should men go their own way?

I haven’t really talked much about the so-called manosphere or about one of its more interesting manifestations, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). I have some sympathy for this movement although I certainly don’t consider myself to be a part of it. Of course that might be because I’m just not that much of a joiner.

The most potent argument against MGTOW is that it’s a kind of surrender and that surrender is what got us into this mess in the first place. There’s the argument that the one positive step that anyone who dislikes the current state of society can take is to marry and have lots of kids. These children will be shock troops, or at least loyal foot soldiers, in both the Culture War and the Demographic War. The further argument is that since liberals have few children we can easily win  The War of the Cradle. These are arguments that I myself was making just a year ago.

The trouble is that these arguments rest on two assumptions that are looking increasingly dubious. The first is that the Culture War and the Demographic War are winnable. The Culture War is clearly already lost. The Demographic War is looking very grim indeed. If these wars are unwinnable then that changes everything.

Of course there’s always the possibility that eventually our society will implode and then perhaps we can reconstruct a sane society from the ashes. It has to be said that an actual collapse seems (to me at least) rather unlikely in either the short or medium term. It’s more likely that present trends will continue and life will become more and more unpleasant but that the elites will maintain their control.

The second dubious assumption is that governments in the West are going to let us raise our children the way we think they should be raised. It’s blindingly obvious that our governments intend to put more and more pressure on us to raise our children the way they think children should be raised – as alienated but compliant economic units totally committed to the state religions of globalism and social justice. It’s also blindingly obvious that our governments will have absolutely no hesitation taking children away from patents who refuse to conform.

And liberals don’t need to breed. They don’t need their own children because they know they’re getting to get possession of the hearts and minds of our kids once those kids are exposed to the indoctrination program which is what our education system now is.

Marriage is clearly a very bad option for men for a host of reasons. If having children is now likely to be mostly futile then really it’s difficult to see any arguments at all for marriage from a male point of view.

We may be headed, rather rapidly, for a situation in which Men Going Their Own Way is not just an option, but the only viable option.

I think it’s all very tragic. Before feminism raised its ugly head men and women got along remarkably well. Then feminism taught women not only to hate men but to hate themselves for being women. Now an increasing number of men are so angry at women that they want nothing to do with them. The trouble is that living without the opposite sex is a hard road to choose.

The latest post at The Knight and Drummer addresses this issue and the closely related issue of withdrawing from society altogether. Maybe living a neolithic lifestyle in a hut in the wilderness appeals to some people but it’s not my idea of fun. I don’t like nature. I never have done. In my experience nature is damp, cold, smelly, uncomfortable and downright dangerous. Wildernesses might be nice to look at on TV (although even on TV they seem pretty boring to me) but the idea of living in an actual wilderness horrifies me. I’m not sure I’m keen on such absolute levels of solitude either.

I’m also not terribly attracted to the monkish thing. It’s a bit too much of a rejection of the sensual world. I’m not sure I can bring myself to regard the pleasures of the flesh as evil.

But then I seem to be a person entirely lacking in the taste for spiritual introspection so I’m not cut out for monkdom anyway.

I try to compromise as best as I can. I might live in society but I don’t feel part of it. Not any more. But I do rather like things like indoor plumbing and electricity, and at least some limited human contact. I shun all contact with contemporary popular culture, I avoid any unnecessary interactions with the state and I limit my human contacts fairly severely. Compromising is difficult but it seems to me to be unavoidable. I suppose that in practice I have to some extent been a man going his own way for quite some time now but I’m still sceptical about embracing it as an ideology. The idea does however become more attractive with each passing day.

Advertisements

Christianity and sexual morality

Pretty much all of us on the dissident side of politics who tend towards social conservatism or traditionalism are probably agreed that modern society has a problem with sexual morality. The problem being that we don’t have a sexual morality any more.

Whether there is any chance of changing this, any chance of returning to a society in which sexual morality is taken seriously, is another question. At the moment the chances seem pretty slim. On the other hand the one lesson we can learn from history is that dramatic social and political changes can happen and they can happen very quickly.

So assuming that however unlikely it seems right now such a change might be possible at some point, what kind of sexual morality would be desirable? Do we want to turn back the clock to the 1980s, the 1950s, the Victorian era or the fifteenth century?

That’s a big question and will probably require several posts to address fully. At the moment I want to consider just one aspect of the question. Do we want to return to a Christian sexual morality? Many traditionalists on the right would like to do so, but is such a thing even possible? Christians are a small minority. Is it a practical proposition  to base morality on the beliefs of a rather small proportion of the population? Is it reasonable to want to do so? Is there even the tiniest chance it could be achieved?

There’s also another point to consider. The Cultural Left has been very successful in shutting down dissent because of their very effective tactic of painting anyone who disagrees with them as being motivated by Christian zealotry and/or bigotry. Since most people are not Christians this works extremely well. Planning for a return to a specifically Christian morality is in some ways making things easy for the Cultural Left. Of course if you’re a committed genuine Christian then naturally a Christian-based morality is going to sound very attractive. It’s as well to remember that such a thing doesn’t necessarily sound so appealing to the non-Christian majority.

Perhaps we need to try harder to convince people that you don’t need to be a Christian to be concerned about the devastating impact of sexual immorality. It is possible to be vehemently opposed to social liberalism on purely pragmatic social utilitarian grounds. Sexual immorality undermines the family which in turn has catastrophic consequences for children. It undermines society as a whole by disrupting normal social relations. It leads to unhealthy lifestyles that cause human misery. You don’t have to be religious in order to see this clearly.

I have to come clean about my own position. I’m sympathetic to Christianity but I am not a Christian. I don’t necessarily think a Christian morality would be a bad thing (in fact it might be a good thing) but I do think it would be a very hard sell.

And to be honest I’m not entirely sure I’d personally want a Christian-based morality. Certainly not a full-on biblical sexual morality. I would be in agreement with hardline Christian traditionalists on some sexual issues, but perhaps not on others.

Of course much depends on exactly how a more strict sexual morality would be enforced. Does anybody actually believe that governments could be trusted with legal powers to do so? Surely no-one could believe that a democratic government could be trusted with such powers, democratic governments having systematically abused every single power they have ever been able to get their hands on. I would be frankly horrified by the prospect of a Christian sexual morality enforced by the apparatus of the state. Such a morality enforced by social persuasion and social disapproval  might be more palatable. Of course it goes without saying that there are certain very serious sexual offences (rape and anything involving children) that involve severe actual harm and they must be subject to legal sanctions, even though that means giving governments powers that they can and will abuse and in fact already do abuse. Sometimes unpleasant compromises cannot be avoided. And perhaps one day we will have a society in which the police and the courts can actually be trusted.

The real issues though are whether a sexual morality based on the teachings of Christianity can or should be imposed on non-Christians, and whether aiming for a Christian morality would alienate so many people as to make the chances of some kind of moral improvement of our society even more remote than they already are.

a woman’s world

A recent post at Oz Conservative, Why can’t male sacrifice be acknowledged? included a quote from a post, Appreciation, at The Rational Male.


Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminine-centric reality. 

For me this opens up an interesting line of thought. The observation is obviously correct. In fact it has always been true that women operate in a feminine-centric reality. Why wasn’t this a problem in the past and why is it a problem now? The answer is that the problem has been caused by the collapse of traditional sex roles.

Men and women are profoundly different. And to a large extent women should live in a feminine-centric reality. That’s the way they’re wired. They don’t view the world the way men do, they don’t want the same things out of life that men want, they don’t think or feel the same way men do, they don’t approach sex the way men do. They should not have to do any of these things. They are being forced into living their lives as if they were men. It doesn’t work.

The fact that women operate differently compared to men is not a flaw but an asset. Women operate psychologically, emotionally and sexually in a way that is ideally suited for their intended roles as wives and mothers. In a sane society based on traditional sex roles women would be allowed to live their lives in a manner to which they are biologically suited, and living their lives in that way would bring them happiness and fulfilment.

Women encounter problems because they cannot change the way they are wired but they insist on (or in many cases are pressured into) living as pretend men. They try to have high-powered careers and they end up being stressed and unfulfilled. They then try to combine their unfulfilling careers with marriage and motherhood and of course their marriages fail and their kids turn out badly because the woman is wasting her energies on her career. They then end up being bitter, angry and miserable.

They generally only succeed in their high-powered careers because they get favoured treatment. They are not equipped to be politicians or CEOs. They don’t have the cool analytical intelligence, they don’t have the mental toughness. They’re not supposed to have those qualities. Women make decisions based on emotion. That’s what they are supposed to do. It makes them good wives and mothers.

The idea of strong empowered women is a myth. Women are strong and empowered only to the extent that they have the apparatus of the state to back them up, with force if necessary. Which means that their strength and empowerment is in fact provided by men. When their feelings get hurt they stamp their feet and cry and expect a policeman to come along and arrest the bad man who made them cry. In actual fact women are supposed to get upset when their feelings are hurt. They’re supposed to be emotionally sensitive. There’s nothing wrong with a woman crying if her feelings are hurt. In a sane with traditional sex roles women are protected from situations that are likely to upset them. The problem today is that women put themselves in situations where it’s practically guaranteed that their feelings will get hurt.

Women are natural control freaks. This is a good thing. If you’re going to be a mother being a control freak will keep your kids from harm. In business or politics it’s a disaster. Women try to run corporations, and run the country, they way they’d run the nursery. Theresa May being a fine example.

The post at The Rational Male also states

I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you won’t. 

This is true, but again it comes down to the abandonment of traditional sex roles. There are things that women should expect men to do without making a song and dance of it. There are certainly things a wife should expect her husband to do automatically. He should protect her, not just from physical harm but from emotional harm. He should support her financially. She should expect him to be faithful and she should not expect him to abandon her when she’s no longer young and hot. The reason for the problems today is that women have been taught that they have no reciprocal obligations whatsoever. In the saner world of the past women understand that there were certain things that a husband was entitled to expect from a wife. She should provide emotional support, she should provide sex, she should not denigrate him publicly and she should keep house for him. Neither sex considered these things to be unreasonable. Perhaps they were sacrifices in some cases but since they were reciprocal both parties ended up winning. Both parties derived a great deal of emotional satisfaction from the arrangement.

Women not only did not expect men to do housework, they would have been horrified by the idea. It meant you were a failure as a wife, and a man who agreed to do so was considered (quite rightly) to be an emasculated weakling.

As long as men and women stuck to their traditional roles there was mutual respect as well as love and affection. The mutual respect is gone. The result can only be disaster.

victory or survival?

I am not suggesting that the war is lost or that we should give up the fight. I believe we should continue to look for strategies for victory, but I also think that we need to start considering strategies for survival. It is possible that in the short to medium term survival will be the critical question.

This is particularly true for Christians. The war on Christianity is heating up. It is obvious that the objective is now the complete destruction of Christianity.

It is vital for Christians to realise that it is not just the unholy triumvirate of government, academia and the media that they are up against. The corporate world is every bit as hostile to Christianity. The corporate world wants Christianity destroyed. There are various reasons for this but it needs to be understood that there is a fundamental hostility at work here. Capitalism wants tame workers and most of all capitalism wants willing and compliant consumers who accept that their only role is to consume. The existence of any institution that encourages people to be anything other than consumers is no longer going to be tolerated.

Christians need to realise that by and large their own church hierarchies are now firmly in the enemy camp. Perhaps that is not entirely true of the Catholic hierarchy but even in the Catholic Church resistance is crumbling at an alarming rate.

I’m not a Christian so the war on Christianity really doesn’t affect me personally but it is becoming more and more obvious that anyone who is a dissident of any description is going to have to start looking at survival strategies.

One crucial survival strategy is to learn to regard the entire state apparatus and the entire corporate world as actively malevolent. It’s not paranoia when your enemies are real and they really are out to get you. Being afraid of the secret police in the totalitarian societies of the 1930s  wasn’t paranoia, it was common sense. We live in a society today that is moving towards totalitarianism at a terrifyingly rapid pace.

If you talk to the police without a lawyer being present you are putting your own head on the chopping block. Not matter how innocuous the questions, no matter how trivial the matter seems to be, it is unbelievably foolish to answer even a single question unless your lawyer is with you. It is equally foolish to volunteer any information to any government or quasi-government body, or to any large corporation. Do not participate in any surveys or polls or academic studies. Do not reveal unnecessary personal information on social media.

It is a wise idea to minimise your interactions with government agencies.

Christians need to be exceptionally cautious about these things. If you’re a Christian and you broadcast the fact on social media without the cloak of anonymity you are giving your enemies a weapon which they will use against you, and against your family.

I have spoken in the past of the need to avoid modern popular culture. This is now more vital than ever. All modern popular culture is propaganda. All of it. Every single movie. Every single TV show. All of pop music. All fiction writing. The propaganda may be blatant or it may be subtle but you can be absolutely certain it is always there. You need to be especially vigilant in shielding your children from this poison. Thinking that you can avoid the danger merely by minimising the exposure is sheer folly. Modern popular culture is not just poison, it is a cumulative poison.

We also need to consider very carefully our attitude towards society. If society is hopelessly corrupt and vicious do we owe it any loyalty? We cannot avoid living in the society in which we find ourselves but there’s no point in deluding ourselves. Western civilisation is diseased. The main priority is to protect ourselves and avoid becoming infected.

Yes, this is a very depressing post and I will doubtless be castigated for being black-pilled but I do think we need at least to consider the possibility that the worst may come to pass. Maybe it won’t. I hope it won’t. But being prepared for it if it does happen is surely not a bad idea.

sheltered from the real world

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in society, those who live in the real world and those who live entirely sheltered from the real world. The big divide is not between liberals and conservatives or between Christians and atheists. The big divide is in people’s experience of the real world.

Living in the real world generally means having a real job. A job in which you actually do something useful and productive. That immediately excludes everyone in politics and the bureaucracy, and everyone in the media and academia.

The real jobs category also excludes most female jobs which are generally hobby jobs rather than actual jobs. It does not exclude motherhood. Motherhood is most definitely a real job.

Those who have to confront the real world on a regular basis tend to view life very differently from those who are sheltered from reality. Their opinions on social issues are usually very different. Most of the beliefs that we think of as coming under the umbrella of cultural marxism, social justice or social liberalism cannot survive contact with the real world.

Those who live sheltered from the real world live are usually financially privileged. They don’t see the problems with things like immigration because they don’t have to face those problems. They almost certainly live in nice safe comfortable overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods where they are not directly affected. Money is a formidable cushion against unpleasant realities.

If you have first-hand contact with reality you know that immigration is a bad thing. You’ve seen the social devastation it causes and you’ve seen what overcrowding and the overloading of infrastructure does. Anyone who has had any contact with reality knows that feminism does not work and never can work.

The real world/sheltered world divide explains why so many people believe so many crazy things. It explains why women in particular believe crazy things. Most women these days are to some extent sheltered from unpleasant unrealities. If they engage in sexual promiscuity society will rescue them (which means ultimately that men will pay the bills for them). If they engage in foolish risk-taking activities society will rescue them (in other words men will rescue them).

The real world/sheltered world divide also explains that otherwise inexplicable phenomenon, the male feminist (that most contemptible of all human creatures). If you meet a male feminist you can be pretty much guaranteed he won’t be a truck driver or a farmer or an engineer or a plumber. He’ll inhabit one of those sheltered privileged little enclaves in which reality never intrudes. He’ll “work” for the government or he’ll be a lecturer in media studies or something equally useless.

The best antidote to crazy social beliefs is a good dose of reality but we live in a society in which a large proportion of the population will never have the slightest contact with the real world.

the culture war accelerates

Those of us who deplore the social decay of the West have for many decades now become accustomed to the basic strategy of the Cultural Left. It’s been a strategy of gradualism. Push for radical social change but do it slowly enough that nobody really notices what’s happening, and ordinary people don’t get scared enough to resist. The boil the frog slowly approach.

All that has changed in the past few years. We’re now seeing a whole new strategy. It’s a strategy of pushing radical social change as far and as fast as possible. The Cultural Left no longer cares if the frog notices how hot the water is getting. It’s a strategy of relentless all-out attack on every front.

This change really became obvious when, with the homosexual marriage issue still not quite decided in their favour they were prepared to launch an all-out offensive on the trans front. The usual expectation would have been that they would wait and consolidate their victory in World War G for a few years before launching World War T.

Partly this is because the Cultural Left believes (correctly) that they are very close to final victory in the culture wars. There is no longer any need for caution. Now is the time to press home their advantage. Now is the time to crush the last few isolated pockets of resistance.

Of course another reason is that Brexit, the jump in support for the Front National in France and the Trump election win revealed the existence of pockets of resistance that were slightly larger than the Cultural Left/globalists had suspected. Their obvious intention now is to crush this resistance mercilessly, to ensure that such annoyances as Brexit and Trump can never happen again.

While the culture war accelerates we’re also seeing an extraordinary quickening in the pace at which western “democracies” are embracing totalitarianism. The major political parties (all of them) no longer even pretend to believe in actual democracy or any semblance of freedom of thought. In alliance with Big Business they are moving with terrifying speed to destroy any hint of opposition to the globalist/SJW agenda.

Time would seem to be running out rather quickly for the West.

democracy, morality, war and totalitarianism

One of the problems with democracy is that it tends to make everything everybody’s business. And if everything is everybody’s business then everything is the state’s business. As a result there is a slow but inexorable drift towards soft totalitarianism.

Democracy inevitably extends the range of things with which government is concerned. Everything becomes a political issue (today even marriage and the weather are political issues) and if something is a political issue then the government is supposed to do something about it.

Democracies also make everything into moral issues. The government is not only supposed to do something about everything, they’re supposed to do something which will make us all feel more virtuous.

Before democracy it was considered desirable that governments should govern wisely but nobody really expected the government to be a force for morality. Morality was the province of churches, and of the family. Morality was mostly enforced by social pressure. If you ran off with another man’s wife you could expect a great deal of social disapproval but you didn’t expect the government to have you arrested. Governments did enforce some moral rules but it was not really regarded as a core function of government.

Today’s morality is political correctness and there is a terrifying acceptance of the idea that governments have not merely a right but a duty to enforce that morality. But it’s not just political correctness – increasingly we accept the idea that the government should regulate every area of our lives, even down to what we eat.

Bizarrely, today even foreign policy is supposed to be moral. If you had suggested back in the 18th century that foreign policy should be conducted on moral lines people would have thought you were a lunatic. Even war is now supposed to be moral. Wars have to be moral crusades. Of course if a war is a moral crusade then any methods are acceptable (since the enemy is regarded as being evil), which is why democracies tend to be quite brutal when waging war.

This comes about because foreign policy and war are now everybody’s business. That’s the democratic way. Therefore the objective must be to make us feel virtuous. In fact of course there is no way that foreign policy can be both effective and moral. And in the course of human history very very few wars have ever been waged for moral purposes. Unfortunately when you turn wars into moral crusades you end up with more wars, and more vicious wars.

One of the reasons I tend to prefer monarch (real monarchy not silly pretend constitutional monarchy nonsense) is that kings have never been overly worried about imposing morality. As long as his subjects pay their taxes and obey the law he’s not usually interested in prying into their lives.

I’m no libertarian but there is something to be said for governments that concentrate on sensible policy rather than moral policy.