Where Have The Good Men Gone? (20ish men living in extended adolescence)

10 posts

Dr. Heywood R. Floyd
Yeah, a society where Feminists have seriously hobbled marriage & family, where low wages are usually the reward for a willingness to perform once-dignified labor, and where both nationalism and Christ have been shunted off to the side as embarrassing relics from Our Nazi Past, is it any wonder that young men are alienated from this demented, dysfunctional society, and are increasingly saying "Fuck it, let's just screw as many bitches as we can, and play some video games 'n' shit after we light the next joint?"
Sluggo
Cornelio
I'm not critical of women. Being critical of women is as pointless as being critical of dogs. You don't blame a dog for biting a kid, but its owner for not restraining it with enough diligence. The same goes for women: I don’t blame them for their misdeeds, I blame us –their masters—for our weakness.

Aristotle's ethics can provide a solution on a completely irrelevant individual level. The hard truth is that there's no way out of this mess, and that you can live however you desire because all hope is lost.
Bob Dylan Roof

Guapo, you've made good points.



I partially disagree. While individuals like you and me are too spiritually corrupt to benefit from the gentlemanly ethics of Aristotle, our youth, to whom Erikson's problem of moratorium refers, are exactly the type Aristotle wrote his ethics for. This is why, for Aristotle, ethics is not about discovering what is good through scripture or idle rational thought, but rather about coming to know the good through habituation, so that knowing well and doing well are the same. Therefore when youth are conditioned to know their function and pursue excellence in their own sphere, they come to understand the wisdom of such a system and are not forced to endure an unproductive and depressing period of crude identity formation called "moratorium." While this cruel fate has been thrust upon us by the nihilistic egalitarian principles of liberalism, which instruct everyone to embrace ignorance of their own nature and construct identities out of nothingness, it needn't be forced upon our youth.
Bronze Age Pervert

The modern state in general is based around the desires of women, but this has been true for a while. It frees women from the consequences of their sexual behavior, through providing birth control, abortion, easy adoption, and benefits for single mothers. In this last respect and also through divorce courts it also frees women from having to rely on men, either relatives or otherwise. I was talking to a tradcat friend recently who's been brainwashed by modern feminism, possibly through his tradcat friends, and I was making the argument that so long as abortion is entirely in the power of the woman, it is unfair to force men to pay child support. He insisted that this law was necessary because it "might save lives." I mentioned to him that there were other recourses besides forcing men to pay child support to achieve this...and I didn't mean just private charities. I mentioned also that a woman might have to be nicer to her baby daddy, instead of just relying on the law to coerce him. He had been trained or self-trained to think that women have no responsibility for any of their actions. It's the same for other social conservatives too. The point of this aside is to show that the premise of the modern state, the independence of woman from her biology and also from having to rely on men, is not just a legal principle but a moral and spiritual one that has infected the minds of all, including "conservatives." The modern state is arranged around the desires of women. In the areas of the US and Europe that are most prosperous and "advanced," which are necessarily the areas that allow the greatest leisure and money to fuel the driving force of the modern mind, you see this principle appear very concretely. Hipster SWPL culture--which is the West's most "advanced" culture--is entirely based around the desires of women and fags, with lots of small cocktail bars, "gastropubs," and "tapas"-like places that serve the tastes of homosexuals and women. It's not even just the orientation around eating and drinking, but the form it takes, it is nauseating to see.

The modern state is therefore unnatural, being arranged around the needs of women, who are weaker. One possible way this will change is when the US becomes 35% Hispanic. I know this is an unpopular idea, but these people haven't been quite brainwashed by the feminist establishment. It is within the SWPL upper middle class that the speech and behavior codes are enforced, but the ability of these people to run the culture generally will possibly be diminished when there is a critical mass of Latin-Indio types, who are traditionalist on a personal level. Remember that Sam Huntington was a liberal; a lot of liberals are afraid that allowing many Mexicans into the US will turn it more conservative. I'm not saying demographic change will be a net good, but it might destroy feminism.

Niccolo and Donkey
Great post.

The modern state is feminine in its nature since it seeks to create a parallel structure to that of the family in which all cares and concerns are provided for by the state. Once this is accomplished, the traditional family is then rendered redundant.
Angocachi
Mexicans rely too much on unions, multiculturalism, socialism and the Catholic church to swing conservative. When they're raised in the US, it's often urban, and if their children make it to college on some AA, or even get through High School, they quickly ingest the liberal mindset and come out feminized. In Mexico itself the men are often absent, either in the US to send money home, or just roaming around because he refuses to raise the nest of Latinets he's spawned. My Mexi-professor noted how on his visits there, there are no adult men visible in the home, just women, children, and elderly. The women run the house, between jobs, and if the man is home (in the US or Mexico), it's a mammy situation. There've been a number of articles explaining how entire towns in Mexico have been depleted of men, and so women have taken all the old posts; becoming mayors and police chiefs and principals.
No, they're not going to reverse anything. Possibly make it worse.

Again, this isn't so much the empowerment of women, but of the banking/investor elite. A man once commended a Rockefeller for financing feminists, saying it was justified morally... freeing women to do whatever they want. The Rockefeller replied that it wasn't to free women to do whatever they want, but to do what 'we' want, to enter the wage force, to take on debt, to consume in ways she couldn't when she relied on her husband. Also, to crack the family as a sovereign unit of authority, so that the line of power between a single citizen and the highest is direct and unfiltered.
Bronze Age Pervert
The only real counterargument you've made here is that Hispanic college kids can also become feminized, but if there is a 35% spic population in the US, which would be an underclass, only a tiny fraction of a fraction will go through the kinds of SWPL programs or enter the kinds of careers that instill the feminist agenda successfully. People who are not part of the SWPL establishment and way of life in the US don't have to submit to feminism.

Everything else you say above is irrelevant to my point. I've already said that demographic change in the US would be a net negative, but spic participation in unions or them voting Dem. doesn't have anything to do with whether they provide a cultural counterbalance to feminism.

No, the problem isn't capitalism, it's feminism. You can see in Japan, for example, which is very capitalist but not at all feminist, that capitalism doesn't need to mean feminism.

Since we're on it, multiculturalism and multiracialism doesn't need to be feminism either. You can look to Brazil for this, or pretty much any ex-Portuguese colony. The Portuguese were big on pushing "multiracialism" in their colonies--yes, as a method of social mythology and control. But this didn't translate into feminism. Feminism is feminism...

I don't like making ad hominem arguments but given your past defense of Islamic cultures, your applause for the supposedly virtuous and pious Islamic family on this thread, and your classically "postcolonialist" anti-capitalist Fanon-style attitude here and elsewhere, I question whether you have the standing to comment on this problem...whose side are you on, and what would you suggest? Just because we both hate Western liberalism or feminism doesn't mean we hate it for the same reasons.

I remind you about something that you said earlier in this thread...I didn't want to comment on your earlier post, but I'll tell you now that we don't need to be lectured about the supposed virtue of Islamic families who live in some turd world shithole. I've been to such shitholes and the reality doesn't live up to these tales of virtue. We have our own history and traditions to draw on now and in the future. We don't need to emulate the barbaric family custom of the savages that Richard Burton wrote about after some time after we discovered you.

http://burtoniana.org/books/1856-First Footsteps in East Africa/1856-FirstFootstepsVer2.htm

And we complain a lot on these sites, but I'll take the Western SWPL fag liberal any day over an Islamist or a Chinese. As bad as the libfags are, Chinese rule would be 1000 times worse. I'm not that concerned about a lesbian bureaucrat in the end. My point was the modern state is weak. This doesn't mean I prefer to ally with people who want me dead or my history extinguished.
Thomas777
And this is where you're sort of stunningly naive. The ''lesbian bureaucrat'' on the order of Elaine Kagan DOES want your history extinguished. In fact, she believes that she has a moral obligation to see to it that it is extinguished, and she wields a grotesque amount of power in the managerial state.

The Chink politburo apparatchik or the Muslim cleric doesn't really give a shit about you one way or the other, so long as he can keep getting plenty of US greenbacks and cargo.

You have really strange priorities, complimented by entirely misplaced prejudices.
Bob Dylan Roof


He said the problem stemmed from the banking/investor elite investing in feminism. I think he makes a decent point, assuming it is true, because investing in feminism implies investing in the feminist use of the state which has established the state of affairs you mentioned in your initial post. In fact this makes a great deal of sense given the extraordinary economic clout women have as consumers relative to men, especially in the domain of credit. This doesn't imply that the problem stems from capitalism, but rather from the fusion of the profit motive with the state's monopoly on force, which has been used to destroy the family unit and liberate women to collectively borrow and spend the west into oblivion.