Star Trek: Voyager’s anti-false rape allegation episode. No really.

[Image source, no affiliation with atavisionary.com]

[There will be spoilers, I will note where they start]

Star Trek has long been known to be thinly concealed propaganda for the left. In almost every episode (and movie) there is a “moral” of the story which (almost) always coincides with some popular leftist cause at the time. This harkens back to the original series such as in episode “Let that be your last battlefield” where the people from an alien species had a black colored half and a white colored half with two different races. Each race was basically the mirror image of the other, where one had black on the right side and the other had white on the right side and vice versa for the left side. This was obvious commentary on the contemporary civil rights movement with the (verifiably false) “moral” that we are all the same and differences between races are only skin deep. In the subsequent series this pattern of leftist hugboxyness only became more pronounced.

However, there are the occasional and sometimes hard to fathom exceptions. For example, Klingons transformed from a vaguely hispanic and relatively reasonable race (though also treacherous and full of guile) to a black race full of directly confrontational and violent barbarians. Perhaps this was some thinly veiled semitic racism? Could it be a result of greater interaction between the entertainment community and black musicians during the 70s and 80s between the end of the first series and the beginning of the movie franchise? One can only guess…

Of all the series, Star Trek: Voyager is known to be one of the worst offenders with their not so subtle promotion of left-wing values. The captain is a woman, the first officer is a native American, the chief engineer is a miscegenated half Klingon-half Human (played by a Hispanic woman), an Asian science officer (actually, that one is pretty legit), and the security chief is black. Quite the diversity utopia. There were only two white male main roles, and one of which was an unresponsible man-boy (Tom Paris). You can imagine what the plot lines were like in general. Voyoger was also really bad at using nonsensical technobabble.

So when I say that there was actually an episode which came out AGAINST false rape accusations I can understand why you would be incredulous. That sort of thing is incredibly out of character for Star Trek. However, the 1998 episode “Retrospect” does just that. I was a bit too young to retain an understanding of the contemporaneous cultural atmosphere of the time, but something tells me that false rape accusations were happening. Also, feminists might not have quite achieved the cultural hegemony necessary to prevent something like this from going through. Either that, or it was the writers choice to replace “rape” with “unwanted examinations” which allowed it to slip by the admittedly low-iq feminist commissars at the unofficial ministry of culture. [Spoiler alert, watch the episode now if you don’t want to see the plot first]

So let me give you a run-down of the plot. Voyager is at a trading planet looking to purchase better weapons since despite their 100% peaceful and reasonable intentions they always seem to piss off everyone they come into contact with. There is clearly something wrong with every other alien species in the galaxy. They enter into a trade negotiation with a merchant named Kovin. During the negotiation, Seven of Nine goes to Kovin’s workshop to look through some of his merchandise. Seven of Nine was basically the hot chic used as fan service for all the fat, lonely star trek nerds. The choice of her in the role of “non-consensual, physical examinee” really emphasizes the episode as a false rape allegation allegory. Anyway, while she is looking at a rifle, something overloads and she is hit by a gratuitous discharge. This causes some damage, but otherwise she is ok. Or so we think.

Later, after agreeing to purchase a new weapon for the ship, Kovin and Seven of Nine are working at a console in engineering and get into a bit of an argument about technobabble configurations. Kovin is a passionate guy so he moderately pushes seven out of the way to get to the console. She gets pissed and clocks him right in the nose. This leads to an investigation and the Doctor scans Seven to see if anything is amiss in her female borg brain. Unsurprisingly there is. As he is trying to perform the scans she starts p.m.s.-ing (anxiety attack) about medical procedures and makes the doctor let her up. He ends up having to sedate her to do the scans. It turns out that she had a neurotransmitter imbalance or some other nonsense which might “be a result of suppressed memories.”

The Doctor decides to take it upon himself to become a psychologist and do some sort of hypnotic regression therapy to see what these suppressed memories are. With the Doctor’s “help” Seven “discovers” that the incident in Kovin’s lab wasn’t an accident at all, but that he had intentionally shot her so that he could do invasive medical procedures to recover borg technology from Seven’s body in the hopes of creating new weapons to sell.  It seems that even in the 24th century, humans will still have yet to accept the fact that suppressed memories “uncovered” during therapy sessions are almost certainly crap. This alleged non-consensual and physically invasive examination was the clear stand in for rape.

With the help of the local authorities the Voyager crew begins an investigation into the incident. Kovin is understandably quite distressed and angrily professes his innocence. He also distrusts the objectivity of the crew, and explains how according to his local government’s policy or maybe just culture that even an allegation proven to be false could ruin a man. He frantically worried about his own life and livelihood being over. How no one would ever trust him again. Of course, the Voyager investigator promises him a fair shake at things. Since this is fantasy fiction, we can believe this promise.

Meanwhile, the Doctor spends time with Seven and asks her how she feels about the whole thing. At first she has no feelings at all, but then the doctor gives the following impassioned speech:

Doctor: How are you feeling?
SEVEN: I am undamaged.
Doctor: But how do you feel? Seven, your physical scars have healed, but the psychological effects are still there. You’ll have to deal with them.
SEVEN: For what purpose?
Doctor: In order to heal. Kovin attacked you, violated your rights as an individual. It’s important that you recognise that, so you can understand any hostility or resentment you might be feeling.
SEVEN: Resentment is a human trait. It has no structure, no function. I want no part of it.
Doctor: You’re going to have to begin accepting the fact that your human feelings exist, and that suppressing them can damage you.
SEVEN: If I am not aware of these feelings, how can I express them?
Doctor: Let me ask you this. What would have happened if Kovin had tried to take Borg technology directly from the Collective?
SEVEN: He would have been assimilated.
Doctor: Precisely. Which is why he chose you. He could get what he wanted without running any risks.
SEVEN: It was my individuality which made me vulnerable.
Doctor: Exactly. He violated that individuality. What he did is an affront to everything you are, Borg and Human.
SEVEN: It was the act of a coward.
Doctor: Yes! Someone who was willing to use you in the cruellest way so that he could create new weapons and sell them.
SEVEN: I believe I’m beginning to experience anger. Anger toward Kovin.
Doctor: Good. That’s a perfectly healthy, normal response. And when Kovin gets what he deserves, you’re going to feel much better.

So the Doctor takes a non-emotional Seven and convinces her to become an angry, accusatory bitch. And this after he helped her “find” these examination memories through psychoanalytical hypnotic regression. Replace “Doctor” with feminism and “seven” with the average woman and you have our culture writ large. How the hell did the commissars miss this thought-crime?

The rest of the crew continues the investigation in Kovin’s laboratory and come up with only circumstantial evidence. The only thing remotely supporting Seven’s story (or is it the Doctor’s?) is some borg nanobots which were still active when they shouldn’t be. (That part is just technobabble they made up for plot convenience, don’t think too hard about it.) The doctor then tells Kovin he must have done it because of this “evidence” which causes him to go insane, grab a gun, and try to escape in his ship.

While pursuing the ship, they do an additional test on Seven to see if the active nanobots which should have been inactive could have unexpectedly become active from an accidental discharge of the weapon in question. If so, then they would have literally no evidence to support Seven’s story. The test confirms that an accidental discharge could have led to the spurious state of the nanobots. Everyone at this point except Seven, who was still under the influence of the Doctor’s incompetence, accepts that whatever Seven was remembering it wasn’t something that happened with Kovin. Probably it was something she experienced or witnessed while still part of the borg because they do that kind of stuff all the time.

Voyager catches up to Kovin and Captain Janeway tries to explain that they made a mistake and that they know he is innocent. He doesn’t have to run. Kovin replies and says he thinks it is a trick and that they just want to capture him to put him through the wringer. He lashes out and starts firing on voyager. Voyager doesn’t return fire and tries to beam him off his ship, but can’t for technobabble reasons. Something overloads on his ship and boom, no more Kovin.

It is at this point where Janeway, Seven, and the Doctor all start to feel remorse for what happened. Thanks to their actions, they end up destroying an innocent man’s life. Fictional leftists are far more self-aware and reflecting than their real-life counter-parts. At the end the doctor (AKA feminism) describes himself like so:

“I became a self-righteous advocate and didn’t stop to think for one second that I might be wrong.”

Captain Janeway consoles him somewhat in this way:

“We all rallied around seven, doctor, myself included. I wanted her to know she was part of this family. That we would support her, fight for her, no matter what. We let our good intentions blind us.”

I honestly can’t think of another instance off the top of my head where a Star Trek episode tries to give a cautionary moral lesson about the leftist tendency to engage in manic episodes of moral self-rightiousness. In fact it is difficult to think of any episodes which are tacitly non-leftist. And it was in Voyager of all things. Quite extraordinary. For all the problems with the utopianism in Star Trek, you have to give credit where it is due. This was an exceptionally well done exploration of false allegations and the potentially lethal negative consequences they might have. It might even be worthwhile to show this episode to someone who can’t seem to “get it” that there are false rape accusations and that they are the epitomy of injustice. Given the leftist tendency for purely emotional thinking, the fact that they get to know the characters as people might help them learn something new through their thick skulls.

Ultimately, the take away is that the Doctor is the main villain here. If he hadn’t been such a self-righteous busy body, Seven would have never come to believe that she had been assaulted when she hadn’t. She also wouldn’t have progressed from believing in the assault to a start of anger with a desire for revenge. If the doctor hadn’t jumped the gun on what some piece of “evidence” actually indicated, Kovin wouldn’t have felt the need to run. A situation was created that didn’t need to exist, and was escalated far beyond reason thanks to the involvement of an ideologically rigid and corrupt third party. This is essentially how feminism behaves with respect to family law as well as rape. Domestic violence, divorce, alimony, child custody as well as other areas are all things that could be handled far more reasonably than they are now and the only reason they are not is because of the political involvement of feminism.

The part where Kovin goes belligerent as a result of the injustice of a false accusation is reminiscent of the relatively frequent lashing out by fathers forced through the family court system. I know it isn’t exactly the same thing, but it results from a similar sort of court bias which leads to excessive credulity of society and the courts with respect to false allegations. And honestly, I don’t even know if you could find any data about how common violent revenge is as a response to a false allegation of rape. This may or may not fit a similar pattern. Though all parts of the current family regime is problematic, the part of it which is closest to a false allegation of rape is false allegations of domestic violence. False allegations of domestic violence are commonly used by women in divorce and/or child custody battles against their husbands as a tactic to get favorable rulings. They are almost always believed no matter how baseless the accusation.

As far as I am aware, there aren’t any well put together studies on violence committed by men forced through the family court system, but legal professionals (judges and lawyers) seem to be aware of it and have wrote or talked with the media about it. One family court judge, who was shot in the chest with a sniper rifle an inch above his heart but survived wrote about the issue.

Eight years ago, while I stood in my chambers at the Family Court building in Reno, Nevada, a sniper shot me just above the heart from the upper level of a parking garage about 200 yards away. The shooter was a husband no longer content with battling his wife about assets and child custody in a divorce action. [talk about the mother of all understatements] I wasn’t his first target that morning. Before driving to the courthouse, he stabbed his wife to death at his suburban home during an exchange of their nine-year-old daughter.

Perpetrators of courthouse violence cannot be limited to one or more demographic profiles. They are mostly men, but of all ages, levels of educational attainment, employment histories, criminal histories, and experiences with substance abuse. They can be identified, not by their characteristics, but by their motivations… Two-thirds are motivated by a desire to take revenge. More than half of perpetrators seeking revenge intend to kill.

One-half of all court-related violence is family law related. It occurs in conjunction with cases involving divorce, alimony, child custody, child support, or domestic violence restraining orders.

Few judicial attackers suffer from mental illness. Nothing in the literature states or implies that perpetrators of court-targeted violence act under the influence of a mental imbalance or an irresistible impulse. They have not lost their free will or their ability to control their emotions. They act purposefully.

Forty years of record keeping show that the perpetrator is the person most likely to be killed in courthouse violence. Law enforcement officers are injured almost as often as perpetrators but are much less likely to be killed. Ex-wives and family members of the perpetrators make up the largest group of unarmed victims of courthouse violence, followed by members of the general public. Judges are not the most frequent victims of attack but, when they are, they are twice as likely to be killed as wounded. Court staff and judges’ families have also been victims, but with lesser frequency than these other categories of persons.

Courthouse violence also has a psychological cost. On May 5, 1992, during a divorce proceeding at the Clayton Courthouse near St. Louis, Missouri, a husband went on a shooting rampage. In less than 10 minutes, he killed his wife; shot his own lawyer and his wife’s lawyer; shot at, but missed, the judge; and wounded three other people who happened to be in the vicinity of the courtroom. A three-year longitudinal study was conducted of the consequences of the violence for courthouse staff, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and others who were present during the attack. Two months after the incident, almost three-quarters were suffering a wide range of psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and substance abuse. Some continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder three years later. A study of the judges in my judicial district following my shooting found that my colleagues had responses that could potentially interfere with judicial functioning. Almost one-half expressed recognition that their fear of violence might affect their decision making. Courthouse violence causes continuing emotional effects and substance abuse. It can lower memory capacity, interrupt decision making, and increase stereotyping in decision makers.

So, unlike every other form of violent crime, attacks against family courts transcend race, economic status, educational attainment, and substance abuse (according to this judge, who presumably has enough credentials to be trustworthy). Now that is equality we can believe in. The only non-equal part of it is that it is almost always men, but that might have something to do with the overwhelming gynocentric bias of the family court system. Its funny that every time you read a lawyer’s take on this cultural phenomena they almost never ask whether or not there is something wrong with the system itself. Their main concern is how to conduct business as usual while reducing risk; so they typically just advocate for increased security. Can’t let this legal cash cow get away. They do admit that immediate concern for their own personal safety might prompt them to be less likely to dick over fathers, so there is that I guess. Completely unconsidered and selfish though that sentiment is.

Another article has some interesting quotes:

“There’s a saying that in criminal court, you have bad people at their best,” said Texas Supreme Court Judge Debra Lehrmann, who spent more than 20 years as a family court judge. “In family law, you get good people at their worst. In criminal court, dangerous people are in handcuffs. In family court, you don’t have any idea who is dangerous…”

“It’s not uncommon [to be threatened],” said Linda Lea Viken, a family law practitioner in Rapid City, S.D., and the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “I’ve talked to women lawyers who have had guns pulled on them. I’ve talked to a lot of lawyers who were threatened. It seems like everyone has a story.” Viken has had her mailbox smashed and a golf ball sent through her office window; she suspects that both incidents were instigated by estranged husbands of clients. The only time she felt truly frightened for her safety, however, was when a man against whom she had obtained a protection order for a client followed her home from her office one night two years ago.


Todd Scott, vice president of risk management and member services for Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., began looking in 2010 for safety advice that he could pass on to his attorney clients and was surprised to find few formal resources. “I would go to these attorney panels and seminars, and almost everywhere I spoke, there was a local story about someone getting attacked or killed, and family law is at the top of the list.”

England has similar problems. Though the mail goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that it is mostly fathers aggrieved by the injustice of the system doing most of this.

If you take responsible, reliable, law-abiding fathers and totally shit on them in family court by taking their children away, giving his children and most of his assets to a woman who hasn’t worked in 5 years, then force him to pay 50-70 or more percent of his income to her on a monthly basis, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if this once decent and economically productive man feels he has nothing left to live for and decides to take out every dirty S.O.B. who screwed him over.

Share Button

Lesbians are Sub-standard, Imitation Men

For the most part, I consider lesbians/feminists to be essentially the same group because of the degree of overlap. At least if you restrict the meaning of “feminist” to include only those actively and fervently going out to protest or causing various problems with some intensity. I consider a woman who mentions in passing she is a feminist, but makes no effort otherwise, to be a “real” feminist about as much as I consider a “Christian” who has never actually read the bible, and thus knows less about it than myself as an atheist, to be a real Christian rather than just a status signalling churchian. Lots of people merely pay lip service to the norms of their community whether it is feminism, Christianity, or any number of other cliques just so they can fit in. Believe it or not, such behavior is not intrinsically good or bad. In a healthy culture this is exactly how you want most people to behave; we just don’t have a healthy culture. I suspect a lot of women claiming to be “feminist” fall into this category or at least are fairly passive about it and think more about make-up and shoes than women’s lib. However, I also suspect there is  a category of “real” feminists (i.e., the radical “true” lesbian feminists) and they are the ones who take leadership roles in spreading degeneracy and misleading otherwise normal, but psychologically vulnerable, women. Fortunately, not all women are susceptible.

Leftoid click-bait title aside, however, I do feel that female sexuality is probably more “fluid” than male sexuality. There is an evolutionary reason why this might be the case. As we know, both men and women have duel mating strategies. In the case of women, they have the alpha/beta dichotomy where alphas can provide good genes* but rarely provide good commitment whereas betas may provide commitment and provision but not good genes (in terms of the reproductive potential of offspring). In the ancestral environment, high tier women might have, while young, secured alpha commitment, but mid-tier women or older high tier women would have probably received very little, if any, material support from the alpha as he moved on to younger women. These women might try to move onto a beta to pay for these illegitimate children, but there is no guarantee they would be successful and even if many succeed, there are probably many more that completely fail in the second part of the strategy for whatever reason. Even betas occasionally realize providing for another man’s children isn’t a good deal and would rather spend their money on booze and whores. In ancient polygamous societies it may actually be impossible for the woman to move on anyway even if her and her children have been made a very low priority by the resident alpha. In the context of the ancestral small tribe in the jungle where no-one knows paternity, all men might have been inclined to completely ignore women past a certain age and their children. Lesbianism could provide a benefit to abandoned and neglected women psychologically and materially.

(Without digressing too much, men are unlikely to have this middle ground softening of selection pressures without the burden of child-rearing which means what we get is either complete genetic failure or complete heterosexual males without all that much in between. Sexually antagonistic selection probably explains the persistence of male homosexuals.)

For under-provisioned single mothers, it might make sense for two women to “pair” together to pool resources in raising their collective children. Clearly this is less than ideal compared to a monogamous, heterosexual nuclear family, but it may be a step up materially from raising children completely alone. They would get some benefits from division of labor. This could explain why female sexuality appears more fluid and why lesbianism might even have a modest positive selection pressure so long as the “lesbians” in question are still getting pregnant consistently. And in fact, self-identifying “lesbians” are more likely to get pregnant than straight women. Go figure. A woman having sex with another woman does not appear to stop her from having sex with men as well. Now, this last piece of evidence begs the question of whether lesbianism exists at all as a distinct thing (except in a minority of cases), or whether what we are actually looking at is a spectrum of promiscuity; greater promiscuity in women translating into more sex with whoever happens to be around. I think this may be likely for many cases, but that isn’t the focus of this post. Like I said before, I am more concerned with the exceptional “true” lesbians who populate the leadership and role-model levels of the feminist movement.

When women pair-bond, it is likely that one of the women assumes the “dominant” masculine role while the other assumes a “submissive” feminine role. Now the dominant woman isn’t a man, and can’t completely fulfill the role, but from the perspective of the submissive, she is probably better than nothing at all when the sub’s alpha/beta dual strategy fails in the second stage. What inclines one woman to be more dominant? Well, one thing might be a higher than average (for women) level of testosterone during fetal development[PDF]. Higher levels of testosterone in women during the critical development periods masculinizes them. I know of two specific conditions which can cause this, but I doubt they are the only possible causes out there. One is polycystic ovary syndrome and the other is congenital adrenal hyperplasia. (I also want to note that androgen insensitivity syndrome might also contribute, by a separate mechanism, individuals somewhat similar to a “true” lesbian. Except in this case, the person in question actually is male but for all outside appearances looks female. There is no way to know what influence such individuals may have historically had on the feminist movement since before recent times there was no way to know they had this condition. And even after we could know, it is private medical information the “women” would probably be hesitant to reveal). As I have already outlined, there may be evolutionary reasons why partially masculinized women may be favored. In an environment where men rarely commit, women must take on the brunt of the child-rearing duties and they are likely better at providing if they think and act a bit more like males and if they collaborate with other women in similar situations. This is probably related somewhat to the greater testosterone levels in black women. Black men are notoriously poor providers on average, both in America and Africa, so the race as a whole has developed more masculine women because it presumably helps those women provide for their children alone. (And which is in a feedback loop with female preference for higher T masculine cads).

Anyway, because lesbianism doesn’t have a strong enough selection pressure against it, or maybe even a modest positive one, the trait can stay stable in a population at above zero frequencies. It may even be analogous to the way sickle-cell anemia interacts with malaria. The sickle cell trait gene, when in a heterozygous state, provides protection from malaria but is crippling when in a homozygous state. In the same way, female attraction to other females may provide insurance against male abandonment without preventing reproduction when expressed in a partial manner while being reproductively crippling when completely expressed. The benefit of the former may, like in the case of sickle-cell, outweigh the cost of the later on balance and keep the trait present in the population. If true, however, that means that completely expressing “true” lesbians are born at some small but non-zero frequency and are in some sense “crippled” with respect to their evolutionary fitness. It is these “true” lesbians who completely express lesbian preferences who have been and are the real earth-movers in the feminist movement; at least this is what I suspect.

But you have to ask, why are these “true” lesbians not simply content to date other women and otherwise remain fairly quiet? Presumably enough women are partially expressing that they shouldn’t have too much trouble pair-bonding with the “true” lesbian being dominant and the partially expressing woman being submissive. If the “true” lesbian doesn’t have much trouble pair-bonding, what the hell is her beef with society in general? What makes her so mad that she feels she must destroy everything? I would venture to guess that the reason is masculinization does a lot more than simply create attraction for women. A key aspect of the male experience is competition within masculine hierarchies. It is this competition which allows men to demonstrate their high value to each other and especially to women they potentially want to mate with. Anything that masculinizes the brain will create a need and desire to be successful in these male status hierarchies. “True” lesbians are masculinized to such a degree that they also try to engage in male hierarchy jostling and competition. The problem is that though they are masculinized compared to other women, they are still women. They do not possess the same innate physical or mental capability of even the most beta men. Almost every time they attempt to compete with men, they almost invariability end up near the bottom of the established male pecking order. They are, therefore, masculine enough to recognize and desire to compete against men, but feminine enough that they are almost guaranteed to completely fail at every attempt. They are, in effect, sub-standard imitation men.

The idea that the “true” lesbian leaders of the feminist movement are essentially defective men seems to be tentatively confirmed by recent research  (though they say it a bit nicer). The abstract:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

My longstanding impression that the main activists in feminism tend to be highly masculinized women seems to be corroborated. Also, I am not alone in this perception:

A survey by Scharff (2012) found that amongst a demographically diverse sample of young women sourced from Germany and the UK, 30 out of 40 women rejected feminism as a consequence of their belief that the ideology is unfeminine, associated with lesbianism, and encourages man-hating. Feminism was also found to be strongly associated with unattractiveness and lesbianism by young men and women alike

The study sample, taken from attendees at a feminist conference, had a large over-representation of lesbians. 45% of the responders were attracted to women vs. 5.6% in the general population. Feminists attending a feminist conference are thus 4.5 times more likely to be attracted to other women than the general population, apparently. Though there is probably a fair margin of error here, I suspect the overall trend is very real.

The feminist activists are at least partially motivated by female solipsism. They project their own atypical experience and feelings onto normal woman and imagine all women want to compete in masculine hierarchies and are resentful of their failure. They aren’t really capable of understanding that normal women have very little in common with masculinized lesbian feminists and do not feel the need to compete against men or feel resentful that they are unable to.

Another possible explanation of why feminism represents a minority position amongst women is therefore that the activists who shape feminist attitudes and beliefs are themselves generally more physiologically and psychologically masculinized than is typical for women (Wilson, 2010). This might for example explain their belief in sex-role interchangeability, as they may perceive the behaviors and interests of sex-typical women as incomprehensible and at variance with their own more masculinized preferences in terms of child-rearing and status-seeking. This might then lead them to infer that women in general have been manipulated to become different from themselves by external forces, as embodied by notions of social constructions or gender systems

As I mentioned before, and is gone over in detail in the article, many women do not identify as feminists. This is true even when they agree with some or all of the goals of feminism. This is known as the feminist paradox and the consensus seems to be that normal women view feminists as manly lesbians and don’t want to themselves be seen as unfeminine. If activist feminists are in fact mostly manly lesbians, say because of higher levels of testosterone exposure, then this paradox can be explained. Those women really are a breed apart and normal woman don’t want to associate with them. Who could blame them?

In conclusion and summary, feminist activists (i.e., lesbians) in general were exposed to too much testosterone, probably during fetal development, which made them masculine enough to feel compelled to compete in ways similar to men and be a part of the masculine hierarchy. Unfortunately for them, they are still women and though their brain is masculinized somewhat it isn’t very masculine relative to real men. As such, they invariably are placed in the very bottom of the masculine hierarchy when they try to legitimately compete in it. This of course builds resentment and they seek any method to push themselves up. Specifically, they are still feminine enough to use means not generally accepted from men by other men. They can be socially manipulative similar to normal women and can act up in ways that men would never allow another man. Men have some sort of chivalrous instinct which usually prevents them from striking down duplicitous and disingenuous feminists. How lesbian feminists behave is thus a sort of hybrid masculine/feminine strategy. They use it, and male passivity towards women generally, to manipulate cultural institutions to artificially place themselves higher in the male hierarchy than they could have ever achieved through honest competition. They want to compete in the male hierarchy and are compelled to try something, anything, to boost their status within it because of their masculinization and they achieve boosts through artificial means like affirmative action and quotas engineered through primarily feminine social manipulation. Clearly their hybrid strategy has been extraordinarily effective in degenerating our society into the crumbling farce it is today.

It is ironic that what leads to the dedicated propagation of destructive feminism is actually a dash of masculinity. A trait which is good and beneficial in men becomes highly toxic and destructive when it appears in women. Unfortunately, given the evolutionary pressures I described it is likely that lesbian feminist harpies will always appear in every generation. Even if we create a new reactionary order these “women” will always be a destabilizing influence. If and when we create a new order, the problem of excessively masculinized women will have to be proactively addressed lest we get a repeat of feminism all over again. Their influence over society must be curtailed as a primary necessity. I’ll leave it to you to consider how that might be done. Perhaps we should exile them all to lesbos.

——————————————————————————————–

I will end with a mildly interesting anecdote which isn’t meant to be persuasive evidence of this idea, though it may be somewhat relevant. I was playing pool in a bar with my brother one time when a group of women sat down at a table near where we were playing. I scoped them out to see if any might be worth approaching. I observed that two of the girls seemed closer than you would expect from friends (i.e., they had their hands on each others thighs). After four or five beers I autisticly went up and asked if they were lesbians. Things were awkward for them, I just didn’t give a damn. I did not condemn them or anything like that, but one of them did get pretty mad (based on non-verbal ques). I think she was still in the closet and didn’t like the overt attention. We talked for a little while then I went back to play pool. Later I was going to the bathroom when one of the lesbians walked by and intentionally chest bumped me. I staggered slightly but she just bounced off me and nearly fell. And this when I wasn’t even paying attention and she was fully conscious of what she was doing. Surprised, I said “What the hell is your problem?” If looks could kill I would be dead, but after a second she just walked off without saying anything. I laughed because after the initial surprise I immediately realized she was mad that I pointed out she was a lesbian and she wanted to chest bump me in anger and frustration. My brother and I still laugh about the lesbian chest bump story every time it comes up. Now, you guys might say I’m a dick, and you are right, but I don’t care.

I imagine that is the type of experience many of these lesbian feminist activists have (figuratively or literally). Not the specific situation, but attempting something competitively with a man (chest bump) and it being almost completely ineffectual (she bounced off harder and farther than I moved) which is probably what makes them so mad.

High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

Share Button

The Inspiring Role Model America Deserves

Google ads just emailed me saying my post “the role model america deserves” violated their policy because of the lewd jokes in it and that I need to not have any adds on that page. I have deleted the original post and made it a page, because that was the easiest way to disable the sidebar. The post has been moved to the link below and no adds are present on it:

Here is a link to the new location for this post.

Share Button

Standardized Tests and Propaganda

Now that I am finished writing my book and it is in the process of being published I have been looking for a more traditional vocation. While I look for another job, or possibly start up a business, I have been doing 1 on 1 tutoring sessions for high school students in my area. Sometimes this means their school subjects, but more commonly I work with them on SAT and ACT preparations. And, believe it or not, I usually work with them on mathematics. Mathematics has the virtue of being mostly immune to progressive signalling digressions which is very nice.

However, I also will work on reading and writing if they really want that as well.  The reading and writing sections are not always so lucky with respect to progressivism. In fact, I would venture to guess that there is progressive moral posturing in these sections more often than their isn’t (whether the passages in the reading section or the essay prompt for the writing section). Anecdotally this is the impression I have from reading a fair number of these passages and prompts. Although today I will also be discussing one surprising exception. In the case of the writing section the advice I give is to just follow the rightthink regardless of your personal opinion. It is easier to score higher that way though I am assured by the resources I use to help me tutor this that you can in fact take non-politically correct positions and score well. There is a rumor that some student defended the south in the civil war and got a perfect score. That is just a rumor though. The rubric for grading essays is not meant to take into account a person’s position and is only supposed to be based on writing quality. However, we all know that bucking the progressive trend on this test will only make it harder and really on the test isn’t the time or place to pick a reactionary battle.

Anyway, I use the official red book published by the ACT people when tutoring anything ACT related. In this book they have a series of sample tests which I believe were actual tests used some time in the past. The reading section of the ACT is comprised of four different types of passages. There is the prose fiction passage (a short fictional story basically), a social science passage, a humanities passage and a natural science passage. On the test, the passages always appear in that order so I advise students to start with the passage subject topic which they feel most comfortable with; then the second and so on.

The first practice test opens with a prose fiction passage I have affectionately dubbed “Fran the Sloot.” Below is a picture of this I took, which you should be able to read if you open it in a new tab. Control + mousewheel if you need to zoom in. Actually it is two pictures I edited together since the passage goes onto a second page. I covered up the questions since that isn’t really relevant to the post, but you can read the whole passage.

prose fiction

As you can see from the beginning, the passage is actually not an ACT original but some writing published in 1991 by a progressive academic who I guess wanted to end stigmas on sluts and abandoning children. She was/is quite the moral paragon… However, the author’s intention seems somewhat vague at first glance. All that can be said is that it takes a more neutral tone rather than a highly negative tone appropriate for a degenerate society which tolerates single mothers and/or child abandonment. The gist of the story is that there is a sloot named Fran who got knocked up as a teenager. She gave up the baby for adoption (though her own mother didn’t want her too) and finally 24 years later she gets a (first) letter from the abandoned daughter informing her that she is a grandmother. It mainly details the interactions between grandmother and great-grandmother as they react to the news.

One interesting quote is the following:

Before I even read the letter I knew. I knew how those Nazis feel when suddenly, after twenty or thirty uneventful years, they are arrested walking down some sunny street in Buenos Aires. It’s the shock of being found after waiting so long.

So the author, through the character, at least acknowledges that what she had done may be wrong, and even invokes godwin’s law  before getting 400 words in. That’s a plus, even though Nazis were typically very pro-family and pro-traditional gender roles which makes the analogy, um, quaint. In reality the Nazis would have probably opposed everything that Fran symbolizes. Anyway, this is towards the beginning of the passage and I think it is meant more for contrast with the conclusion than any real condemnation.

Another interesting quote is the following:

“I guess that makes you a great-grandmother,” I said. [Fran the sloot]

“What about you?” she snorted, pointing a jungle orchid fingernail at me. “You’re a grandmother.” [Fran’s mother]

We shook our heads in disbelief. I sat silently, listening to my brain catch up with my history. Forty years old and I felt as if I had just shaken hands with death. I suppose it’s difficult for any woman to accept that she’s a grandmother, but in the normal order of things, you have ample time to adjust to the idea. You don’t get a snapshot in the mail one day from a baby girl you gave up twenty-four years ago saying, “Congratulations, you’re a grandma!”

“It’s not fair,” I said. “I don’t even feel like a mother

Where to begin? The woman gets a letter telling her she is a grandmother and the first thing she thinks about is how that makes her old. Really deep introspection there. In other words, she gets a blatant reminder of her rapidly deflating sexual market value and that is really the main thing she is concerned with. Even now, with twenty years to acknowledge regrets, the character is only concerned with her own selfish desires and feelings. Not only that, but a woman who abandoned her baby has the audacity to cry “It’s not fair.” Really. It was hardly fair to the child, or the taxpayer who presumably paid to have the kid raised either. But no, the real concern is a woman feeling bad about getting old. Academics are a very strange breed with very warped priorities. At least the ones like the female who wrote this short story.

You can also guess from this passage that the child abandoner never had any more kids since being a grandmother comes as such a shock. There apparently were no other children who could have made that happen. Presumably she was just self-absorbed and selfish throughout her life up until her current age and was almost entirely only focused on herself and possibly her career. What a role model, what a moral story, what a great thing to essentially force millions of teenagers across the country to read. Who wants to bet this is representative of the lives of most academic feminists; or just feminists in general?

Anyway, the story finishes with the following in response to the great-grandmother musing about the marriage status of the abandoned daughter:

“She didn’t mention any husband at all,” I said, getting drawn into it despite myself. [said Fran the sloot]

“Maybe you’re worried she’ll be disappointed in you,” she said. “You know, that she’s had this big fantasy for all these years that maybe you were Grace Kelly or Margaret Mead and who could live up to that? No one. But you don’t have to, Fran, that’s the thing. you’re her flesh-and-blood mother and that’s enough. That’s all it’ll take.” [Said Fran’s mother]

This, being the concluding paragraph, most nearly captures the author’s desired interpretation of the situation for her readers. In short, she wants to absolve the selfish, slutty child abandoner of the consequences of her poor decisions. The message seems to be, “don’t worry girls you can be irresponsible sluts and there won’t be consequences. Your abandoned children won’t be bothered by your irresponsible behavior at all and won’t hold it against you. If you abandon your spawn you can go back to being career oriented and selfish, no problem.” Perfect, just perfect.

Most troubling is the mention of Margaret Mead. For those of you who don’t know, Margaret Mead went and lived in Samoa for some time and upon her return wrote a book detailing the culture. She was, most likely, a lesbian and definitely a feminist.

She portrayed Samoa as a gentle, easy-going society where teenagers grew up free of sexual hang-ups. Premarital sex, she claimed, was common. Rape was unheard of. Young people grew to adulthood without enduring the adolescent trauma typical in western countries. She used these findings to support her thesis that culture, not biology, determines human behavior and personality. The book became an anthropological classic, read by generations of college students. [emphasis mine]

How progressive and wonderful and relativist and delightfully feminist that all sounds! Unfortunately it was a bunch of bullshit; as all such accounts invariably turn out to be. Mead’s account was and is simultaneously both utterly implausible for any culture while also being an extremely attractive wish fulfillment for the average progressive academic. Such academics had no intention of letting facts interfere with a good progressive narrative so they didn’t bother double checking Mead’s description; and just made it required reading in anthropology courses for the better part of a century. I’m so inspired by confidence in our educational institutions… The short of it is that Mead either was tricked by locals having a laugh, or more likely she intentionally wrote a fraudulent account to support her desire for a progressive world in which the ideas of feminism have some overlap with reality.

In 1983 New Zealand anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged her claims. He argued that the reality of Samoan culture was very different from what Mead had portrayed. Samoans, he insisted, actually had rather puritanical attitudes about sex. Rape was common. Men were aggressive. Premarital sex was disapproved of. In fact, a great emphasis was placed upon a woman being a virgin when marrying.

Clearly the author looks up to Mead given the context, and shoehorns the same appreciation typically only found in delusional “academics” into a random working class mook of a character. Most mooks probably have never even heard of Margaret Mead let alone admired her. When was the last time you met a receptionist or construction worker who cared two licks about Samoan culture past or present? The only people who care about Margaret Mead are parasitical (relative to taxpayers) “academics” in the humanities, anthropology, and dyke-feminist studies. Considering that this passage was written AFTER Mead was revealed to be fraudulent,  the author can’t even be given the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t know this prior to referencing Mead. I suppose it isn’t uncommon for progressives to continue to cite and look up to discredited people. Its all about the narrative and not the facts.

If we weren’t sure of the author’s purpose before we are now by her subtle insertion of Mead as some sort of admirable figure rather than a fraud. It was/is the author’s goal to make degeneracy such as that featured in this story appear normal and acceptable; and with minimal consequences. To promote completely fabricated and fallacious interpretations of reality and to all around give women the worst kind of role models imaginable. Just like Mead before her, this account of fraudulent morals and degenerate culture is also being read by generations of students thanks to its inclusion in the ACT and the ACT prep book. I guess the author really did aspire to the same status of Mead and unfortunately succeeded in her own way. We can only guess that the author is also a selfish and militant lesbian as well and her characters are just elaborate Mary Sues.

The next section to come up in the test is the one on social science. However, I would like to save that for last and discuss the section on the “humanities” first. I won’t discuss the section on natural science at all except to say that it was written by Stephen Jay Gould, notorious for his pseudo-scientific perspective on human biological diversity vomited onto paper in “The Mismeasure of Man.” However, the passage in the test is just about dinosaurs and has not much, if any, bearing on politics. In general, I have found that a lot of passages on natural science have something to do with climate change if that says anything but since this one was fairly neutral I won’t harp on it; except to say I am not surprised a darling of progressives like Gould (invariably another charlatan like Mead) was picked even if they used neutral content.

The humanities passage can be read below; again with the questions covered up.

act humanities

I can’t express in words how truly irritating this article is. Though I will try. The article is written by an ethnic Bangladeshi who grew up in India and immigrated to the United States. She is an author apparently and her goal is to transform the Culture of the United states. Here are some quotes:

I am an American writer, in the American mainstream, trying to extend it. This is  a vitally important statement for me–I am not an Indian writer, not an expatriate. I am an immigrant; my investment is in the American reality, not the Indian.

That is just delusional. Yes, you are an Indian expat. You aren’t American; you just happen to live here and no number of assertions to the contrary is going to change that. Though it isn’t necessarily clear from the above context, “trying to extend it” means that she is trying to transform American culture by forcefully inserting non-American culture in her writing. Basically make it less white male and more third world shit street. This is made clear in no uncertain terms by one of the following questions which references that line. Also, given the rest of the passage it is quite clear she isn’t invested in the current American reality despite her claims, but in radically transforming it into something that isn’t American at all. She continues to discuss what her current struggle is:

The remaining struggle for me is to make the American readership, meaning the editorial and publishing industries as well, acknowledge the same fact. The foreign-born, the Third World immigrant with non-western religions and non-european languages and appearance, can be as American as any steerage passenger from Ireland, Italy, or the Russian Pale.

My literary agenda begins by acknowledging that American has transformed me. It does not end until I show how I (and the hundreds of thousands like me) have transformed America.

The audacity here. People already live here and maybe they don’t want or need some recent arrival trying to radically change things. I mean this is an almost threatening tone. Hundreds of thousands? Are you planning to amass an army or something? It doesn’t seem like she would be opposed to that if the opportunity arose. Her stories and characters are often, apparently, based on recent immigrants. Therefore she is quite delighted by the massive demographic changes since the 1965 immigration “reforms”:

I have been blessed with an enormity of material: the rapid and dramatic transformation of the United States since the early 1970s.

The following I just found to be ridiculous:

For all the hope and energy I have placed in the process of immigration and accommodation–I’m a person who couldn’t ride a public bus when she first arrived, and now I’m someone who watches tractor pulls on obscure cable channels.

Well, our immigration policy is in tip top shape. We are letting people in who can’t even figure out how to ride a bus?  Also tractor pulls? Why don’t I hear anyone whining about cultural appropriation here? Oh, right, whites have no right to any sort of cultural exclusivity while everyone else does. I suspect the tractor pull thing is just a lie though. Made up to make it look like she identified in some half-assed way with rural white culture. Though clearly everything else she seems to believe in and advocate for, somewhat militantly and aggressively, suggests anything but identification with authentic American culture. This is merely a bit of lazily implemented lip-service believable to precisely no one.

The passage ends with the following:

Writers (especially American writers weaned on affluence and freedom) often disavow the notion of a “literary duty” or “political consciousness,” citing the all-too-frequent [all-too-infrequent in my opinion] examples of writers ruined by their shrill commitments. Glibness abounds on both sides of the argument, but finally I have to side with my “Third World” compatriots: I do have a duty, beyond telling a good story. My duty is to give voice to continents, but also to redefine the nature of American.

My question is, if the culture of India and/or Bangladesh was so awesome, why the hell did you leave? If the cultures of those countries suck so much, from your own perspective, that you felt the need to leave, why are you trying to transform the culture of the country you just moved to to get away from that? Do you think the people already here want their culture transformed to resemble a third world shit hole field? Do YOU even want that if you really think about it? I mean you obviously left because you didn’t like your home country and its culture. I mean I don’t even understand this perspective. Why leave a shit hole and then immediately try to make nice places suck just like the place you just left? Just stay where you are if you want things to be like where you were born. It is like that there now. Go home and then you won’t have to transform anything. [Full disclosure; though cleanliness isn’t one of the characteristics India is known for, I am sure it is an interesting place to visit. I am just making the point that it doesn’t make sense when people leave their home country, because they don’t like it or the economy sucks or whatever, and then immediately try to create the same problems they escaped from in their new residence. So many migrants fail to see the irony in their actions and efforts. Just like this woman.]

The entirety of the content here is arrogant and aggressive to the extreme. However, it does gives words to what we already know many immigrants think and that is that given the numbers they will have no problem taking over and making all the world into the third world. They aren’t content to come here and appreciate the opportunity they really shouldn’t have been given in the first place by adapting to the culture of their new residence. They want to radically and irredeemably alter what WE have built; making it inaccessible to everyone. I honestly find it difficult to tutor this passage because it makes me so mad. It also annoys most of my students, who usually happen to also be white. We sometimes discuss how obnoxious the passage is, and how even more obnoxious it is that it was selected for something that should be a politically neutral test. I think I even called the author an arrogant cunt in front of one student accidentally. Oops. Luckily she just agreed with me.

The last thing worth mentioning about this passage is the editor by the name of Janet Sternburg. I don’t buy the whole Jewish conspiracy theory stuff. I do not believe in an organized conspiracy ran by Jews to destroy Europeans. However, it is hard not to notice that a lot of the most militant and aggressive articles relating to demographics or feminism or social justice and other cultural marxist ideas often have Jews very actively involved. I am not sure why this is, and I know there are plenty of Jews who don’t do this. Some are personal friends of mine and are quite reactionary. Given how common this pattern is, however, I can understand why people get annoyed with Jews as a group when this sort of propaganda often seems to have them involved. It would be nice if they did more to stop their compatriots from developing, or at least from advocating, such radically destabilizing ideologies.

Moving on. The social science article, which is sandwiched between the two previous passages, is actually fairly reactionary. Ya, I was surprised too. It is adapted from the book “How Courts Govern America” by Richard Neely, which was written in the early 1980s. You can read it below:

social science act I think the passage gets away with being reactionary because it doesn’t directly criticize any particular political issues and rather criticizes democracy as a political philosophy.  Unlimited immigration and the “right” for women to be irresponsible are sacred to the extreme; whereas democracy is abstract enough that people don’t get as mad about it when criticized in the most general terms without reference to anything in the particular that might raise passions.

Or maybe the article got through because it criticizes non-brahmins who know very little about government anyway. Progressives like to make fun of “flyover” states so maybe that conceit was present in choosing this article; since it can be reasonably inferred that the unintelligent mooks referred to in the article are assumed to be rural whites by progressive test designers. Related to this is the fact that progressives have so often used the courts to overturn non-progressive laws and positions legitimately democratically selected by the same fly-over staters. The most recent example being the legalization of gay marriage. If you think about it, progressives first loyalty is to progressivism and not democracy at all. Generally they like democracy because it tends to progress progressivism but don’t hesitate to abandon the principle as soon as it interferes with moving further left. So maybe they secretly hate democracy as much as we do but for completely different reasons. It is a useful tool and no more; something to be abandoned at the first sign of a slow in “progress.”

Alternatively, perhaps they hope that articles like this will result in people wanting MORE democracy because it shows how little representation is really present in the system. Since the examples of democracy slowing “progress” are few and far between, and when they do happen “progress” can be restored via plenty of non-democratic channels, perhaps the tool is still far more useful than not even despite a hiccup every now an then.

Lastly, I suppose it could also be included to basically encourage greater and more widespread “education” since lack of general interest in the technical functioning of government is cited as the main problem and because education is almost entirely run by progressives.  Those are my theorized possibilities for how it got past the progressive commissars. Whatever the reason, there are some nice statements in it. This book may be worth a read.

On the average person’s interest in the economy:

When times are bad, or there is a nationwide strike or disaster, interest in the economy becomes all-consuming. However, the daily toiling of countless millions of civil servants in areas such as occupational health and safety, motor vehicle regulation, or control of navigable waterways escapes public notice almost completely

True enough. Government is in fact almost entirely ran by career bureaucrats and most of us don’t even think about that until we are inconvenienced in some way by them.

Futhermore, even with regard to high-visibility issues [such as?], significant communication between the electorate and public officials is extremely circumscribed. Most serious political communication is limited to forty-five seconds on the network evening news.

Also true, most political discourse consists of soundbites and sensationalism. A great demonstration of the futility of democracy.

Most of what one says to a local newspaper gets filtered through the mind of an inexperienced twenty-three-year-old journalism school graduate. Try sometime to explain the intricacies of a program budget, which basically involves solving a grand equation composed of numerous simultaneous differential functions, to a reporter whose journalism school curriculum did not include advanced algebra, to say nothing of calculus.

There was an article I stumbled across the other day which makes a similar point; though sadly I have forgotten which blog it was on. Journalism is generally a lower IQ major choice; though perhaps not the lowest. At best journalists are average IQ among the professional occupations, but more likely the are a bit on the dumb side. Yet these are the people who we inexplicably trust to report the news and to inform us on important political issues. I can’t say that makes any sort of sense; even if we excluded the general left-wing biases of most journalists. They just aren’t smart enough for us to trust their competence irrespective of the political beliefs.

The electorate is as interested in the whys and wherefores of most technical, nonemotional political issues as I am in putting ships in bottles: they do not particularly care. Process and personalities, the way decisions are made and by whom, the level of perquisites, extramarital sexual relations, and, in high offices, personal gossip dominate the public mind, while interest in the substance of technical decisions is minimal….

Since the populace at large is more than willing to delegate evaluation of the technical aspects of government to somebody else, it inevitably follows that voting is a negative exercise, not a positive one. Angry voters turn the rascals out and, in the triumph of hope over experience, let new rascals in. What voters are unable to do–because they themselves do not understand the technical questions–is tell the rascals how to do their jobs better.

It is hard to say it better than this. Truly this is one of the great flaws of democracy:  the assumption that the average mook has enough understanding to decide how government and policy should be run. This is a dimly naive assumption which has no bearing on reality. I would go even further and state that even smart people often have more productive endeavors to invest their thought in. Which is more valuable: the smart guy who devotes all of his mental resources to running a business which employs many people, or discovers some new mechanism in biology or chemistry, or one who sits around making sophist arguments about some transient political cause? Yes it is true we need people who can competently manage government, however engaging more people than the bare minimum in this type of work is extremely wasteful of human capital. Most people have more valuable things they could contribute to society. Lastly the passage ends with the following:

That anything gets done by a political body at all is to be applauded as a miracle rather than accepted as a matter of course. When we recognize that in the federal government, with its millions of employees, there are but five hundred and thirty-seven elected officials, put into office to carry out the “will” of a people who for the most part know little and care less about the technical functioning of their government, the absurdity of the notion of rapid democratic responsiveness becomes clear. The widely held tenet of democratic faith that elected officials, as opposed to bureaucrats or the judiciary, are popularly selected and democratically responsive is largely a myth which gives a useful legitimacy to a system. In fact, however, far from democratic control, the two most important forces in political life are indifference and its direct byproduct: inertia.

Yep, though moldbug is extremely influential in our circles, a lot of what he has said is just a colorful retelling of writings by other reactionary thinkers; which I believe moldbug states himself.  It is good that such a passage found its way into the test prep book, but it is so general that it doesn’t risk anything. It is hard for people to get truly angry over abstractions. What moldbug and the rest of the neoreactosphere tend to do better than the above passage is to actually engage in crime think and call a spade a spade. Specifically pointing out and discussing the horribly misguided sacred policies and beliefs associated with democracy to one degree or another. Its easy to say “government doesn’t work” because pretty much no one of any political persuasion is going to disagree with that ambiguous truism. When you start saying it doesn’t work because of social justice, or feminism, or nonsense about “oppression” then you are getting to the real meat and potatoes of the problem. Anyway, this passage is good for what it is and better than naught.

The social science passage stands as a notable exception (the only one I am aware of and I have seen a fair number of passages) in a long series of politically motivated choices of passages. There are many more I could have included that fit the prog narrative. However, the mere existence of such people and such warped perspectives can only be so annoying to someone desensitized and numb to the rampant bullshit in our society. It is far more annoying that millions of teenagers are being fed this kind of garbage either on tests like the ACT and SAT or through test prep books. More students undoubtedly read the passages I have highlighted because of the prep book than would have from a single test. Examples like this demonstrate that education really is used to a significant, if not primary, degree for purposes of propaganda. Whoever these academics are which choose what to include clearly have an agenda and slaver at the opportunity to put this stuff in the heads of as many innocent children as they can possibly infect with delusional ideologies. Parents or aspiring parents should be aware of what is out there and take the time to talk to their kids about it. A child will often uncritically receive the positions and ideas of elders and as can be seen from any school humanities curriculum most of that is bunk. They should be informed early on that a lot of it is bunk so they are less likely to just believe it unthinkingly. The first step is acknowledging there is a problem. Once recognized you start to spot it everywhere.

Share Button

Daily Absurdity

Short post today. First, sorry about the theme change. There was a problem with an update to my old theme so this is a stand-in until I can get the old back. If I can. This was actually an issue the developer of the theme introduced, so it is possible that one is gone for good. Or at least long enough for me to decide on something else. [edit, this has since been fixed]

On another note, I got reminded why I do not watch much, if any, TV anymore. I was visiting with some family and we  decided to turn on netflix for some background noise. What was chosen was the netflix original series called “Between.” The premise is there is a virus that kills all of the adults in what looked like a New England town. There is a quarantine instituted and the under 22 years old survivors have to fend for themselves. The first scene shows a guy barely able to grow a beard walking towards a fence when all these military guys with guns rush it and tell him to go back. This lasted about 5 seconds. The next scene flashes back 10 days to before the quarantine and we see the main character walking through her high school. She is about 8 months pregnant. The show couldn’t go 15 seconds without going full prog propaganda. Needless to say, I was annoyed. Then she started talking about going to MIT. ya… I ended up walking out of the room and just talking to some other people outside of this show. I hate watching propaganda, or even being in the same room when it is on.

I checked to see if I actually heard her correctly in claiming she was going to be going to MIT despite having a new-born, but it turns out she was talking about her male friend not herself according to wikipedia. My bad. I guess that is still too delusional for propaganda purposes, but if it was part of the plot I honestly wouldn’t have been surprised. But still, degenerate unwed mothers were in saner times sent out of high schools so they couldn’t spread their degeneracy. Now they are main characters of TV shows. She is probably depicted as sassy, strong and independent if I had bothered watching a few episodes. I am not though, I have seen enough progressive propaganda to know that this is probably true, and that I don’t really care to see it. Ostensibly, this is just a show about some teenagers trying to survive a freak virus. In reality, that is only half of the show. The rest is progressives trying to completely redefine what is and is not moral and normalize degeneracy. I have reviewed multiple items of this sort and in much greater detail in the past (see list below) and it follows a very familiar pattern. Almost all mass produced “entertainment” has it which is why I don’t watch mainstream TV or movies anymore.

Giving this insignificant show the time to watch it and find all the best propaganda moments isn’t worth it. It isn’t popular, it isn’t even highly rated by people who don’t grok the cultural Marxism. If you want some examples where I put in the full effort for more notable works, see below:

A Neoreactionary Analysis and Review of “12 Angry men”

A Review of Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson

How Cultural Marxism Ruined the Mass Effect Franchise

How Cultural Marxism Ruined The Walking Dead

Share Button

Conversation with a Blue Pill Churchian

Though I am not religious, I do have some Christian friends. These friends tend to be more independently minded and have some serious gripes with the average church because of some commonly held, yet arguably unbiblical beliefs many church congregations share.

Last night, I was hanging out with these friends when we were all invited out to eat by some of their churchian friends. Knowing of my irreligious philosophy and reasonably high level of debating skills, my friends like to instigate debates between myself and churchians when the opportunity arises. They find it entertaining… However, as I have grown older I have come to realize that attacking the core beliefs of the tribe, assuming they aren’t self-destructive, is bad-form and unnecessary. John Derbyshire put this thought succinctly:

The sensible dissident should in fact practice a lot of self-restraint. He should in particular show a proper respect for the idols of the tribe. When I was a teenager back in England it was the custom at movie theaters that when the movie program ended, the National Anthem would be played. Everyone was supposed to stand up and be still for the duration. Well, of course, by the age of sixteen I had seen through all that stupid monarchy stuff — a bunch of rich people living in palaces and doing no useful work. Stand up for them? Not me! So I and some like-minded coevals would bravely sit through the anthem. This generated a lot of disapproval from other patrons, leading once or twice almost to fist-fights. We’d made our dissident point, though.

Now I know that the point was not worth making. Harmless tribal rituals are not to be objected to. They are part of the glue that holds a nation together. That’s a fundamental conservative insight. If you’re going to dissent, dissent about something that matters.

What matters? Truth.

So rather than indulging my friends in some heated argument about whether or not the bible is literal truth, I opted instead to focus on something that is arguable from within the Christian frame. This is of course that of proper gender roles, family values, and marriage.

I began by stating that I tend to agree with the Christian community that marriage is between a man and a woman. The intention of marriage is to force people, many of whom are deeply irresponsible, into providing the optimum environment for the raising of children and to keep birthrates high enough that there isn’t precipitous population declines. Most importantly, widespread traditional marriage works to reduce criminality and other social problems in that generation of children and this effect requires both a mother and a father.(1) Gay “marriage” does not contribute to this goal and thus is not a legitimate institution. It is an idea deprived of purpose and is thus meaningless.

However, overall I view gays getting married as trivial. There aren’t many of them to begin with, and even then only a small portion of them have interest in “marriage.” In terms of numbers, whether they marry or not probably won’t have much direct impact. (Kafkaesque enforcement by the Cathedral of twisted values will have much worse consequences, however). More important than that, though, is this fallacy that marriage in its current form is still a functional institution that is capable of further destruction. Marriage will not be destroyed by gay marriage. It was destroyed, past tense, in the 1970s with the introduction of no fault divorces combined with alimony and child support. The later is supported especially by the informal assumption that children should virtually always go to the mother such that she is the recipient of the child support. The results of these laws is the currently very high divorce rate in the US. The churchian community has not been immune or otherwise done anything significant to halt divorce surging among their members.

Thus, the argument instigated was that while the church may have its heart in the right place, it has completely and utterly failed in its mission of being pro-family as judged by the consequences of its muteness or even support of divorce policies which destroyed marriage. These policies are several orders of magnitude more important than gay marriage. Moreover, the enthusiasm with which single mothers and sluts are readily accepted into the church causes huge problems when naive young men are encouraged to marry them because the church condones them as proper wife material when they are not. The churches’ stances on these issues demonstrate that in this respect they are hardly living up to what it is supposed to mean to be Christian. Such was my opening statement in the debate.

To this, our blue pill churchian responded that all sin is equal and that once Christ has been accepted people truly are born again on earth. Their past mistakes are washed away. Thus, the sluts are not just redeemed in a spiritual sense with respect to the afterlife but also in physical reality they are no longer sluts. This redemption process is capable of making them into suitable wives here and now in their lifetime and no harm could possibly come to pairing them off with Christian men who have actually been following traditional values.

I think I was about to have an aneurysm. As I told him, whatever he may want to believe about forgiveness of sin, we have clear evidence that forgiving whorishness does not make a slut a good wife. I have no problem with the idea of forgiving people their mistakes, but the idea that forgiveness can be equated with removing all consequences of mistakes within physical life is nonsense. I made the following rebuttal up without reference to any specific theology, but it supported my point and that is an important component of debate. I confidently stated that forgiveness of sin applies mainly to concerns of spiritual life after death. Forgiveness does not remove consequences of actions within a person’s lifetime, and can not make a slut into a non-slut. They will have to deal with the consequences of their sin even if forgiveness of said sin allows them to still go to heaven. There is no such thing as a “born-again virgin.”

Feel free to tell me I’m wrong on scriptural grounds. As I have stated previously, if scripture can legitimately be used to justify the born-again virgin position then it is just wrong and should be ignored. We know it is wrong based on studies and statistics that compare the marriages of sluts with non-sluts. Sluts making for bad wives is a reality of the world we live in and no faith-based arguments can overturn the evidence.

With this in mind, I iterated that most deplorable of all was that objectively good men who are good husband material were being thrown on the spikes for the sake sinful whores because of this faith in immediate transformation within a person’s lifetime. Unbelievably to me, he stated that we are all equally sinful. A practicing Christian man who follows abstinence before marriage and otherwise does a fair job at trying to be Christian is just as sinful (say he masturbated once) as the born-again virgin. There is no differentiation between the magnitude of different sins. Small mistakes of one are equivalent to large mistakes of the other. Ridiculous egalitarianism truly is a concept memetically descended from Christian theology. Since this faithfully Christian man is considered to be equally sinful with the whore, there is no reason to treat each one differently based on different degrees of sin. In fact, he stated that it was only right and proper to throw the poor guy under the bus because his suffering would bring him closer to god. Face palm. No wonder so few men go to church these days. They aren’t going to look out for your interests, that is for sure.

The churchian used two scriptural passages to justify these attitudes. He first paraphrased Hosea to support marrying sluts as well as handing money and resources over to them; the later being a justification of the current policies which facilitate wealth transfers from men to women during divorce. In Hosea, god commanded the prophet to marry a slut and have children by her. However, she eventually went back to whoring and she was to be hated and foiled. Despite this, god then commanded Hosea to literally buy her back and supposedly this command can be extrapolated to all men by the churchian’s view. See the paragraphs which he uses to justify his view:

When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”  So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

[After gomer went back to whoring] The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”

So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley.  Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will behave the same way toward you.”

The above is from hosea 1 and 3 respectively. This is all extremely blue pill and seems to support his claim that the bible is in favor of marrying sluts. However, Hosea 2 is very, very red pill in how it treats the slut. So what we have is a sort of blue pill sandwich with red pill meat:

“Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,
for she is not my wife,
and I am not her husband.
Let her remove the adulterous look from her face
and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
Otherwise I will strip her naked
and make her as bare as on the day she was born;
I will make her like a desert,
turn her into a parched land,
and slay her with thirst.
I will not show my love to her children,
because they are the children of adultery.
Their mother has been unfaithful
and has conceived them in disgrace.
She said, ‘I will go after my lovers,
who give me my food and my water,
my wool and my linen, my olive oil and my drink.’
Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes;
I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way.
She will chase after her lovers but not catch them;
she will look for them but not find them.
Then she will say,
‘I will go back to my husband as at first,
for then I was better off than now.’
She has not acknowledged that I was the one
who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil,
who lavished on her the silver and gold—
which they used for Baal.

“Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens,
and my new wine when it is ready.
I will take back my wool and my linen,
intended to cover her naked body.
10 So now I will expose her lewdness
before the eyes of her lovers;
no one will take her out of my hands.
11 I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals.
12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.
13 I will punish her for the days
she burned incense to the Baals;
she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
and went after her lovers,
but me she forgot,”
declares the Lord.

Well, if the story was concluded with this passage, then I would say he was wrong in his interpretation. However, after this passage Hosea was ordered to take her back despite how depraved she was so in my view Hosea clearly supports his case. I suppose it could be argued that this was only meant to apply to Hosea in the particular and no one else because he was a prophet in a specific situation (Hosea’s relationship with his wife was a metaphor for the contemporary relationship between God and Israel), but even if that is true not everyone is going to understand that and confusion will be continual. In this instance the bible has proven to not be a good supporter of traditional values. It clearly opens the door for men to be thrown under the bus for whores based on scripture. This is a nasty strike against using the bible as the foundational text to support traditional values and gender roles. Criticism of the bible from the right, who would have guessed.

He also directly quoted Corinthians chapter 5 to consciously and purposefully support throwing men under the bus.  Let’s see if that fares as badly:

So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Yikes! During the conversation I was quite taken aback by this clear support of throwing men under the bus. Although I clearly don’t agree with what he is trying to support with this quote, I do find it entertaining that he inadvertently implied that sluts and whores are equivalent to the ultimate embodiment of evil. Anyway, thanks to smart phones, the context was made clearer then and there:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?  Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

To me, this passage does nothing to support the churchian’s argument. If anything, it clearly shows that the exact opposite of what he was saying was advocated. Though, the solution is to expel the sluts rather than accept them while avoiding promoting them as marriage partners. Fair enough, I have no objections with that. In fact, the bible’s solution is better than the compromise of forgiveness without encouragement of commitment I suggested during the argument. In this case, I believe his interpretation was wrong and that the bible is supporting traditional values here.

Is it just me, or does the actual consequence of the churchian thought pattern and action seem more likely to drive men away from the people who give them bad advice rather than bring them even deeper into Christianity? Regardless of its being justified by scripture or not, I have already addressed the belief in born-again virgins and the encouragement of good men marrying them in my “Chastity, Once Lost, is Forever Gone” post, so I guess I will just quote myself:

[The idea of a born-again virgin is] that if a girl repents her actions she can be forgiven and it will be like it never happened. Maybe this can be justified by verses in the bible, and maybe it can’t. Certain Churchians certainly made a persuasive stab at it. Not being a Christian, I will let you know you can save your theological arguments. As far as I am concerned, if this can be justified in the bible, then the bible is wrong. If it can’t, great. If some people can be legitimately and understandably confused on whether the bible supports this then Christian Traditionalists have a real problem. Even if it can be demonstrated through some convoluted means that “born-again virgin” isn’t a Christian concept, ambiguity here is a very big fault with using the book as the basis for the traditional family. That being a slut can’t be taken back should not be ambiguous in any way in the foundational religious document of a society. Chastity, once lost, is forever gone.

Back in my more red pill, less reactionary days it was widely known and accepted among my group of friends that the “born-again virgin” girls were easy prey. And yes, we occasionally went to “singles” church events to find these girls despite not being religious. Lots of them were single mothers. Most would get drunk and have premarital sex with you Saturday night before stomping off to church Sunday morning in hopes of tricking some poorly advised Christian beta into paying for her and her bastard children. The “born-again virgin” status of these so-called “Christian” women is a complete fabrication. Their facade is a purely Machiavellian attempt to maximize their Alpha Fucks/Beta bucks mating strategy. And like the rest of society, the Christian community is far too credulous of these girl’s crocodile tears of repentance. Worse yet, they gladly throw the legitimately Christian men under the bus by pressuring them into dating and marrying these skanks. No wonder men are leaving the church in droves. I would too if I was given shitty advice like “marry the sluts”. I would leave any such organization which thought that way and I would laugh when it was completely destroyed, as it justly should be.

This was more or less the same response I gave our blue pill churchian in the argument.

I made sure to highlight the fact that modern churches are extremely emasculating and attitudes like those promoting the marriage of sluts were driving the trend of low male attendance at christian churches. To this the churchian informed me that the church does support masculine virtues. He obliged my request for him to describe masculine virtues and used adjectives like gentleness, kindness, meekness, tenderness, compassion and other similar things. All of these things aren’t masculine virtues, but feminine virtues. I should point out that he wasn’t using the right definition of meekness which is a synonym for timidness (I grilled him on that). Rather, he thought it meant “strength under control.” Strength under control actually isn’t that bad of a masculine virtue, but meekness does not mean that. I assume that he has absorbed all of these so-called “masculine virtues” from various sermons he has heard, including the incorrect definition of meekness.

With these weak and effeminate concepts of masculinity being preached in churches, is it any wonder that male attendance is down to 43% overall and as low as 35% in certain denominations and churches with female ministers. Female ministers is particularly ludicrous to me. If you claim to believe in the bible, you can’t allow women to even speak at church let alone establish them as leaders. Corinthians 14:34:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

The previous link elaborates on the feminization of the church that drives men away in droves. Here are some select quotes:

Yet, as Murrow (2005a, 8 ) points out, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam all have at least as many male adherents as female ones. Podles (1999, ix) also notes that, within Christianity, the Orthodox Church has a general [sic] balance. The implication is clear: it is not that religion or spirituality per se are inimical to men. Rather, it must be specific forms and expressions of religion or spirituality that alienate men and deter their participation.

‘Perhaps the main focus of those who criticise the Church for having become feminised is that its worship is too ‘touchy-feely’, overemotional or over-personal. This has been derogatorily called ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ (or, more provocatively, ‘girlfriend’) worship. As Murrow (2005a, 187) argues, “today’s praise music invites the worshipper to assume the feminine role” and praise music can resemble the Top 40 love songs.’

‘It is a commonplace that masculinity is in crisis. Men are experiencing considerable confusion over their identity, in terms of who they are and what their roles are. As the end of the millennium approached, Roy McCloughry reported “a loss of definition and a confusion about what is expected of men… It is amazing how quickly men seem to have lost their confidence”

Clearly this crisis in masculinity in the church (and everywhere else) is quite rampant. This churchian has no clue what masculinity actually is and in fact seems to think a whole host of feminine virtues define what it means to be masculine. I don’t believe this is his fault, honestly. It is the fault of the church leaders who have adopted ideas from feminism (probably without quite realizing it) about the differences between men and women. They then teach these false beliefs to their flock which sets the men trying to do the right thing up for complete failure. At one point, after arguing that even if church leaders forgive sluts their sin when they repent, they should not support chaste men marrying them. It is their responsibility as elders to properly guide young men to proper wives and help them avoid mistakes. His response was that the blind could not lead the blind and these young men should just be allowed to make the mistake. At the time I argued against him. The leaders should be somewhat knowledgeable of proper morality (and consequences of certain actions) and it is their duty to guide men correctly. However, later consideration of his quip made quickly and without reflection has unintentionally won me over on this position. This churchian’s blatantly blue pill, misandric, and factually inaccurate understanding of the male condition clearly demonstrates that church leaders are blind and have no business guiding anyone. Its like someone gauged out their eyes with a pitchfork.

(1) The paper shown studied the differences between children raised in normal families vs. gay “families” and found that children raised by gays are worse off. You should be able to download it at the link provided, but if not go to /r/scholar and you can request it (make sure you read their instructions for how to get it before making a request). The paper is “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. To view the anti-science response to this article by the cathedral, look for “Politicized science” by Richard Redding.

Share Button

Reversing the Demographic Winter

I found this documentary via reddit which found it via thinking housewife. It discusses an issue of deep concern to the dark enlightenment and that is the issue of population decline. For what I guess is a mainstream documentary, it is refreshingly frank with regards to the negative consequences modernism/post-modernism is having on our culture and subsequently population. Big factors in this decline and identified by the doc are feminism, the break down of sexual continence, divorce friendly laws, and promoting careerist women (mostly discussed in part 2) All of these things work together to destroy the family and set off a runaway effect of ever decreasing fertility. Watch it, it is pretty good:

Part 1

Part 2

As the documentary shows, it isn’t just white Europeans that are having fertility declines even if they are are most advanced in said decline (with the exception of some Asian countries). Even the countries which supply the current batch of immigrants to the west may not be able to keep that up if the same trends advance in their countries and they are only lagging by maybe 20-30 years behind the west. The whole white genocide meme put forward by identitarians may end up needing an overhaul and be redefined as human genocide. Actually, I think it is better called human suicide than genocide as it is mostly a voluntary action. Not to discount the fact that it is intentionally inspired cultural marxism, but people do assent to its ideas more or less voluntarily. It is an interesting idea to think that the immigration issue may be resolved by fertility drops in the rest of the world, though I am not holding my breath on that one. Lots of people worry about Muslim fertility, myself included, but Iran for example has one of the worst fertility crises in the middle east. Clearly this isn’t a European only problem. It is a global problem with various groups merely at different stages of it and with a few particularly disturbing exceptions to the trend. Though most of that population will probably remain confined to their current locations.

Of course,  I have written several posts tangentially related to this. Of Madonnas and whores is one, shrug is another. The first is on how a culture which has a healthy fertility rate is structured and the other is on how men should respond to the current horribly designed structure. It occurs to me that these two posts probably appear on the surface to be at odds with one another because one attempts to reverse the problem while the other attempts to exacerbate it. However, there is a method to my deep and frightful madness. I refer you to the analogy of a frog in boiling water. If you put a frog into luke-warm water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will swim merrily and make no attempt at escape until it is too late. However, if you drop the frog into water that is already very hot it spends its few remaining moments among the living desperately attempting to escape. (I have never actually attempted to boil live frogs, so maybe they don’t act as described, but the analogy creates a vivid picture anyway and is thus rhetorically useful.)

The analogy demonstrates that it is the nature and speed of the transition which is the governing force of the response to the change rather than the destination of the change itself. A jarring transition spurs reaction, while a slow transition results in docile acquiescence. The purpose of articles like shrug is to create such a sudden and uncomfortable transition in our culture that it becomes fertile for introspection and ultimately action. Well, hopefully the correct sort of reaction like that described in Of Madonnas and whores and other articles. By magnifying the problems faced by both family destroying women and the state, you may, just may, catalyze some pragmatic thinking. Not to mention sparing as many individual men from the machinations of the state as possible.

Of course I am just some trivial blogger who very few people read. : ( My articles are likely to be quite inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Or maybe not. There are a lot of men in positions which make them quite receptive to a new and sympathetic view of their situation that not only successfully diagnoses their problem, but also suggests some sort of solution. It is that last part that is most important. Men naturally want solutions. If there is a problem in their lives, they are much more likely compared to women to take some sort of unilateral action. Even if there are downsides to that action in this situation, the alternative is something akin to slavery. Worse maybe because of the culture of contempt directed towards so-called “dead-beat dads.” Therefore, the level of acceptable costs and downsides with respect to the working of the divorce industry are quite high. Even more, many men are likely to accept a great deal of problems if it means they can ensure that the state and the parasitic ex-wife come up empty handed merely as a result of well-deserved spite.

However, there is one last piece of this puzzle which must be dealt with before men shrug en masse and inflict a painful jolt on the system. Men have to be ideologically deprogrammed. Both social conservatives and the cultural marxists demand sacrifice from men for the sake of women and children and indoctrinate them accordingly. Sacrifice of men for those groups isn’t so bad when it is paired with the rewards and assurances given them in a traditional context. It was merely a more or less fair contract. The dominant culture on the left and “right” have decided that they can get away with taking those rewards and assurances away without any consequences. Well, we already know that didn’t turn out to be true, but even with the current consequences things seem to be accelerating leftward rather than reversing. Perplexing that. It seems that the consequences haven’t been severe or blatant enough which is why it is probably still the time of creative destruction rather than direct building (outside of individual properly patriarchal families, a difficult thing to achieve today even for the most skilled). Acceleration towards the left singularity has continued unaltered because of the so far effective ideological indoctrination men face from both the left and “right.”

The incentives that should result in men exiting en masse are already well established and have been for a long time. The only thing keeping them around is the tiny thread of cultural mind control; a thread that is ripe for the cutting. This indoctrination mainly revolves around questions of what is and isn’t moral. So long as good men believe that exiting from the unfair arrangement is immoral, they will be loathe to do so regardless of the cost to themselves. In shrug, the question of the morality of exit is directly addressed, although briefly:

I can think of the obvious objection [with respect to exit from alimony and child support]: “Won’t someone please think of the children!” Well, I am. I am thinking about children (and the whole family), but I have escaped myopia and took a view that extends all the way to the horizon. Children are done a huge disservice by easy divorce. It is a fact that they are better off when their parents stay together until at least they grow up. So long as the system exists in the current state, the only thing we can be sure of is that millions more men and children will be caught in its clutches in the future. Suffering will only increase and increase. Anything that lets the system of easy, no-fault divorce with the concomitant asset division last even one week longer than it has to is immoral.

In a properly functioning society, going after fathers who shirked their duty is a just imperative. We don’t live in a properly functioning society. These days it is rare that family breakdown is caused by men unwilling to be fathers. Worse, they have absolutely no power to prevent the destruction of the family that causes so much suffering to everyone, especially children. When family breaks down, it is not their fault. Such men are thus morally guiltless for leaving. As much should be explained to them and they should be encouraged to shrug. The men who willingly continue to pay into this system are essentially complicit in its perpetuation, at least once they understand how it works. They are just like Hank Rearden who through his diligent efforts kept the morally bankrupt society going that much longer than otherwise had to be. He did this despite emotional torture by his ungrateful family and incrementally increased injustice towards him by society. By keeping the current system solvent, today’s men ensure that more men in the future will be dragged into it. By shrugging, they bring the day of its collapse closer and ensure that less children will ultimately be caught up in it. Continuing to pay into the system, judged by the number of future men and children who will be dragged into it by its continuation, is thus itself the height of immorality.

In other words, it is the demands society place on men without compensation or assurance that is immoral. Men not only have a justification for exit, they are morally obligated to demand their dues for their sacrifice because if they do not they are dooming future generations to the perdition caused by incorrigibly capricious women and the ever more greedy state. If they are not given what they are owed, they must exit as a moral imperative. The elucidation of pragmatic morality here cuts the thread of indoctrination and prepares men psychologically for the difficult decision to pursue exit as the difficult solution to their involuntary servitude. The sting of mass exit would then ultimately facilitate some move back towards tradition.

At least this is the theory. Why should anyone listen to someone like me? Well it seems that at least one person has. Though I am not a MGTOW myself, I subscribe to the subreddit because they sometimes have interesting links. If anything, MGTOW philosophy will just make the demographic winter even worse so ultimately it has no promise as an effective strategy for a better future. Anyway, I stumbled on this self post which stated:

Frankly, we need to be very specific here about a certain aspect of going your own way. I’m looking for that direct insider info strictly speaking of alimony and child support obligations and uprooting and leaving it all behind.

Has anyone up and left, and the consequences be damned? Like, as in – I Don’t Give One Single Fuck what the ex, or the courts are gonna do to me type of attitude.

Seriously looking into this, if the statistics of non-payment of child support are such that “billions of dollars have gone uncollected” Then I must be living a delusion that I will in-fact go to jail for non-payment, and this can all be managed in a way that we can call their bluff and move on with our lives.

So speaking of what did you do, how far did you move? Out of county, out of state, out of country? How far did the legal system pursue you in your new found location? What and who did you leave behind? What would you have rather actually kept and/or sold or left behind? What legal ramifications were the result of leaving your “free-range prison” behind? (Think alimony, child support, garnishments, mortage, etc.) Were you able to successfully break free forever? Or did you come back and have to pay the piper? How did you hide assets like a home, or your money from being legally stolen from you? Would it have been a better idea to keep the home and rent it out while away, or sell the home because of the headaches, ramifications and hassle while gone? How have your children taken the change, and have you managed to keep in touch? Has the ex held them back from keeping a relationship with you because you are no longer paying for the extortion known as child support? Has she kept the children from relatives while you are gone? How much better was the new life compared to the old life? Any other comments or words of wisdom we could all potentially glean from you that aren’t covered here?

We are not discussing the morality of such decisions, or how you came to get to this point. We all come to our own point of no return, and I for one, and you yourself do not deserve to be ground into dust with no recompense for the rest of our lives.

Of course this reminded me of my shrug article so I told him about it in a comment to which he replied:

You have a really great website! I’ve read that article before too, and re-read it.

Flattery aside, I feel a bit like I may have opened pandora’s box (it was bound to be opened eventually by someone). If we take the 1% rule seriously, then there may be at least 100 more men out there somewhere who read that article and took it to heart and are seriously considering implementing the suggestion. That is assuming I have seen every instance of a re-post of this article, which I probably haven’t and would mean there are more than this. Of course, even if they don’t act on the idea it is in their head and they will think about it regularly because they will be faced with their burdens regularly. They will also likely spread the idea to other men (with or without linking back to me) and some of those men will act. The redefinition of appropriate moral response to the current divorce regime could eventually have significant repercussions and things will get worse generally before they get better. I have, in concert with the efforts of many others, engaged in black magic. What is and is not moral is changed to be a more accurate representation of reality. Moreover, from what we know about moral signaling behavior this redefinition could spread quickly and rabidly if it becomes entrenched in some dedicated minority. Considering the current incentive structure, such a result might be expected. People will fall all over themselves to do the right thing in the eyes of their peers, especially if they have overwhelming personal incentives rarely present in other moral signaling games.

All I can say is that I hope my appraisal of the situation is correct and that this action brings closer the light at the end of the tunnel. If I’m wrong about this, though I don’t think I am, then the spreading of the idea could result in some difficult to reverse consequences. Either way, what is done is done and the lid can not be put back on the box. At the very least, progressive culture will suffer mightily for ignoring gnon. Most importantly, though, individual men will be more likely to free themselves from involuntary servitude and that is a positive moral change even if that is the only positive change that results.

EDIT:

Here is another self-post titled “How to shrug at the family courts and evade slavery.” Though I didn’t ask him if this had anything to do with my article in my comment, the wording suggests he had read it.

Share Button