A Spearhead Book Review
The Garbage Generation, by Dr. Daniel Amneus, is a seminal work in clearly analyzing the role of Patriarchy in creating civilized society, and how the Feminists role in overthrowing Patriarchy is directly responsible for much of the social ills and pathologies that have manifest in a generation of children raised under a societal paradigm of Matriarchal kinships, instead of the Patriarchal system that was responsible for creating civilization in the first place.
This is a powerful tome that every man should read to gain a better understanding of exactly how and why we now live in a world torn part by a socially engineered gender war and why the feminist movement’s leading icons championed various ideas to deliberately influence both men and women’s thoughts, values and behavior, so as to effect the total overthrow of Patriarchal values in Western Civilization.
For those who have never heard of this important book, you can read it for free at the Catholic based website, fisheaters.com:
Please note, this book is not a Catholic/Christian tome…as fisheaters prefaces the introductory chapter on their website:
This book outlines the consequences of the destruction of the two-parent family and the need to stabilize it by strengthening its weakest natural link, the role of the biological father. It is written from a secular perspective and includes a few things with which the owner of the Fish Eaters Website would definitely quibble. But it most certainly makes its case about the need for patriarchy, destroying the myth of women being innocent, sexless little fluffballs in the process — a quite necessary destruction in that reaching the goal of chastity shouldn’t be based on lies and pious tales about the reality of human nature — women being a little more than half of all humans. Failure to deal with actual human nature, rather than sentimentalized versions of it, can only lead to failure, resentment, neuroses, and backlash.
So-Cons and pedestalizers, take note!
At any rate, this book is must-reading for all who are concerned about the future of Western civilization — and is definitely the book to give to the radical feminist who decries “the evils of the patriarchy” (which is not at all to belittle real evils suffered by women at the hands of those with sentimentalized, condescending, un-Catholic attitudes towards them).
Indeed, this book really is about the future of Western Civilization…as it carefully lays out a well developed case for why we live in rapidly declining state of civil society. Amneus quotes many prominent feminist leaders such as Betty Friedan and Phyllis Chesler. He offers sharp rebuttals to their arguments, so as to correctly identify why society’s decline can be directly tied to the feminist movement’s role in the purposeful destruction of Patriarchy.
In his introduction, Amneus endeavors to make the most important point of his case: The Pathology of the Female-Headed Family:
If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what must be seen is its relationship with the female-headed family. Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.
If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what we must do is reduce the number of female-headed families; what we must do is prevent the divorce courts from expelling half of society’s fathers from their homes; what we must do is terminate a welfare system which displaces millions of men from the principal male role, that of family-provider. What we must do is make the father the head of the family.
Indeed, this is the central point of the entire book. Under Patriarchy, men have the socially created role as provider for his family. The feminists called it oppression, and engaged in a variety of ways to overthrow the Patriarchal “hegemony,” but what they have really done, in essence, was to demean, marginalize and literally destroy the role of FATHER in the creation of the nuclear family.
In case anyone wonders if Amneus has solid grounds on which to make this case, he offers an Annex to Chapter one:
The Annex is an essential part of the argument of this book and logically belongs at this point in the text. To place it here, however, would be placing a stumbling block in front of the reader, asking him to plow through fifty pages of tedious documentation, filled with repetitious overkill, proving the assertions made in Chapter I…
…It is enough that the reader should know that there exists — and can be consulted on pages referenced {in the annex} — proof that the high-crime, low- achieving areas of society are those with the greatest numbers of families headed by women and that the low-crime, high-achieving groups in society are those with stable, patriarchal families–that the feminist/sexual revolution and its attempt to impose a social organization based on female kinship is a failure and that it is necessary to return to a social organization based on male kinship.
It is here that I have a bone of contention with Amneus…the social organization based on female kinship is NOT a failure. It’s a system that was purposefully promulgated so as to benefit a wide variety of constituents – namely the growth of the Government and it’s role in creating a disaffected, subservient, and easily controlled population of sheeple, dependent on the Government and it’s marxist re-distribution function, rather than a Father headed family. Failure? The feminist movement and it’s statist backers have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
A minor quibble to be sure, this book still offers valuable insight into identifying certain principles that apply to human behavior and how they relate to either supporting or undermining the institution of Patriarchy. The following is an abstract compilation of these principles found throughout the book:
The First Law of Matriarchy
As stated by feminists Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor:
“Women control our own bodies. This would seem a basic premise of any fully evolved human culture; which is why primate Patriarchy is based on its denial.”
To which Amneus responds:
“The most significant thing about this statement of “the first law of matriarchy” is that it is asserted categorically, without reference to the marriage contract. It assumes without even bothering to assert it, that marriage confers no rights on husbands. It must be obvious to most men–though it is clearly not obvious to these women–that this female sexual autonomy rules out the possibility of using the family as a system for motivating males. Such is the state of things said (correctly) by Sjoo and Mor to have existed prior to the creation of patriarchy a few thousand years ago, and such is again becoming the state of things as patriarchy melts away. It was to prevent this state of things that patriarchy was created, a central feature of it being society’s guarantee of the Legitimacy Principle–every child must have a father. The present situation, which has created the Garbage Generation, results from society’s delinquency in refusing to implement this guarantee.”
The Sexual Constitution
The principle of that Amneus identifies as the integral part of Patriarchy.
The workability of the patriarchal system requires the regulation of female sexuality, including the enforcing of the double standard. In no other way can men participate meaningfully in reproduction. A woman violates the Sexual Constitution by being promiscuous. A man violates it by refusing to provide for his family.
When Patriarchy breaks down, society begins to revert to Matriarchy, and the next generation of children belong to a new class:
The Garbage Generation
Raised in an environment in which fathers don’t provide for their young and dependency on government is assumed, few children will develop the skills of self-sufficiency, or even the concept of personal responsibility. Young men will not strive to be good providers and young women will not expect it of their men. Family breakdown becomes cyclical, out-of- wedlock births become cyclical, poverty and dependence becomes cyclical. And the culture of poverty grows.
Slaughtered Saints Feminism
This is a phenomena in which Amneus points out the cognitive dissonance of one of the primary arguments the feminists used to foment their war on Patriarchy:
Slaughtered Saints feminists now affect to interpret the free ride as itself an affliction, as what feminist Jessie Bernard calls “the woman’s extra load of economic dependency.” She thinks this burden “has to be lightened” because
“A union between a man and a woman in which, when it breaks down, one loses not only the mate but also the very means of subsistence is not a fair relationship.”
It is not a relationship at all when it breaks down; and it breaks down chiefly because (thanks to the feminist/sexual revolution’s insistence on a woman’s right to control her own reproduction) marriage has become a non-binding contract. Women do not suffer from an “extra load of economic dependency”; they want to hang on to the dependency or get it back again–without having to fulfill the marital obligations which justify it. The patriarchal system benefits women by marriage. The feminist program of wrecking the patriarchy aims to make it provide the same benefits outside marriage, thereby destroying marriage, the family, the male role and the whole patriarchal system–and restoring matriliny.
The only way for men to restore the patriarchy is to insist that there shall be no free ride outside of marriage and the acceptance of sexual regulation–no alimony, no child support payments, no affirmative action and comparable worth programs, no quotas, no goals-and-timetables. To be independent means not to be dependent.
…The feminist demand to be made independent by being made dependent appears paradoxical until its underlying idea is understood, which is this: What women want is not independence but de-regulation. They yearn to return to the “kind of role they had on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago.” De-regulation is the key idea which explains the feminist/sexual revolution.
They like to talk about independence because it sounds self-approbatively heroic–and the talk is sincere in the sense that when they write agitprop or get together at conventions and take one another seriously they believe their own flim-flam. But when any tangible, especially economic, benefit enters the picture they opt for dependence. The more dependence–the more alimony, the more child support, the more legislative/bureaucratic/judicial chivalry, the more affirmative action, the more comparable worth, the more quotas, the more goals-and-timetables, the more anti-male discrimination, the more freebies–the better. If it’s free they want it. What they don’t want is the regulation of their sexuality which gives males a secure role within stable families.
The Mutilated Beggar Argument
This is an important argument that Amneus details here: the tenets of feminism have ruined the lives of millions of families, and it is this very ruination that it has caused for which the feminists point to as proof of the need to overthrow Patriarchy.
In Cairo there exists a cottage industry which mutilates children to be used as beggars. The more gruesome and pitiable the mutilations, the more the beggars will earn. The disfigured children are placed on mats on street corners with a begging bowl and they ask for alms for the love of Allah.
The almsgiver is doing a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is paying for the child’s next meal. The bad thing is ensuring that more children will be mutilated.
The Mutilated Beggar technique is employed extensively in the contemporary war over the family. Ex-wives drag their children into poverty and then point to their sufferings as proving the need for ex-husbands or the welfare system to bail them out. The father (or taxpayer) who bails out Mom and the kids is doing a good thing–providing rent and food money–and a bad thing–subsidizing the destruction of this family and encouraging the mass divorce which is wrecking millions of others–in effect, undermining the patriarchy and restoring matriliny.
The Gilder Fallacy
Amneus begins here by quoting a prominent So-Con Pedestalizier, George Gilder:
“The crucial process of civilization,” says George Gilder, “is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality. The overall sexual behavior of women in the modern world differs relatively little from the sexual life of women in primitive societies. It is male behavior that must be changed to create a civilized order.”
Amneus disputes this Pedesatlizer’s delusions unequivocally:
Untrue. There is a striking difference in the behavior of males in civilized and in primitive societies–the difference between motivated, productive, stable males in the former and disruptive or idle or macho or narcissistic drones, or at best hunters and warriors, in the latter. However the most essential difference between the two societies is one less conspicuous but more pivotal: In the civilized society the females accept the regulation of their sexuality on the basis of the Sexual Constitution–monogamous marriage, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard and female loyalty and chastity; in the primitive society the females reject sexual regulation and embrace the Promiscuity Principle, a woman’s right to control her own sexuality.
The female behavior is more basic, since it determines whether the males can be motivated to accept a stable and productive lifestyle. The key issue is not, as Gilder imagines, whether men can be induced to accept the Sexual Constitution which he imagines women try to impose, but whether women themselves can be induced to accept it. What causes women in civilized society to accept it is the knowledge that the economic and status rewards bestowed by patriarchal civilization can be obtained in no other way.
…Patriarchal civilization is made possible by the regulation of female sexuality on the basis of the Sexual Constitution. Given freedom, females do not use their influence to impose this Sexual Constitution on males but to escape from it, to wreck the hated patriarchal system, as they have done in the ghettos.
Indeed, this is exactly what we are seeing in society today. With the ending of social stigma for female promiscuity, an end to strictly enforcing the institution of marriage as the bedrock of civilization, an end to the role of the Father for males to aspire to, society is increasingly headed towards ghetto-ization where female promiscuity is the norm and males have no role other than to fight, fuck and embrace self-destructive hedonism.
Welcome to our Brave New World: the Garbage Generation.
{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }
Dave:
This sounds like a great book. I’ll be sure to check it out.
To have a society we have to submit to some sort of regulation. If we don’t regulate some of our behaviors we – by definition – don’t have a functioning society. Feminists want to have their cake and eat it to; probably because they were told they could do anything they want if they put their mind to it, they believed the could accomplish the impossible task of divorcing society from regulation.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“Indeed, this book really is about the future of Western Civilization…as it carefully lays out a well developed case for why we live in rapidly declining state of civil society.”
The one thing I have noticed while reading the English speaking blogosphere (or manosphere, or Roissysphere) is the overwhelming sense of doom and gloom. Western civilization is in inevitable decline, everything is going to hell in a hand basket, and so on.
However, to me, this seems to be quite an exaggeration.
For now, things still are not *that* bad for the vast majority of population, and the masses haven’t “awaken from their sleep”. MRA and PUA sphere are still marginal players on the whole.
Perhaps it’s just my perpective as a resident of a Scandinavian style welfare state, where the societal changes are not that strongly linked to just feminism and where gender roles have been even traditionally rather equalist. Regulation is not new here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
I am about as anti feminist and more as it is possible to be. However, I find arguments about the ‘decay of western civilization’ a little hard to accept. The idea that there is something called ‘western civilization’ which is a fixed entity that exists as thought it was something physical is not an idea I can support. People who do argue along such lies are to my judgement almost acting as though they owned the civilization and are ‘protecting’ their property. One can not take the past as a model, as to do so is to say that now long dead people have the right to determine how we live today. I can not accept this.
Also I am not a ‘western civilization ‘ supremacist who see it as such a wonderful thing. I think when people talk about these things they only have in mind what is happening in the Anglo sphere.
I can never accept arguments which use the survival of western civilization as a way of promoting the family. That men should sacrifice themselves by having a family as a way of preserving western civilization is a risible suggestion. I very much doubt that the preservation of western society is very much in the mind of any man in the grip of sexual need. I for one never gave it a moments thought.
May be a conflagration which consumes western civilization would be no bad thing, even if it where bad for me personally.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
“For now, things still are not *that* bad for the vast majority of population, and the masses haven’t “awaken from their sleep”.”
Because the west has amassed a lot of economic power from times past.
If you give a heroin addict 14 trillion dollars (US GDP), he won’t be able to spend it in a lifetime. He’ll be riding Bentleys and living in mansions. Life will seem good, and all the smack in the world will not put a sizable dent into the amassed fortune.
A few generations later, however, you are looking at pushing shopping carts full of random garbage around in the ghetto, and living in a cardboard box.
That’s why people who look at trends will be all doom and gloom, while those who look at “snapshots” of the west as it is right now will think that everyone just ought to relax.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
May be a conflagration which consumes western civilization would be no bad thing, even if it where bad for me personally.
Oh, it will, it surely will, no doubt about it. Our only hope is that this happens after our death. It is going to be ugly. Really ugly and nobody would be spared of the destruction. You only have to read how ancient civilizations felt when became matriarchal: Rome, for example.
About Scandinavia, it will be Islamic (that is, ferociously patriarchal) in one century so the problem will correct itself.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The idea that someone should jump on a hand grenade in order to save everyone else always sounds good to those who don’t have to be the ones to do the jumping.
It’s unlikely that the rank and file members of a culture can “save” it despite the best efforts of those in power to destroy it. Anyone who would actually be serious about “saving western civilization” would be busy doing something about the anti-male, anti-father, legal climate – DV, shared custody, alimony, CS, and false accusations.
Marriage, fatherhood, and even having relationships have been effectively criminalized. I know men who have been thrown out of their homes and “fined” far more for the “crimes” of not having enough game to keep cupcake happy than for selling crack cocaine. Apparently there is no greater crime these days than allowing cupcake to “become accustomed to a lifestyle.”
The current excesses of western civ are due to its inherent nature. It is essentially expansionist and imperialistic, and will always look better to its members than it does to the members of the groups which it enslaves or attempts to wipe out via genocide.
Any culture that produces such things as “John & Kate plus 8″ or “cougars” needs to be seriously examined and the causes of such pathologies identified and dealt with.
Having hit the wall where there are no more resource-rich new lands which western civ can confiscate from aboriginal inhabitants at the point of a gun, it is probably inevitable that it turns cannibal and attacks itself. It looks a lot like a sort of autoimmune disease at the cultural level.
Men have always innovated and gone forward. History is one long process of change. I think our challenge is to find new ways to deal with the social pathologies tearing the culture apart, rather than attempting to hold on to old ways which couldn’t even be sustained when they were the norm – much less trying to “return” to them when the entire cultural momentum is in the other direction.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
The recent posts here are good. Paul zed.
The spate of threads… ehn not so good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>Oh, it will, it surely will, no doubt about it. Our only hope is that this happens after our death. It is going to be ugly. Really ugly and nobody would be spared of the destruction.
How much do you weigh?
Nobody ever picked you for a team?
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
The decline of (western) civilization, the corruption of the youth, and all this of course goes way back. It is good to think about the problems the society faces and all sorts of other existential risks (feminism, multiculturalism, energy issues), but in my opinion the “default position” seems to be too pessimistic here, as if all is lost.
It can perhaps be liberating to believe that all hope is lost and things are only going to get worse in every way possible, but I’m not sure if that’s really an objective way to look at things. For example, just extrapolating from current trends does not necessarily give one a correct picture of the future.
Things change and concentrating on just the negative aspects might not be wise. The pendulum can swing back, too, and new paths can be found.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
m.a.:
” The one thing I have noticed while reading the English speaking blogosphere (or manosphere, or Roissysphere) is the overwhelming sense of doom and gloom. Western civilization is in inevitable decline, everything is going to hell in a hand basket, and so on.
However, to me, this seems to be quite an exaggeration. ”
Take your current standard of living and cut it in HALF over the next ten years. You heard me, HALF then tell me if things are an exaggeration.
You’re right, we’re marginalized now. We won’t be for long. Feminism’s time is in its twilight, just as western civilization is.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
It can perhaps be liberating to believe that all hope is lost and things are only going to get worse in every way possible
Yeah, judging by some of the comments on this site since its inception, I’d say that more than a few are using the “all is lost” argument to justify their own desire to “get theirs.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the half that gets cut out includes the entire cosmetics and fashion industries; everything sold by places like The Sharper Image and Pottery Barn; the total elimination of Jimmy Choo and Manolo shoes and Prada anything; Beanie Babies, Cabbage Patch Dolls, “John & Kate plus 8″, the Lifetime Network, The Oxygen channel, and everything Oprah; then I can’t imagine it making much difference to me.
I deliberately cut my “standard of living” several years ago when I stopped working 70-80 hour weeks in the corporate nightmare in order to be able to buy a lot of useless, meaningless, shit. My “standard of happiness” did not decline, in fact it went way up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
One of the best pieces written on feminism and what it has wrought. Brilliant book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s just like the “my body, my choice” argument.
It should be, “my body, your wallet, my choice”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
m.a. “MRA and PUA sphere are still marginal players on the whole.”
They’re not the ones bringing down civilization, they’re adapting to it and sending out the message.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lets not think that the decline or fall of a civilization necessarily means its complete destruction or a radical realignment. It most likely will be a slow and painful decay. When Rome fell, it was first split in two, then the western Roman sub-empire, (Byzantine) continued on for quite a while transferring much of the culture and knowledge of Rome along the way to future generations until it was itself consumed by the Turks. I don’t know Turkish history, but I assumed they kept as much knowledge as possible from the Byzantine empire, and passed it along to the middle-eastern realms, which prospered from an intellectual perspective while Europe fell into the dark ages, essentially rebooting. The fire was never completely put out, it just smoldered on for a long time, until that knowlege could be kindled, and re-lit during the Renissance. When America decays away, and you have the Countries of Texas, The Confederate Republic, The Democratic North-East Alliance, The post apocalyptic empire of Kalifornia, and the Mid-Western Commonwealth, then hopefully, one of those (probably the Mid-West) will pass along the knowlege of our Representional-Democratic system of capitalism, but this time with the family structure being a constitutional protected entity. I don’t know history too well, and I’m just spouting off as usual. But if radical changes are not made to counter the current crisis of Feminist-marxism, or we don’t evolve as a people to deal with the troubling realities in some other substantial way, a quick death is something we should hope for.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
In reality, nobody knows if this is going to topple the Western civilization.
And in the end, it doesn’t matter because well over twenty civilizations have arisen and collapsed in the past 6000 years and… humanity is still around.
A civilization is not a necessary thing for the continuation of the species: our ancestors were hunters and gatherers: there was no reason for humans to stop being just that.
So, even if western civ. “collapses” it is still pretty much meaningless.
As a species, we DO NOT need a civilization in order to survive…
In fact, it’s the other way around: civilization is harmuful to humans. And men take very little profit from their immense effort at keeping civ. alive.
Why do we automatically equate the collapse of a civilization with a bad thing?
We will have to change our paradigms soon. With the resources slowly dwindling down, we will no longer have a choice. The future is probably primitive: we should rejoice at the thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
David Brin has an appropriate post on the topic here: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/contemptuous-memes-part-ii-cycles-of.html
Pessimism is easy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
A small, Matriarchal society where women do the proposing, and men can’t say no.
This article details the life inside one of the world’s few matriarchal cultures. What is interesting about the article though, is that while the women have the privilege in choosing their mate, they are expected to pull the weight of themselves AND their spouse in hard work. It is the woman in this society that does the grunt work, that collects wood and builds a home; meanwhile, the men are at liberty to take dancing lessons and learn poetry.
Therefore, while women are in charge in this society (in both matters of marriage and priesthood), with power comes responsibility. As the ones in charge, they are expected to provide food and do back breaking labor.
(Aside: if men were in charge of this society, the Orango’s probably wouldn’t be living in grass huts)
The problem with Western civilization isn’t merely matriarchy alone, but the schizophrenic creation that is Feminism. Feminists scheme to mix the western ideals of male chivalry with Female sovereignty into the unholy concoction that is the Garbage Generation today. Feminists don’t want to do the back breaking grunt work that their Matriarchal sisters do in the Orango Islands, but they still want to make decisions about men’s lives.
As programmers say, garbage in = garbage out.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Jabherwochie,
The republic of “Kalifornia” spelled with a K. That’s metal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just got done playing “Brutal Legend” on the XBox 360. Maybe its influencing me as its all about the M3T@L. I know, I’m a big geek, but me likes me games.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And good post btw. I’d personally love to be kitchen bitch husband. I have lots of hobbies that would keep me fulfilled. Women don’t want that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i know what i’ll be reading on my flight to California tomorrow night. wow. just these excerpts were concise and took awhile to peruse/consider
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The problem with Western civilization isn’t merely matriarchy alone, but the schizophrenic creation that is Feminism. Feminists scheme to mix the western ideals of male chivalry with Female sovereignty into the unholy concoction that is the Garbage Generation today. Feminists don’t want to do the back breaking grunt work that their Matriarchal sisters do in the Orango Islands, but they still want to make decisions about men’s lives.”
This is a point I’ve been trying to hit home online for years. Feminism is about female supremacy and control over men, while desiring to retain male chivalry despite its “benevolent sexism” and make Western men socially obligated with crumbs for rewards and more burdens than ever.
Good way of summing things up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
m.a., you should take a look at the “The Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb, a brilliant yet largely unknown historian. Glubb looked at eleven empires and found that each followed a similar and predictable path of growth and decline.
It is uncanny how the cultural trajectory of the UK (where I grew up) and the USA are following those of other long dead empires. For example, Glubb writes the following:
“The works of the contemporary historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century are still available. They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals. They lamented also the corruption of the officials of the government and the fact that politicians always seemed to amass large fortunes while they were in office.
The historians commented bitterly on the extraordinary influence acquired by popular singers over young people, resulting in a decline in sexual morality. The ‘pop’ singers of Baghdad accompanied their erotic songs on the lute, an instrument resembling the modern guitar………An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolized by men. “What,” wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, “have the professions of clerk, tax collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.” Many women practiced law, while others obtained positions as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.
Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”
John Glubb makes crystal clear that our experience is nothing new and that the future of Western civilization is entirely predictable. You can read the rest of the “The Fate of Empires” here: http://dariusthemede.tripod.com/glubb/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The only way for men to restore the patriarchy is to insist that there shall be no free ride outside of marriage and the acceptance of sexual regulation”
I disagree. Men are still in charge. Women are dupes. All us average Joes need to do is to refuse to pay for anything to do with western women. Just ignore them. They will go away. We can lawfully run companies that are not subject to feminist statutes so we can just hire men and get the job done. Men seem to be completely unwilling to simply take control of the situation and learn how to refuse jurisdiction of the biased courts. Men are so busy ‘fighting for their rights’ that they don’t notice they already have all the rights they need.
I couldn’t care less about the fate of western women and girls. The Illuminati can shoot them up with all the swine flu vaccine they can muster. Good riddance. Let the nice eastern women prevail I say. We just have to get rid of the bad guys at the top. Any time spend arguing with women is wasted. They don’t have the mental capacity to even understand the current predicament they are in.
As for strengthening or saving the society I live in? What would I do that for? You mean the society where half the population hates me? F*** that society. Let it collapse and fall. Let it collapse into anarchy. We will see how ‘equal’ women are when one has to kill for food and water. Me? I know I can kill anyone I choose without blinking an eye. I guess that’s what happens when you go through the process of severing your relationship with your son.
Personally? I am happy if society does not collapse because I will do very well. If it does, I will also be very happy because social chaos will give me a great opportunity to go and even the ledger a little with those who thought they could abuse me with impunity. I would think a lot of men would feel the same. Many men are only dissuaded from exercising a little summary justice because they are concerned they will be caught. If the chances of being incarcerated fall to an acceptable level I think many men will say “Well, there was no justice in the court so let’s sort this out like men.”
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Dr. Amniocentesis is the perfect solution
to guys getting shafted by
affirmative action, blacks, illegal aliens and feminist boogeywomen:
a white academic writing a book.
Look out world – we’re on the attack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I was only thinking recently that I had not seen a post by Globalman recently. It does me good to read his words. There is a fundamental rage within him that I share.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@David Brin
Who the fuck is david brin and why should I care?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@globalman:
“I couldn’t care less” equals “I care”. What you meant to say was “I could care less”. The language arts schoolmarm strikes!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Rob
“I couldn’t care less” = I care as little as is possible for me = I care very little OR I do not care at all
“I could care less” = I care more than the minimum that I could care = I care
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
America!
Surrender immediate to our superior language usage
and
Publishing skills.
sincerely
commander,
354th New York
Publishing Combat Battalion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I was only thinking recently that I had not seen a post by Globalman recently. It does me good to read his words. There is a fundamental rage within him that I share.”
Funny. I was thinking pretty much the same thing during my lunch break. Get back to my computer, and there he is. I don’t always see eye to eye with Globalman, but I greatly respect his integrity, accumulation of knowledge, and outside the box thinking. He’s like heavy artillary in our army. I just get a little uncomfortable when it goes off right next to me. Hurts my ears a bit you could say. But I don’t blame the big guns for doing what big guns are expected to do, and expected to do well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Firepower November 11, 2009 at 10:38 am
America!
Surrender immediate to our superior language usage
and
Publishing skills.
sincerely
commander,
354th New York
Publishing Combat Battalion”
I understand your frustration, but wars start with words. Particularly when the war will be about idealogy. An army that doesn’t know or care about what it’s fighting for, will not fight as fierce. Hell, we don’t even have an army yet, we’re still in the recruiting stage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Dr. Amniocentesis is the perfect solution
to guys getting shafted by
affirmative action, blacks, illegal aliens and feminist boogeywomen:
a white academic writing a book.
Look out world – we’re on the attack.”
…………………………………………………………………..
Yeah, those Damned White Academics – Doing nothing more than helping to bring about a civilization that the non-white world couldn’t even conceive of other than in a wet dream…
Firepower, books like this assist in crystalizing in men’s minds the thoughts and intuitions that most of us are unable to clearly verbalize, but feel, concerning our increasingly disfunctional culture. We need lots more men like him.
Richard Weaver wrote a book called “Ideas Have Consequenses”. How many books, tracts, pamplets or treatises written by history’s “White Academics” have had far-reaching effects (both good and bad), I wonder.
Amneus’s other great work, “The Case for Father Custody”, as well as the shorter writings of F. Roger Devlin, are invaluable, and should be Must-Reading for men of all ages.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Excuse all my military metaphors. I just view things in a strategy/tactical light in which most of my info comes from studying wars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great subject.
I haven’t read this one yet, but I have a copy of Amneus’ earlier book “Back to Patriarchy” where he addresses many of the issues often discussed here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman:
“Men are still in charge. Women are dupes. All us average Joes need to do is to refuse to pay for anything to do with western women. Just ignore them. They will go away.”
No, they won’t. The cops and other men who are in their service will remain in their service, and will compel the service of other men through force, because they get paid well for that. Your suggestion is as unworkably idealistic as any socialist’s.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Sean, David Brin is a SF author who wrote a couple very good books and rather more crappy ones.
” For example, almost a century ago, all the chattering classes were going on and on about Oswald Spengler’s book, THE DECLINE OF THE WEST, which claimed that the First World War was sure evidence of the imminent collapse of Western Civilization… from senescence, decadence and old age. ”
And viewing the course of events since then, it’s hard to argue with. Europe has been on a straight path downwards since 1910: millions of its best young men massacred, subordinated to foreign empires, and brainwashed into replacing its populations with savages. Another 50 years and we’ll see mass bloodshed all over the place.
Brin, you’re wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Zed
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.
“Not very long.” answered the Mexican.
“But then, why didn’t you stay out longer and catch more?” asked the American.
The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.
The American asked “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”
“I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life.” The American interrupted, “I have an MBA from Harvard, and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat.”
“And after that?” asked the Mexican.
With the extra money the bigger boat will bring, you can buy a second and a third and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.
Instead of selling your fish to a middleman, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant.
You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise.”
“How long would that take?” asked the Mexican.
“Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years.” replied the American.
“And after that?”
“Afterwards? Well my Friend, that’s when it gets really interesting.” answered the American, laughing. “When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!”
“Millions? Really? And after that?” said the Mexican.
“After that, you’ll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife, and spend your evenings doing what you like and enjoying your friends.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Harry
Yup!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great post, great book.
This book was my first foray into ‘matrix’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Harry
Modified:
“After that, [your widow will] be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with [her grand]children, [eat] a few fish, take a siesta with[her lover], and spend [her] evenings doing what [she] like[s] and enjoying [her] friends.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The hate is what brought me here, the humor is why I keep coming back. Good times, good times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You said it. I went flipping through cable in the US this summer…the amount of voyeuristic trash is unreal, “reality” series based on having cameras in people’s faces 24/7, and we’re all invited to emote along. The fact that I hear people discussing these shows and wringing their hands over them just blows me away. Then there are things like ‘I didn’t know I was pregnant’ a whole series devoted to women who suddenly one day popped out a baby. No topic too disgusting, nothing too private.
I do like Antiques Roadshow and similar antiques-related shows and on a rainy day DH and I had fun watching Cash Cab , which we saw for the first time on the airplane over as a short feature. You can keep the rest of it, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ m.a. :
“The one thing I have noticed while reading the English speaking blogosphere (or manosphere, or Roissysphere) is the overwhelming sense of doom and gloom. Western civilization is in inevitable decline, everything is going to hell in a hand basket, and so on.
However, to me, this seems to be quite an exaggeration.
For now, things still are not *that* bad for the vast majority of population, and the masses haven’t “awaken from their sleep”. MRA and PUA sphere are still marginal players on the whole.
Perhaps it’s just my perpective as a resident of a Scandinavian style welfare state, where the societal changes are not that strongly linked to just feminism and where gender roles have been even traditionally rather equalist. Regulation is not new here.”
Look at this article:
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/09/1103/Detroit.html
Here’s an excerpt:
:I go back to Google Maps and put the icon on the ground in front of the house and check out the neighborhood. Of the 17 lots on the block across the street, there are only two with houses standing. Take a look at one of them. Type in the address — 8082 Georgia Street and go to the street level view. You will see it. It is frightening. Many of the abandoned houses get torched at Halloween — on Devils’ Night. The city is haunted.
If you zoom out a few clicks and scroll farther down Georgia Street (to the left when you’re hovering above), past Crocket High School (to 6900 Georgia St.) you will see that there is NOTHING left. Cooper Elementary School is one of two buildings that remain standing within 25 square blocks of houses that have vanished. The city is gone! It is shocking.
Thousands and thousands of houses still need to be torn down, block after block after block after block. The bulldozers haven’t gotten to them yet. There will soon be nothing left of Detroit.
A report from the city’s Office of Foreclosure Prevention says that the number of abandoned and vacant properties has increased from 46,000 to 78,000 over the last three years. The city’s population has declined from 2 million to 830,000 and the unemployment rate is almost 30 percent. That is a depression.”
It’s not just one city. I was in Elkhart, Indiana, in May and noticed that about a third of the businesses were shut dwon, boarded up, and had weeds or even small trees growing where the lawns once were.
The real wealth of the US is being strip-mined to support the upper classes. The idiots in Washington don’t seem to even realize that they are turning the country into a pile of rubble, much less care.
“
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hi HL, I feel compelled to say something about your thread. Actually, I feel compelled to say something about you and the way you think.
Good on you. Hawaii has suffered greatly from outsider’s greed. I remember when I first came upon your site and that at the time I had watched a documentary on how the Hawaiian people were living on the beaches while the investors bought the land and turned into a tourist attraction. It is a terrible situation where the people themselves are cast aside for investors to make money which at the end of the day goes offshore.
If only the people were educated enough to know the play of the global capitalist economy. They would have been prepared and they would have cared for more than themselves and long term.
But it wasn’t jut them who gave and gave trustingly that the rich had some sort of ethical reason behind their greatness. Very few people can understand the corruption that goes with the label of success these days. People walk all over people now for greed and they become respected for their wealth not their ethics.
New Zealand gave lots too including all the fruit and plants only to have some corporation turn around and take ownership of it where they sell it back to the country. That is not what the culture of New Zealand thought would happen.
It was never all white people. It has always been a few that took more than their share. (love the comment Harry)
I am soooo pleased the way you see things and I want you to know that you are not alone and that you ARE the answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Brin is of course wrong, in that the two “Dark Ages” were very, very dark.
To wit, in the first and WORST Dark Age, around 1100 BC, nearly all empires save the Egyptians fell, and the latter were severely wounded. Nearly all cities were sacked, the populations were about a quarter a century later of what they had been previously, and the living standard far lower. Almost no coins were in circulation, and heights of men and women fell nearly a foot in a century, on average, examining skeletons. There are almost NO written records from that time, and huge amounts of mass graves. The Mycenaen, Minoan, Hittite, Assyrian, Phoenician, and Babylonian empires all fell. The Egyptians retreated far up the Nile and into the Desert. The “Sea Peoples” apparently roamed the Mediterranean AND the Middle East, sacking at will, almost every city within a hundred years. It took over a thousand years and Rome’s ascendancy to reconstruct the general level of prosperity: coins in circulation, average height, lack of mass graves, texts/literacy, and so on.
The life of a hunter gatherer is nasty, brutish, and short (and often a starring role in “Head Shrinkers” or “Cannibals”).
The second great fall, in the West, was not so long (only about 600 years of dark ages vs. about 700), or complete, but was every bit as nasty by metrics available. Whoever had the biggest followers and most swords ruled, imagine say Liberia under Charles Taylor hacking off limbs and that is what the West was like. For six hundred years. Everywhere!
Brin is simply wrong — the great fall was so traumatic, so complete, that it is still remembered today. Feared.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Looks like women really did get their turn to put out the garbage.
Awesome article and the book I downloaded a little while back and will read.
“…society is increasingly headed towards ghetto-ization where female promiscuity is the norm and males have no role other than to fight, fuck and embrace self-destructive hedonism.”
I believe many males will be smarter, they will hibernate or depart.
There will be variables of men who can and can’t manoeuvre. Wealthier men will seek alternative lifestyles, ghetto guys will accept ‘what’s on offer’ (fight, fuck…)
One angle I’d say is most children are developing quicker and as we know, many women tend not to get along well with each other. This trait, carried over into single parent mother-daughter relationships will see an increase in inter-generational conflict. The daughters will then do daughter-flight, or more hopefully seek shelter of the father, attracted by his survival instinct.
Mother-daughter conflict will become an increasing occurence. An ironic backlash. So it is daughters, yes daughters as the fallout from a feminist movement, who might be the ones trying to rekindle some form of patriarchy. Slight chinks of light in the garbage generation. The male character will always be a magnet.
We just have to wait for the older generations to pass (like Harriet Harmen here in the UK), even if now it feels like a peak. Let’s hope it’s not too long a wait.
The newer generations display an apathy towards feminism, so that’s good, but they’re distracted by the fought-for promiscuous liberation, a negative. Damn, there’s never one factor or outcome not affecting another.
Increasingly I’ve heard younger women saying they want nothing to do with feminism, no allegiance, for women it has little currency. The tough part is changing fem laws but it could be these daughters that can influence change and balance.
Pfft, the cynic in me says, the GG daughters will just cherry-pick what they believe to be the good parts of what their mothers built, and they’ll remain a complacent bunch. It’s happening today anyway so it’s full circle. And there’ll be a few hardliners, as always in any politics. But you never know, you never know…
And at the same time you have women still seeking relationships, but as men decide they can tolerate being single for longer periods, they embark on their own pursuits (and shore up goods and save funds for security – hibernation), therefore men withdraw or depart.
More and more men could seek to exist out of societal sytems (to an extent). Men will find this style of single life tolerable, only interacting with the garbage generation environment and Libertinia [Chuck Ross 10/10/09] when they feel the need to.
So many women will be a resentful bunch for the only form of affection they can now find is from ‘Gamers’. Women’s role will be sexually reduced (zero romance) and this will be the true objectification of women. Women secured this lonely soulless path by their own fault of wanting sexual liberation, it translates into nothing more than promiscuity. Patriarchy encompassed the language of self-respect now beaten down.
But because women in their objectified isolation will catch on to the growing trend – a rising number of solvent bachelors who wised up – they will seek out these men, also in the hope of wanting to feel human again.
But these women will be a high-risk to take on as they have a new schizo ‘didn’t make it’ baggage. She is a damaged soul, her career ambitions lost and her economic independence dreams shattered, and she’ll be extremely self-conscious of that. Any man who thinks he can handle her will have to handle her suffered history. So she’s back! But boy is she mad, literally.
Men will have to cultivate a new patriarchy or exist in an isolated fashion. I never thought the saying ‘man is not an island’ would be proven wrong but now it does feel like a tide slowly creeping in. There will be less stigma of single men however because people will realise how smart single men were – the one’s that wised up and chose alternatives.
I’m interested in the psychological damages incurred by women’s current antics and how these will affect men. The dealing with women’s schizo baggage they’ve created with their relentless pursuit of ‘having it all’ is the worrying part. Men will have to deal with many a tortured, frustrated soul, but in a stressful disrespectful, anarchic environment created by guess who – that woman herself. She created garbage generation (destruction) and now needs help. Way too much for any man to handle, hence withdrawal, hibernation and departure.
Enough garbage on our plate already.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Speaking of Brin, The Postman really is a good book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is going to be a great read I can tell, thanks for the review/recommendation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmmm….I’m not sure what to think about this book. Some stuff I kind of agree with, some I don’t.
I know we talked about this before, but seriously….it just boggles my mind how the double standard is still seen as ok. Can a man violate the “Sexual Constitution” by being promiscuous as well? What about male sexual autonomy? Isn’t it obvious how the sexual double standard causes confusion among the sexes? Personally I think that this is how the myth of women not having sexual appetites came about. Bascially to me, chastity shouldn’t only apply to females but to females and males.
This whole idea of male sexuality being dependent on female sexuality and not both being ultimately independent and responsible in deciding whether or not to engage in sexual activity is just…..I don’t know…….
I’m not even sure I phrased that clearly.
Anyway, since this book is written from a secular perspective, (which makes me wonder why it’s found on a Catholic based website), I should probably just accept that I’m not going to agree with alot of its principles and just move on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to take a stab at trying to explain their position on this–a position I’m not completely in agreement over, but I understand.
We start with the state of nature. Absent any sort of unifying society, neither male nor female sexuality has any sort of check beyond the laws of physics. This state, however, is undesirable for women, as it is very difficult to keep away from a saber-tooth tiger while pregnant, or with small children (since the woman is fundamentally rate-limited on how rapidly she can have children, their individual survival is more important to her than it is to him). Thus, the woman agrees to submit her sexuality to the man, in return for protection and provisional support, in the institution that eventually becomes marriage. In doing so, she has agreed to exchange complete sexual freedom for sexual exclusivity and an improved chance of survival for herself and her offspring.
This explains why, in marriage, the cheating of one spouse was not viewed as the same sort of offense as the cheating of the other spouse–restraint of the male’s sexuality was not part of the original contract, and including it in the contract makes the terms grossly uneven. That said, some men might still agree to such a marriage contract, given a sufficient lack of alternatives; a sequence of events which ultimately occurred.
This still leaves open the question of restraint on the sexuality of the pre-marital female, but this is a simple matter of collective bargaining. The marriage contract is a more powerful social institution (and the gender setting the terms of the marital contract is in a better bargaining position) if it is the only available form of partnered sexual gratification (or, indeed, any sexual gratification at all, given certain moral dictates). This, along with the belief inherited from older times that female virginity is a desirable trait, means that women individually and collectively have better marriage prospects the less they have sex.
Of course, this entire sequence is dependent upon the use of men as protectors/providers; unseating them from this role eliminates the need for marriage. This, in turn, collapses civilization, as men detach from society due to a lack of personal investment in it and cease the activities necessary for it’s continued functioning–the production and repair of goods, the advancement of newer and better methods of production, the enforcement of existing order.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I think you’re missing an important point, Renee. The Sexual Constitution places burdens on both men and women–they’re just different burdens:
I think that’s fair. A man is expected to be a goo husband and father. A woman needs to be faithful so her husband knows his children are actually his.
Not sure where that leaves me and the trail of spent manflesh I left in my wake during my youth–except that I could always be counted on to be faithful, even during difficult times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do find the general argument made here somewhat persuasive, but not totally convincing. Arguments are easy to make and cherry picking evidence to support your conclusions is easy to do as well. So far I have not seen the total breakdown of any institutions. People are still getting married, though divorces are pretty common. Statements such as “Europe has been on a straight path downwards since 1910″ simply don’t seem believable to me. The zeitgeist and the global economic crisis may give more support to pessimitic outlooks, but Detroit is not the whole world or even wholly representative of Western civilization.
I took a brief look at “The Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb and it was pretty interesting, but I’m not a big believer in that kind of inevitable historical cycles or that, for example, the collapse of the USA’s current “empire” would mean the end of western civilization as such. Enlightenment values and technology will probably live on even if certain societies fall from positions of power.
Children suffer from divorces, true, but I’m not sure if that’s enough to destroy civilization. “The plight of the beta” might be real or not, so far I haven’t seen evidence to totally support that position. The relative power differentials of men with different SMVs and game in the sexual marketplace may have widened, but is it enough to break down society and remove completely (or sufficiently) men’s incentives to work for the betterment of society? That point may exist, but I doubt we’re close to that. Empirical evidence is lacking.
Freedom has costs, and feminism has succeeded in giving women more power through goverments and laws. The situation is still not obviously bad enough for western men to have taken decisive action to improve their position. Men don’t seem to see themselves as being in a terrible position or generally unhappy. Perhaps western societies really are decadent and about to collapse, but, to repeat, I’m not totally convinced. The history does not repeat itself, and it’s hard to predict the future with any certainty.
Then again, perhaps I’m just suffering from unfounded optimism, who knows.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
m.a.,
Let me explain something to you…
Fuck you and fuck your evidence.
Clear?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@the great fall was so traumatic, so complete, that it is still remembered today. Feared.
By who. Runts?
The same runts that created feminism?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And now we see who is afraid of the collapse of the western zeitgeist.
The christian nut jobs. The very class that is to blame for this mess and _deserves to collapse_.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Sean_MacCloud: “Let me explain something to you… Fuck you and fuck your evidence.”
Why so aggressive? Touched a nerve or something here?
I’m here to learn about new ideas and facts and perhaps even have stimulating discussions. If “evidence” and “facts” are too much to hope for, that’s not good.
A priori truths exist, but I don’t think that the topic at hand is one of those. You are of course free to correct my views, actually I would appreciate it.
“Clear?”
Come on now, civilized and factually based discussion without ad hominems can’t be that hard! Try it out, if you can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Two different things, though. Christian morality *does* call for chastity for males and females alike — there is no double standard in Christian moral theology when it comes to extramarital sex.
The sexual double standard predates Christianity by a long time, and relates to more basic realities, rather than a “moral” sense, namely: (1) it is far easier for women to obtain sex than it is for men to obtain sex so that (2) if women are not encouraged to be chaste prior to marriage it will be harder to convince men to marry them both because (i) they may be bearing the child of another man before marriage (i.e., she may cuckold before the marriage takes place), hence resulting in an “anticipatory cuckolding” and (2) the “risk” of a
more “loose” woman being less sexually loyal to a lifetime monogamy arrangement is higher (or perceived to be higher), which is a greater risk for the man than for the woman.
Why is that? Because when a man cheats the woman bears the risk that he will leave with his resources and deprive her and their children together of resources. Of course that doesn’t apply today, because the law prevents that by confiscating the resources of men upon divorce, thereby eliminating or greatly minimizing the practical risk women face when it comes to male cheating. When a woman cheats, however, the risk that the man runs is that he ends up unwittingly raising another man’s child(ren). That is a unique risk that women simply do not run. No woman will ever be *forced* without her knowledge to raise a child sired by her husband with another woman, whereas cuckolding resulting from female cheating places this risk directly on men. THAT is ultimately the basis of the sexual double standard — men in marriages run risks when it comes to female cheating that women simply do not run. That is why there was historically — and, again, long before Christianity and Christian sexual morality came into play — the double standard on sexuality which particularly prized female chastity — because without female chastity, male paternity becomes very iffy, and when male paternity becomes iffy, men do not want to marry and invest in offspring. I can tell you very straight that no man wants to invest emotionally, financially and otherwise in the child that another man sired with his wife without his knowledge and consent — that’s just a deep, visceral thing. The imposition of the double standard was primarily done to shore up the security of male paternity. It has been argued that this is no longer needed today due to DNA tests being available, but everytime mandatory DNA testing is raised the howls of female protest can be heard five states away — which is not surprising because mandatory DNA testing similarly works against the visceral interests that women have in keeping open the “option” to cuckold their husbands — an option that is not that uncommon –> it varies by social group, but on average non-paternity is around 10%. Of course we *have* seen the breakdown of the double standard today (not completely, of course, but it has been relaxed a lot), and, together with that (unsurprisingly) the rising reluctance of men to father children, or to invest in the children they may have fathered. When paternity becomes iffy due to females sleeping around, it reduces male incentives to invest in women and children. The double standard was almost certainly not imposed by men on women (as is often supposed), but imposed by women on other women both (1) to prevent the sluts from ruing the market for everyone else by (2) incentivizing men to marry.
Christian morality came along later, and emphasized sexual continence for both men and women, but of course the older double standard remained fairly ingrained, because it is based on rather visceral issues between the sexes, and very real differences in risk run by men and women when it comes to cheating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course not, because that’s the wrong standard to use.
In my view, it’s likely that no institutions will completely breakdown. The issue is this: what is happening to them, in substance.
In my view, “the West” will remain for quite some time in name, but the substantive content of what it means to be “the West” will morph substantially. Of course, one may point out that this is part of a normal historical progression from one historical era to another, and in part that is true, but the main difference here is that the West is currently morphing into a civilization which is based on the exaltation of personal freedom above all other values, coupled with the inevitable relativism (which is really just another form of nihilism) associated with that. What results from this may still call itself “the West”, but it won’t be anything like what the West once was. The ideas of the so-called “enlightenment” — often bandied about by Westerners today as being great in and of themselves — inevitably gave birth to the nihilistic philosophies of later periods, which themselves inevitably seeped into the greater society, creating a more generalized nihilism.
There’s no real escape from this trend, really, because Western philosophy finds itself in a dead-end right now due to having jettisoned, nearly completely, any form of religion, replacing this, again, with personalized spiritualities that, precisely because they are inherently relativist (being personal), cannot serve either to give society as a whole a greater meaning or to create a greater consensus in the society in terms of ethics, never mind something as quaint to contemporary Western minds as “morals”. One can retreat from this and enter a world of private “meaning”, but that is no substitute at all for a wider meaning for society as a whole, or an ethical/moral consensus — both of which are increasingly lacking in the West. We have covered this nihilism over the past several decades in the West by indulging personal freedom — either in the forms of hedonism, or consumerism, or relentless self-actualization or what have you. But the underlying nihilism remains, hollowing out the culture from the core outward.
Therefore, yes, the institutions are not “breaking down” as much as they are morphing due to the changes happening in the broader culture.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“The plight of the beta” might be real or not, so far I haven’t seen evidence to totally support that position.”
I see little evidence to suggest the typical Beta male is anything better than a work horse, a beast of burden. Any bliss or satisfaction Beta males have is often through vicariously living through their children, which is unhealthy, or from personal pursuits and hobbies that specifically exist outside the context of the marriage and/or family. I’m not saying most Beta’s are miserable, but something is missing, and most would admit to that on some level. A cow out to pasture is pretty content too, until he finds himself in the slaughter house. Beta’s typical lack of awareness about the bigger picture, as a normal Beta believes what he is told and thinks in terms of conformity, is what allows him a sense of contentmemnt. Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes, and most men are ignorant to how poorly they are being used and abused. Starved for love and validation and respect growing up, (crying is for girls, act like a man, be brave, excell and flourish, control your emotions) they think the scraps of illusionary love, validation for being a good slave, and respect for being able to put up with their enslavement with a smile, seems to be sustinence enough for many, but just as many simply choke down the pain and carry on like good soldiers, because that is what men do, we “man up”. Well, it’s time we “women up” , and start to bitch and gripe and nag our way either back into a position of dominance in the family or freedom from being a wage slave. An omega is better off than a Beta, because his lack of status frees him from the confines of responsibility. An Alpha has actual power and respect. In this sense, the middle class surbuban male often has it worst. A tedious life of conformity and mediocrity.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
The sheer idiocy of this book is most easily demonstrated by its first factual claim: “Most criminals come from female-headed families” rather than the more accurate and precise “Most criminals come from families which the father abandoned”.
There’s more but why bother? Men who want women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, are doomed to suffer disappointment. There’s a reason this book is not peer-reviewed science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
“The sheer idiocy of this book is most easily demonstrated by its first factual claim: “Most criminals come from female-headed families” rather than the more accurate and precise “Most criminals come from families which the father abandoned”.”
Fathers don’t abandon families any where near as much as you’ve been led to believe by PC Feminist mainstream media propaganda. They are most often run out of the house via divorce, or if never married, then the women is to blame for choosing to get knocked up out of wedlock. They wanted sexual independenc, but that comes with responsibility. If women can’t learn to stop getting turned on by sociopaths to the point they have unprotected sex with them, a sociopath being the only type of man who does not want to invest in his offspring, then I blame the women for the pain it will cause her bastard children when the sociopath does what sociopaths are expected to do, more than I blame the sociopath. If you play with fire, you’re going to get burned. Don’t blame the fire, blame yourself. And I’m not even counting all the women who get knocked up on purpose with out the mans consent, expect him to morph into Mr. Responsibility, and end up resenting him so much, that she runs him off with her shrew like behavior. Back your shit up with some citations. Your way off track.
“Men who want women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, are doomed to suffer disappointment.”
We won’t be the ones disappointed. You act like women following their biological instincts have it rough. Are you a “blank slate” believer, or just behind the curve about male/female differences?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Oh great, another aging, radfem King County lawyer…
See what I have to deal with over here, Nova?
This rewinn guy links to this page:
Probably one of the scum who help military wives prepare papers so they can nail their husbands as soon as they get home on leave with a sudden divorce.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Novaseeker:
I don’t see that necessarely as a bad thing, but that’s just my point of view as a secular person: nowadays we can actually be relatively free thanks to modern science, technology and industrialism. We can choose our roles and occupations in society much more freely than ever before.
It is true that all this might mean that traditional values will diminish somewhat, but I’m not convinced that it will mean the complete disintegration of the nuclear family (yeah, exaggerating for effect once again, guilty of hyperbole I am), or that crime and other negative aspects of single motherhood will rise indefinitily. Or that all men will just drop out.
The sexual revolution just recently happened, when we take a longer historical look, and naturally there will be change and adaptation, but my argument is that it might not automatically mean that Western Civilization is dead. We’re not doomed just because of that. This is a social experiment, true, and will create reactions, it may even be a tragic failure in the end. We’ll see what will happen. There are historical precedents, but they may not be applicable to this historical situation.
Nihilism can be a problem, and I agree that “postmodern” relativist values do not lead to much good, but it’s possible that they will not last or escalate. Roger Scruton’s article “What Ever Happened to Reason?” is a good read about this.
Yes, most probably societal cohesion will never make a total comeback, but I doubt that many or most people will totally internalize nihilism. The value of family, friends, being a good person, education, and so forth, probably won’t be replaced with outright hedonism/consumerism/or what have you, even if sexual and other morals are relaxed. Effects will be felt and dealth with.
Jabherwochie’s comments bring forth the idea that (even historically) most men (and women) haven’t been in a great position. “A tedious life of conformity and mediocrity” is, in my perpective, all what most of us can realistically expect. Not everyone is destined to be a great Big Man. And still, people can be and have been relatively happy and content with their lives. The sitation hasn’t been any better historically, quite the contrary.
I remain optimistic that solutions can be found and that western civilization is not about to collapse just because of this.
Anyway, thanks for the replies, there’s intelligent life here after all.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@rewinn-
When you take away the dignity and respect associated with being head of the household, yet continue to expect men to take on the stress and responsibilities of such, you are delusional. When a man’s privledges are taken away in the family structure (or at the least, the continued risk of via divorce), then his power taken away, and now even his respect, you cannot expect him to continue on with the associated responsibilities and burdens.
You’ve got a lot of nerve to show up here with your mocking condescension. You may be smart, but you are not wise, because you believe all the information you’ve absorbed your whole life is dogma. The world ain’t flat anymore. Your archaic thought paradigm was wrong in the past, and reprehensible now. When did you put on the blinders, switch on the cruise control, and stop evolving your understanding of the world. Don’t be a stagnant pond that reflects back the world as you see it in your inherently limited view, be a river.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aye, but the problem with Scruton and those who think like him is this: there is absolutely no precedent at all for a social consensus forming around morality based on “reason”. The reason for that is that reasonable people can differ as to the details of morality, when morality is based on “reason” rather than simple “injunction”. Any system based on reason inevitably fails to reach consensus on anything other than the lowest common denominators (outright killing, theft, rape, etc.). And it may well be that this is what the West will content itself with: a consensus around the handful of bad acts that everyone can agree on in most cases (leaving aside the blurry margins of even these handful of acts in the context of certain marginal situations that no-one will agree on), while leaving everything else up for grabs. That is kind of where we are today — or at least where we are clearly moving towards today. Again, that doesn’t mean the West is “collapsing”, but it does mean that it is morphing towards becoming something different.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ m.a.
I’m in a bad mood.
I didn’t read all your splerge. Something must have pissed me off about it or the general tenor or you all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Novaseeker-
I think a better word for “morphing” would be “decaying”.
To further the metaphor, from decay, you can have a structural collapse (from which new life may spring from the readily available nutrients left behind), or you can reinforce the structure with resources, time, and effort, or a parisitic life may take hold in the decay from which a new entity emerges using the pre-existing structure as a loose framework, or you can cut your losses and build again somewhere else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because it’s sprightly fun puncturing leftist lawyers facade.
Actually, the factual basis is in that first simple statement of where ghetto gangbangas come from – YOU colored it with the emotional language by using ‘abandoned’ as some sort of political descriptor.
Cute.
Oh, and if it’s ‘The Woman’s Body is Her Right! Rah!’ feminist chant you wish to continue to promote – who the fuck said sista had to keep da baby when she got de right to abort it?
Did that Big Bad Mens force her to keep it? I’m sure you believe all consensual sex is ‘rape’ but after he abandoned his threatening Missionary Position, bitch had plenty of time to get the vacu-suck.
Go back to sucking Oprah’s Titty
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The comments here seem to miss other forces destroying the west, mainly Randian cultists who mistake their parasitism for wealth creation. Let good jobs return to the country, that could support an entire family and watch how many women choose to stay home with the family. The “conservatives” who gas about family values need to talk to their fellow travelers on Wall $treet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Tim H November 12, 2009 at 10:59 am
The comments here seem to miss other forces destroying the west, mainly Randian cultists who mistake their parasitism for wealth creation. Let good jobs return to the country, that could support an entire family and watch how many women choose to stay home with the family. The “conservatives” who gas about family values need to talk to their fellow travelers on Wall $treet.”
Oh, I agree with that. I’m a class warfare advocate (not to be confused with socialist, communist, or liberal). I get plenty of flak for that stance here. I just believe power (money) corrupts, and the people at the top have been corrupted beyond caring for the general health of the society whose labor they benifit from. Its one thing to tilt the playing field in your direction (which the moneyed class always has done), but its entirely different when they have the game completely rigged, with the rules written in their favor, the ball starting on their side of the court, and they’ve bribed the referee. Its not that I’m against people being rich, but with everything good thing, you can have too much of it. When the country is in two wars, the economy is on the verge of collapse, and jobs are going over seas faster then you can say “sweat shop”, and still the elite give themselves a tax cut, it’s time we fight back against the covert class warfare that has been waged against the middle class for a long time now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Sean McCloud
I weigh 190 pounds and my height is 6 feet. I have a good job, one girlfriend and two FWB here in Central America.
What has to do my weight with my thoughts about the demise of Western civilization? Are you somebody who uses the female shaming language to hide your lack of logical arguments? Do you want to tell me that I am a loser? I am not but, if I was, what would have this to do with the fate of Western civilization?
Try next time with arguments if your brain can (I doubt it). You only recur to insults: right-wing or catty remarks about weigh. Soooo original. You are about to win the fembot bingo
My English is not good enough to understand that (of course, I understand that it is about becoming a member of a team-don’t know which) but it seems a catty remark so I don’t understand it, being a foreigner for whom English is not a native language.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
People who are afraid on this mad max thing are the runts that got us into this mess. The species needs a good deep enema that gets rid of the garbage.
Godfather movie. Fat Paulie about an impending mob war:
“We need one of these every five, ten years. It cleans out the bad blood.”
==============
My two commets…
I’m am artist. I speak in poetry. (I’m lazy and clever– hence art) I expect this god forsaken species of turds to keep up with my usage.
“Weight.”
Runts weigh “110 pounds soaking wet”. They are the profiting chihuahua of this disastrous upside done world. (Some of these chihuahua at the top of the still extant caste structure –getting tail– some at the bottom.) They are afraid of the collapse of the Cromwell magna charter west.
“Picked for team.”
Again allusion to male runtiness. Runts never experienced what it was like to be accepted by other males based on aptitude. Therefore they are afraid of the coming “sport”. (More poetry I’m afraid.)
(That doesn’t mean I like putting people on the bench. I saw once a social babble clip where the 1st graders[?] picked for teams. One kid didn’t get picked. He goes over to the wall where there are seats and holds back the tears while he looks on with his hands in front of his chest. _Unacceptable._
As I have said, people need to be made the same, and need to be on their own plots where they are the kings, through whatever mankind can do. _This solves ALL problems._ Trust me: I have done the math.
But regarding our coming “troubles”
War is heck.
The poetry continues.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kis at November 12, 2009 at 12:46 am,
Ok, I can understand this under the situation of marriage. It’s just that under the Sexual Constitution, it seems like being a good husband and father is all about providing for your family, nothing else. To me, faithfulness to your wife should also be included because hey, if he cheats with another woman who happens to be married or in a relationship, then that woman’s husband/partner wouldn’t know if their children are his lol. That woman isn’t always cheating with a single guy.
With that being said, I’m starting to understand this bit by bit lol.
.
————————–
Novaseeker at November 12, 2009 at 7:48 am,
Thanks for that post. It made things a little bit clearer
Arbitrary at November 11, 2009 at 11:52 pm, you post did too
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, I can understand this under the situation of marriage. It’s just that under the Sexual Constitution, it seems like being a good husband and father is all about providing for your family, nothing else. To me, faithfulness to your wife should also be included because hey, if he cheats with another woman who happens to be married or in a relationship, then that woman’s husband/partner wouldn’t know if their children are his lol. That woman isn’t always cheating with a single guy.
Look at the big picture, Renee. In the “bad old days” of Patriarchy, it was a society in which women who broke their vows of fidelity were stigmatized and shamed…and women new that their matrimonial value was inherently tied to their virginity/chastitity, there were a LOT less women out there willing to engage in an affair with a married man.
Women were afraid to be socially shamed as the home wrecker.
Nowadays, home wrecking is almost a point of pride for many women. They get an ego boost out of the idea that they are so desirable, a married man would destroy his family to have sex with her.
Our society that has removed the fidelity standard for all intents and purposes, has directly contributed to a situation where there are far more women willing to have sex with a married man in the first place!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hawaiian Libertarian,
Ok, I see what you mean.
In the end, “looking at the big picture” to me is looking at it from all sides and realizing that both sexes should be held responsible and stigmatized, married or not. But apparently, from a social/evolutionary standpoint, that’s just isn’t the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Renee-
Its not like men aren’t held to some standard of faithfulness. They are. A fairly high standard. A women can make a mans life a living hell, at home and in the community. Its just not quite as strong of a standard as women should have. Sorta like a women can punch a man in the arm when mad at him, becaus she isn’t as strong. A man has greater leeway to cheat, because his chastity is worth less to the family unit. (I don’t feel like I have to explain why, but if you don’t understand paternal certainty, let me know)
Also, the only men who cheat normally are ones high in desirability. The more you want a highly desirable man, the more you must accept the risk that he will cheat, and the more you must compensate by being a sexual dynamo or ever vigilant (or you better make sure he has the morals a church going man, but expect the same standards to be applied to you). No matter how Alpha he is, he is still expected to be descreet though, and the reason is, if he is caught…well, we all know about “Hell hath no fury like a women scorned.” Men don’t take cheating lightly, unless they are a sociopath (at which point you shouldn’t have married a sociopath). So burdens do exist on males for male fidelity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hypothetical question:
A woman has a problem with post menopause in which hormone levels drop completely. She compares the situation with something like uterine cancer, and states her husband should remain faithful, i.e. celibate, and refuses to discuss the issue. He tells her to solve the hormonal problem and she refuses out of fear of cancer.
Does her husband
1. Swear oath of celibacy
2. File for divorce
3. Cheat
4. Negotiate an open-marriage agreement
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I should explain that this happened to someone I know, and she gave him permission to have sex elsewhere without penalty. When he did, she claimed that she wasn’t ‘serious’, and is calling him a cheater. He called it “green-lighting’. Hilarious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We don’t want to create a Garbage Society. We want to create a Slave Society. A planet of happy, obedient slaves. Living out your little lives. Doing our bidding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
just curious
If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what must be seen is its relationship with the female-headed family. Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.
Although I agree that a child is better of with both parents this type of research is flawed because there is clear omitted variable bias. I would say that it is more than likely that the children of the less educated and affluent would be more prone to crime. And I would also think that less informed and affluent were more likely to have children without thinking of how these children were to be raised. Therefore it is no surprise that these types of relationships do not end with marriage. Children from these relationships are not criminals because they lack fathers in their lives but because their parents were irresponsible and not fit to be parents in the first place. This does not mean that children brought up by responsible, working, intelligent single mothers are any more likely to be criminals or unstable than are the children coming from two parent households.
In this case it is the lack of education, lack of parental ability and/or poverty that is more than likely the cause of higher crime rates for the particular demography and not single mothers per se.
Although I believe that two loving parents are better for a child than one loving parent (simply because more love the better) it does not mean that this book offers anything more than oversimplified, dangerous conclusions that fall as a deck of cards when the matter is looked upon more closely.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May04/single.parents.ssl.html
“The findings suggest that in the presence of favorable maternal characteristics, such as education and positive child expectations, along with social resources supportive of parenting, single parenthood in and of itself need not to be a risk factor for a child’s performance in mathematics, reading or vocabulary or for behavior problems,” Ricciuti says.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
just curious
“A new multiethnic study at Cornell University has found that being a single parent does not appear to have a negative effect on the behavior or educational performance of a mother’s 12- and 13-year-old children. ”
“Although I agree that a child is better of with both parents this type of research is flawed because there is clear omitted variable bias. ”
Yes there is, “12-13″ years old. And the solutions they point to:
“As for poor women, we need to promote not so much marriage, but more and better education and other resources. Since it’s unlikely that the prospects of poor men are going to skyrocket anytime soon, we have to get the message out that earning your own way may be the best chance for a reasonable life.”
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/US_women_see_independence_in_singlehood.html
Why is it unlikely that prospects of poor men will not get better but will get better for women?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8064435/Children-in-single-parent-families-worse-behaved.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }