|
|
|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Oh I dunno, perhaps recent public role models:
FMCDH
Like California? I think so. Men are begging to shrug off the yoke of feminist politics practiced by the "feminist" politicians in the state.
An example: A few days ago, Gray Davis defended his governorship by accusing one of his opponents, Bill Simon as:"Being against gun control, offshore drilling and pro-choice". In general, these three issues are more compelling to women than men. In other words, Davis was saying he was the candidate of the females of California and if you throw me out the men will be in charge.
Perhaps it is time women began to rethink their responsibilities to the Republic under the Nineteenth Amendment.
As a taunt to my partner, I cut out the headline and stuck it on the notice board in the kitchen. But I added the following words underneath it. "Well, if men are not doing any housework, then neither am I!"
The the woman in question : then GO GET A JOB.
He SEEMS to want to make a point but SEEMS too lazy to do his homework!
This is why Islam must be infected with "Modernity" as soon and as thoroughly as possible, since the job will only get more difficult with time. Good troops will get harder to find with each passing generation. (Nowadays the draft is not wanted by military brass because the moral quality of non-volunteers is so low. This will get worse.)
I used to think, as you do, that this process would work itself out more quickly than it has. In fact, licentiousness progresses with a sort of majestic, slow, relentless, almost geological inevitability. Like geology, where most terrain features are caused by sudden flooding, volcanism, or similar catastrophe, the social terrain will suddenly, unpredictably, and violently change, but the process is a long one.
What?! Does this guy mean that we have to actually investigate things, to examine what is going on and, gasp, apply old-fashioned values and actually have to assign responsibility for bad things going on in our society to Feminism, dear Feminism?! Gaia forbid!! (/dripping sarcasm from yet another pig)
Furthermore, if western men continue to be persistently attacked, accused, vilified, undermined and demonised, disempowered within their families and discriminated against through the justice system, their behaviours are likely to grow considerably worse!
And if feminists continue to pursue their aims without regard to the way in which they are alienating millions of men, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future both they and their supporters (e.g. in the media, in academia and in government) are going to be in for a very nasty shock.
A history teacher of mine told our class once that the easiest way for a ruler or ruling class to cause their own demise was to force their subjects to lose hope - because, lacking hope, the victims will also have nothing to lose by fighting back in some way. That resistance usually rises to the level of violence, because destroying a man's hope is not a light matter. He used the example of taking or destroying a man's house as the best way to do this. However, Feminist politics and our legal system has greatly exceeded that "modest" punishment. Let's take the example of a man who simply cannot stand his wife, or whose wife cannot stand him - so they get a divorce. Not only is the husband/father kicked out of the house he paid and worked for over the course of many years, but he has to pay alimony to the person who did it to him, and child support for the children that she took from him. Oh, and all the while, she could be shacked up with some other guy (or many over the course of several years) - in our victim's very house - but as long as she doesn't get married, he keeps paying alimony. And he dare not refuse to pay - his credit will be ruined, he may lose his job and possibly even go to jail. Oh, and if he's a gun owner, be assured that the restraining order that her attorney insists upon will take his guns and prevent him from buying any more. In short, he loses everything dear to him, and is forced to work as not much more than an indentured servant. Gee, I don't see much hope there - no wonder that behavior is growing worse over time, and no wonder that lots of people (mostly men) see little use for our present form of government or those who are in charge.
As a class, men have the power to bring down the infrastructure simply by ignoring it, as was done in the Soviet Union. We are much closer to that than I thought we would be by now. There's less anger in it than I thought there might be. It's more at "who cares?" It's nothing organized, it's just a million little decisions not to give a damn anymore. It's a very corrosive phenomenon.
The pot is boiling - putting the lid on the pot and turning up the gas will only hasten the inevitable explosion.
Seven years ago I thought we were about fifteen years away from government losing the consent of enough of its male governed that it would be pushed into falling. That still seems about right to me.
I think you're wrong. Name one instance of this phenomenon.
As a class, men have the power to bring down the infrastructure simply by ignoring it, as was done in the Soviet Union. We are much closer to that than I thought we would be by now.
Hahahahahahahah! An organized movement by the working class to bring down society? Hahahahahahahah!
It's a very corrosive phenomenon. As the Soviet Union experience showed, everything can look almost normal right up to the end... and then all of a sudden, a cascade of infrastructure failures stops everything in its tracks.
I could be wrong, but I thought the Soviet Union collapsed in a macro way, not a micro way.
True, pc bs and feminazis have had their day, but you can't change dna. Guys are still guys (although we may not harass the new fox at work (which is a good thing)).
Do you think there is a similarity to those countries where gangs of young men, "Technos", drive pickups with guns mounted in the back, and shoot everyone?Which later prompted me to expand it into an article last year Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?That is the normal state of a matrilineal culture. You can see it in dozens of countries. You can see it in Detroit and Los Angeles. When a society's men do not care about the future, institutional forms of the sort that maintain order and keep things working, either don't develop or break down. The closest thing to "government" in such cultures is a kind of feudalism in which gangs of young men hold sway, usually violently, over whatever territory they can subdue. There is no continuity to this... today's leader is replaced tomorrow by the next jerk with a machine gun. Nor do these "governments" have any purpose except to rape and pillage. The only form of 'order' they provide is keeping rival gangs out of the territory.
This is what human society looks like in the absence of institutional forms of government. And for reasons no one can explain, these forms only develop in cultures where men know who their children are and participate in their upbringing. Raising their own children is what makes men care about the future, and when men care about the future they can do amazing things to make it better. Schools, electricity, running water, roads, sewage systems... all those things are products of institutional forms that never appear in matrilineal cultures. That's why those people all live in mud huts and are constantly migrating to avoid droughts and floods.
It frequently happened that colonial powers from more patriarchal cultures came in and established such institutions. They built roads, schools, and governments. But when the colonial powers pulled out, the institutions collapsed; the underlying matrilineal cultures could not maintain them. There is a message in that for us. But instead of hearing that message, our feminist elites are publishing papers about how fathers don't matter, and how they might even be harmful to children and other living things. Those people are going to send us right back to the mud huts.
Yup. Remember them well.
This piece reminded of a set of rants I did on Usenet six or seven years ago, particularly the "Pygmalion" effects and the "Atlas gonna shrug one of these days" aspects. The author also glances at, but doesn't see — or choose to talk about — the potentially interesting consequences of government becoming seen as "something that needs to go away" by its male citizens. Seven years ago I thought we were about fifteen years away from government losing the consent of enough of its male governed that it would be pushed into falling. That still seems about right to me. As a class, men have the power to bring down the infrastructure simply by ignoring it, as was done in the Soviet Union. We are much closer to that than I thought we would be by now. There's less anger in it than I thought there might be. It's more at "who cares?" It's nothing organized, it's just a million little decisions not to give a damn anymore. It's a very corrosive phenomenon. As the Soviet Union experience showed, everything can look almost normal right up to the end... and then all of a sudden, a cascade of infrastructure failures stops everything in its tracks.