I come from a middle-class family. Growing up, I had some friends who were dirt-poor trailer-park kids, and others who lived in opulent 12-room mansions on the historical registry. From my experiences between these two worlds, I began to notice what starkly different adults were produced from the classes. The sound and smells are worlds apart, but not as many believe.

Wealthy men still seem so effeminate to me they are almost homosexual. They have their nails done. They wear bright clothing that is perfectly matched. They spray cologne. They talk more girlishly. They also seem to be more anti-social, – in that its very unlikely they will just randomly strike up a conversation with a stranger even if that stranger appears to be from the same class. There is a kind of pretentious formality around even the most casual experience that appears awkward, its participants often visibly displaying social anxiety.

Poor men, on the other hand, – or more specifically, – men who were raised poor, tend to display the opposite, – an over-the top kind of manliness that is often obnoxious in how intentional it may seem. They may wear offensive clothing. They yell and curse even when they are being kind. They talk with anyone they want to, even when ignored.

Of course there are outliers from both groups. Some poor kids were cultured and well mannered due to church or family grooming. Some of the rich were so snobby and undisciplined that they just turned into white trash. But a clear pattern seemed to emerge from those who had too much luxury, – they were no longer fully men. These guys became insecure, narcissistic, and easy to offend, – just like women.

I cannot ignore how huge an impact techno-luxurious life has been on society. Most of its social impacts are negative. You may have noticed this trend melt into the middle-class over the last decades. This has occurred because of overall technological advancement: the cheapening of once exclusive items of luxury, such as flat-screen TVs, microwaves, smartphones, personal computers, cars, convenient foods, and other increasingly cheap luxury-lifestyle items.

The result is a creep of passive upper-class values that have been transferred into the former warrior or labor classes over the last 100 years. I would describe it as a deafening symphony of social tech being dictated by the upper class, effortlessly followed by the imitating peons of the middle.

The aristocracy used to keep this in check by sending at least one child to military academy, or by practicing what I call war-sports such as horsemanship, fox hunting, shooting, sword-fighting, martial arts, dangerous adventure travel, and keeping a rustic cabin in the mountains to go “rough it” once in awhile. Largely due to technology, and the insulation of men from danger, these practices became increasingly rare, now seen only as “traditions” in certain wealthy communities, – not a way of life.

Another aspect of this is racism. Wonderful racism. Racism, that honest institution that honors us all as different yet connected, the father belief of black colleges and black business districts and distinguished emissaries between the tribes of the nations. Institutional racism was once a facility of the upper class. Yet nowadays, it appears that the previously segregated races are practicing the few manly pursuits awhile the upper-class self-deprecates themselves with bizarre “anti-racist” delusions.

There is a strange hypocrisy in this. The poor, who are often mocked and ridiculed in the bi-coastal media as “trailer-trash” or burger-flippers or Uber-drivers, are the most likely to be openly racist. Yet they are also the most likely to live in wildly diverse neighborhoods. They often have multiple friends and colleagues of multiple races. Yet the rich and liberal will live in largely segregated Euro/Asian communities completely isolated from the realities of multiculturalism awhile prosecuting a psychological war of “anti-racism” on the very people who blend the most.

In a world of oddities and freak-shows we must experience these strange songs of the self-tortured upper class, where they engage their faith of masochism. There are layers of alienation here only a professional can assess.

An even more bizarre level of self-deprecation takes place among wealthy men and their entitled wives. I’m often astonished by how much bullshit wealthy men will take from their wives/girlfriends. These women have become a kind of ultra-privileged class even the high-earners will not question.

After witnessing an outburst by a rich friend’s girl, I realized that this man is actually working for the feminist matriarchy and is not really a “man” by any stretch of the imagination. His master screamed at him “How the fuck are you going to get us a good dinner?” I was shocked. How could a woman be allowed to speak like this? Surely a sane man would immediately leave her. But no, he went into a long explanation about how they’re going to order dinner from so and so company and that they are very reliable and everything would be okay for her tonight. This takes place in Northern California where almost anything can be ordered over the Internet and few (non-Mexican/poor) women cook, unless it’s as a novelty, in which case, a contrived dinner would result in an Instagram frenzy, and was merely intended as a kind of self-promoting art.

A poor friend whose girlfriend said the same thing may easily reply with “shut the fuck up bitch.” And she may actually shut up without being surprised at all that he said that. I even know one man who may have stood up, holding up his hand, and the woman would have been silenced mid-sentence before the ravings about food came out. She would have then proceeded to make a decent dinner for him without complaint.

Another aspect of this is homosexuality, which is also an upper-class phenomenon. Gayness is kept completely secret amongst the poor. It is glorified amongst the rich. I see this most evidently in clubs or fashion magazines where super-wealthy elites are often depicted as androgynous bisexual men. It is echoed constantly in the media with tales of sex-parties and gay sex predators. The pseudo-men of the upper-class supplicate these gays, and have for many years, since the famous gay celebrities of the late Victorian era. The same thing takes place with glorified feminist women who “rose up” with their lucky endowments to raise hell.

Feminism is actually an upper class phenomenon originating in the very pampered Anglo-American aristocracy. It can be observed in other European countries, but its recent history and support emanates from the very bratty women of affluent WASP families. It is not an underclass habit or cause. Back in the day, the only women who were allowed any education or rights to titles were the very rich. Most of the suffragettes were rich. In many ways, the fight against feminism is a struggle against an element of the moneyed class. The non-white feminists are keenly aware of this.

A large portion of my disdain for feminism comes from the way I would hear about it, – I mean literally hear it. This feminist noise is always in a superior tone, screeching out self-righteousness and pseudo high-class intonations. It is decidedly low-class in modern society to oppose feminism. These compose two entirely different social sounds.

Look at how obvious this is in academia: the more elite the school, – the higher the volume of feminist propaganda. State universities will have the token band of feminist fanatics who do their thing, along with a troop of leftists that wander in from the town, but overall, the state universities are about their football team, the frats, and drinking. Then there are private or specialty schools that seem to be nearly devoid of any liberal “organizing” because the students tend to be from the middle-class and actually attend to pursue a career, – not to stir shit. A bit higher up, colleges begin to less resemble an academic institution and more resemble mental institutions, where students are issued degrees in vague political ideas or revised political versions of history, anthropology, and social sciences. Schools like Cornell or Sarah Lawrence have reached such a deafening volume of leftism, it becomes difficult to find anything in the curriculum that is not saturated with far-out liberal political noise.

Unlike socialism, which was appealing to many members of the working class in American history, modern liberality, and most specifically feminism, is a ruling-class ideology of the well-heeled, imposed from the top-down.

The few bastions of masculinity among the “higher-ups” have been obliterated by technology and liberalism. These softening practices have not only trickled down to the middle-class, but they have become a kind of holiness as the super-rich are subconsciously considered holier-than-thou by those who wish to emulate them.

Only the poor, the military, and certain elements of the middle-class still maintain classic ideals of manliness. But these are often considered crass or depraved. Yet men deeply crave them as a source of meaning.

All this is taking place while Mexican gangs brand 13-year-old boys with red-hot irons and put tattoos on their faces. They march around with stolen guns and must kill an innocent person to be a member of a gang, remarkably similar to ancient Spartan murder rituals.

A 16-year-old Mexican gang-banger may embark on a mission to raid a village they name “Operation Blood Money,” or “Operation Get Profit” awhile white American boys are playing with iPads and being instructed on “cultural sensitivity” at the age of 9. Gangs are hurling tatted-up kids over the border with bags of coke. They murder both 84-year-olds and 18-year-olds who have nothing to do with their war of domination.

Strangely, many of the weakening ideals that have become so common amongst the middle-class have their origins in the American super-rich “one-percent.” Their absurd ideal of feminist/gay life is now a rule. Americans in general believe that the deluded inconsequential way of life of a super-elite dilettante is applicable to them as well. Perhaps this is also a kind of deluded criminality?

The divisions within feminism and liberalism between the rich and poor are very obvious. The black women did not become feminists for the same reason rich whites did. The wealthy white women all joined up because they wanted “careers like the men” and “representation.” Black girls were stuck in jobs because they had to work due to their poverty.

Having a working wife was once seen as a sign of poverty and low class. The rich women often desired work out of sheer boredom. The black women were forced to work because their husbands couldn’t earn enough money to support the family. The divide between the white and black forms of feminism are still obvious today, as black society is inherently more matriarchal and adversarial. White women are constantly seeking to “prove themselves” in salary earning white male society.

Within “intersectional feminism” these divides become even more wild not to the white working man, but to the activist feminist. Similarly, it was the wives of white working-class men who were forced to work industrial jobs during WWII awhile their men killed for the cause. Wealthy liberal women, on the other hand, were dedicating themselves to high and mighty semi-religious charitable acts propagandizing the war or making vapid narcissistic public gestures.

The men who inherited this paradigm were caught up in the wartime reformation of sex roles. These roles were defined by the self-righteous upper-class which had set an example for Western women. They didn’t need to care for any children. They had a bossy upper-class attitude. They had a gang of servants to look after them. They were feminists.

Now, all we have are imitations of this class amongst the women and gays. Our men are equally effeminate, more obsessed with making dinner or matching their clothes than fighting off offensive races or proving their manliness.

The sad extreme remains of offensively silly poor boys. And the middle-class is lost to decide where they belong as the mediating moral leadership of the church disintegrates into irrelevance.

Thus, the worst aspects of the upper-class and the lower-class have been magnified. The public at large is now a sad parody of the emasculated super-rich they once wished to be.

A reparation is offered to ourselves, but most deny it, every morning when they refuse to vocally renounce feminism, when they decide to sit passively and not act, and when the poor emulate the declining rich, whose fate has long been decided.

The post Declension of the Rich appeared first on Social Matter.

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.

The post A Patriarchal Restoration Theory appeared first on Social Matter.

is the attempt to make unequal things equal.”

– Aristotle.

I visit cemeteries when I travel. The old monuments are important for understanding a place. Who visits Egypt without going to the Great Pyramids? It’s a tomb. It says a hell of a story. So do the mounds in Ireland. Fewer people will visit the boneyards of abandoned prisons or war cemeteries in Spain or Virginia. They can tell as immense a story if you look deeply. I’ve been to graveyards all over the world, big and small. Archeologically they’re important. They’re also the best way to see past the superficiality of a city by getting a glimpse of its heritage outside a curated museum or official cultural show. They’re usually raw–unfiltered.

There is a gravesite nearby my residence with a stone unlike any I’ve seen. For some reason, – I try to understand why, – it is more important to me. I don’t know who it is.

It’s a tiny worn tombstone in an old rural cemetery. The leaves around it were soggy from melting ice when I first saw it. It was among the older markers in this western yard, crumbling and blue with lichens. Its few legible words read:

“Our Boy

1898-1918

THE WAR”

I don’t know if it was the desolate simplicity of it, or the thought of the people who had placed it there, whose sadness seemed to hover, but it said so much with a rock.

“Our Boy” is their only boy? “Our Boy” was their gift to the national effort. “Our Boy,” a sacrifice to the war-god of democracy. And they paid taxes for the rest of their lives.

“Our Boy” was not a “privileged” male. He was a poor boy, as his gravestone proves, – a site that’s nearly gravel. The stone may have been provided by the church, or chiseled by his weeping family. It sits out there in the ice now.

What great honor does this man deserve? Perhaps he was a fool. Maybe he was fleeing some twisted crime and joined the army. I don’t know. All I know is that he died at battle, and that he was one of the men who roamed this territory before me. So I see something in those words. I can see the highest rank of honor a man can achieve. Not for the war. Not dying for the politicians and bankers who caused it. But I can see the selflessness and courage in all men, which is beautiful, yet endlessly tragic when misguided.

Men will die for their communities. Men will sacrifice their youth, their adulthood, their entire lives, slaving to earn for their families, to bring them a better life. Men are expected to walk through the gates of death for women and children, and they do constantly all the time, and have for so many generations. Yet I live in these strange days, when men are self-destructing, self-hating, blaming themselves, or all men collectively, for any fault in the World. If there is any injustice, we are told it was likely due to a man or their patriarchy.

Two years after Our Boy was put in the ground, women obtained the “right to vote” in the States. Many believed America would enter a new era of world peace and superabundance. They believed the feminine would end many social divisions, bringing a time of harmonious understanding.

But then came Prohibition, the early police-state, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. The influence of women grew with the dearth of men, due to war casualties and inheritances from all classes shifting to the purse of domestic females. The most bold and nationalist were the first to die, leaving less assertive men who, it seems, were more likely to capitulate to feminism.

The flappers of the roaring 20s were dancing on tabletops gilded by working men, indulging in wealth hard-fought in trenches. The towers climbing higher every year were engineered and forced upwards by men. The automobiles and telephones were all the work of men. The appliances that would relieve women of their daily work were designed and built by men. The birth control that allowed women to cancel out the consequences of their sexual behavior: invented by men. The entire male half of the race had facilitated female ascendance upon masculinity, a piggyback game that would soon overburden men in ways undreamed of.

The “struggle for rights” became an endless celebration of cushy office-jobs and cosmopolitan lifestyles from “Mary Tyler Moore” to “Sex in the City” and now “Girls.” The wild party of “liberation” began: an epoch of female luxury marked by consumer excess, advertising, consequence-free sexual recklessness, and preferential legal treatment, which, as we will see, extends far beyond divorce proceedings or discrimination lawsuits. Having warped every aspect of American life starting in the polling station and the home, the feminist putsch would play the largest role in the malignant growth of the American police state.

The modern white female lifestyle is cushy as anyone can possibly imagine. There is no demographic more pampered than the Western woman, yet this subject is most likely to complain about oppression, undermine her own male relations, and decry the circumstances of her civilization. The feminist has since devolved to a horrific slore who is never content or polite, who reneges on holy oaths, finding an offense in whatever remains – nearly always an offense of male origin.

Anything that is masculine must be emasculated. Anything that is sacred and virginal must be desecrated. This process is undertaken for “the good of women,” or for “equal rights.”

Our Boy knows about this high-and-mighty talk of “equality.” But in one long breath of nothingness, the men sacrificed for liberal ideals in the World Wars would be forgotten, treated like flies in vinegar, for the mighty desires of loose women bent on their narcissistic fantasy of empowerment.

Men are “evil,” but the feminist wants to do what men do. The male workplace is “misogynistic” but they want in it. The products of men’s work are “bigoted” or “unjust,” but they want credit for the same.

The Cultural Revolution was the Armageddon of the battle of the sexes. It was the patriarchal apocalypse, a dramatic collapse that unfolded in less than ten years and sealed the fate of generations of unwitting men who only meant the best, but had been so woefully misguided. From the start it was men who had imagined a female power that would benefit them. In the sixties this was reduced to easy sex and cheap ideas like “free love” that would produce a culturally homeless generation of “X,” soon to be a nation fraught with mass fatherlessness, – functions of the home outsourced to the expanding government.

How did the simple idea of “women’s suffrage” culminate in butt-naked acid-heads screwing in the street and “Lady Gaga” parading in front of children wearing a strap-on dildo? Largely via voting.

Wyoming was the only US state to grant suffrage before Utah, but Utah’s women lost their vote shortly after because they didn’t ballot like obedient liberals. They were obedient Christians, to the surprise of urban politicos. Suffragettes were counting on Mormon girls to betray their patriarchal faith. They believed they could undermine Mormon traditions using their voting girls as a fifth column. But they proved loyal and had their “right to vote” confiscated after a Republican Congress (then the liberal party) declared it illegal, 16 years after Mormon women had obtained it.

The strict Mormon housewife wasn’t destined to be pioneer of American feminism. As Thaddeus Russell discusses in A Renegade History of the United States, the trailblazers of feminism were, appropriately, prostitutes. These women had composed the only exception to strict codes of conduct – being legally permitted to commit adultery, use birth control, and wear scandalous clothing. Many of the madams of western expansion had accumulated fortunes that would make them multi-millionaires in today’s currency, which they used to influence public opinion, buy politicians, defend their whores in court, and acquire choice pieces of property in wealthy boomtowns. In Helena, the capital of Montana, nearly half of all property transactions were made by women in the late 1800s. They were mostly whores. This was unheard of in more developed eastern cities. Liberal politicians were more than happy to welcome these rich, manipulative liberals into their ranks of donors and influencers.

Many of the policies argued by suffragettes half a century later found their origin in American whorehouses, where lonely working boys squandered their pay. Many behaviors of modern women would be unthinkable in the pre-suffrage era outside a “house of ill repute.”

Similar to the United States, the first regions of the British Empire to grant suffrage were its frontier territories, such as South Australia. But these tendencies managed to permeate the Anglosphere, as industrialization weakened the household while millions of men were systematically annihilated on the battlefield.

Well over a half million Britons died in World War I. They were almost entirely men (over 99%). Because the British military is traditionally conservative, we can assume a large bloc of right voters were sacrificed in the war. The Liberal parliament opened the gateway to female suffrage in 1918, at the end of this hellish conflict, as the corpses of young men were still being shipped home by the boatload.

At first it was only women above the age of thirty (who had college degrees) who could ballot in the UK. Prior to this, English suffragettes (and they were almost entirely English, not Irish, Scots, or Welsh) had been some of the most bitchy and rancorous activists in Britain. Today, we would call them “terrorists” as they engaged in sabotage, fire-bombings, and smear campaigns. Hundreds were jailed. But the wartime Liberal administration granted them amnesty. Never-mind what the boys may have wanted, – they were busy not voting in trenches, hospital beds, and graveyards.

The American suffragettes were less terroristic and found themselves in an advantageous environment as new western states needed more official citizens in order to be incorporated and industrialists believed suffrage would grow demand and profits, which it did. Just as in Britain, the liberal bloc in America saw women as a tremendous reservoir of votes that could be unleashed to permanently alter the political spectrum. Feminist hysteria was fostered as a political weapon.

The deep impact of introducing so many millions of females to voting rolls across the world can’t be underestimated. Today in the US, women vote in far higher numbers than men. In some states, there are nearly 20% more female voters, awhile taxpayers nationwide remain predominantly male. Subtracting the female voters from the equation would result in an unrecognizable political landscape.

Volumes ought to be written on the economics of who votes and who benefits. But the unjust nature of women’s suffrage should have been clear from the very first elections.

During WW1, a 20 year-old American soldier who lost his legs fighting on the front line did not yet have the “right to vote” awhile a 21 year-old female who had no high-school diploma, no property, and had never left the house, could herself vote. And they voted in massive swaths. They voted prodigiously. They voted liberal.

And what’s the result? Laws. – Broken families and new laws. Feminists love laws.

By disbanding traditional marriage, fatherlessness has skyrocketed. In an attempt to justify the abomination of “single parent homes” feminists have been forced to glorify the “heroic single mothers.” Never-mind the children, who will be cursed to a life of confusion and anguish. It is much more important that these “independent” and “empowered” women have the opportunity to hunt down “careers” where they can power-test others and squander their youth in offices, or fiend for random men for sex.

Astonishingly, blacks were more likely to be married than whites until the 1960s. Marriage was their social security, their division of labor, which conserved scarce community resources. During the 60s feminist mobilization, which yielded such abominations as widespread abortion, “no-fault divorce,” alimony, and child-support, black families were utterly annihilated. About 20 years later, as the results of all these broken homes and fatherless children came of age, the black incarceration rate quintupled. The black family, hostage to liberal ideology, had succumbed to feminism. Doom enveloped black communities.

Mass fatherlessness ensued. Defendants are fatherless. Feminism can’t stop the crime-wave. They need more laws. Controls. Police. Prisons. Women have to be safe at night when they’re walking home with skanky clothes because they’re divorced and the babysitter is only good till midnight. But the deluge of feminist laws obviously isn’t limited to safeguarding recklessly slutty activity, or protecting life and property from the broken men of broken homes. The laws have to swing-low into every aspect of male life in order to justify the radical reorganization underway. All variety of male activity was criminalized. When they could vote a wish into existence, they did.

Even the punishment of children has gradually become illegal. Use of recreational drugs had to be policed, along with new regulations on drinking. Men are imprisoned for failure to pay alimony, failure to pay child support–even yelling at one’s wife/girlfriend can result in arrest. Assumption of guilt became protocol as prisons swelled, and community order, which radiates from the family, was overshadowed by shattered homes. Lists of new laws were legislated by moral do-gooders and pushy radicals alike. The voters of PTA meetings, MADD groups, and “women’s rights advocates” could conjure up a seemingly limitless number of statutes.

Mass imprisonment became the solution for an entire galaxy of offenses that were once the domain of family government and church regulation. As per the 13^th Amendment, convicts are still technically “slaves.” This means that more slaves exist today in the United States than during the peak years of Southern plantation society.

I have never met a Libertarian woman. Apparently they do exist, because recent surveys claim about a third of self-identified Libertarians are self-identified women, which I find surprising. Yet conservatism, and the belief in limited government, seems to be increasingly an “almost entirely white male phenomenon.”

We have to embrace that feminism itself was imposed by force. It is not merely a spreading meme, an ideological or religious craze; it’s a legal regimen backed by state violence. It was imposed in phases of increasing brutality, culminating in the modern American prison-industrial-complex, which is disproportionately packed with fatherless men. I call them “children of the revolution.” Many of the other convicts (slaves) were caught in the frenzy of lawmaking applied by moral busybodies, a dragnet of male behaviors only threatening to women living in a post-patriarchal system.

Of course, many of these laws did not even exist 60 years ago. How did this happen? Did we have no use for these laws back then? Did millions of men just become shameless criminals without reason? Or was there a cause?

Supposedly, laws are made by legislators, who are elected by the voters. The voters are predominantly women. If women are not actually designing the outcomes, they are at the least, a significant resource for the justification of government intrusion. So who is the female voter? Who is this voter that dominates our ballots outvoting men? Lets examine women’s “suffrage” more.

What do women do when they vote? Do women vote with their motherly instincts? Do they think like dating bachelorettes at the polls, seeking affirmation from their peer group?

Women are more likely to be old (because men die several years younger on average). Women are more likely to be on welfare. And women are more likely to make judgments on emotional – rather than rational arguments. But most curiously, women are more likely to conform to a group consensus, meaning, women are more susceptible to peer-pressure than men.

Men tend to define themselves more by their own personal achievements. Women define themselves by their connections, their network.

Women are far more likely to vote conservative if they’re married with family. But are they just defending their household, being “motherly,” when they vote for the candidate they perceive as “lower tax” or “strong on values?” Could the defensive posture of a voting mother – as opposed to a single voter – be related to hormonal conditions? There may be a more significant sexual and biological drive to female politics than anyone wants to openly consider. And it turns out that women’s voting habits change when they are in estrus.

This should be no surprise. A woman’s mood can change dramatically over the course of her cycle–so will her eating habits, sleeping patterns, and sociability.

Free will is a subject of constant fascination to me, admitting I am incapable of understanding it entirely, I like to explore its most obvious boundaries, where it disappears into biology or the subconscious. Women seem to have less of it in the voting booth. As numerous studies conclude, men are far more likely to switch candidates based on their opinion of the platforms, or evolving political conditions. Women (overall), on the other hand, tend to stick with one party regardless of anything. You can guess which party that tends to be.

Technically, the USA does not have “universal suffrage” because felons and the criminally insane are not allowed to vote. It is fairly obvious, even to the liberal mind, that not all people should be permitted to ballot. When it comes to mentality, what are the proscribed limits?

One quarter of all American women are on psychiatric medications for depression, anxiety, hysteria, bipolar disorder, and psychotic conditions. These women are, presumably, voting.

These hatefacts beckon a reassessment of the conditions under which women were first granted the vote. To say they are “equal” is quite vague, incompatible with every measurable statistic. We end up in a circus of rationalizations which serves only to weasel women into positions of political authority.

This can be summarized strictly: calling men and women “equal” is libel. We could say it’s “like comparing apples and oranges,” which would be necessary, because if both men and women were “apples” then female apples would consistently be lagging behind men in nearly every form of mental and physical assessment invented. Male college athletes routinely beat female world records. The fact a woman may be involved in the periphery of major study or scientific project makes the news.

So why would such dramatic efforts be made to place men and women on the same political plane?

“That all men are equal is a proposition which at ordinary times no sane individual has ever given his assent.” –Aldous Huxley

Let’s be liberal for a microsecond and edit Huxley’s assertion by replacing “men” with “people.” The devastating circumstances of the World Wars were no “ordinary times.” So it appears that the WWI situation of the suffragettes and WWII situation of “Rosie the Riveter” were not ordinary. They were horrific, unspeakable. This was an era where millions of (primarily) European men had been blotted out on the field of battle, the carnage of genocidal trenches and fire-squads of the first nuclear war (WW2). Far from normalcy.

So, this extraordinary phenomenon of female equality and suffrage was born from the most lopsided and twisted of human conditions. This is beyond any comparison to horror films or serial killer fiction. This is a real, collective hell. It was the ticket for the mad act that would follow.

In the grave of “Our Boy” and millions of other men across the western world is the patriarchy we were denied. It is upon those graves that modern feminists dance. But “Our Boy” is still whispering from his cold rock.

There is a solution to the overwhelming tyranny of female political primacy. It is exhilarating to examine, but even more exciting to engage. This message is hidden in the aphorisms of traditionalism, known in the deep memory of all men, riding the savage of the subconscious.

It is patriarchy. And it’s inevitable.

To Be Continued in: Patriarchal Liberation Theory

The post The Tyranny of Suffrage appeared first on Social Matter.

Many of our future resource deficiencies and unnatural calamities will be the direct consequence of overpopulation brought about by the proliferating mestizo demographic. The calculus of this disproportionate expansion shouldn’t be limited to an assessment of lost welfare monies, potential crimes, or regional displacement. A great collective burden will likely rise from the strain on natural resources. These transplanted millions will require water, food, electricity, transport, material possessions. These goods have to be harvested from the environment, the resulting waste disposed of.

Quelling overpopulation was once a major priority in environmental circles. Even radical ecologists such as Edward Abbey (author of The Monkey Wrench Gang) once demanded a strict no-immigration policy to protect our open spaces and more carefully manage our assets for posterity. Sadly, this prime concern was abandoned by the advancing “New Left” at great expense to environmental integrity.

Water Depletion

California is currently facing a direct threat to its economic viability due to the reckless mismanagement of its watersheds. What is often blamed on drought is simply a water supply languishing from relentless population stress. This issue is creeping on all the Western states.

Even land developers in Phoenix once openly discussed the fact that the “Valley of the Sun” ought to have a cap on growth to prevent the dehydration of its insubstantial reservoirs. These men had witnessed the construction of colossal infrastructure projects in America’s wastelands like the Central Arizona Project, a 300-mile-long super-canal that took over 20 years and billions of dollars to achieve. The project, along with dozens of other diversions and dams, empties the Colorado River before it reaches Mexico.

It is unrealistic, even delusional, to expect regional growth to continue without dire costs. Present populations in this arid southern zone are only viable with its dozens of immense dams, waterworks, underground and mountainside pipelines, drained lakes, and copious wells bored hundreds of feet deep. The industry of water extraction is the basis of all human activity in the dry west.

In his book Cadillac Desert, Marc Reisner details prospective super-projects capable of slaking the Southwest’s unending thirst. These include building nuclear reactors in the Midwest to pump water over thousands of miles from the Great Lakes, or building dozens of cascading pools and canals to draw from the Canadian Rockies. This is how unsustainably tremendous current needs are. As California demonstrates, the demand exists now–not years from now. Cities across California (such as bankrupt Fresno) are already imposing water rations along with sky-high municipal tolls.

Many ecologists blame this on “climate change,” and the climate does always change, but the American southwest is naturally as crackling dry as it is searing hot. The ancient Anasazi Pueblo cultures of Arizona/New Mexico are believed to have been annihilated by an extended drought that occurred about 700 years ago. The modern multitudes in western lands are maintained by manipulating the environment in astounding ways. But today, there are no more rivers to dam. Irreplaceable aquifers that could have endured for hundreds of years were sucked dry by cotton-fields, barrios, and gated suburbs. Today, gasoline is cheaper than bottled water.

Tucson, Phoenix, and Las Vegas are unlikely to exist in their current sprawling conditions through the demographic upheaval of the next 35 years. With mushrooming mestizo reproduction, these metropolises will likely implode with decreasing fluids and accelerating demand. Historically low water levels in Lake Mead have triggered a decrease in planned water deliveries to both Nevada and Arizona for 2016. Like California, they too will face a day of reckoning, as near-sighted politicians will no longer be capable of pawning the problem off for another term, and another term.

A third of the people in California were not born in the country. Without the population spike seen in these desert cities, they may have remained viable. Its possible that as the countryside is further desiccated, the fields abandoned due to salinity, and water rationing imposed, many of these Hispanic colonists will be pushed into other parts of the US, bringing their prodigious breeding habits and population stresses with them.

Sanitation

It’s absurd to assume that third-world Central Americans will magically transform into conscientious first-world conservationists the moment they cross the border. On the other hand, it’s realistic to believe they’ll remain the same as they were in their home countries, bringing their third-world habits with them. As one can observe first-hand in immigrant-dominated areas like South LA, the mestizo arrivals have little interest in basic sanitation practices.

The Los Angeles Police have been forced to assemble a special task force to target illegal dumping as the chronic problem has reached catastrophic proportions. In 2013-2014 the LA Bureau of Sanitation received over 600,000 service requests related to trash dumping and human waste. It’s such a hazard that the city attorney’s office has increased penalties for the crime, while cops deploy undercover surveillance units to hunt down the worst offenders.

These are simply third-world standards taking hold in the US due to population replacement. Barrios and entire cities with large mestizo populations have increasingly come to resemble the trash-filled shantytowns where their inhabitants originated.

Additional waste management issues in major American cities are likely to reach proportions undreamed of. As millions of new residents are added to each metropolis, many multi-billion dollar projects will have to be financed in order to treat the deluge of sewage emitted by urban centers. New landfills will be excavated.

At least 27 billion gallons of untreated sewage is spilled into New York Harbor every year. Monstrous barges must be filled with garbage for burial in neighboring states. Some of these ships have traveled as far as the Caribbean in the quest to unload heaps of trash. Immense sanitation issues such as these lay in store for us all as distended urban populations continue to bloat with immigrants and their many children.

Electricity and Transport

Anticipating the addition of several million third-world inhabitants to every metropolitan area over the next 35 years leaves us with a dismal expectation of street traffic, air pollution, and electrical supply. These issues are so expansively complex that it’s virtually impossible to begin assessing the towering challenge it poses for national infrastructure.

A third of all highway accidents are attributed to substandard roads. According to Pew Research, one out of every four bridges in the US already carries more traffic than originally intended. Scores of freeway overpasses need replacement. Even broaching the subject of our overburdened transportation system results in a laundry list of unfunded needs taxpayers are less than willing to pay.

Governed by notoriously corrupt regional monopolies (like Enron), our electrical power network is fraught with unstable prices and its own ecological hazards. Coal continues to be the largest source of national electric power. The mining and transport of this fuel is an ugly process that has led to travesties such as mountaintop removal, a kind of biome-obliterating strip-mining.

Leftist ecologists point out how much more air pollution Americans produce per capita compared to undeveloped countries. Yet by adopting millions of multiplying third-world peoples, we are obviously exacerbating America’s suffocating urban air issues, awhile precipitating extractive industries that have proven to be the most punishing for nature. It is also punishing to the pocketbook.

What will energy prices look like with another 80 million consumers? Before you make any price estimates of your own, remember that nuclear power is federally subsidized, coal premiums are at the mercy of global markets, and fracking oil has proven to not only result in very short-term gains, but result in long-term aquifer destruction, which carries its own “indirect” costs.

Brazilification

Commentators have used the term “Brazilification” to describe the future white-minority America. The term is accurate when it relates to the chaos of the fractured and blended ethnicities that will be struggling for their identity in the decades to come. It reflects many concerns about the dissipation of our national personality. But perhaps “Brazilification” is most pertinent when considering the condition of basic services, natural resources, and environmental stability under the load of gross overpopulation brought about by nonwhite colonization.

Americans are unaccustomed to the third-world shocks accompanying this demographic bubble. We can expect an America of 400 million, but 400-million with rolling power blackouts, clean water shortages, worsening sanitation, and crumbling infrastructure–all hallmarks of the very countries these colonists fled from. Like air, you only notice how important security is when it’s gone.

For a New Environmentalism

This is only a superficial scan of what amounts to an impending environmental civil war. Conflicts are usually based on access to resources, precipitated along ethnic or regional lines. Our continent is not immune to friction along these unstable human boundaries.

Wresting the environmental discussion from the progressive media means redefining the idea of conservation. Without a vision for our posterity, what good is maintaining any civilization at all? The proximity of environmentalism to the radical left should be ignored. They have orphaned the issue. Like many similar intellectual challenges, they’ve proven incapable of facing the difficult resolutions that must be made.

China had to implement strict birth measures to manage growth, which prevented social upheaval. Past societies, such as the Norse, have controlled population through selective reproduction. In 1900s America, widespread eugenic programs were in place. Yet in a period of 30 years, we have allowed 40 million immigrants, illegal and legal, to enter the country unabated. By allowing these incomers without any vetting, we’ve violated our own common sense awhile short-selling our future.

Liberal democracy has given us the double burden of a confused public and temporary political decision-making. A long-term plan for American resource management will never come from the shattered demotist establishment. For this reason, the new movement emerging from the right must take on the most monumental issues others refuse to approach. That includes guarding our environmental resources.

America is becoming a scarce land.

The post The Dismal Ecology Of Immigration appeared first on Social Matter.

“I’m pre-op trans-racial,” said a white, teenage boy with a backwards hat propped on his buzzed head, slouching in saggy jeans as he waits in an affirmative-action office.

After the Human Centipede Act of 2017, all poly-morphic-coprofages had their identity transition surgery covered by Medicaid. So far, dozens of marginalized individuals who identify as Human Centipede have been surgically reassigned. “They” are now “it.”

This is satirical, but satire in a land where “Brangelina” insists their child is not a “she” or a “he” but a “they.” In a spreading mania, a wave of identity panics has rippled across Western society. Everyone is claiming they’re something they’re not. It’s the Great Identity Crisis of the 21^st Century. This may be classified as some kind of mass-psychosis, a dangerous hysteria, were it not packaged in an ideology of systematic cultural acquisition.

This is the age of Bradley Chelsea Manning, Bruce Jenner, where Octomom won’t get a paternity test, and Thomas Beatie, a legally recognized “man,” is working on his 4^th pregnancy. The stage has been set by postmodern social deconstruction, all things being displaced, all mankind is “pre-op.”

The fundamental limitations of human biology are being redefined with technology, which often means: the elaborate use of a scalpel. This is first-wave transhumanism. It’s gruesome and feeds off instability in the human soul. Little of it would be possible if the ideological pollution of liberalism hadn’t caused progressive political-climate change, and the resultant mass-extinctions of religions and traditions.

It’s a disturbing place, not for the faint of heart, where Dr. Frankenstein performs best. He is an admired liberal postmodernist. Dr. Frankenstein says that dialectical boundaries such as female/male and even dead/alive are just “social constructs.” These are archaic ideas we can approach anew thanks to “breakthrough technologies,” says the Doctor. The major breakthrough being that values have melted to such a waif that, amoral scientists can easily slice through them.

The Doctor is a tailor of human flesh. He gives us choices in identity reassignment, which involves a lot of cutting. It does, of course, come with a cost of chronic infection, liver-wilting doses of drugs, self-hate, and extremely high rates of suicide.

It’s not the kind of transhumanism Google likes to discuss when it makes massive donations to Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity University. Of course, very little of existing transhumanism, or, technologies that fundamentally alter human biology, are a matter of discussion for the vague utopianism of post-human speculators–the faithful of a theoretical event best modeled as atheist eschatology: the rapture.

The post-human event is a mysterious unformed concept roughly based on the teachings of Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who described the zenith of biological and technological complexification as the Omega Seed, a moment of reunion with God. According to him, the Omega would have to be an actual “personal” intellectual being, not a concept or piece of machinery.

Musk, Gates, and Hawking have all warned about the unpredictable dangers of AI. How we must be ready, before it’s too late. They appear to be cautioning about a specific form of post-human threat–self-aware supercomputers or quantum computing.

But how do we know what the post-human will be? Teilhard de Chardin’s assertion that the post-human would be a consciousness certainly doesn’t restrict us to computer systems. The post-human may assume any vessel, whether it be via surgical modification, virtual reality, computer models of the brain, or VR simulation. I’d suspect some combination of these fields will take shape, which means Dr. Frankenstein will likely remain gainfully employed.

With the transhuman project underway with radical alterations to human anatomy, how is the permissive society prepared to handle such a quandary, or as Musk calls it the demon? Moralizing hasn’t worked very well on first-wave transhumanism.

As Dr. Frankenstein stitches together new genders or creative solutions for the disabled, he has done so in the name of egalitarian “progress.” All these natural limitations on human behavior and biology could be snipped up and stitched to fit progressivism. Women can be “in charge” of their sexual organs with fetal abortions, IVF, and hormonal drug implants. The clinical setting legitimized grave acts of immorality, in the same way lethal injection establishes medical theatre around good ol-fashioned executions. Body dysmorphic disorders could be legitimized with extensive surgeries redesigning genitals accompanying a pharmacopeia of treatments. Frankenstein’s politico-clinical experiments were largely forced on the public, only deemed acceptable after decades of accelerating cultural slash and burn–the extermination of an entire living system of mores.

Yet in the journey to render the biology these zealots found so oppressive, Frankenstein science finds itself looming over egalitarian ideology with the technical means to obliterate it. I’m not referring to genetic mapping, which was largely pioneered by pharmaceutical corporations and Frankenfood brands, yet holds enormous promise for HBD. I’m not referring to human physical enhancement with implants, which provide obvious “inequalities” to those who can afford them. Nor am I referring to the engineered super-man that may emerge as the physical manifestation of singularity.

I refer to the radical operation Dr. Frankenstein is conducting on the human soul. In the absence of God, progressives have no resource with which to oppose this new potential hierarchy.

To rebuild someone’s body to conform to their identity or spirit, or to resurrect the dead, perhaps suspending consciousness indefinitely in an intelligent virtual-reality simulacra (artificial heaven?), or to genetically engineer a super-man into existence–when are we not talking about theology?

Never, because God lost, remember? The churches are emptying. He’s dead. I resentfully admit Christianity is the enterprise of mega-mall televangelists and a few scattered hermit-denominations of true believers. We don’t have time to browse the clearance shelves at Catholicism, Inc. But trans-humanism wants to play God. It’s like a step-father for the human-race, but it doesn’t really want to have anything to do with the human-race and all that moral baggage. It wants to transcend it, step right over it.

Whatever amalgam of artificial flesh, human parts, and simulacra it incorporates, we know it will be non-human. But it will be derived from the human interpretation of consciousness, which is flawed. I know many intelligent people who act irrationally. Considering how poorly humans get along, and how I’d still rather be on the human end of the food-chain than where any animal exists, it seems obvious that this is not something anyone would want around. It becomes a matter of simply how badly you don’t want it around.

Paradoxically, post-human advocates often claim to seek a cure for death, yet the post-human event is the kind of happening that most people do not want, but still view as inevitable, similar to death itself.

Nihilist pop-philosopher Eugene Thacker brings deconstructionism into its inoperable death-spiral, a black-hole in which any expression of human judgment be condemned as an unreliable alien aberration, thought processes themselves an inexplicable dimension of life as irrational horror.

“Scientists estimate that approximately ninety percent of the cells in the human body belong to non-human organisms (bacteria, fungi, and a whole bestiary of other organisms). Why shouldn’t this also be the case for human thought as well?” from: In The Dust of This Planet.

Thacker’s mission is to add volume to the idea that thought is not human. We’re just biochemical pollywogs. Exotic phenomena. We were invasive toads devouring their own spawn when some violent fractal process took us into its discriminate pattern, and, after several trillion cold-blooded murders, evolved us into Kindle readers who buy Thacker’s book.

I want to embrace his line of thinking as far as it includes humans in a World subject to the laws of nature, which liberals refuse to do with HBD or human sexuality, but I have to reject it because it so distantly exiles mankind from his own consciousness.

The structural binary Thacker terminates is the dualism of man/nature. To him, not only is man not the ruler of nature, he’s not even in charge of himself. Man’s thoughts are just a “bestiary of other organisms”–an interesting way of describing a product of evolution.

Without entering an impossible discourse on free will and causation, lets isolate the idea of mankind as a “bestiary of other organisms.” This is very pagan, even animistic. Even though the author is a known atheist, he comes with a catalogue of knowledge in Christianity and the occult. This dehumanizing term about the creatures within men feels like the content of an admonishing sermon. But Thacker’s intention is to dispense with morality.

Thacker wishes to dissolve the duality of man/nature. But in his cosmology we already live in a world without humans. It’s a world where men are just a “bestiary of other organisms” deposited in this nominally “human” tissue. This is Thacker’s post-human World.

Although Thacker’s ideas rest deeply in postmodernism and pop-culture he too appears to adhere to the Nietzschean view that humans are simply the link between the primordial animal-man that came before civilization, and whatever unimaginable post-human will rise from its ruins.

This thing is amassing steadily. The approach of the post-human is not merely found in news about the frequent revelations of research departments, its momentum is pulsing via the structural reorganization of society, the obsolescence of aspects of our humanity, and then the planned obsolescence of humanity itself. It’s like we’re training the new-hires who will replace us at work, but in this case, the replacements aren’t human.

The office-park is dead. Forget about the high-tech careers. Automation and computerized robotics are replacing the fast-food workers, the sweat-shops, the telemarketers, the graphic designers, the accountants, engineers, etc, etc. Millions of careers will be eliminated by robotics and software. Some major corporations may even become automated on an executive level, as is already underway with a growing suite of management-level jobs.

We can expect a parallel parade of little horrors to shuffle from the fields of genetic engineering and body modification. Freaks of nature will be unleashed. DNA patent specialists will be busy.

I’m not making a Luddite argument here. We need to be straightforward about all the social impacts of applied tech, especially as a causeway between postmodernism and transhumanism.

Contrary to many survivalists’ vision of the collapse of liberal societies as a top-down techno-social breakdown, social atomization arises from the increasing sovereignty of high technology, and contributes to the feedback loop of antisocial cultural degeneration, causing more dependence on superficial technology, thus alienation.

Automation and computerized robotics are an essential part of the post-human progression, but communications may be a more significant dimension in the up-and-coming Internet of things. Direct person-to-person contact, perhaps the most human need aside from air, becomes less and less common as we’re insulated in digital cocoons, assimilated.

Corporate ethicists are writing the eulogy for human participation in all aspects of life.

If one child is engineered for superior intelligence, along with genes designed to eliminate the possibility of an entire horde of inheritable diseases and cancers, how can we possibly claim this “human” is “equal” to all others? Biotech is post-human and post-egalitarian, in the Blade-Runner sense and the Superman sense.

Anticipating the singularity, the “neo-sapien,” or the post-human world is the ultimate in planned obsolescence. Thus far, the pattern toward this future has yielded a few blessings sprinkled over a freak-show of KFC lab-chickens, genital-mutilating trannies, enslaving cubicle-farms, and vivisection factories run by pharmaceutical corporations. I legitimately feel sorrow for all of them.

Forgotten is the fact that nearly every alteration of our bond with nature results in an alteration of morality. In the case of the transgendered, altering their physical being brought on the final collapse of sexual norms along with a slew of other ancient standards. As with the pill, the consensus was, if science would allow it, then it was right. But the consensus is consistently wrong.

Kurzweil, and most others discussing the singularity don’t want to discuss Dr. Frankenstein’s trans-humanism, the trans-humanism we are actually observing unfold. They want the clean high-tech Jetsons version of eternal life, with uploaded skills or smooth non-invasive gizmos, harmoniously merged intelligences. Again, its still unclear what the post-human even means at this point. Kurzweil’s bent is toward an absurdly optimistic expectation of applied tech.

“By the 2020s, most diseases will go away as nanobots become smarter than current medical technology. Normal human eating can be replaced by nanosystems.” – Grandiose statement from Kurzweil’s website.

What’s to say that indefinitely extending human life in Kurzweil’s vision of a biomechanical perpetual-motion machine, wouldn’t also manifest the same suicidal abnormalities exhibited in the extreme body dysmorphic-disorders of Frankenstein science? Perhaps the aging/dying process is embedded in the arch of the human soul. Sure, we can prevent a middle-aged individual from dying due to a curable disease, but adding decades onto the end of life could result in hollow shells only technically living. Many elderly people I’ve known are spacey, jaded, not just due to wear on their bodies, but the trials of life, the good times and the bad times. Experience can become deeply alienating, memories more dream-distant with every added year.

A dimension of this is the relativity of time. To a 4-year old, planning a few days ahead seems like forever, because a year is 1/4^th of its life. To a 150 year-old, days may pass like minutes, all due to the subjectivity of their lived experience.

Of course, we should examine the desire to evolve via Kurzweilian immortality by asking: what does it solve? Death is a primal fear we are no longer trained to control and confront. Everything we learn in life advances on a course of maturation, the terminus of which is death. The final lesson is in the mystery of death, when a person exits this reality. Whatever your opinion about what occurs after that point is irrelevant–we all die.

Perhaps the only truth of egalitarianism exists at the barrier between life and death. To violate the boundary of death with “indefinite extension of life” is to nullify the only indisputably universal aspect of the human life experience–that our common fate remains the same. I’m ignoring basic body functions like breathing and shitting because mortality is the defining unit of the existence of life.

“Six feet of Earth make all men equal.”

The post-human is an attempt to be God. Anyone familiar with the Bible or European mythology can tell us what our ancestors learned about men who tamper with sacred forces of nature.

Just as the Amish decided to freeze their society at a late 19^th-century technological level, many in neoreaction seem to prefer a forced withdrawal from technological liberalism to a more restricted code of lifestyle technologies. Such a code need not be as broad as the Amish, but meant to guide a more gradual pace of social and eugenic development as opposed to the radically liberal tech of the post-human project. But like the Amish, such a scheme seems hopelessly romantic, equal to imprisoning oneself in a virtual-reality fantasy as post-humanity consumes civilization.

One of the innumerable alternatives to this scenario is the supercomputing dictatorship, in which the human race gradually resigns as masters of their own destiny, surrendering to some form of technocratic governance software that will do with us as programmed. Regardless of the jokes and immense hypothetical discussions around this topic, there is a steady policy drift in its direction, as politicians increasingly speak of “global governance” as a neutral term stripped of identities or agendas, reliant only on protocols. Police departments utilize predictive statistical software. Global financial markets are also entering increased computer automation. Extending this further, you have a civilization placed on auto-pilot, or a super-dictator engineered by the people it rules. This is the kind of civilization-scale automation featured in the film Dr. Strangelove.

The post-human era is poised to obliterate both the progressive lie of egalitarianism awhile vindicating the moral and logical critique of the neoreactionary. It’s a bitter validation.

Now we have Dr. Frankenstein at work, but who is next, Dr. Moreau? We could play trans until the planet looks like a Hieronymous Bosch painting. Dr. Frankenstein can just play jazz with his scalpels and stem-cells, resurrecting or transmogrifying every oddity of life to reach that point of infinite novelty.

Living in the midst of first-wave transhumanism, I can hardly wait to see what the next groundswells will bring. But if this event, the final post-human event, is their Second Coming, the reunion with God, then when it arrives will it flow from an all-knowing cosmic light of eternal love? Or will it lumber in, an undead quilt of scavenged human skin, a hermaphroditic, cybernetic chimera of misplaced power?

This amoral deathless dream is subject for the new theologian, because the surgery on the human race is well underway, and I fear “the demon” Musk warns us not to summon may resemble something less like the Christ, and more like His opposite, if current events are at all instructional.

The post Gender Studies With Dr. Frankenstein appeared first on Social Matter.

Our lexicon bears the record of countless conquests and revolutions beginning in primeval obscurity when the Indo-European culture advanced West. Human events are embedded in our words like chunks of sediment in fossilized rock. Little fragments of the eccentric kings, strident Norsemen, Roman slang, and Muslim invaders all echo out of the continuously arguing mouths of English speakers.

Both Runes and Latin were mystical technologies. The spell of language is to distort or magnify, annihilate or protect, despair or inspire. Most importantly: to create. Even to destroy, you have to create the implement with which you destroy. If the enemy has a stronger alternative, then the new weapon is no good.

The advancement of new ideological arguments is comparable to smelting a new alloy or forming a structure. Rational argument is not sufficient to “win” any intellectual conflict. You must design passionate elaborations, ornamentation, and intimidating gargoyles warning deserters. You appropriate. You have to govern a body of language.

As the source of all truth-telling and all lying propaganda, language assembles macro-political contests from the top down. The basis of every conflict is the realm of communications.

Arguments create structures. A line of questioning can take the shape of a winding labyrinth. When you have a three-dimensional philosophy, a living system, you have mobile parts, supporting arguments, the mechanisms to retain or convert terms, with gears manipulating the multiplicity of words. A philosophic system, although never perfect, can be honed into an engineering marvel. This is how I would describe the eugenic and positive-reinforcing qualities of traditionalism in its native environment. In today’s alien world, traditional structures are dysfunctional, incapable of keeping up with both technology and the hostile advance of liberal memetic innovation.

Ideological systems and technical systems interact constantly all around us. Like a power-generating reactor, ideologies can also meltdown via chain-reaction. Many consider Chernobyl to be a major contributing factor to the Soviet collapse, and a defunct Soviet culture having caused the meltdown.

The feedback system of liberalism, best symbolized by a zombie horde or an experimental virus unleashed in the atmosphere, has long been described as a contagion whose test-tube can be found in the Institute for Social Research.

The Frankfurt School has been a recent topic of discussion across the reactosphere and in traditionalist circles. As Samo Burja importantly wrote in Frankfurt School Not Cause of Progressivism:

The Frankfurt School was first a social science research institution and then a school of Neo-marxist social theory, it was an organized group of essentially Communist intellectuals who set out to systematically alter society by using social science both as a tool and also as a political weapon to attack and change social structures they understood as necessary for the existence of capitalism.

He then goes on to describe how the progressive movement did not originate there, which should be obvious.

What is often missed about the Frankfurt School, and what is so important to understand, are the specific achievements of that intellectual campaign, and what ingredients were mixed together to create the socially corrosive feedback loop they unleashed.

As we will see, these techniques became the choice weapons of cultural appropriation. With tools garnered from the advancing discipline of psychoanalysis, their studies in social science uncovered the choice methods of manipulation – via guilt, shame, the desire for individuality, fear of alienation, etc. – all reachable through subtle alterations of language. This was a linguistic effort to annex internal psychological processes. It advanced alongside consumer advertising, from the same origin in social science. The offensive, on its deepest metaphysical level, was against any “binary” or “dialectical” social structure. The polarity of sexuality, seen as vulnerable after Freud’s studies in female hysteria, was a subject. Ethnicity often composed a more important element of social order than income, so it became a subject. And religion, an obstacle to cultural relativism with its binary “sins” and “virtues” had to be destabilized. Stalin used bulldozers, Critical Theorists used the unwitting liberal clergy.

Like good communists, members of the Frankfurt School saw this as a stage in the historical development of dictatorship of the proletariat. However, the peculiarities of this school of thought bore almost no resemblance to economic collectivism. It’s worth mentioning that Marx never discussed any of this – nothing even close. His interest was economics. In many ways, Social Marxism is a kind of radical liberalism, comparable to efforts by French revolutionaries to remake the calendar or create an atheist religion. The Social Marxist obsession with destabilizing the nuclear family has since become far more important than “democratizing the means of production,” which is scarcely mentioned. The hybridization, then, seems roughly composed of revolutionary socialist tactics – moving a radical liberal agenda – with insight from psychosocial research – supported by access to academic and government power that was hungry for new policy content after the largest ideological war in history.

The Frankfurt school’s most monumental achievements were in the field of linguistics, which has a mechanical influence over internal psychology, and therefore cultural systems. Their course was almost entirely steered by chaotic world events leading up to the 1960s.

An ancient ideological conflict was well underway during the demotist genocides of WW2. The cultural cost of that war was as vast as its human tragedies. This was a bottleneck period in the evolution of social philosophy.

After the fall of the Third Reich, in which 9 million Germans died, fascism was culturally purged from history. This was far more ruthless than earlier purges of royalists in revolutionary France, Spain, England, and Russia. It was panoramic. As we all know, being called “Hitler” by modern governments/media is still equivalent to being marked for death. Anti-fascist, and anti-reactionary laws remain in effect across Europe.

Because much of National Socialism and European fascist intellectualism had been synthesized from archaic reactionary or traditionalist sources, these clades became part of the symbolic infrastructure of the vanquished Axis polity, even though their origins bore little resemblance to the regimes that had incorporated them. Much of Europe’s remaining occult paganism and esoteric Christianity also became a collateral victim of de-Nazification. Non-Soviet Europe was placed under the tutelage of liberal puppet regimes that vigorously prosecuted both Communist and Reactionary activity, whether it be nationalistic, or whatever.

Liberalism is “the third” form of totalitarianism.

Asiatic Communism had endured thus far, but the collectivist Soviet/Maoist regimes were seemingly incompatible with radical liberal individualism. This would have been a problem for the American left, if a hybridization wasn’t already underway on an academic level. This is where the “Social Marxist” synthesis originates.

As the 60s transformed into an extraordinary popular hysteria, the linguistics of the left climbed from academic acid-test-like babblings into active programs.

As a Post-Marxist liberal school, the Critical Theorists were not only confronted with a lack of existing words to describe the megalomaniacal program they envisioned, but they had to separate themselves from the language of earlier Communist discourse. The entire vocabulary of leftism was haunted by the Iron Curtain.

As a philosophic construction, Communism was becoming radioactive. This was due to the Maoist/Stalinist genocides, Korean/Vietnam Wars, and irreconcilable conflicts with radical individualism. Being structurally condemned, the words that had come to assemble its edifice all had to be abandoned, replaced, or sanitized for recycling. Again, this linguistic undertaking was the main effort of Social Marxism throughout the Cultural Revolution.

Two influential constituents of this project were Deconstructionism and Postmodern Art. The latter was covertly funded by the CIA for many years, acknowledged as a significant component of America’s Cold War intellectual arsenal.

Meanwhile, Jacques Derrida composed a tangent within postmodern philosophy that redefined the course of Western history. Phenomenology, Derrida’s alternative to the “rational bias” of Western philosophy, was an ideology of self-proclaimed “post-structural” goals. Derrida argued that there is no objective truth to be sought, and the only truth your personal feelings, – dialectics of right/wrong being learned “binaries” that did not really exist. He heralded the era of post-rational discourse.

If modernism was the ideological clash of rational arguments (including Marxist dialectical materialism) then postmodernism was the purge of any system subjugating radical individualism to structural logic.

For people unfamiliar with Deconstructionism, this is the deep structure of cultural relativism. History itself had to be deposed from discourse. This is the deepest philosophic axis of fanatical universalism: modern multiculturalism, gay activism, feminism, and atheism. It is a revolutionary moral system that made it forbidden to forbid. “How dare you criticize that Muslim with two wives who are his cousins! That’s xenophobic!” or “How dare you criticize that gay who has sex with a different man every night, that’s homophobic!” Everything. Is. Permitted.

All things being equal, humans are just another animal species or bio-chemical phenomenon foolishly “rationalizing” its own existence.

Derrida produced dozens of books, spawning an army of militantly liberal, postmodern academics.

Their issue with language was found not simply in the words, but in the way things are said, – the explicit structure of communication. This concept would sprout numerous (applied) post-structural policies Derrida likely never anticipated.

Their targets are inside the language, which is organically transmitted as the fundamental building blocks of culture. These organic processes had to be disrupted. They laid a linguistic siege on Western social tradition.

Here is a practical example:

Before the marital institution could be terminally deformed with “no-fault” divorce and “gay marriage,” the language of marriage itself had to be disfigured to realign its social architecture. One way this was done was the elimination of “Mrs.” and “Miss” in exchange for “Ms.” – an androgynizing, hermaphroditic term which became a celebrated achievement of 60s radical feminism. Ms. Magazine.

This was a linguistic innovation that spread rapidly, women adopting the practice without any thought about the impacts on culture or identity in any way. Men were being regularly punished for not acknowledging the newly invented unisexual masculinization of  “Mrs.” They’re alienated as “chauvinist” or “misogynist” or “reactionary.” A deconstructionist would argue that the “binary logocentrism” of wed and unwed females had been “unified,” therefore “absolving the metaphysical conflict.”

A more recent example includes so-called “micro-aggressions” – which refers, not to the content of what is said, but the subtleties of how something is expressed, including who is saying it. Race is a very troubling area of deconstructionism because it contains such vast historical, genetic, and geo-political content. Every culture has conflicts between male/female, man/wife, but only certain areas have to regularly contend with racial structures, which is unique on a localized hierarchical level.

“Affirmative action,” called “positive discrimination” in the UK, contains a clever bit of word-craft that would make a Critical Theorist proud. The practice seeks to destabilize ethnic relations on a local level because “race does not exist” because “binaries” are “Western inventions,” and does this work under linguistic camouflage, leaving people to condone something they do not fully comprehend, – but still feels good.  This epitomizes both phenomenological solipsism (“feels good” – must be good), and relativism (everything is the same in my head so we should force it to be the same in reality), while utilizing linguistic deconstruction to achieve those ends.

Today, postmodernism is an enforced legal system.

The situation is such that the postmodernists are the reactionaries and traditionalists are the revolutionaries, fighting to assert dialectical concepts over a public that has become alienated from their own culture, language, sexuality, ethnicity, – even biology!

A process for creating an adaptable, evolved traditionalism is already making headway. I don’t want to give away the secrets of neoreaction to any postmodernists who may be reading this, but even terms such as “human biological diversity” represent successful adaptations of older concepts. But the transformation must be far deeper.

George Lakoff, a liberal cultural theorist who had great influence on both Howard Dean and Obama, wrote a book called Don’t Think of an Elephant. Lakoff both describes the landscape of communications, and provides guidelines for what not to say. Lakoff finds that who is saying what matters more than what is said, and that people must superimpose meaning onto neutralized “unified” political statements. In reading his political theory, one gets the impression that a post-rational state of discourse is already fully normalized. Logical arguments may no longer even provide an alternative macro-philosophic route.

Where will the new answers lie? Can they found in the conflict with Islam, as Muslim territories seem impervious to liberal postmodernism? Will it only arrive with a multipolar world?  Will postmodern consumerism have to fully collapse, like Soviet communism? Will it be forced to undergo a metamorphosis into something more efficient, but equally ugly, as occurred with Chinese socialism? Or will a complete answer emerge sooner, as postliberalism gradually becomes radioactive?  Perhaps post-rational thought, in its march towards transcendence, will open the gates to new religious movements?

Marshall Mcluhan, the famed Canadian communications philosopher, believed we are entering an era of neo-tribal conflict, as new “cybernetic” media reconnects those with common cause to their digital campfires.

“WW3 will be an information guerrilla war in which there is no distinction between soldiers and civilians,” wrote McLuhan. This is an information war that, like all conflict, arises from deep metaphysical friction. It’s a conflict we cannot resolve without retaking control of our own language.

The post Forbidden to Forbid: Word-Craft of the Culture War appeared first on Social Matter.

French leftists initiated the population replacement project, nodding to Arab Muslims. Many of those same leftists, – men who lead this radical liberal experiment, – were executed by Arab jihadists in the offices of Charlie Hebdo. This is blowback. It is a harsh example of what occurs when postmodernity encounters the power of history, which they adamantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of.

Of course, the Arab Muslims of France cannot be Arab Muslims. They’re simply an ingredient in the future genderless creole formula of stateless, history-less “equals” comprising shape-shifting liberal eschatology.

In reality, a reality with history, this plays out as a suicidal Kafkaesque dystopia where nothing can be acknowledged in its own context with its own identity. It must be displaced into the netherworld of postmodernism where humans, like commercial products, are interchangeable novelties to be be summarily rebranded by marketing committees, reshaped like putty dolls.

No. History reemerges, which is why reactionaries worship Him. He does all the work. Truth is still the best medicine.

Yet some new wonder drug is always being advertised in magazines/television. Oftentimes, the drug claims to resolve a made-up ailment (“Restless Leg Syndrome” or “A.D.D.”) other times it professes to solve a common problem (sleeplessness or migraines). The label warnings take longer to explain than the actual purpose. Like clockwork, a year later, law firms are soliciting victims of the drug for class-action lawsuits in the same outlets they were originally advertised. Collateral damage to uninsured human bodies remains in medical ruins.

Similar warning labels ought be plastered over the ploys of liberal academia. We could even call them “contraindications” or “adverse reactions.” Like a toxic trial drug, the social engineering experiments proscribed to an unwitting Western public are never just what the label describes. The complex interactions that result are often bamboozling or self-cannibalizing. Like risky prescription drugs, the negative impacts are hellishly unpredictable.

In social psychology, the Boomerang Effect refers to the reactivity of people when they are being persuaded. For various subconscious and apparent reasons, many people end up believing the opposite of what a person (or organization) is attempting to persuade them of. There are many complexities to this, so in order to avoid from writing many paragraphs on the intricacies of the Effect, I’ll use a couple examples. The most evident would be the reaction to a hard-sell salesman. You may have actually wanted to purchase whatever this seller has, but because his technique is so aggressive, you end up disliking the product and rejecting the argument for buying it. Another interaction occurs in psychological warfare operations, when an attempt to coax a certain behavior out of the enemy results in completely unanticipated behavior due to misunderstood cultural nuances. These are just two examples of counterintuitive reactions that have many different varieties embodied by the general Boomerang Effect.

The phenomenon goes much further than psychological reactivity to social campaigns. Contraindications are everywhere. In many cases, leftist lawmaking results in wildly unexpected effects, – usually the opposite of what was intended. This results in both cognitive dissonance amongst the proponents of a failed policy, and message confusion amongst the many disjointed intersections of the left. The liberal media structure is forced to go to great lengths to avoid admitting collateral damage, much in the same way intelligence organizations expend massive resources covering up failures or disguising their own role in accidental catastrophes. Because we’re discussing leftist psychological warfare, an intelligence officer would call this effect “blowback.”

I first noticed this a few years back during a full-scale rape scare at a nearby college. It involved a quarterback and a female Liberal-Studies major (seriously), who, as it turned out, had no physical evidence of the “rape” and had made similar accusations of sex assault in the past. The community was carpet-canvassed by the activists you’d expect, and “rape culture” became the buzzword of local academics, taggers, neighborhood pundits, and helicopter moms.

By forcing these fear mongering slogans into the living rooms of a sheltered middle-class town, an unexpected (and wonderful) response followed. One can only call it “socially conservative,” as women began walking with chaperones, fathers demanded their girls be placed in all-female dorms, young men seemed less likely to hook-up with strangers for fear of being accused of an indiscretion. Even churches momentarily stopped worshipping the Che Guevara version of Christ to proclaim the importance of “family values” and the “sanctity of the female body.”

The accused was found “not-guilty,” but the impact of this campaign left a wide crater around the college town. By raving about the (nonexistent) “rape culture,” the “sex-positive” feminists had unintentionally suppressed their own burgeoning slut culture.  As I watched this real-life case study in group-psychology come full swing, I began seeing these blowback scenarios all around me. I have since discovered an entire litany of left-liberal schemes that resulted in outcomes distant to their planned goals. These may be from memes that represent their own political programs, or fully hatched plots implemented through liberal bureaucracies. These examples expose the confused, directionless praxis of liberalism. We can see postmodernity defeated by history in many of them.

“Hate Crime” Laws: You may be surprised to learn that blacks are disproportionately charged with “hate” crimes. Blacks are nearly twice as likely to be charged with a hate-crime than whites. So, the “minority” that was supposedly protected by this legislation has actually gone to jail for it (proportionally) more than any other group. Talk about backfire.

“1 Out of 4 Women Are Raped In College:” Does this create the expectation of sexual assault? Again, this patently false statistic is repeated by people who not only have no idea what they’re talking about, but also haven’t calculated the result of their sloganeering. Does this non-fact actually normalize sexual assault to the point that rape victims may view an attack as ordinary? Whether or not it does, the slogan clashes hard with the façade of sexually fearless feminism.

“No Means No:” Another bizarre mantra that seems to trivialize rape. Feminists have successfully reduced rape to a verbal misunderstanding. Even ten years ago when I was still in college this mantra was posted everywhere, and I never understood it. It seems to be nothing more than feminist power-propaganda, reminding men that women have the upper hand in the sexual economy (and legal arena). Bottom line: feminists have reduced a felonious crime to the banal “he said/she said” grey-scale of “yes/no/maybe,” – making rape appear more like a hearing-problem.

Cat-Calling: Perhaps you saw what happened when that feminist video group set out to “expose cat-calling” on the streets of New York? Every single pedestrian that whistled or yelled at the girl was either black or Hispanic. Feminists seem to desire a criminalization of all sorts of simply uncouth behaviors. But perhaps we should classify cat calling as criminal harassment, as these activists seem to desire. The result will be scores upon scores of “people of color” being jailed for simply speaking to white women without approval.  My own travels and life experience tell me that cat calling is very, very common in black and Hispanic areas, and almost nonexistent in white neighborhoods.

“Genderless” Bathrooms/Locker-rooms: This must be the most hilariously obvious bad-idea. Use your imagination when conceiving of all the blowback that will stem from this: from piss on toilets, to perverts, to closed bathrooms (due to liability), etc.

“White Privilege:” – A blatant psychological attack. As older “politically correct” terminology loses its edge, the term “white privilege” is now being deployed in an unbridled attempt to directly power-guilt whites with any pride. It’s another meme-mantra that gets attached to whatever issue happens to be convenient. Perhaps it’s just a bit too specific, because I’ve seen this term instantaneously switch-on people’s racial awareness. Because it is so directed, – not vaguely promoting “diversity” or “multiculturalism,” – but specifically targeting whites, it reveals too much about the agenda. When I first heard this term, it had a profound affect on me, and immediately activated a defense of my heritage (being descended from an Irish POW, an orphan, and Eastearn European refugees). As it gained more notoriety, this term allowed the New Right to more openly engage white racial issues without being accused of “making it about race.” Liberals are making the discussion distinctly about racial identity, so we should accept the invitation.

Gun Control: These attempts to rob (primarily) white males of their heritage, their self-defense, and masculinity, have always resulted in precisely the opposite of the intended effect. During Obama’s recent 2011/12 attempt to open a “national dialogue on gun safety,” (meaning: gun bans) assault rifles began flying off the shelves. Millions of firearms and high-capacity magazines were sold across the country, as almost always occurs during anti-gun campaigns.

Trigger Warnings: These amount to nothing more than soft-core censorship. By dragging “political correctness” to new extremes, the left has exposed just how hypersensitive they are.  We now have portions of Hamlet and historical entries on Conquistadores being wrapped in semi-censored “warnings” as if factual information has become as dangerous to leftists as infant choking hazards. This is excellent, as it proves the left is devolving into a socially paralyzed neurosis where even confronting certain concepts causes emotional collapse. We should encourage their own self-weakening programs, and the rejection of “political correctness” it causes.

With these examples in mind, doesn’t it appear that liberalism, like a many-tentacled creature wandering the darkness, is probing for some opening, some secret to history where they can find a tiny crack to be ripped open? Yet, every bizarre campaign, or law, or contrived etiquette they emit either nullifies itself, or backfires so radically they must act as if it never existed.

There are so many more that could be listed: mass immigration wiping out the working class (once the backbone of the left), marital/child support laws that ruin children, racial affirmative action which gifts minorities a lifetime of disappointment. In every case, the reason, the context, the history, the spirit of a thing is ignored for the sake of a postmodern, history-less world.

I use “postmodern” and “liberal” interchangeably.  This is because liberals proclaim to live beyond the “end of history,” (which apparently ended in the 90s) and they fruitlessly pursue a divorce from that past with all its inconveniently “divisive” hatefacts.

The Hebdo massacre is, again, a perfect reference point. As those cartoonists stood for nothing, they died for nothing. It is like an acid was self-neutralized.

In the game of Paper-Rock-Scissors there is no “Royal Flush,” no “checkmate.” There is no logical strategy for victory, – just a random circle of winning/losing options. This is the social policy of the postmodern left. You see it obviously in the Arab Spring with a few million dead, a few new dictators, new terrorism, or mass immigration to Europe and North America, which is an unequivocal disaster for the existing citizenry. The circle is self-nullifying and beyond the language we have to describe such phenomenon.

Liberals play the postmodern game they do not understand. It’s telling that terms such as “Orwellian” or “Catch -22” or “Kafkaesque” have entirely lost their oomph. A fish in water doesn’t see the water. To tell to dystopian man he lives in a dystopia is equally absurd.

The post Blowback: The Unintended Consequences of Liberal Schemes appeared first on Social Matter.