Saturday, October 29, 2011

Remoralising men

Grerp at The Lost Art of Self-Preservation has written an excellent post on Kate Bolick.

Kate Bolick is the American woman who admitted that she had been brought up by her feminist mother to pursue autonomy above all else and so rejected offers of marriage from suitable men when in her late 20s. Now, in her late 30s, she finds that there are no more suitable men and so she has begun to talk up the idea of remaining a single lady.

Grerp doesn't think this is much of an option for most women. She points out that not all women are suited to a life of rugged independence:

The fact is, most women aren't very much like Bolick at all - which is why most women want to get married, because subconsciously they know, despite all the feminist propaganda that portrays marriage as a one-way trap to stifling, abused servitude, that marriage is a good deal for women. Women are smaller, weaker, more risk averse, more comfort seeking, and are rarely the kind of trail-blazing, money-making geniuses who can sit alone atop a heap of money and adulation. Almost all of them will eventually want babies too which will make them physically, emotionally, and financially more vulnerable than women like Bolick.

She could be describing my wife. My wife likes the comforts of home and of domestic routine, she is oriented to being a mother and caring for her children and, although she did support herself for many years, she doesn't handle the stress of work burdens well. Our marriage works well because my own instinct is to create a protected space for her to create a home in - but more on that later.

Grerp then goes on to look at the "We are the 99%" protesters. She finds, as I did, that many are women who feel anxious and insecure about their lives:

One of the themes that emerges from the We Are the 99 Percent posts is fear/anxiety. Over and over the posters, the majority of which are women, say they are scared. They don't know what is going to happen. They fear for the future if the government doesn't swoop in with the jobs, the debt forgiveness, and the free healthcare. The fact is that women are already the biggest users of the social safety net in terms of welfare, food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, childcare vouchers, etc. Since they are largely covered for at least the basics of food and housing, what they are essentially demanding, then, is the eradication of risk. All risk.

While the economic situation is very complex, the timing of this tremendous outpouring of fear and despair is not coincidental. We are now at least three generations deep into the destruction of the traditional family. Boomer women came from intact families many of which would provide backup if and when they crashed and burned in their youth. Gen X women had a more fractured family landscape, but previous recessions were not as dire and grandparents often pitched in. Millenials, on the other hand, may come from a family tree with hardly an intact branch. Their Boomer parents can't afford to aid them because they need their own help. Forty percent of Boomer women are single and hardly any of them are adequately prepared for retirement.

That's well observed. I know that in my life I haven't had to feel a high level of insecurity because I grew up in a culture in which every family had a hard working father who built up economic resources. My father and uncles all did this, as did my father-in-law. So there is always family support to fall back on in a crisis. But if you were a single woman without the prospect of such family support you would no doubt feel more vulnerable.

But rather than looking to men to provide security, these women seem to think it can be provided either by the state or else by taking money from the well-off. They're not focused on how wealth in a society is generated to begin with.

Grerp next quotes the Facebook page of a 40-year-old woman who is upset that the men she knows aren't good at providing security:

Boys play house...Men build homes!!! Boys shack up...Men get married!!! Boys make babies...Men raise children!!! A boy won't raise his own children, a man will raise his and someone else's!!! Boys invent excuses for failure...Men produce strategies for success!!! Boys look for somebody to take care of them...Men look for someone to take care of!!! Boys seek popularity...Men demand respect and know how to give it..BOYS DO WHAT THEY WANT, MEN DO WHAT THEY CAN & MORE!

But as Grerp points out, it's no use a 40-year-old woman with three children from two different men suddenly demanding that a traditional man step in to look after her:

The woman who posted it has three children from two different men.  She is stuck in a mediocre paying, dead-end job.  She divorced her first husband because marriage wasn't fun, then shacked up with a series of less and less stable men until she threw the last mooching bum out a year or so ago.  She is 40.  Now she is seriously looking for Mr. Right and says she won't settle for anything less because she's worth it.  The handwriting on her wall was written nearly a decade ago when she had her second and then third illegitimate child: life-long poverty.

A few weeks ago I went for a walk along Mary Street, Hawthorn. It's a particularly well-preserved part of that heritage suburb of Melbourne and I am always struck by its particular spirit of place. You get the sense of it having grown as a protected community: a place full of beautiful family homes, an attractive high street, and fine churches, schools, public buildings and parks. The men who built Hawthorn in its heyday succeeded in creating a protected space within which a community with its own local flavour and life could flourish.

That is the higher male calling, but one from which modern men are largely alienated. There are certainly still many men who work hard to keep their families afloat financially, but not so many who would identify as men with the task of shielding a real, historic community to allow the communal life within it to live on.

What went wrong? There are no doubt many reasons, but a critical one relates to the first wave of feminism in the mid to late 1800s. Until that time, men were responsible for the protective role I have been trying to describe. But the demands of first wave feminism implied, logically, that there was no such distinctively male role - and so over time the male commitment to such a role withered.

And something similar might be said of the second and third waves of feminism - that the demands of these movements undercut the idea of a distinctively masculine role within the family - with the likelihood that the male commitment to a husband and father role will also decline over time.

If a society is going to prosper it has to draw on the higher masculine instincts to create the protected conditions in which families and communities can flourish. The men of that society have to know, unmistakeably, that that is the higher task they are called upon to achieve. Female talents can be drawn on in all sorts of ways, but never to the point that men lose the sense of what they are charged with accomplishing.

That is a great mistake the West has made, and continues to make - it has demoralised and alienated its own men. If we are to be an effective counterculture we have to include, as part of our conversation, the remoralising of Western men.

50 comments:

  1. "a man will raise his and someone else's!!!"

    This ladies views are the reason why she can't find a man.
    A man would not raise another mans child. I find this idea more and more disgusting the more I hear it from women.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (last poster)
    There is an article on the News.com.au website about mens mental health. It talks about how men are demoralised. It also mocks them it a typical msm way.
    The most insulting part of the article is an interactive collection of magazine covers displaying the choices the modern man can be.
    they are basically
    1)Housewife
    2)permenant boy/player/deadbeat
    3)Successful(as in a millionare)

    http://www.news.com.au/national/a-nature-guide-to-australian-male-roles/story-e6frfkw0-1226176438499

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you will realize, on a moments reflection, that your final solution is, in fact, impossible. As a COUNTER-CULTURE, it is impossible to remoralise men. Men are de-moralised for a whole host of INSTITUTIONAL and POLICY reasons. How can a counter-culture achieve even the most basic aims of bring morality back into family life, such as eliminating non-consensual divorces, eliminating non-consensual child support, or giving fathers an expectation of shared parenting?

    A counter-culture can never effect institutional change, and without those basic institutional changes, what would lead to a behavioral change? The same signals and incentives will continue to lead to the same results.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Justin,

    There would certainly be different signals sent to men and women in a non-liberal community. No longer would female autonomy be the organising principle of the community. The ideal of acting in the interest of the larger community would be reinvigorated, as would masculine and feminine ideals of behaviour, as would a belief in an objective morality to orient our moral choices, as would an emphasis on prudence in our life choices.

    A community would also provide something of an institutional base to campaign for changes in society at large, including reforms of the divorce laws.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Naturally male body is designed for interact with the environment efficiently while the female body is designed for bearing children and breast feeding. Feminism is not accepting this nature. It teaches women to give up their natural femininity and and fight against men and male sexuality. Feminism leads women to be unsecured them selves. Feminine women are always secured in any social situation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Remember this picture from the London riots?

    The (non-police) men at that little church are trying to create a safe space, as you advocate.

    The overwhelming and intimidating armed police presence around them is the mailed fist of the state, ready to smash them, or just humiliate them, if they make a move to protect anything.

    The men at that church are being made to know, unmistakeably, that they have not got any higher masculine task than to keep their eyes down and their shoulders slumped. (For Sikhs at a temple, or for any other group favored by the multicultural state, the rules might be different.)

    Men to boys in one simple step.

    Thugs rule, men who've had their nuts clipped by a state, a ruling class and a ruling culture that forbids them to be masculine submit.

    This is not an occasional thing. Men who've ceased to be protectors are no longer protectors all the time.

    The rarity and weakness of challenges to the ruling order does not show that there is no problem or only a very minor and occasional one. It shows how deeply the poisonous doctrines of a hostile elite have soaked into our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If a society is going to prosper it has to draw on the higher masculine instincts to create the protected conditions in which families and communities can flourish."

    But females are 50% of voters and are they not hardheaded enough to allow this to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Daybreaker,

    That's a good example of the liberal state suppressing men with the right masculine instincts.

    But I wouldn't expect much else from the liberal state, which is why we have to work counter-culturally in the first place.

    There's a lot that can be done within the confines of liberal society: an alternative media can be developed, informal meetings held, traditionalist leaning parishes or schools can be formed, prizes for traditionalist art or literature could be funded etc. If enough support was built it might even be possible to operate on a more professional level.

    ReplyDelete
  9. But females are 50% of voters

    I doubt at this stage that the solution is an electoral one anyway. Remember, too, that some women are likely to be sympathetic to traditionalist aims.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is not men who need remoralizing, but women. Roissy has it exactly right:

    What’s wrong with men? Nothing that isn’t also wrong with women.

    Men don’t “refuse to grow up”. They drop out, (or rather, beta males drop out), and with good reason, because the sexual market has been reconstructed to pander to female hypergamous impulses. Men can no longer achieve the clearly-defined status over hypergamous women they once could because the traditional field of battle that afforded them relative supremacy and, thus, attractiveness, to women — the corporate office — has, via managerial despotism strengthening PC and diversity to a state religion, lopped their balls clean off. And so men retreat from the corporate drone working world to achieve their status elsewhere.

    Men don’t avoid marriage and family because they have a “maturity deficit”. They rationally avoid marriage and family because, as the institutions are currently constituted, they are a raw deal for men. Marriage is a risk made too great by misandrist divorce laws, and kids are a cost made too high by falling wages and tightening housing markets, of which part of the blame must go to women who have been voting for increasingly leftie and feminist-friendly governments since suffrage.

    Men don’t play the field because they “avoid responsibility”. Men play the field because they can; because women, in their zeal to delay marriage until their careers have been established, to hop a parade of alpha cock during their roaring twenties, and to reward the players over the providers with their prime sexual access, have opened the field to men.

    Men don’t “treat women as toys”. Men get the sex while the getting’s good because women allow — nay, PREFER — themselves to be toyed with by the kinds of men who are good at it.

    In other words, Mr. Bennett, women GET EXACTLY THE KINDS OF MEN they deserve. Even more dispiriting to your conception of the universe, women get the men they WANT.

    Women are the gatekeepers and the hadron collider tubes of sexuality. This has never changed, and likely never will as long as our biology remains rooted in the material world. The shape and direction of man is primarily an effect, not a cause, of the pathway laid out by women.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And Roissy's prescription?

    If conservatives are serious about restoring a traditional concept of manhood to the modern man, I have a few suggestions for them.

    1. Industriousness will only be a worthwhile pursuit for men if they can extract some real status out of it to satisfy their guiding compulsion to attract women. This means removing women from the workplace, where female career growth acts indirectly to undermine male provider and leadership status, and directly through the feminization of the workplace.

    2. Marriage will only be a worthwhile goal for men when divorce laws are gutted and reinvented to stop massively favoring women at the expense of men. No-fault divorce should be abolished. Child support changed so that men and women have automatic equal share of custody if the man wants it. Alimony abolished so that we never again see a callous situation where the ex-husband is writing checks to an ex-wife who initiated divorce and is now banging a new lover. Women who initiate divorce for any reason other than provable physical abuse should be kicked out of the house and made to get by living in an apartment.

    3. Religion is dead in the water. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has been bitten, and no one who matters in the developed nations can take it seriously again until they and their shrinking descendants have been purged from the human pool. But if you want a fighting chance to return religion to some honorable place in society, and to have men return to the fold, the constant, sanctimonious drumbeat of chiding men to behave must stop, and be replaced with sermons that take into account the fallen nature of women. Remember, women WANT to be led. They won’t abandon the church if their natures are examined candidly and honestly, and without fear.

    Now naturally, few conservatives will take up this call to arms. Have you heard any of them discussing the possibility of rearranging contractual marriage, the workplace, and religion to make it easier for men to ascend to a gloried position in society? Have you heard any discuss the natural disposition women have toward men of higher status, and that catering to this disposition will result in healthier relationships? I haven’t. That’s because most conservatives are pussies. “From a pussy, ye shall stay a pussy” would be an accurate conservative credo.

    Since none of the above recommendations will ever see the light of day, let alone become the law of the land, the Chateau counsel to forge a new creation by learning game remains unchallenged in its effectiveness and its nobility. The map men navigate has changed; their status and their honor now issue from a wickedly precise understanding of women’s sexual natures, an acceptance of the new culture that pervades, and a fearlessness in exploiting what was bequeathed them to personal advantage.

    ...

    Men will man up when women man down. The one must follow the other. The polarity cannot be reversed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. well written Mark.

    Always worth stopping by your site to get the old brainbox working.

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.vdare.com/articles/what-whams-need-to-know-about-affirmative-action


    as for remoralising men, imo the best that can be done is to raise the next generation straight and away from the feminist BS.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A culture which ceaselessly denigrates and alienates it's prime producers, i.e., MEN, cannot asnd does not deserve to exist; it is STUPIDITY on an institutional scale.

    "In nature, stupidity is a capital crime; judgement is completely impartial, sentence is immediately carried out, and there is no appeal."
    -- Robert Heinlein, as Lazarus Long from 'Time Enough For Love'.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Western world has demoralised and alienated its own men...

    In many ways this is true. On the other hand, look at most male academics, journalists and businessmen. Politically-correct, greedy, money-centred self-serving individuals. And they have no love for the Western world. Fair comment?

    ReplyDelete
  16. But I wouldn't expect much else from the liberal state, which is why we have to work counter-culturally in the first place.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "This means removing women from the workplace, where female career growth acts indirectly to undermine male provider and leadership status, and directly through the feminization of the workplace."

    Roissy is the one person who really gets it. You can't be both against feminism and for dual income family.

    ReplyDelete
  18. But I wouldn't expect much else from the liberal state, which is why we have to work counter-culturally in the first place.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Regarding Roissy,

    His analysis of what is disrupting relationships and male responsibility is very good and so are his concrete suggestions for reform.

    But he fails in one crucial respect. He says "Hey, you conservatives have to do X, Y, Z if you want things to improve. Until that happens we men will just go about our day being hedonists and nihilists and spectators of decline."

    So what's the point of his good analysis? Who exactly are these "conservatives" who are going to do the constructive work of bringing about change whilst men practise game in bars?

    Admittedly I made a similar mistake for a couple of years when I was in my twenties. I heard the destructive messages being given to women that ordinary family men were wife beaters, rapists etc and that marriage and children should be left last on the list until a year or two before fertility ran out.

    And I thought to myself, these messages are so off base and destructive that some official establishment person will step in and put them right - maybe the conservative politicians or the bishops or concerned fathers etc.

    Of course, that never happened. And so I decided to look more carefully at the political beliefs held by people in the establishment and I found that the idea of a conservative establishment was a myth - that even the more right-wing politicians identified as classical liberals.

    And it made sense - a liberal establishment was bit by bit transforming society in a liberal direction.

    So the first necessary task was to change the political landscape and to get a traditionalist politics up and running within the political class.

    So our message to men should be "we need you to take politics seriously, to become involved at whatever level you can, to make your contribution patiently and perseveringly, and above all to make a clean break with the liberal ideology which is doing us so much damage".

    This is not the time for men to drop out. That only helps those who want to shuffle us out of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think what Roissy is saying is that he doesn't think that any societal reform is practically possible, and so in light of that, he chooses to enjoy the spoils, if you will, of the current system. He (and many/most) others are not interested in playing traditionalist in a microcosmic way if society as a whole does not endorse and reward this (and, in fact, has laws that undermine it at every turn). That's his disagreement. He doesn't see the point.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The facebook quote is quite telling: by assuming that men can produce and demand things at will, it assumes that men function in a bubble independently of what women do. It doesn't even occur to the writer that society can impact men negatively....or perhaps it has and she has deliberately chosen to ignore the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I found that the idea of a conservative establishment was a myth - that even the more right-wing politicians identified as classical liberals."

    Agreed. There are left liberals and right liberals; there are no conservatives in the public sphere.
    Right liberals, otherwise known as "conservatives" are merely 20 to 30 years behind any left liberal proposal, with gay marriage being but only one example.

    Left liberals are the vanguard and right liberals are the rear guard but they both march in the same leftward direction.

    It is frustrating that so many people can't distinguish between form and substance: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck but insists on calling itself a swan then a sensible person would do well to consider it a duck despite the duck/swan's protestations to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wow - thanks, Mark, for your kind comments on my blog piece. I'm glad it struck a chord with you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Women are very troublesome & demanding even during the best of times. I expect that this may well have been a secondary reason for the great number of men who became monks during the Middle Ages. A quotation from H.L. Mencken expresses it very well. "Bachelors know more about women than married men, if they didn't they'd be married too". & then of course there's Dr. Johnson's famous quotation regarding someone's second marriage "The triumph of hope over experience". I become happier that I never married with each passing year. The feminine proclivity to insane pettiness makes the husband's life insupportable. Before one marries one must realize that there is no respite, there is no relief. The vexations, the constant strife & turmoil will go on until the end. It seems greatly preferable to work no more than is absolutely necessary, & to spend the rest of one's time sitting in the park reading books, than to waste one's life in unnecessary toil like Boxer, the cart-horse in Orwell's Animal Farm. Women have almost always demanded that men become what one could call a combination cart-horse/dancing bear. It's not enough that he work himself into an early grave to buy yet more trinkets for her to oo & ah over like a savage does with coloured beads, he must "game" her, that is keep her constantly entertained as well. When the music starts playing he had better start dancing or else she'll find subtle sneaky little ways to make his life even more miserable than it already is. Our Lord's One True Church has never taught that men have a duty to marry. Anyhow, if there are any fellow Catholics reading this who are of the same mind, & whose families are pressuring them to get married, to go over the top so to speak despite their unwillingness, don't give in. It may be hard for a young chap, but it's certainly possible with the help of the Intercession of Our Lady. The older one gets, the easier it is, until at last one wonders that one ever entertained the idea at all. One must never permit the lower nature, the concupiscible & irascible appetites to usurp the authority of the will & intellect. How many unfortunates have passed their lives in misery who might have escaped their fate by merely giving some sober reflection to their choice of life. What is best in life? Peace & tranquillity, leisure to read & to learn, to contemplate the most profound truths, all of these things are far more easily attained in the unmarried state, as one is free to devote one's self wholly to one's studies rather than to being the very best of the cart-horses/dancing bears. Those doing the pressuring will eventually cease & desist, when they see that it makes no impression, though they may hold a certain resentment for a good while, this should also dissipate with time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. One thing i'm not sure about your blog Mark is when a poster myself and others hint they want to make a tactical retreat and break away from Australian society.
    In my case i will break away to another traditional society in another country simply because modern Australia isn't my cup of tea.
    Maybe a decade or so ago I could of raised a family here and watched my kids play safely in the street. Not anymore. I've visited other countries where this is still possible for people to live in safe secure homogenous communities.
    Your response is these are not the men(women) we need.
    I am quite sypmathetic to your plan for a traditional community and I think it is a good idea. However isn't that a break away from society in itself no different from a man choosing to emmigrate?
    Im confused secondely by you and many others fixation over those people in society who absolutely do not care about what you are writing. People who piss away their culture and people. You talk as if you want to save them over those people who are sympathetic to your cause!

    This is to me an inherent weakness in western society. We waste our time on outsiders, foreigners , immigrants, progressives and lost causes.
    Then we savage each other in every sphere of life.
    I've thought this is because its easy to treat your own poorly.
    Western 'white' people(specifically Australians in our case) need to stop this before we destroy each other completely.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "That's his disagreement. He doesn't see the point."

    And therein lies Roissy's weakness, the weakness of every nihilist.

    Roissy's only recommendation to save the West is to "nuke it from orbit".

    Too bad. He had some of the right ideas too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So what's the point of his good analysis? Who exactly are these "conservatives" who are going to do the constructive work of bringing about change whilst men practise game in bars?

    If such conservatives don't even exist - i.e., conservatism is a movement with no or with totally ineffective political leaders - then there is little reason to behave conservatively on a personal level.

    the first necessary task was to change the political landscape and to get a traditionalist politics up and running within the political class.

    It ought to be obvious at this point that this idea is a non-starter. Liberalism is the inevitable disease of democracy. If you want liberalism to go away, you have to get rid of democracy. THAT is the kind of "change in the political landscape" that would effect a truly conservative revolution in politics and society.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "If such conservatives don't even exist - i.e., conservatism is a movement with no or with totally ineffective political leaders - then there is little reason to behave conservatively on a personal level."

    Should we be motivated to do what is right only because we get some benefits out of it and somebody will praise us? Or simply because it's a good and honourable thing to do?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous at 2.28 is spot on. Democracy is a political bacillus that weakens, degenerates & eventually kills any society that it infects. It is one of the main causes of the west's impending collapse. The decadent western democracies will be defeated by the more disciplined people of the East, the Russians & Chinese. A monarchical form of government is ideal, & failing this a benevolent dictatorship like that of General Franco in Spain. Did feminism & other such pernicious doctrines flourish under the rule of the Caudillo? No, because he wasn't a puppet of Judeo-Masonry like the worthless filth that we have as prime ministers & presidents & so forth in the western world today. Another thing is that modern people are so thoroughly corrupt that it is rapidly getting to the point that dictatorial rule will be the only way to control them. If they will not leave off doing something simply because it is evil, then they ought to be constrained by armed force to leave off doing it. There have been tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of abortions carried out over the last fifty years. If that doesn't indicate that western society is as satanic as that of the Aztecs, or the cannibals of Dahomey, then I don't know what does. At least the Aztecs' human sacrifices had the object of gaining from their idols the continuation of their race, that the sun would continue to come up in the morning & so on, rather than simply to avoid being inconvenienced, which was the main motivation for the worthless murderesses of the modern west.

    ReplyDelete
  30. One of the issues I have with the idea that democracy should be the focus of blame is that it can be another excuse not to do anything. It can be a way of saying "What's required is for one great strong man, one leader, to step in and fix things up".

    There have been societies in the past in which the main focus of male action in the world was not the private sphere but the public one. A man's character was measured by how well he served the larger community he belonged to. We need to foster something like this now so that men stop looking passively to a non-existent figure of authority to act on their behalf but begin to act instead together toward a common aim.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Should we be motivated to do what is right only because we get some benefits out of it and somebody will praise us? Or simply because it's a good and honourable thing to do?"

    You may do as you wish, but the basic problem with building a political movement from below to embrace traditionalism is that most people are not going to follow you. The elites have deliberately destroyed the idea of "good" and "honour" -- how then will people decide by themselves to do the good and honourable thing?

    ReplyDelete
  32. One of the issues I have with the idea that democracy should be the focus of blame is that it can be another excuse not to do anything. It can be a way of saying "What's required is for one great strong man, one leader, to step in and fix things up".

    Putting a strong man in charge is not less impossible than reforming democracy along traditionalist lines. Plus, the strong man approach has the virtue of being more permanent.

    There have been societies in the past in which the main focus of male action in the world was not the private sphere but the public one. A man's character was measured by how well he served the larger community he belonged to.

    In one sense, we already live in such a society. A man's character, today, is measured by how well he serves the "larger community" by promoting tolerance, diversity, social justice, environmental awareness, blah blah blah.

    If you try to "serve the community" by promoting traditionalism, it goes without saying that the dominant forces of the (liberal) community (church, state, academia, the media) will energetically fight you as a hatemonger, racist, male chauvinist, etc. You will only lower your social status by doing this, and others will be deterred rather than encouraged by your example.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Mark,

    Thanks for your post. It must be inspiring being able to regularly go to areas where you can see the fruits of our older system in place.

    On the same hand in must also be a little depressing.

    On the otherhand I live in a small mining town and get to regularly see the fruits of cashed up hedonism. (It amazes/disturbs me how little money is saved by some of my neighbours.)

    ReplyDelete
  34. A confident man has
    A job
    A wife
    A home
    Children
    These are becoming unobtainable in modern society.
    Result is Demoralised men.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Remoralising of Western men."

    The cart before the horse maybe?

    Given the prevailing conditions I think men are plenty moral.

    You want change? Do you know how many women, lesbians, homosexuals, Free Masons, Jews and avowed socialists have been admitted to the bar Mark?

    Change the Political partys, Legislature and Judiciary and then you can talk about'remoralising' men.

    Here's a question for you, your a teacher, will you ever vote to remove government subsidies to your profession? Thought so...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Putting a strong man in charge

    Who is going to do that and why would the strong man be a traditionalist?

    If you try to "serve the community" by promoting traditionalism, it goes without saying that the dominant forces of the (liberal) community (church, state, academia, the media) will energetically fight you as a hatemonger, racist, male chauvinist, etc. You will only lower your social status by doing this, and others will be deterred rather than encouraged by your example.

    But it goes without saying that you have to be smart about how you set about doing things.

    It's not impossible to disarm liberal accusations of sexism, racism and so on. You explain to people how these stem from nothing more than ideology and that it's to be expected that the liberal establishment will use such terms against ordinary non-liberal people.

    You can begin by organising informally, i.e. without formal memberships, so that people don't need to associate themselves too closely to anything if that's going to be a potential problem work wise.

    You can focus on a local area, in which you and others are in good standing, and in which you have the resources to reply to any misrepresentations.

    You can fund someone to be a community worker so that they don't need to worry about their standing at work.

    You can put people in their 50s and 60s in prominent positions, as it's likely that they too are in a less vulnerable position.

    You can work quietly and steadily and systematically in a particular area to present a traditionalist alternative.

    It's not necessary to deliberately provoke a reaction - not if you are commmitted to years of steady, consistent work.

    Finally, it's true that people are sensitive to issues of status. However, it's becoming more difficult to avoid or run away from the looming loss of our own ethny. If traditionalists were able to offer even a small refuge from this, I don't think it's impossible that it would attract support, even at the cost of some status.

    But it won't happen if the mood is entirely defeatist, or if we always look to someone else to create something.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The cart before the horse maybe?

    Anon, if you want things to be different then you yourself have to be part of making it so.

    What you seem to be suggesting is this. That you have been harmed by things as they are, so therefore you will remain passive until the people who harmed you decide to change. Then you will get back on board.

    But why would they do this? Why would a liberal establishment act any different to its own values on the basis that you set out?

    A demoralised response is an ineffective one.

    Either men remoralise or nothing will change.

    You write:

    Change the Political partys, Legislature and Judiciary and then you can talk about'remoralising' men.

    But who is going to do this? If men are demoralised then nothing will change. The remoralisation has to come first.

    Here's a question for you, your a teacher, will you ever vote to remove government subsidies to your profession? Thought so...

    My profession isn't subsidised, it is wholly funded by the government. I am paid as a teacher in the state system by the government. If I were to vote against government payments, then I would be working without a salary.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Remoralising men"
    I think this is not good title at all. Today's men are highly moral and responsible even though it might seem otherwise.
    - You have government which confiscates majority of your incomes to redistribute it - often to parasites. Men could quit working and immediately break country into wasteland. Do they do it? No, most still work hard to feed their families (or others when they have no families) even when they are separated from them.
    - Family courts separate men from their children, their homes and properties, their driving licenses, their incomes. Do they break into violence or quit working? No.
    - Courts send them to debtor prisons due to missing payments of often absurdfully high alimony. Debtor prisons are banned in constitutions of most Western countries, does anyone care? Do men break into violens towards society? No.

    Men do not attack their own society which treat them as waste. Most of them are moral and responsible sacrificing themselves.
    If you want someone to "remoralise", address it to society and women making immoral and irresponsible choices. Not men.
    How many generations will it take to breed those men out of gene pool? What will society, pardon, tribes, do then?

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you want a clear example of what western men are up against take the British riots as an example.
    Masculine English males took up arms to defend their turf.
    They were then targetted by the police as directed by the British government and arrested.
    Meanwhile Muslims and Sikhs who defended their turf even with swords were completely ignored and even praised in the media for defending society.

    This is the future for every white man.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anon (7.14),

    That's a reasonable comment. When it comes to work and family a very large number of men continue to give a lot.

    The demoralisation I'm speaking of is something of a different nature. It's an alienation from the higher male calling of upholding the community to which they belong.

    It's an issue because it takes out of the equation a fair proportion of the men who are critical of liberal society. They know that things are wrong but they can't/won't commit to positive countermeasures.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anon (7.38),

    Of course you are right. It's not a level playing field. But I admire those Englishmen who did make an effort during the riots. And it wasn't in vain - it restored a bit of pride after the photo went around the world of the guy handing over his shirt and pants to a mugger. It showed that there were still Englishmen with a bit of spirit.

    I guess the problem is that a one off event like that isn't enough in the long term. What's needed is patient political work to build up a counterforce to liberal orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Higher male calling of upholding the community to which they belong."

    If I were to uphold a higher male calling, I would need to kill, incarcerate or expel the entire financial, media, political, judicial, military, local enforcement and religious cadre in the country.

    Telling a dike that I don't mind opening doors for her ain't going to achieve shit.

    ReplyDelete
  43. If I were to uphold a higher male calling, I would need to kill, incarcerate or expel the entire financial, media, political, judicial, military, local enforcement and religious cadre in the country.

    That's outside of your powers. But expelling these forces from a community you create isn't. Why not have your own community school? Or parish? Or local media? Or publishing company? Or arts/literature awards? Or social clubs? Or political group? Or bookshop?

    ReplyDelete
  44. "You can put people in their 50s and 60s in prominent positions, as it's likely that they too are in a less vulnerable position."

    In the times of Soviet Union there was a verse about an elderly grandfather who found a grenade and then proceeded to throw it inside the building where the Communist Party members had a meeting. It ended with the words: He is so old he doesn't care (what they'll do to him). We probably need more men like this grandfather:)

    Disclaimer, speaking figuratively, not to be seen as an incitement to any illegal action.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mark I've been thinking about your idea for a traditional community. I thought basing it around a Traditionalist school for children would be a good centre for a community. The core subjects would be Australian history. Serious factual Australian history. This would be a great deterrent for people who hate Australia. Then around the core history courses could be a number of classical Art , sculpture and music courses, Practical courses that give the students real employable (and sought after) hard skills, such as math, engineering, english, computer science and science. I know I could of done with a decent education rather than being self taught.
    Question is, is it even legal to create an effective school in Australia ?(thats a joke)

    ReplyDelete
  46. "But expelling these forces from a community you create isn't."

    Gentrification is the only way to do it, I guess I'll just get my millions and buy into a white suburb?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I think this is not good title at all. Today's men are highly moral and responsible even though it might seem otherwise."

    I think what he means is the opposite of "demoralize". In this case, what I think he means is to galvanize men, not re-educate them into morality, as you assume.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anon (10.08),

    Particular thanks for your comment. You're thinking through concrete ways to get things going - which is the forward looking approach we need to take.

    A school would definitely help to ground a community. And you're right that a focus would be on Australian history (and also on reforming the English curriculum).

    The main difficulty with the suggestion is that you'd need to have a certain level of support before you could raise the funds and enrolments necessary to get things going.

    ReplyDelete
  49. what I think he means is to galvanize men, not re-educate them into morality

    Yup, what concerns me is that a fair proportion of men are demoralised in the sense that they recognise the decline but aren't in a spirited enough condition to resist via long-term political work.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Unrealistically high expectations of western (white) men combined with being the liberal punching bag of choice and complete marginalisation.
    Means men are between a rock and a hard place.

    I don't think I know of any men personally that are even aware of this they just go along with it. Like its just the way the current times are. Sad.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.