Feb 262011

Recently, I added Alcuin’s blog to my blogroll.  It’s a very interesting blog, and his comments are interesting such as this one he made at The Spearhead:

Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me.” What feminists don’t realize is that men didn’t leave Western civilization. Western civilization left men. Because of feminism. Now they complain that they can’t find enough useful idiots.

This isn’t limited to just feminists.  It’s true of any conservative female supremacist or other kind of fake anti-feminist as well.  We hear a lot about men supposedly failing to mature, get married, “man up”, etc. as if men just decided one day that they weren’t going to bother anymore.  That is not what happened.  The opposite happened.  The reason why increasing numbers of men are making the RATIONAL and LOGICAL decision to avoid marriage, high stress jobs, college, etc. is because Western Civilization has become increasingly hostile to men.  Why support a civilization that actively hates you and over time increases its hate for you?

The complaints we hear about men whether it’s from Kay Hymowitz or from people complaining about comments at The Spearhead are all about the fact that they’re running out of useful idiots.  Why are socons (social conservatives) from Mark Richardson to The (Not) Thinking Housewife saying, “There’s a problem with marriage but you are supposed to ‘man up’ and get married anyway because it’s your duty to God/Western Civilization/etc.?”  Because all forms of female supermacism (both feminist and socon) need a supply of men working as useful idiots to keep everything running.  The obvious answer is to bring Western Civilization back to men since men didn’t leave Western Civilization but if safe to say that won’t be happening.  That would involve offering men something of equal value for their labor, skills, and commitment and no female supremacist of any stripe will negotiate in good faith with men.

  34 Responses to “Western Civilization Left Men, Not The Other Way Around”

  1. The dirty little secret is that in order for a society to survive above the grass huts level, men must marry and thus work to support the system.

    No men marrying, means no civilization.

    Women destroyed marriage and they are just waking up to the fact that there are consequences for their 50 year party, and those consequences the social equivalent of dying of alcohol poisoning.

    I am beyond caring.

  2. Pro-Male,

    The thing is that traditionalists like myself see the same dysfunction that you do, but we blame a specific aspect of society for it, namely the state ideology of liberalism. So it makes sense for us to reject that aspect of society rather than Western civilisation as a whole.

    It seems to me that you and many other MRAs are in a mood to reject everything. It’s a “let it all crash and burn” attitude.

    It’s not possible for trads to take this attitude. It would mean destroying the thing we dislike (liberalism/feminism) by destroying the things we do like (the larger tradition we belong to).

    For us, that means defeat. So we have to find ways to kill off liberalism/feminism without killing off the West.

    • Considering Liberalism has been kicking along since the ‘enlightnment’, what aspect of liberalism is it that traditionalists want to keep.

      • That’s a good reply. Liberalism has been around a long time. But you have to remember that it didn’t always dominate society as a whole the way it does now. First, because it was held to the political sphere for a long time. Second, because it operated in fusion with other strands of the Western tradition until recent times (e.g. with forms of aristocratic honour). Third, because its principles have been gradually extended over time rather than all at once.

        Therefore, there was much in Britain or the US in the year 1800 that liberals of today would struggle to accept – which is why liberals of today often think of the past in such negative terms.

    • Mark, here’s the problem. You are already been defeated. You just don’t realize it. What was liberal yesterday is conservative today. What is conservative today is traditional tomorrow. When it comes to feminism, it has infected all parts of Western Civilization including your “larger tradition” except for the MRM and related communites like the MGTOW. There is no place in Western Civilization that is not feminist except for the MRM and related communities. That means one of two things, either create a truly anti-feminist region of Western Civilization or destroy Western Civilization. I am not a nihilist nor do I think Western Civilization needs to be destroyed except that no real attempt outside of the MRM to actually rollback feminism in anyway. Talking about “fighting liberalism” is meaningless since liberalism, conservatism, and traditionalism are all feminist in one form or another.

      You can’t tell men to support an entity that has explicitly declared war on them. From a practical perspective it’s stupid because you are giving support to your enemy. From a moral perspective, it’s hideously immoral because you have no right to tell a man to sacrifice himself to support his enemy. Marriage is a good example of this problem. There is no such thing as a non-feminist marriage right now. (Effectively that means marriage 1.0 is dead. Not dying. DEAD and it has been dead for a few decades.) Outside of moving to a place outside of Western Civilization you can only have a “marriage 2.0” marriage. There is no option for anything else. (In theory traditionalists could create a private marriage system that actually was marriage 1.0 but no traditionalists are interested in such practical solutions.) By telling men to “get married” you have men support the feminist system. Unless you do something practical about this problem (and others like it), opting out is the only solution for the individual man. If nothing else, a man who opts out of marriage (or whatever else) has reduced his support for the feminist enemy.

    • The problem here in the States is that the Republicans are every bit as feminist and “liberal” as the Democrats, at least when it comes to the really important issues (family and relationship law, marriage 2.0 etc.). Both parties aggressively court women and try to please them, while acting as if men and their concerns don’t exist. For example, we hear all about women’s issues,women’s rights, women’s health, jobs and education for women etc. But who in Washington is saying anything about men’s issues, men’s rights, men’s health, or jobs and education for men? I can’t think of anyone. At. All. The message that is sent by the powers that be is very clear: Women matter to us, while men don’t.

      Once you realize that your concerns don’t matter, once you understand that the powers that be are never going to listen to what you have to say, you’re eventually just going to withdraw from society and politics, because society and politicians aren’t listening to you and don’t really give a damn about you anyway.

      So, yeah, a lot of Western men are “going their own way” now. Why shouldn’t they?

  3. The matriarchal west is dying and it’s too late to stop the decline. Us men will rebuild our own society, a “nerdarchy” and human women will be mostly excluded. We are letting those “empowered” women fend for themselves. The nerds are busy working on viable women substitutes such as virtual and robot girls.

    • And how will men reproduce, by themselves? As absurd as I find the idea of realistic ‘sexbots’, at least most who believe we’ll have them one day, aren’t suggesting such will replace women, for reproductive purposes.

      Most men who are wisening up, and in essence, dropping out of society, aren’t looking to build an alternative society, so much as avoiding being taken advantage of. ‘Nerdarchy’? WTF?

      • Artificial wombs. Throw in some limited cloning and it’s possible to reproduce without women. Remember women are not magical fertility goddesses.

        I don’t see men building a male only (or near male only) alternative society anytime soon but given a few decades who knows?

        • “…I don’t see men building a male only (or near male only) alternative society anytime soon but given a few decades who knows?…”

          Not likely. There will NEVER be enough queers or voluntary celibates to populate it. Not me, not my sons, that’s for sure.

          More likely, the religious holdouts, both native(homeschoolers, Mormons) and immigrant (Mexicans, Moslems) will eventually outbreead and overrun the secularists, and the pendulum will swing back — and feminism will be a bitter memory, nothing more.

          If the Moslems end up dominant, it will swing back way too far… .rather ugly to contemplate.

        • Yeah, you (and your sons) are “real men”. Uh huh, sure, right. I’m skeptical of that men building a male only alternative society will ever happen but it’s not going to be because “real men” like you won’t get involved. You will be too busy in debtor’s prison after your wife divorces you. That’s what happens to “real men”.

  4. I agree. Why support a civilization that is hostile towards men. We created it made it comfortable and easier and what is our reward? The women start showing up wanting good paying jobs that require little work. Where were they before? Our reward is to constantly be insulted in the media and just about everywhere else. Personally the west could burn down to the ground and I wouldnt lift a finger until I get something out of it. Would I come to the aid of any woman? Not in a million years. Im too far gone to ever forgive women ever.

  5. […] “Indian Philo-Semitism and Judaic Indophilia”Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech – “Western Civilization Left Men, Not the Other Way Around”Roosh – “The Game Balance“, “Guys Who Use Their Race to Pick Travel […]

  6. PMAFT wrote:
    Mark, here’s the problem. You are already been defeated. You just don’t realize it. What was liberal yesterday is conservative today. What is conservative today is traditional tomorrow.

    It only works one-way, like a ratchet. If Mark disagrees, maybe he can tell me the last time liberals adopted conservative viewpoints en masse. The pattern I’ve seen is always a temporary defeat, followed by a regrouping by feminists and other “progressives” and a pushing of the envelope beyond where it was before.

  7. The much-lauded liberation of female “choice” — choice in sexual partners, reproductive choice, career choice, “lifestyle” choice, choice of social support services from the government — over the last generation is now a fixture of Western civilization.

    The moral force behind this female empowerment is the extent to which it represents returning to individual females their sovereignty.

    What about male individual sovereignty?

    Under natural law the ultimate power — the power that shapes the future — of female individual sovereignty is the choice of which genes make it into the next generation and that power is exercised through birth.

    Under natural law the ultimate power of male individual sovereignty is the choice of that which is to be killed in single combat.

    Civilization is founded on a meta-stable “deal” in which females give up their individual sovereignty to their mates and their mates give up their individual sovereignty to the State. If, in this scenario, you liberate only one sex, not only does civilization collapse, but until it does, the circumstances are unbearable to the sex not liberated.

    In Western civilization there is no going back to the age of females giving up their individual sovereignty to their mates, so Western civilization is ending and we are left with two choices:

    Figure out how to legitimize formal individual combat to the death between males, or adopt Islam.

    That’s a true dilemma.

  8. I’m a bit puzzled as to what you’re getting at here. Are you trying to say that men can somehow achieve parity with women by having the ability to casually throw away their lives in duels? If so, it’s been a long time since I’ve heard anything so ridiculous.

    Jim Bowery wrote:
    Under natural law the ultimate power — the power that shapes the future — of female individual sovereignty is the choice of which genes make it into the next generation and that power is exercised through birth.

    By that definition, natural law has almost never existed for females. Women’s choices have always been restricted by third parties such as her family, raiders who would abduct them as wives, and the available men and resources. I grant there are rare exceptions, usually in very decadent or marginal cultures.

    Under natural law the ultimate power of male individual sovereignty is the choice of that which is to be killed in single combat.

    Again, barring very aberrant circumstances, no such natural law ever existed.
    Humans as a rule conduct violent campaigns in groups. The most ‘natural’ manifestation of this is blood feuds between patriarchal extended families. Even cultures that had dueling traditions between individuals carefully circumscribed how they were conducted.

    Even if dueling could be legalized, I fail to see its parity with a woman exercising life or death choices against a helpless fetus vs. two men in their physical prime fighting to the death. There’s 100% control in the first case and close to zero in the second (a fight to the death between two men by definition requires either one or both to die).

  9. Jim is a little off. It doesn’t have to be single combat, but local physical conflict. In the past, if you went into battle against your neighbouring village, you likely kill all the men and take their women other resources, because a woman’ reproductive capabilities are essentially a shared resource of the community. A community, or society is limited in it’s growth by the resources it commands and the number of fertile women, since men are biologically expendable. Also conflict reduces the number of available men and generally the strongest survive with serves to keep woman’s hypergamous tendencies in check.

    Ray you are correct that there has always been an outside force controlling a woman’s reproductive abilities, because there HAS to be one. With the absence of outside pressure a “liberated” will continue to delay child birth because she will be constantly looking for a “better deal”. Which would explain the increasing number of women in their 30s who are single or divorced and childless.

    So, we end up with a modern, secular, feminist society that has removed all expectations from women but still expects men to “man up” (which in itself shows the double standard, cause you know that phrase is sexist). So men are supposed to work hard, get married to an older woman who’s been pumped and dumped 20+ times, sire a couple kids that she’ll get, and he’ll never get to see, when she divorces him in 5-7 years cause “she’s not happy”. Nevermind that she’ll suffer little to no penalty, socially or financially, from the divorce and be entitled to 50% of his labour for the next 18+ years.

    Men fought and died to for the West, they built the governments, the cities, and the technologies to get us to where we are, but the West isn’t greatful, it feels that it doesn’t need men anymore, that men have had enjoyed enough of the rewards for their efforts. Maybe men have stepped back, to enjoy what they’ve built, to let someone else take up the task for a while. Or maybe men know that you can’t truly say that feminism was a bad idea until it fails, and when the West falls, it will be men that rebuild it.

    • Yup, when we rebuild, women won’t be included this time thanks to technology in what will be known as a nerdarchy. Most men don’t want anything to do with human women by then. Men’s plans will preclude women.

      • All hail the nerdarchy. I suggest we make our slogan “Fear is the mind-killer.”

      • “.. when we rebuild, women won’t be included this time…Most men don’t want anything to do with human women by then….”

        Not likely. 98% of men are heterosexual. See my other post.

        • I saw your other post. You are forgetting about the whole substitute thing like virtual girls, robogirls, sexbots, etc. All those will be vastly better than being with human women for anyone who’s taken the red pill.

  10. As most Men, I am an uber competitor.I play to win. Increasingly, I find my hands tied in the workplace. If I’m not allowed to win, therefore, I will not play the game. I play to be the best, but if I cant be the best and can only “be” then I do not want to participate in a post-feminist world.

    I’m well aware of the consequences of no children to our society but do not count me on being one of these “useful idiots”.

    How can one “Man-up” when Men are not allowed to be Men.

    I will not get married. None of my friends are neither married nor employed. I would home school a child but marriage is a dangerous and restrictive proposition for Men.

    The workplace prevents me from being the best.
    If I can’t play to win I will not play the game.

  11. […] are responding by letting women fend for themselves. This will continue for as long as the current cultural climate remains […]

  12. […] are responding by letting women fend for themselves. This will continue for as long as the current cultural climate remains […]

  13. Women destroy everything, because of their infurious greed, constant lying and egomania. They are inhumane creatures, because they have no humanity within them. Also because they dont contribure any sort of significantly to civilisation and never have.

    This is why islam WILL win and take over.
    Just a fact. YOu can choose to further ignore it – and i’m sure yu will – but that doesnt help you in any way.

  14. Even if everything snapped back to a system more equitable to men, things have progressed far enough that an entire generation of men is no longer interested in marriage. Maybe even 2 generations. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: