should we try to convince them to repeal the 19th Amendment?  (Good luck with that one!)  A better idea is to expose the cultural Marxists for their divide-and-conquer tactics.  Trying to turn women against men was a very foul deed.  So was flooding Western countries with Third World immigrants for coldly cynical political reasons, but that’s another matter entirely.

“Women are all irresponsible and unable to manage their lives, because it’s part of their nature.”

Men do tend to be more practical – we’re expected to be – but sweeping generalizations about irresponsibility are inaccurate.  I’ve had a large number of girlfriends over the years.  Some of them had their act together, some were flaky to varying degrees, and a few had lives that were complete wrecks (I avoid those types these days).  Guys can be flaky too.  Just to begin with, a couple of my college roommates sabotaged their future careers by frying their brains on drugs; that certainly wasn’t very prudent!

Irresponsibility all around is worsened by cultural factors.  In times past, people had to get it together or they starved.  These days, young adulthood is an extended adolescence, and those who can’t hack it have lots of social services to help them (or enable them, as the case may be).  How many people who lived through the Great Depression were lazy men or shopaholic women?  Society has become too soft and permissive lately.  We should do something about this, beginning with fixing the educational system.

“Women are too picky.”

There’s lots of truth to this one, especially for younger women.  Often this is stated in Pareto terms, where 80% of women seek out the top 20% of guys.  The younger ones – at the peak of their beauty (what we typically value most) are greatly advantaged in the sexual marketplace.  Few of their male peers their age are particularly wealthy or accomplished (what they typically value most).  Suppose you were a rock star with groupies throwing themselves at you, and you never had to sleep alone or with anyone below “HB9” looks unless you felt like it.  This is basically the position attractive young women are in – that is, until the bloom of youth fades, then it’s all downhill fast!

This one is a real shit sandwich for most young guys.  This is a sexual marketplace perturbation that our ancestors who married early didn’t have to deal with.  Now that young men are expected to spend a decade getting educated and launching a career before they’re taken very seriously – during which time the young women are “finding themselves” (to put it euphemistically) – we’re basically stuck with it.  I have no easy answers on a social level.  Individually, self-improvement and getting correct information about the way courtship works these days can get you into that top 20%!

“All American women are feminist harpies.”

Actually, only 1 in 4 American women self-identify as feminists.  Since feminism claims to speak for them, and is touted endlessly by the dominant cultural narrative, this lack of enthusiasm is remarkable!  The hateful rhetoric turns off many normal women, who know that most men are decent people.  In my experience, most feminists in the general public naively think it’s only about fairness and equality.  (That hasn’t really been true since the 1950s, but still…)  In other words, most self-identified feminists you’ll meet are moderates.  Feminism is more popular among the young (with less life experience) and college educated (subjected to 4+ years of intense propaganda).  Unfortunately, the real harpies – feminists with toxically radical views – are entrenched in academia, the government, and the media; that’s why it’s the dominant cultural narrative.  This is definitely a problem, and attitudes overall certainly have worsened because of this, but it’s not quite as pervasive as one might expect.

To fix this socially, we should attack the source of the problem.  Call out feminism for its inflammatory, divisive rhetoric.  Expose their phony statistics.  Point out how well women have it here compared to the Third World, which feminism largely ignores.  Show them that they’ve been used as tools in ideological warfare.

“Women are too ‘bitchy’.”

Many notable Second Wave feminists had three things in common.  First, most were politically far left, hating our society and some even wanting to tear it down.  Second, many were neurotic.  As for the third, let’s just say that a very large number weren’t part of majority demographics.  All told, they had less in common with the average American woman than Michael Jackson had in common with the average American man.  During the 1960s, their propaganda started affecting the social scene like Agent Orange was affecting Vietnam, and they’re still at it.  For decades, women have been encouraged by our education and media machines to think of us as oppressors, criminals, and all that crap.  Many reject this propaganda, but others absorb it to varying degrees, even non-feminists.

On an individual level, there’s a solution to “bitchiness”:  calmly be firm, stand your ground, and there’s a good chance the attitude will melt away when you hold your frame!  If all guys refused to tolerate “bitchiness”, it would work wonders for society.

“Women who rode the cock carousel can’t form stable relationships.”

There is indeed truth to that, with statistical evidence to back it up.  Now let’s look at it from the other side.  Who’s more likely to cheat on his wife – a guy who bedded dozens of women prior to marriage, or someone who married his one and only?  Women aren’t the only ones screwing around here!  Just imagine Harley McBadboy saying, “I can’t sleep with you because that would be unchaste and might damage your relationship with your future husband.”  Really, the root cause of all this is lax morality.  The media is partially to blame; sex does sell.  Still, society wouldn’t be dissolute if the public didn’t like it that way.

Some say we were better off under patriarchy because this restrained women’s baser instincts.  High moral standards aren’t identical to patriarchy; it’s really about religion and culture.  Ancient Egypt was extremely libertine.  The Old Testament shows that the Near East also got pretty wild and crazy sometimes.  Ancient Greece was awesome in many ways, but it didn’t look too much like a Pentecostal picnic.  Recall that traditional morality restrained male behavior too, even despite double standards.  A “player” of today would have been shunned from civilized society in the 1950s, and challenged to duels in the 1850s.  I’m not holding my breath waiting for the next Puritan revival, though.  Furthermore, an overreaction would cause problems of its own.  All that being said, we’re going to be waiting a long time if we expect the sexual revolution to reverse course.  The genie isn’t going back into the bottle any time soon; again, the public likes it that way.

Our 50% divorce rate is indeed socially devastating on many levels.  For a practical way to strengthen marriage, we can push for legislative changes to remove unjust financial incentives for YOLO divorces.  Abolishing alimony, and getting the lawyers off the gravy train, would be a good start.

Why all this is important

Am I being too moderate here?  Consider that one of radical feminism’s worst characteristics is divisiveness; if we add to the negativity they’ve been feeding into the public, then we’re helping them tear society apart.  Men and women should live together in harmony.  Let’s make love, not war.  Lastly, fixing society’s problems won’t be easy, but we’ll have to do what we can to return to a condition of balance.  The future is what we make it.

Advertisements
Criticisms of modern women

Time is too valuable to waste

Your time is valuable, and finite. You only have so many hours on this earth. Hopefully you’ll have a long life, but still there’s a remote possibility you’ll get run over by a bus next month.  Plan for a lifetime, but live today like it’s your last day on earth.  Quality is more important than quantity. It’s better to live a day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep. To make the best of your numbered days, you’ll need to cut time wasters out of your life, or at least severely limit them. Some of these include:

Television: There was a study done in the 1970s which found that by the time children reach adulthood, they’d watched an average of 18,000 hours of TV. That’s right – a thousand hours a year in front of the electronic babysitter. Granted, the study is rather dated, but are kids really watching that much less TV these days? Obviously many of us continue to be addicted to the idiot box throughout our adulthoods. For instance, watching sports is a rather odd ritual when you think about it: screaming on the sofa for two hours, with a beer in one hand and a bag of junk food in the other. Is it really that important? Why spend hours staring passively into a glowing box? Since many shows have subtle messages meant to demoralize us, along with commercials every ten minutes telling us to buy crap we don’t need, getting rid of your TV is a no-brainer. Get the enemy’s propaganda needle out of your arm! At the very least, cancel your cable subscription and stop feeding the media beast.  Quit being a couch potato! Substitute: Read classic literature.

Video games: This form of electronic entertainment isn’t quite as passive as TV, and it’s more fun. Matt Forney made a brilliant observation:

In a game, the playing field is fair. It’s tailored to your strengths as a man. It offers tangible rewards for performance. Its rules are clearly stated and work as advertised. If it screws you over, it’s because you did something wrong or didn’t perform up to speed. In other words, it’s everything the workplace and classroom are supposed to be but aren’t.

Still, it’s unproductive, and some people really get sucked into video games. For about a year, one of my managers did almost nothing at work but play Warcrack. At the worst extreme, “poopsocking” can be fatal – deaths have resulted from self-neglect and neglect of young children. Only a small fraction of people are quite that bad off, but if you’re wasting hours a day on video games, maybe it’s time to get a life. If your next question is where to download a life, then you’re not quite getting the point! Blowing up pixels on a screen is fun, but always remember, none of that is real.  Get a life! Substitute: Go to the gym and lose that beer gut, get into martial arts, or play team sports.

Social media: The Internet provides many ways to waste time, but this one’s a biggie. I wouldn’t be the first person to observe that social media makes us less social. Many people are glued to Fakebook for hours a day, keeping track of hundreds of “friends”. I only look at it once in a blue moon, and the last time I reviewed my friends list, it was surprising how many of them I don’t remember and how many I now kind of hate. Social media is a lousy way to keep up with your friends; once again, it’s about quality, not quantity.  If all your “friends” are online, then you have no friends!  Substitute: Hang out with some real friends.

Pornography: Since the 1970s – due to changing morals, the legal landscape, and especially technology – porn has become increasingly easier to obtain. Now, it’s weirder than ever before too. These days, you can have multiple browser windows displaying subjects that would have left Sigmund Freud gobsmacked. Some guys do exactly that, for hours a day. Not only is this a huge waste of time, this can really screw up your love life. Too much porn can reduce your motivation to find a real woman, desensitize you so that ordinary cuties don’t turn you on any more, make your tastes go off into strange directions, screw up your ability to climax during sex due to overuse of the “dick death grip”, and even cause porn-induced ED. The folks at Your Brain On Porn explain these things, and more. Other than that, watching some dude bone someone you’d like to bone is rather pathetic! To make an analogy, if sex is a meal at a five-star restaurant, then porn is a starch briquette soaked in partially hydrogenated grease that’s been sitting on the snacks shelf at a convenience store for six months.  Quit being a wanker!  Substitute: Find a girlfriend, or a dozen; your call.

Substance abuse:  Unlike all the above, this one’s been around since forever. I’d be the world’s worst hypocrite if I told you that you shouldn’t drink beer. However, I certainly won’t make a lifestyle out of it. If you’re getting wasted day after day, then you’ve got a problem. If you’re smoking a pack of cigs every day, then it’s time to do a cost-benefit analysis. Pot makes you lazy and stupid, most especially in large quantities. Surely someone out there is sucking on a reefer and thinking I’m a big idiot – well, denial’s not just a river in Egypt! Harder stuff is an absolute no-go. When I was a teenager, my uncle told me that using drugs becomes a problem when the drug starts using you. I thought that was pretty brilliant at the time. Since he’s a cokehead, he should consider his own advice! Anyway, the main problem with his bon mot is that you get sucked into it before you realize you have a problem, and then it’s too late. Hard drugs – coke (especially crack), meth, heroin and other powerful opiates – rewire the brain. I’ve known quite a few dope fiends, but I could never figure out what’s so much fun about being a zombie. Eventually, drug addicts go to prison, die of an overdose, or start looking and acting like Gollum.  Get that monkey off your back!  Substitute: Expand your mind with meditation.

In strict moderation, time wasters aren’t so bad. However, if you’re blowing hours a day doing these things, you’re missing out on opportunities to improve yourself. If your life is centered on something unproductive, then reexamine your priorities. Paraphrasing Socrates, a life of mindless entertainment is not worth living. Be the best person you can be. Stay excellent, my friends!

Time is too valuable to waste

Why some women choose losers

Many men have wondered why women allow losers into their lives.  There are those who have minimum standards for their mates, and some with a laundry list of sky-high expectations, but there are also those who have an inexplicable lack of good taste!  It’s easy to see why guys who are rich, good-looking, famous, or accomplished tend to do better with women; that much is logical.  Still, why do guys who are basically zeroes have any success whatsoever?

Perhaps one day when you were lonely, you’ve passed by someone who looks like he just crawled from under a rock, yet had a hottie on his arm.  This might have caused you to wonder “what the hell does he have that I don’t?”  Perhaps at that point you began to doubt the existence of a benevolent deity.  An easy explanation would be that these chicks are nuts.

WTF is wrong with them?

Taking a nerdy digression into mathematics, the relationship of male quality to sexual success is quite baffling.  A Blue Pill guy might assume it’s a linear function.  For example, he may believe that a loser can find nobody, an average guy will get middle of the road success, and an exceptional guy will be twice as successful as Joe Average.  (Before the Sexual Revolution, it basically did work that way.)  A Red Pill guy, informed of hypergamy and the 80/20 Pareto rule, might perceive an exponential function or possibly a logistic curve:  popularity doesn’t ramp up much until you reach the top 20% echelon of guys.  Still, to account for the loser bonus, one would have to postulate a parabolic curve, or possibly an exsecant (U-shaped) curve.  It’s one of those weird paradoxes, like why the government caters to the extremely rich and extremely poor but doesn’t give a crap about everyone in between.  Still, there appear to be some other factors going on.  Confusion happens when you use logic to try to make sense of Chick Logic!

The traditional Red Pill explanation is the alpha male effect.  There’s a lot to be said for that, yet there’s no universal definition for who is an alpha male.  To me, this is a guy who is successful in life, socially savvy, and others respect him for his demonstrated good qualities.  I find it hard to see how (for example) an ex-convict with missing teeth, a meth habit, and a room temperature IQ would qualify.  Most likely, the decisive factor is simply about having lots of personal charisma; those who know what buttons to push are well rewarded.

One explanation is that women who choose losers are damaged – even ones who seem classy – and like attracts like.  Other psychological explanations are masochism and Stockholm syndrome.  There’s likely some truth in all that, but we haven’t arrived at a complete picture yet.

Another possible explanation is that some women try to “fix” their mates.  On a mundane level, this happens when a long-term girlfriend goes on a campaign to change one or more of your undesired (by her) personality traits, and eventually you wonder how you ended up dating your mother.  (Those who try this should be careful what they wish for!)  Popular culture is a big offender here.  Many romance novels feature heroines who are captivated by the force of an untamed man’s desire, yet by the end of the novel, they’ve tamed him because the purity of their love transforms him.  Surely you can see how well that works in the real world (not!) yet it’s still a big Chick Lit trope.  Disney’s Beauty and the Beast exemplified this.  Perhaps some losers are seen as candidates for fixing; unfortunately, it may take several attempts before they discover that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.  (If they’re unlucky, by then they end up on welfare with four kids by four deadbeat dads.)  The guys who know how to press the right buttons can whip out the sympathy card as needed.

All the above suggests that women’s mate selection isn’t always governed by rational factors.  Thus, in final summary, these chicks are nuts!

Tales of horror

The following cases don’t address motivation, but at least suggest solutions.  Both cover ostensive polyamorous situations where the higher-quality guy was basically blown off in favor of a loser.

The first was a succinctly-titled forum post, “Why do women choose losers over someone worth a damn?”  Kyle got taken for a ride.  He took on a provider role before he got any action.  As soon as he did that, she got serious with another potential suitor.  This was a man-child, working part time at a pizza parlor and part time selling pot, and he was such a lousy lover that she fantasized about Kyle when she was sleeping with this other dude.  Kyle was quite the opposite – he was mature and popular, worked fifty hours a week, had his own place, had his own car, and satisfied her quite well when she finally gave him a chance.  Right after that, she got second thoughts.  Next time she invited Kyle over, her loser fuck-buddy was there too.  WTF!

There was no follow-up from the original poster – just several comments, many ignorant – so we can only guess what happened next.  Perhaps he could have saved the situation by holding Frame and explaining that casting him back into the Friend Zone would result in him casting her out of his life.  Not tolerating the situation to begin with would have been better yet.  Hopefully he learned that you shouldn’t even think about taking on a provider role before getting any action!

Another gem came from Best Of Craigslist.  A guy was courting someone for months with no action because she “wasn’t ready”.  When helping his almost-girlfriend move, he discovered (thanks to a heap of used condoms under her bed) that she was sleeping with some “lives-with-mom-works-at-the-A&P-makes-you-take-a-cab-to-your-rented-movie-and-microwave-popcorn-date-at-his-house jackass”.  Her explanation had been “You and I are close, and you’re really nice to me. I like being with you. I don’t really like him, it’s just a sex thing.”  It went quickly downhill after that:

“If I’m not worth waiting for, then…”
“Sure, whatever. The shit that’s in my truck will be on the sidewalk in five minutes. Goodbye.”
“But who’s going to help me mooooovvvvveee????”

Fortunately, he wised up right then and there!  After his Red Pill moment of clarity, his policy is that if two dates have gone by with no action, it’s over.

In summary

If you take on a rescuer role – as some put it, “Captain Save-A-Ho” – then you’ll probably end up getting chewed up and spat out like used bubble gum.  To hell with that!  You’ll either get a one-way ticket to the Friend Zone, or if you’re “lucky” you’ll get a dysfunctional relationship.  Find someone normal instead.

Another hot tip is that if someone you just met starts telling you about all her abusive relationships and bad experiences, then she’s probably playing you for sympathy points.  She might later end up describing you as an abuser to her next mark!  Sometimes bad things happen to people through no fault of their own, which may well be disclosed later on in the relationship, but people with a healthy sense of boundaries don’t tell these things to people they just met and consider as potential dating material.  Think about it – if something nasty like that ever happened to you, then you wouldn’t make it first date conversation material, would you?  I’ve never heard of any guy using a “Father Badtouch and the altar boy” story as a pickup routine.

So if you ever run into anyone who dates losers, consider it a red flag.  Taking a very apt comment from an article slightly out of context, “Remember, they want your money, blood, sweat and tears, they just don’t want you.”

Why some women choose losers

The premises of the political left

Some critical premises of the political left stem from kernels of truth, but are applied beyond their original meaning and sensible interpretation.  Abstract terms such as rights, freedom, and justice sound good, but one must always evaluate what they mean in practice.  Let’s examine three of these premises.

Radical egalitarianism

The fine Age of Enlightenment sentiment “all men are created equal” appeared in the Declaration of Independence.  What did it mean, and not mean?  This affirmed individual sovereignty of citizens while rejecting monarchy and hereditary nobility.  It implies government derives its authority from the governed.  Finally, this meant the law should treat all citizens the same, rich or poor.  This isn’t a complete denial of categories; for example, slaves were considered as property rather than citizens.  (Slavery was a problem inherited from colonial times, though it was a huge mistake to mess with that in the first place.)  However, “all men are created equal” was never a statement of opinion about nonexistence of differences in individuals; everyone can see that a great many of these differences do exist.  Neither was it a statement that differences in groups of people don’t exist.  (Actually, the first draft stated “all Englishmen are created equal”.)  The founders certainly recognized group differences; for example, the first immigration act restricted entry to “free white persons”.

Radical egalitarians take Rousseau’s “blank slate” theory pretty much like Holy Gospel, thus seeing differences as unfair.  They strenuously deny that differences in groups exist, especially those between differing ancestral populations.  If they admitted that innate differences exist, then they’d have to admit that they were wrong to push all their tremendously costly and often counterproductive social experiments.  (If one day they try to eradicate individual differences as well, this may work out like the story Harrison Bergeron or the Greek myth of Procrustes.)  Any differences in results between groups are explained away by saying someone exploited or oppressed them.  No evidence will dissuade them; neither will examples of nations that quickly recovered from calamities.  Further, anyone better off should be punished and made to feel guilty.  One result is Affirmative Action – a system of preferences sold as non-discrimination and justified by what someone’s great great grandfather might have done to someone else’s great great grandfather.

Moral relativism

All people do have a right to hold and express their opinion.  People do perceive things slightly differently and draw different conclusions.  This is to be settled in the free marketplace of ideas.  People have a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

The root of moral relativism is subjectivism.  This idea means that rather than perceiving reality around us, reality conforms itself to our minds.  For example, this is why a man can put on a dress, call himself a woman, and be taken seriously.  Subjectivism is truly a strange belief; anyone smart enough to understand the Allegory of the Cave and the Allegory of the Divided Line in Plato’s Republic will know better.  (Even so, one of the big fads in academia is postmodernism, which holds untruth to be self-evident.)  Subjectivism leads itself to the position that all facts, truths, and values are equal.

Going a little further, all beliefs, lifestyles, and cultures are considered equal.  In practice, it’s very selective.  Some religions get a free pass for repeated atrocities; others are undeservingly depicted as horridly oppressive.  Some lifestyles are celebrated and encouraged; others are denounced as stifling and outmoded.  Some cultures are exempted from criticism; others are subjected to collective samo-kritika by cultural Marxists in the education and media machines.

This in turn leads to political correctness.  At first it was about changing language as a feel-good measure.  Then it became thought control, forbidding any speech contradicting its premises, including entire policy arguments.  “Diversity” is highly praised, but this certainly doesn’t include diversity of thought and opinion.  Instead, political correctness enforces conformity.  Sometimes words ending in “phobia” are made up to describe those who disagree with something, thus reframing it that the dissenter is the one who has a problem, along of course with well-known coinages ending in “ism”.  Those who dissent can be punished with smear campaigns, blacklisting, losing their jobs, or – in many “free” European countries – jail time.  So much for freedom of expression!

Social justice

Defining justice is a difficult task; Plato’s Republic is all about that, with some interesting digressions.  It is just for people who work hard to be rewarded fairly and get ahead.  Also, countries that have a healthy middle class are more just than those with vast extremes of wealth.  Things like corporate welfare, graft, casino capitalism, and predatory lending are unjust.  For the record, there’s a difference between capitalism and plutocracy.

The social justice concept – as it’s practiced today – goes off the rails.  Its most extreme position is Communism.  By redistributing wealth, they sought to create a utopia.  In practice, they redistributed poverty and created a pile of corpses that made the Mongols look like amateurs.  Despite some Marxist influence, Western liberalism is more moderate.  Even so, it goes beyond giving the common people a fair shake.  The shift in focus from equality of opportunity to equality of results should raise suspicions.  It’s reasonable to have a well-regulated social safety net, but it’s gone too far when it creates intergenerational poverty; that does nobody any favors.

In summary

All of the above leads to even more absurdity.  As Orwell put it, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  For just one small example, when country A colonized country B, that was unjust oppression, but country B colonizing country A is progress and the citizens have no right to question this, much less resist.  Also, consider the word “tolerance” – the usual meaning is to get along despite differences of opinion.  Now, it’s become a code word for “agree with us or else” – basically the opposite of its original meaning.

A growing problem is cultural Marxism, which takes the above premises to an extreme.  This is the predominant ideology pushed by the media and education machines, and exemplified by Social Justice Warriors.  They too have a right to their opinion, but it’s not reasonable for them to have a stranglehold on the opinion-forming institutions.  Prying their hands from the levers of power will be a necessary step to setting civilization back on course.

The premises of the political left

What would happen if the USA became Communist

I’ve written a bit of alternate history, and “what-if” scenarios are rather fascinating to me.  As things are now, an unholy alliance of wealthy globalists and cultural Marxists (including Social Justice Warriors) are holding the reins of power.  Suppose that somehow a Marxist-Leninist style political system emerged in the USA?  Perhaps this might be the result of a coup, or SJWs assuming power and rediscovering their movement’s Communist roots.  Either way, what would happen in a United Soviet Socialist America?

If Marxist-Leninists take over, who would benefit?

In the beginning, the limousine liberals – all the insanely rich leftist rock stars, Hollywood types, and media figures – surely would be delighted, until they find out that redistribution of wealth includes them too.  Anyone who complained too much about their greatly diminished status will be first in line to a labor camp in Alaska.  Actually, it would be rather amusing to see a bunch of leftist celebrities sawing timber in sub-zero temperatures.

Surely the SJWs would be delighted too.  For so long, they had dreamed of assuming power and walking tall among the revolutionary vanguard.  Before, they were nobodies, orchestrating Internet smear campaigns from their dorm rooms or their mothers’ basements, but soon they’ll be ruling in the USSA’s Central Committee.  Well, all these armchair Lenins might have a rude awakening!  As KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov stated in an interview:

For example, your leftists in [the] United States:  all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders.  They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation.  When their job is completed, they are not needed any more.  They know too much.  Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power – obviously they get offended – they think that they will come to power.  That will never happen, of course.  They will be lined up against the wall and shot.

Then Bezmenov goes into detail about countries where this happened.  Further on:

Interviewer:  And yet these people have been programmed, and as you say, in place who are favorable to an opening of the Soviet concept.   These are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

Bezmenov:  Most of them, yes.  Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ means in practice, obviously they will revolt.  They will be very unhappy, frustrated people, and the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people.  Obviously they will join the leagues of dissenters (dissidents).   Unlike in [the] present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America.  Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy-rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident,’ for criticizing your Pentagon.  In [the] future these people will be simply [squashing sound] squashed like cockroaches.  Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality.  This they don’t understand and it will be [the] greatest shock for them, of course.

Ouch!  Even those who do get cushy jobs in the Central Committee might not end up so well.  I could write a book about the good things that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin did, which would be one page long and mostly blank.  Item one would be that he had all the leading Old Guard Communists killed.

So what about the gays, lesbians, and transgendered?  Their movement has been courted by the left, so will they finally get things the way they want in the USSA, comes the Revolution?  Actually, I hardly can think of how the present-day Federal government possibly could bend over backwards for them more.  By contrast, in the Soviet Union, they were sent to mental institutions.  Even if the USSA doesn’t go that far, the leaders certainly would have no use for any further antics on their part.  So much for the great transgendered bathroom debate!

How about racial minorities?  The Communists have tried to get American Blacks on their side ever since a certain strategy meeting between Vyacheslav Molotov and FDR’s pal “Uncle Joe”.  However, after the Revolution, they would be well-advised to keep a low profile.  These days, rioting and assassinations of police officers by BLM fans are treated as isolated incidents.  However, using history as a guide, the USSR had quite a tradition of sending ethnic groups deemed insufficiently loyal to remote areas.  On the positive side of the equation, places like Detroit, East St. Louis, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Birmingham would get a fresh start.  Likewise, under a Communist regime, Hispanics who dream of taking over the Southwest and giving “Aztlan” back to Mexico would end up getting exactly what they deserve.

What about all the millions on public assistance?  They’ve been a very useful voting bloc for the left, but they would become dead weight in the USSA.  Mitt Romney, during the Presidential race, was recorded on a hidden camera pointing out that “there are 47% who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it…  47% of Americans pay no income tax.”  He took a lot of heat for this; mainly because the truth hurts.  Today, taxes are subsidizing a great number of able-bodied citizens who can work, but either can’t find a job, have given up hope, or don’t want to work.  In the USSA, this no longer would be an option for them.  As Comrade Lenin put it, “Who does not work, does not eat.”  At least this would do wonders for our country’s obesity problem.

All told, those who dream of a Communist revolution should be careful what they wish for!  Granted, Marxist-Leninist style Communism is unlikely to take root here.  A more probable “what-if” scenario would be where our present-day soft despotism becomes a more hardcore variety (perhaps following an engineered “national emergency”), or a few decades down the road when the population replacement policy turns the USA into a third world slum.  (That was initiated with Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act, similar to the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan going on in Europe.)  Even then, there would be many unpleasant surprises awaiting those who thought any of this was “progress”.

What would happen if the USA became Communist

What barbarians knew about marriage that we don’t

Tacitus was an ancient historian from the high times of the Roman Empire.  Interestingly, he was one of the first Pagans to write about Christianity, though briefly.  Also, he presented a long description of the region of Germania – the vast area of related tribes generally east of the Rhine and north of the Danube.  (These were among your ancestors if you have any German, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, or ancient Gothic heritage.)  The breadth of his treatise is one of the best surviving accounts concerning regions on the periphery of the Roman Empire.

Here’s what Tacitus had to say about their married life:

Their marriage code, however, is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy.  Almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife, except a very few among them, and these not from sensuality, but because their noble birth procures for them many offers of alliance.

What?  You mean marriage as one man and one woman wasn’t invented by the Christians?  Who knew?  On a somewhat more serious note, this is how it went for the Romans too – if I recall correctly, dating back to Emperor Caesar Augustus, who I’m pretty sure wasn’t a Southern Baptist preacher.

The wife does not bring a dower to the husband, but the husband to the wife.  The parents and relatives are present, and pass judgment on the marriage-gifts, gifts not meant to suit a woman’s taste, nor such as a bride would deck herself with, but oxen, a caparisoned steed, a shield, a lance, and a sword. With these presents the wife is espoused, and she herself in her turn brings her husband a gift of arms.

Sounds like there wasn’t much bridezilla stuff back in ancient Germania.

This they count their strongest bond of union, these their sacred mysteries, these their gods of marriage.  Lest the woman should think herself to stand apart from aspirations after noble deeds and from the perils of war, she is reminded by the ceremony which inaugurates marriage that she is her husband’s partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare with him alike both in peace and in war. The yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the gift of arms, proclaim this fact.  She must live and die with the feeling that she is receiving what she must hand down to her children neither tarnished nor depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may receive, and may be so passed on to her grand-children.

Would that people took marriage even half as seriously these days.

Thus with their virtue protected they live uncorrupted by the allurements of public shows or the stimulant of feastings.  Clandestine correspondence is equally unknown to men and women.  Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband’s power.  Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk, and then flogs her through the whole village.  The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit a husband.

Looks like they didn’t have a hypergamy problem or YOLO divorce problem back then!

No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted.  Still better is the condition of those states in which only maidens are given in marriage, and where the hopes and expectations of a bride are then finally terminated.  They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state.

Our own society is looking pretty miserable compared to the forebears of many of us from two thousand years ago.

To limit the number of their children or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.

Roe v. Wade – enough said.  So who are the barbarians now?

In the final analysis, Tacitus was writing from the time when the Roman Empire was starting to become a bit decadent.  Reading between the lines of the treatise in its entirety, he seems to be casting the Germans as noble barbarians (fifteen centuries before American Indians started taking on this role).  Tacitus subtly suggests that a vital society of northern barbarians might one day overwhelm Rome if it continued to soften due to lax morals, lack of cohesion, and addiction to luxury.  To make a long story short, this is basically what happened later on.  This is something we should pay attention to, as our own society has become a bit more than decadent lately.

What barbarians knew about marriage that we don’t

Totalitarianism, then and now

Thinking of where our society is going today, and how it compares to past totalitarian regimes, reminded me of the educational film Despotism.  It’s a bit dated, but the concepts are pretty applicable for any place and time.

A study on despotism

The relative degree of freedom in society (the film shows a sliding scale of democracy to despotism as a proxy for this) isn’t dependent only on the overt political system.  Other factors matter, such as concentration of wealth and land, shared social respect, and rule by consent of the governed.  Does this sound a bit liberal?  Actually, the film also mentioned centralization of power, ideological bias in education, and media control.  As it says:

A community rates low on an information scale when the press, radio, and other channels of communication are controlled by only a few people and when citizens have to accept what they are told.  In communities of this kind, despotism stands a good chance.

Very prescient!  The only items missing are thought control and domestic spying, but I can’t fault a seventy year old film for not anticipating political correctness and things like the Carnivore program or Total Information Awareness.

So we have some disturbing trends in today’s society:

  • Concentration of wealth and land:  The middle class is shrinking; giving us increasingly a society of “haves” and “have-nots”.  Rural society is going from traditional family farms to corporate agribusiness.
  • Shared social respect:  radical feminism, racial quotas, and political correctness – need I say more?
  • Rule by consent of the governed:  Partisan politics is a hotly-contested struggle.  So is professional wrestling!
  • Centralization of power:  Think of the overreaching federal government in the USA, and the Eurocrats abroad.
  • Ideological imbalance in education:  If you’ve been to college, or seen some of the trends in public schools, this should be instructive.
  • Media control:  Half a dozen corporate mega-conglomerates own 90% of the information outlets in the USA; I suspect it’s little different in many other Western countries.

Thus, lately we’re inching dangerously close to soft despotism.  Many will say, “Things aren’t really so bad.  I can afford groceries and cable TV, so who cares?”  The problem with soft despotism (besides being despotic) is that it very easily can turn into hardcore despotism.  We shouldn’t let ourselves be distracted by bread and circuses.

Old-fashioned totalitarianism

Far-reaching ideologies are nothing new; Communism, the French Revolution, theocracies, and even some monarchies featured this (for example, Henry VIII and Ivan the Terrible).  However, the term totalitarianism was first applied to Italian Fascism, so let’s go to the source.  Mussolini had the following to say about it:

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity.  It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people.  Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.  And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State.  The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.  Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.

Surely this won’t win points among the libertarian crowd, the modern successors to classical liberalism.  Even so, the above certainly doesn’t imply recklessness or destructive social engineering.  You can’t say that for recent world “leaders” who have been hell-bent on pushing globalism and multiculturalism against the will of the public!  My verdict is that limited government certainly has its virtues – in no small part because this limits the damage from irresponsible bureaucrats and politicians.  Well, at least that’s how it’s supposed to work!  Anyway, back to Mussolini:

Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry.  Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes.  Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.  The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room.  It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential.

Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes, and it also respects God as conceived by the ingenuous and primitive heart of the people, the God to whom their prayers are raised.

How do liberal democratic countries compare?

What does today’s society – steeped in Frankfurt School cultural Marxism, and ruled by leftists with a controlled opposition of neocons – offer us?

  • Increasing economic disparity
  • The decline of traditional values
  • Hostility toward religion
  • The coarsening of society with an “anything goes” climate
  • The discouragement of sex roles and the blurring of gender lines
  • Alternative lifestyles are not merely tolerated, but encouraged and beyond criticism
  • Radical feminism leading to mistrust and friction between the sexes
  • Destruction of families from high divorce rates
  • Increasing illegitimacy and a falling native birth rate
  • Entertainment as news and propaganda as entertainment
  • Indoctrination in education
  • Political correctness stifling free expression
  • Open borders and multiculturalism leading to a population replacement policy (in the USA, Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act, and in Europe the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan)
  • Government encroachment and domestic spying

This overreaching into every aspect of our lives is certainly totalitarian, and it’s pretty shabby compared to the old-fashioned Italian variety!  Further, all this tampering is destructive.  When grandiose Communist projects like the Great Leap Forward and the Virgin Lands Campaign turned into disasters, the leaders eventually had to admit they were wrong.  Our elites won’t even do that much; when their social experiments fail, they double down on them.

So where is the Brave New World Order headed?  The far future result of this might be a global omnipotent government of the ultra-wealthy regarding the peasants as disposable economic units.  Everyone around the world will all look the same, perhaps even be fairly androgynous.  The diverse cultures will be forgotten and replaced by pop music, hamburgers, and television.  Some people think this is progress.

The future is what we make it.  If we don’t like the way things are headed, then we must take whatever lawful means we can to stop the madness.  The time to act is now.

Totalitarianism, then and now