Social Matter

Every civilization in the history of the World has been a patriarchy. There is not a single exception. Sure, there are some matriarchal cultures. They exist as anthropological curios in remote hunter-gatherer areas or in archeological studies on lost tribes. A mandatory prerequisite for an advanced stage of human social and technical development is strong patriarchy. Every single civilization from China to India, Persia to Egypt, Rome to the Incans, whenever one emerged, that core feature is demonstrated. The cultivation of patriarchy is what likely lead to the advance of the Neolithic Revolution. Patriarchy has been the rule, without exception, ever since.

When English soldiers yelled “God save the Queen!” was that a matriarchy? According to feminist Lynn Abrams, the Victorian Age represented “the domestic age par excellence” for English women. This was even more so 200 years earlier during the spectacular Elizabethan Era. It may confuse modern feminists that a highly patriarchal nation can have a female as principle ruler, but the obsessions of “gender identity politics” simply do not exist in patriarchy. Patriarchy is about results. And results are what its delivered over the course of 10,000 years as social substratum.

Unlike feminism, patriarchy is the organic state, the very DNA, of civilized humanity. It flows from the bottom up. The atomic unit of patriarchy is, of course, the family. A family is a microcosm of civil life. Its nucleus and governor is the father, and it takes on his name as a symbol of ownership and responsibility. It is exactly this system that has resulted in the most advanced social and technological societies of Earth. To argue against the virtue of patriarchy is to dispute the entire course of Western Civilization and every comfort it has secured, from basic technologies such as smelting, to advanced medical sciences, telecommunication, and philosophy. None of these treasures can be found in the primitive bands of matriarchal cultures, because matriarchy does not progress past a point of hand-to-mouth foraging and landless abandon.

Marriage law, the primary social contract upon which all else is built, is patriarchal law. It dictates that the oath of marriage, “Till death do us part” is not a negotiable term. Upon this irrevocable bond, rests all else.

One of the very few matriarchal cultures available for study are the Mosuo of China, a primitive farming and yak-herding peoples who have remained entirely undeveloped in a rudimentary agrarian state without a notable achievement. The only relevant quality of this apathetic tribe is the peculiar absence of a marital contract, which they have supplemented with what they call “walking marriages.” In other words: hookups. The informal couplings from which they produce children are mostly temporary, just a one-night-stand or a few weeks booty-call. As man and woman they jointly share no familial assets. Fathers bear no responsibility for children, because there is little way to verify who are his. Men are semi-transient and rarely have a job or craft. They are skill-less studs living in their mother’s homes.

Because both property and children pass along matrilineal lines, men have no stake in society and merely look forward to their next overnight encounter with a “polyamorous,” hut-owning woman.

It should be obvious why this arrangement is utterly doomed. We quickly see why matriarchies disappear from the Earth, leaving little trace of their irrelevant existence. Predictably, obscure Mosuo culture is rapidly dissipating in ascendant China. A few half-hearted attempts have been made to preserve its idiosyncrasies by international NGOs, but its fate has long been sealed as it represents a tiny artifact of what civilized man cast aside in the Paleolithic wilderness. This social evolution has been well catalogued.

Lewis Morgan, a prominent 19^th century ethnologist who studied the Iroquois tribes noticed that their style of group-marriages and polygamy had a peculiar effect on their view of family, which they saw as their entire diffuse inter-related clan. During his research living amongst the semi-nomadic tribes who were under broad pressures from European civilization, Morgan observed that human society progressed in stages according to core cultural practices most obvious in customs of marriage and childcare. According to him, the Iroquois, with their communal marriages, represented a middle-place in this civilizing process.

In Ancient Society, he reasoned that the primordial state of man was a “horde living in promiscuity,” where little to no social structure provided for the care of children, enforcement of loyalty or discipline. In this state, man had little incentive to defend territory or offspring, which were both irrelevant to his immediate bodily needs and urges. Reproductive sex would be accomplished in a bout of female horniness, by trading a piece of animal meat, or in rape. From there, societies evolved increasingly strict moral customs, traditions yielding greater and greater outcomes for their culture in the form of technologies and surpluses. The final stage of familial development after polygamy was the monogamous, patriarchal nuclear family.

In this uncompromising monogamous arrangement, men were granted massive evolutionary and social incentives to work selflessly, protect their wives, children, and property at all costs. The custom implied a division of family labor that allowed craftsmanship and innovation to flourish. Wealth was more likely to be amassed over time, as a father would not have to divide his capital amongst many various wives or squabbling half-brothers that could easily tear apart the accumulated work of generations.

Even further, the influence of patriarchy has an enduring multi-contextual impact on human conduct. As many behaviors are inherited, our behavioral biology was taken on a new course of selection. Strictly enforced monogamous customs genetically select for males who are both altruistic and loyal, offering more opportunities for them to pass on their genes. Estranged are those with selfish, unproductive, or disloyal traits, all increasingly prevented from reproducing. It therefore, to a certain extent, selected for impulse control, though there are still plenty of cads and deviants about.

Selflessness is a key component to understanding Western Civilization and Christianity, the religion of self-sacrifice. It is embodied in the unselfish Western pursuit of a greater good, whether for God, country, science, or family. This pressure has driven us on a path to great heights. But the higher one ascends, the further one may fall.

Unparalleled achievements of monogamous Western cultures are starkly contrasted to the primitive matriarchies of “horde promiscuity,” consigned to oblivion with their forgettable mediocrity, – tiny remnants of which dangle above doom, like the Mosuo tribe, – nominally maintained as little human zoos by tour guides and NGOs. The tremendous gap therein, is a rift to be feared.

Patriarchal civilization assembles an imposing edifice with an enduring legacy. It doesn’t easily dissipate into a transient horde or revert to “polyamorous” matriarchal barbarity by a referendum. It must be torn from the grip of the millions of men who carried it so far through history. Many men engage in this struggle without recognizing it.

A family must have a nucleus. The abstract assumption that a matriarchy could replace what is diminutively called a “father figure” on a grand scale, is an untested hypothesis. All we have as reference are the unsophisticated leftovers of the Stone Age that never passed “go.” There is no matriarchy to base a model on. This problem has never been reconciled by the ideologues of “women’s lib.” It continues to frustrate them deeply.

Radical feminists, fanatical with envy, lost in jealous anger, are faced with the impossibility of rivaling the stupendously monumental achievement of patriarchal monogamy. Their only choice is to resort to a nihilistic war on scientific facts and hard-fought virtues at the soul of mankind. In their eyes, civilization itself must be melted down, as it represents the hardened alloy of the patriarchal formula. Chastity in women, masculinity in men, loyalty above all else, the holiness of oaths, – the feminist is hostile to every sacred gem of the human project, which they either trivialize or demonize. The “freedoms” and “equalities” they press result in the freedom to injure social stability for impulsive desires. Their professed goals include forced “equality” amongst un-equals, the most dystopian form of tyranny.

The antonym of “equal” is “different.” Those advocating on behalf of patriarchy (civilization) are forced into the preposterous position of proving something so self-evident as the difference between male/female. To the feminist, the human self is not only devoid of a distinct male or female soul, but we possess bodies without organs. This is the vacuum of meaning feminism must defend. It insists on a deeply oppressive conflict with human identity.

As I discussed in The Tyranny of Suffrage, the feminist social war, has culminated in an anti-familial, anti-male legal regime imposed by force. It could only be achieved by force because families cannot be ripped apart and social order cannot be so disrupted without widespread harm being inflicted. Institutions, families, and individuals must be coerced into otherwise unnatural behavior. This was largely achieved via women’s suffrage, a franchise attained during a period of horrific genocide and instability. A large portion of the male population of Europe and America was either preoccupied by or slain in the largest wars endured by humanity. The class of industrial merchants also encouraged female labor and consumerism as a source of profit.

In this insecure state of affairs, where women often held large majorities due to the male death rate, radical liberals, – the feminists, – who were often rich lunatics or ex-prostitutes, found themselves in a position of astounding influence. The altruism of Western man was exploited, the unprepared opposition overwhelmed with vitriol. We’ll revisit the tremendous power (and danger) of our civilization’s misguided altruism shortly.

Without delving into all the psychological motivations at work in the mind of the “liberated woman” we determine that a straightforward dichotomy has appeared underlying their thought: patriarchy bad, matriarchy good.  This is obviously their loud opinion, but the interesting proof they carry as evidence is that patriarchy, being father of the civilized experience, is responsible for everything bad that has occurred.

In a roundabout way, the feminist is correct. She generally lays blame on patriarchy for the tribulations of civilization, yet without patriarchy, there would be no civilization at all, and we would remain a primitive species in an obscenely primitive “horde of promiscuity.” The feminist is simply too narcissistic or biased to see the other (asymmetrically positive) side of the story, which is that civilization is indisputably good considering the alternative.

As patriarchal institutions are increasingly attacked, abolished, or repressed, the morality it engineered and guarded begins to disintegrate. But liberal feminism wants to live in a world with all benefits of patriarchy, without the limitations that must be imposed to generate those privileges, conserve oppression, and accumulate surpluses.

This unstable middle-state, between civilization and pandemonium, is a chaotic attempt to maintain the high quality of life in a civilization awhile removing the source of that quality. What can only be called despotic feminism, emerges. Underneath it is an actively oppressed patriarchy.

Families are disintegrating at a rapid pace or simply failing to form. An entire generation faces a future of forlorn, marriage-less alienation. Fatherless children demonstrate a multitude of psychological problems and stunted development. Feminist and leftist drift causes an infinitely expanding, unaccountable government.

Millions of individuals go into arrears, homelessness, and dependency resultant of these newly invented policies based on untested ideas. Due to birth control, many regions of Europe and the US have shrinking populations, resulting in mounting debt. And paradoxically, feminism results in the worst outcomes for women themselves, over 90% of whom want to get married, but find fewer and fewer males willing to participate in the debased marital institution. As intelligent men, they see the cards are stacked against them.

Sadly, many more men are simply incapable of taking up the responsibility at this demoralizing point. Men not only have little incentive to work or commit selfless acts for their family/community in this backwards system, they are penalized for their successes and masculine attributes. These male virtues have become sins in the feminist cult.

Women end up in their 30s as un-marriageable childless sluts who have drifted from relationship to one-night-stand to another “relationship” for half their lives. After squandering their peak years in soulless careers imitating the caricature of a workingman or “liberated woman” they are alone with their credit cards, anti-depressant pill-bottles, and their feminism, more embittered with each passing year.

Just beyond this depressing milieu remains the question of the future of civilization itself. We are performing a massively dangerous social experiment on our own population. There is no civilization that is not a patriarchy. Yet the phenomena of rampant licentiousness, marriage-less adults, and semi-transient men, more and more resembles the “horde of promiscuity” observed in the hell below the Third–World.

How can men possibly sit on the sideline knowing what prospects await them, – and their women, – yet do nothing in the face of this dystopian regression? Some are distracted. Some are medicated. Some are imprisoned, or enslaved in debt or alimony. But I believe the greatest obstacle in implementation of effective policy is a feature that served us well until we faced the menace of feminism and suffrage: altruism, – it has become self-destructive.

Men have been greatly weakened by technology and the luxuries inherited us by our strict forefathers, our patriarchs. We have become the Last Man, a sullen, undisciplined, culturally homeless peoples. We are distracted by the banality of social media, depleted by sedentary, hormonally disrupted lives.

Many claim, “it is too late” – that our system cannot be retaken. I see this as a massive psychological blockage, perhaps a delusion. Compare the challenge of our time to what men faced in the blood-reddened mud of WWI. – This is how fearful many men are of confronting uppity women, who are little more than confident quacks. The Last Man of 21^st century America is terrified of this depraved protestor. They dread the label of “sexist” or “misogynist” – both hollow insults. But our last men were also raised with the poison of liberality in their minds, tainted by the arrogant baby-boomer (“Me”) generation that glorified “the bitch” of feminism, placing vile women on a pedestal. Their children gaze up in wonder at this idol of an “empowered bitch” to this day.

The fear of being chastised by uppity women, – who have all these ideas from media and feminist talking-heads swirling in their minds, – has become more terrifying than dying for a foolish cause those same women vote for, – the majority of voting being done by them. Are the uppity leftist women even doing anything good for themselves, much less others, or are we placing undeserved value on the voices of hysterical people? Hysterias are quite common in history, and sadly, fanatics bent on madness “for the greater good” often gain power. Can we examine, on the most friendly, basic level, whether or not the claims of the uppity woman are helpful for “the greater good?” The contraction of our culture has proven unhelpful. What about the all-important “empowered woman?”

For one moment, we’ll take the (delusional) position of a radical egalitarian woman. Let us imagine it’s a horrific crime for this woman to be denied the “right” to behave like a man: play high-school football, be pledged to a frat, get special treatment in the military, whatever she wants. – What does supplicating this being resolve? Is it best for her own good to permit her to live out her fantasy at the expense of others? Even if you believe it is a crime that women cannot be men by defying all laws of biology and civilization and history, what good is it to challenge this imagined crime all at the expense of others? Does it change history? Does it change the uncomfortable aspects of life we all dread or wish were different? Does it rectify the cosmic injustice that is part of the human condition? No. It is to play along with an act, as if we are surrendering to an adolescent brat at immeasurable cost.

Patriarchal monogamy is civilization. This is the way of the World. We cannot wish it to be different if it offends us. The passengers of a crashing plane are offended by gravity, but that won’t change the fact it exists. In order to stay in the air, the pilot and navigator must accept the laws of physics and work from there. Similarly, civilization is a structure against the hidden forces of human vice, brutality, stupidity, selfishness. If some get “offended” by the practice of civilization, so be it, the absence of civilization would undoubtedly be more offensive to us all, as our lives would collectively crash and burn.

We are doing the radical feminists a kindness by reversing all of their policies and ending their hallucination. They can fantasize privately until they dilapidate into cat-ladies. But they cannot do that if our civilization is hemorrhaging from the insides, or atrophying in its most crucial tissues.

Just as the post-political voter casts a ballot merely in opposition to the perceived greater evil, the modern man often voices his disdain of radical feminism, failing to come forward with a positive position of being pro-patriarchy.

Curiously, even feminist behavior contains the admission that patriarchy is the bedrock on which we stand. They define all female “liberation” and “empowerment” as imitating men or infiltrating male organizations. There are reasons for this rooted in evolutionary psychology we don’t have time to expound on here. But feminists are just intelligent enough to see how important (distinctly) male leadership is. Noting this tendency, many have argued feminism should rightly be called “masculism.” The moonbats that call themselves “empowered” are merely a caricature of a man, ineffectively mimicking what they see as the root of power. They cut their hair short. They wear men’s clothing. They emasculate or embarrass men they dislike. The pseudo-empowered woman has no idea how to gain power via her natural forces, an inner “goddess” of female virtues, she must attempt an often comical, theatrical interpretation of a successful man. The perverse rationale this insinuates is that women are useless in civilization unless they act like men. This one-sided stage considers the woman a “pre-man”, – she ought to be treated as the idea of a man, but has not yet been incorporated into the patriarchy by liberal action, so they “fake it till they make it.”

This silly theatre is at our expense. It’s at the expense of men who built this civilization brick by brick. Subverting that effort is not humorous or “liberating,” – it is gravely foolish. It also degrades the virtue of women as a natural check and balance to the masculine. We now have the Last Man and the female imitation of a man. No more “ladies” or “gentlemen.”

The Millennial generation is deeply confused by all this, but it acknowledges the basic contradictions at work. Our generation can still choose if it wants to wander forward into the wilderness of aimless promiscuity, anarcho-tyranny, debt, and miserable depression, or choose to transcend the liberality in exchange for the civilization we were denied. If so, we can obtain it, but we have to deserve it.

Countless men have witnessed the deleterious effect of female rule through the generations. The ancient plays of the Greeks and parables of the Bible have recorded the habits of manipulative women quite well. For a while, in the heat of frenzied progressivism, our collective memory seemed to fail us in regards to these ancient truths. Yet in recent years there has been an uptick of high caliber writers who of have paid notice to the intrinsic threat feminist creep poses to the social superstructure we exist in. Their message ought to be amplified by any who care about our posterity.

“…the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to inflict great harm onto their own families, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated.”        – The Misandry Bubble, 2010

“The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them.” – Roissy, 2008

My goal as a writer is not to track the collapse or document the passing social atrocities that accrue. My intention is to galvanize you. If I can’t compel you to repudiate these degradations, I at least want you to dwell on them freely. I’m disgusted by the dejected woebegones, the “fuck it” generation that embraces their own downfall as shameful cowards. To say, “we can’t” alter our future is idiotic.

It’s our civilization that warred on the Japanese Empire, across thousands of miles of ocean, striking them with both bayonets, choke-holds, and nuclear weapons. We were victorious. It was our people who voyaged further than any other when we sent our men to the Moon, once a deity of our ancestors. The very Internet that laces the globe is our masterpiece. Is it really so extreme and unrealistic to propose that we can reclaim authority over our own homes, schools, courts, and capitals?

Only the irremediable couch potato, whose mind is plugged up with TV and dum-dums would accept that “all is lost.”  But perhaps I am too harsh, because nihilism can be a powerful step on the course of counter-revolutionary activism. They see the “progressivism” of our society, as yesterday is already better than tomorrow. A man who has hit the lowest point in the recession of expectations can only rise. This is the best point to invest in oneself. Emotions of confusion, sadness, anger, are fundamental tools to forge an over-man, one who transcends the pitiable last man we so abundantly see today.

There are three attitudes I’ve witnessed emerge from the men who recognize how serious issues of feminism and decline have become.

One is the Cynic, who welcomes a dark biting humor about life. He can continue on in this destructive comedy when he embraces it as a sick joke. This form of fatalism allows a man to laugh at the crushing downfall being dealt. The ego can act big in this ever-narrowing environment. But the theater will always be closing in as the humor becomes less and less amusing like a joke that has been told too many times.

Because he understands its darkness so well, the cynic often attempts to “game” the crumbling system, reaping what trinkets he can from it, in turn blaming the defunct world for his own failures. His story is a tragicomedy.

Another course is the Separatist, the man who believes he can segregate himself from the World indefinitely, which is impossible, because the World is both our prison and salvation. By separating oneself, a man only ends up in an ever smaller, more alienating cage of his own design. Similar to the cynic, the separatist can never flee far enough into the wilderness or as deep into his own diversions as needed. The enemy is always on the creep in his retreat. This can be seen in the drama of Gamergate, where young men who have already largely withdrawn into virtual simulations, and may have no political inclinations, are still hounded down. This can be seen in all variety of other male subcultures on the list of masculine pursuits that cannot be allowed to exist without liberal infiltration, such as the Metal scene, fraternities, comic books, boy-scouts, or gun-clubs.

The Separatist may find some solace in virtual pursuits, one-night-stands, or withdrawal of one form or another, but like a cultural refugee, a fugitive from reality, the enemy will always catch up to him.

The final route is that of Seeker. This is the man who is troubled but undaunted. He wants to find the way up and out. He refuses to accept the desolate wasteland of amorality and sets out to refurnish a robbed future. He may not know how, but his cause is most likely to harvest rewards because he’s accepted previous defeats and sets on with no expectation other than his own commitment.

In many ways, the Seeker is a remnant of the 20^th century, the era of the political soldier. The political soldier is a man. The feminist is a caricature of a man, but has the wit of a devious, manipulative woman. It knows how to exploit altruism, how to use sex as a weapon, and how to have her way, – not through positive reinforcement, but via coercion. The feminist’s method is to infiltrate and debase. The male political soldier is designed to build and rise above.

The new man, who must transcend this abysmal matrix, can eat “red-pills” and later, Viagra, until he’s sick on them, but he’ll still live in the sabotaged liberal conception of manhood and femininity. So, we can only move forward by building a sternly anti-liberal conception of sexuality.

Because the ancient thinkers are ignored and unclaimed by liberality, I’ll explore a favorite primeval conception of the sexes. Plato believed that the sexes were a divided whole, two parts of one being, which is incomplete until unification in home and family. Such a vision is toxic to postmodernism, as this archetypical, self-balancing dichotomy outclasses the randomness of hookup sexuality, or one-sided imitations of patriarchy. This concept of sexuality dictates that both man and woman can’t reach maturation without the bond of marital unity.

I mention this particular notion because the old-way of patriarchy is appealing to both the sexes. People want and need a non-liberal conception of marriage. Neoreaction exists to study how we reached our current impasse and how to traverse the wall of enigmas erected over hundreds of years of demotist drift. There must be less obvious, more innovative ways to probe and prod this twisted vortex that uses our virtuous nature to destroy the source of that virtue.

We got ourselves in a particularly nasty pickle after permitting women’s suffrage, because there will always be more women voting due to the fact that men die much younger, and many more pass away at a young age or are financially/politically disenfranchised due to feminism. This means that the prospect of leading an electoral campaign against them is utterly impossible. Plus, the democratic system is hopelessly corrupt and perverted by “politicians,” who are temp-workers, mid-level sales-associates for commercial interests of liberalism. We can easily find solutions to these problems outside the defunct bureaucracies. The question is, what are those solutions?

I offer a few ideas, which are all incomplete, but they demonstrate the study of alternative methods for shifting the direction of sexual and marital customs. The importance of examining social engineering and crowd manipulation is appreciating that the entire “electoral” department is barred from use. So, innovation is mandatory.

Marriage Insurance: One form of surety for a marriage is dowry, or its counterpart, bride price. The Code of Hammurabi details the early rules regarding this most ancient, likely prehistoric practice. Upon receiving a dowry, the man of a home obtained possession of goods with his bride. If she proved unfaithful or uncooperative, she could be returned to her family, the asset remaining as compensation to the husband. If the man had proven unworthy, this asset would be confiscated from him. This is essentially the opposite of modern “no-fault” divorce, alimony, and child-support. It provides a material incentive to maintain a unified family.

The modern equivalent of this practice, as far as I can tell, is “marriage insurance.” The man who invented the concept is a divorced Mormon. This idea, although its complete and effective implementation eludes me, appears to be the only financial instrument one may use to evade the danger of a costly divorce awhile providing a potential disincentive to separation. Its implementation, as a modernized ancient practice, must not be ignored.

Muslims, Mormons, and Amish: Why does it seem that these groups are, – not impervious, – but resistant to the ills of liberality?

When Muslims appear in a community, they create a ghetto-theocracy. They often do not acknowledge state marriage licenses, because their polygamy is illegal. What they constantly fight off is what they name “Burger King Syndrome” – based on the slogan “have it your way.” Muslim fundamentalists see this as the embodiment of liberalism, radical individualism, the globalization of non-traditional lifestyles.

Similarly, Mormon and Amish sects maintain a controlled distance from the degradations of Yankeedom with geography and enforced group cooperation.

My conclusion is that these groups have created parallel institutions that show some promise for resilience in the face of feminist corrosion. They also may survive broader social decline, having proven the test of time.

To Bleed the Beast: Trends such as the student loan bubble endanger the future of fundamentally liberal academic institutions. Can we encourage this habit of self-sabotage in comparable liberal industries? What would be the benefits?

VR and Sex Bots: Many may disagree, but I see the advance of virtual reality headsets and sex-bots to be a threat to feminism. I would compare it to “male birth control.”

Large populations of intelligent men will leave the dating scene as soon as high-quality VR appears. They will have little reason to struggle with dating brainwashed feminists when they can obtain any “10” they want for sex on a high-definition platform, preserving real-life women as platonic friends. This will reduce female dating value dramatically. Of course, VR has many attributes that will warp postmodern life even more, so its net impacts are unclear.

Although all these phenomena seem random, my goal is to find weak points, openings in the liberal social simulation.

Patriarchal restoration must abolish this liberal conception of sexuality as a transferable commodity. We eclipse it with an innovation that realigns to the core traditions. This process will take place outside the corrupt and defunct pseudo-democracy.

We approach this as a social-engineering problem. It can be resolved with a new praxis, which is discovered by exploring and testing ideas. In this struggle, the battle for our civilization’s past, present, and future, we must invent new forms of social technology. These innovations will likely be adaptations of ancient knowledge. As a social struggle, no challenge of this magnitude has faced Western Civilization, as we are confronting the “better angels” of our nature, which have proven to spread the most harmful humanitarianism.

Being so self-righteous, the adherents of destructive altruism would sacrifice the treasures of family, honor, and civilization in a misguided act cloaked in goodliness. If allowed, the offerings to this malformed “equality” will be the last atrocity of the Western World.