When we survey the modern world, especially of people of European origin and the developed parts of East Asia, there is clearly a problem stemming from certain sexual imbalances. Consider the declining birth rates among white women and the problems of white males in finding worthy partners in marriage. Indeed, in a world where something as insipid as ‘gay marriage’ becomes the main moral crusade of the deranged masses as well as of the decadent elites, something is truly amiss. Could a sane and healthy society really sign onto such a thing? (It’s bad enough to fall under the sway of decadence as decadence. It is downright demented to fall under the sway of decadence as the New Decency. It’d be like promoting smoking and sugar as the New Dietary Recommendations.)
To an extent, the moral decadence of the West is the product of Western success. It is because the West has become so fabulously rich, productive, and privileged that people get so worked up over trivialities in so sanctimonious a manner. People with full stomachs have the time and means to indulge in nonsense and wax hysterical over excessive decadence as the New Normal or New Morality. And this paradox of how-economic-success-begets-moral-degeneration promotes the dangerous fallacy that success = decadence. People fail to realize that decadence is the troubling product than the essential source of success. Think of a foul piece of turd like Miley Cyrus, yet another slut-child of Disney that should now be called Jizzney as it perfected the formula of cleancut-girls-to-slut-skanks phenomenon. She is the product of a prosperous America where lots of people have disposable income expended on hedonism and wanton indulgence. So, does it follow that Miley-Cyrus-ism is synonymous with civilizational success? Of course not.
Because the rich nations of the world signed onto ‘gay marriage’ first, the fashionable fallacy is that ‘gay agenda’ = success and prosperity. ‘Social scientist’ Richard Florida even argued that the best way for cities to gain prosperity is to have a lot of homosexuals move there. While it’s true enough that there is a fair amount of creativity within the ‘gay’ community and also that homos, due to their lack of family obligations, tend to be more tireless in their careerism, it is fallacious to equate presence of homosexuals with prosperity, and it is ludicrous to assume or ass-ume that ‘gay’ decadence is synonymous with success and prosperity. After all, the West developed economically long before the rise of the ‘gay agenda’. And I highly doubt if poor nations around the world will suddenly see rise in wealth and power simply because they become ‘gay friendly’. After all, Brazil got ‘gay marriage’ before US did, but the poor parts of Brazil are still desperately crime-ridden and decrepit. And who in his right mind thinks Africans will stop flooding into Europe if it signs onto ‘gay marriage’? And who believes Detroit will finally bloom because Michigan has ‘gay marriage’ too?
One might argue that the ‘gay agenda’ has some relation to societal success in the sense that a community that is tolerant of homosexuals is more likely to be open-minded, experimental, innovative, and tolerant of all manner of new ideas, fashions, and trends. More tolerance and more freedom for various groups means more possibility of new expressions and opportunities. I would agree with this, and indeed, one reason why cities are the centers of innovation and experimentation is they allow more individual freedom and draw in people with all sorts of ideas, views, and visions. It is also true that innovations and expressions, especially in the arts, often arise not from ‘positive values’ but from dark passions and/or self-centered vanity. Paul Schrader, the author of TAXI DRIVER, found his voice in the city. As much as he loathed the many rotten aspects of New York of the 1970s, it was a place where anyone could be anyone(rich banker to a tawdry hooker), where he could be his ‘true self’. With all that freedom, one could fall very low but also rise very high; one could lose one’s soul/mind or find one’s true calling. Even Jesus wouldn’t have been anything without making trouble in cities. Even those opposed to sin must go where the sin is, and it is concentrated in the cities, which is why God often unleashes His wrath on cities of Sodom and Egypt. In the city, you could end up a total zero, a nobody — like Joe Buck in MIDNIGHT COWBOY — , but you could also reach the top, like Jordan Belfort(of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET) once did. Also, some of the most creative and aggressive energies are released when people feel uninhibited. And in a way, this was one advantage Jews had over Anglos and Anglo-Americans. In THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, Belfort(as played by Leonardo DiCaprio) recounts how the investment firm that he worked for had people talking with potty mouths.
In a dog-eat-dog world, niceties hold you back. It’s like a boxer or football player cannot play nice. They are in it for the kill. Likewise, stock traders must feel the killer instinct. Ideally, they must play by the rules, but their gut instinct is to fight, win, and grab as much as possible for themselves. Using foul language and being emotionally uninhibited in such a boiler-room environment bring out the killer in you. It’s no wonder that the Alec Baldwin character in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS doesn’t talk like Mr. Rogers.
When Jews negotiated with Anglos and Anglo-Americans, they had the advantage because they didn’t believe in nice manners. Of course, Jews could, in a passive/aggressive way, sometimes act nice if they wanted to hook someone. But once negotiations began in earnest, the Jew acted like Allen Klein(who fleeced the Rolling Stones and the Beatles) and Albert Grossman(who ended up fleecing Bob Dylan). To know something about the Way of the Jew, watch how Grossman operates in the D.A. Pennebaker’s DON’T LOOK BACK. Because some degree of manners was important to Anglos in negotiations, they were often no match for Jews who dug in hard. It’s like Howard Stern always took no prisoners when he was being interviewed, even by nice people who meant him no harm. Jews are a hideous bunch and really love being nasty. Because Jews have often acted thus, naturally many Gentiles didn’t like them. So, Jews became paranoid that no one likes them — because, deep down inside, they themselves know they are unlikable and get a kick out of being nasty — and tend to take every question, criticism, retort, or counterpoint as an affront to their Jewishness. But then, Jews feel insulted by even the sincerest show of affection and goodwill from the goyim. Jews figure the goy must be really dumb and naive to believe that a Jew would sincerely reciprocate in kind. So, with Jews, it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If you approach them in a way that just slightly critical or confrontational, Jews take umbrage at your distrust or skepticism that allegedly smacks of ‘antisemitism’. But if you approach them in the nicest and kindest way, Jews sneer at you for being naive and stupid enough to trust a Jew. I mean even Jews don’t trust Jews(unless Jews are conspiring against goyim; indeed, one reason why the Jewish elites stir up so much hysteria about evil white gentiles is because Jews might cannibalize one another — like Bernie Madoff ripped off other Jews — unless they were united against a common enemy). It’s like a con-man has no respect for the sucker who falls for the con; but, he is also nasty to those who question the suspicious nature of his offering. Jew act like this regardless whether they are genuine con-men or not. Consider all the Jewish intellectuals and leaders who defended the members of the Jewish community who spied for the Soviet Union(even to the point of passing atomic secrets to Josef Stalin). Because Jews sought to gain supreme power in a world that is overwhelmingly gentile in demographics and culture, they developed the mentality of con-men; and the likes of Saul Alinsky and Jordan Belfort turned it into a high art. And it is no wonder that David Mamet has often used the con-artist as a useful metaphor for the Jewish-style of thinking and behaving.
Jews have been extremely touchy whenever someone pointed out that Jews have been disproportionately involved in movements like communism and the ‘gay agenda’. Jews hissed that such accusations are little more than ‘antisemitic canards’. But it is a fact that Jews were heavily represented in communist movements and in espionage for communists. And it is true that Jews have been the main force behind the ‘gay’ agenda. When homosexuals were at the margins of society and regarded as deviants, Jews would have vociferously denied their role behind the ‘gay’ movement, but now that Jews, via their control of media-academia-government-advertising-entertainment, have convinced the majority of dumb goy Americans that homos and even trannies are the new saints and angels, they are bragging that they’d been behind the ‘gay’ agenda all along. That is how Jews play the game. If Jews are stealing from you and if you raise suspicions, they will bitch and whine about how ‘antisemitic’ you are — that you are spreading ‘antisemitic canards’ of Jews as parasites — , but once they take everything from you, take over your house, and turn you out into the streets, they will loudly brag that they’d cleverly played and fooled you real well and took everything from you. It is the way of the dirty Jews. “With Jews, You Lose”, as one independent candidate remarked.
Anyway, to the extent that the most competitive, aggressive, and creative juices flow when one is less, if not least, inhibited, one could argue that the rise of the ‘gay acceptance’ did pave the way for the rejuvenation of cities as centers of creativity, innovation, liberty, and prosperity. For progress to be possible, there needs to be a community where individuals can do their own thing. And it was in relatively tolerant cities that Jews, homosexuals, and gentile outcasts/deviants/mavericks/visionaries found the most freedom to express themselves, try out new ideas, and work with other creative or experimental people. As important as morality is to social order, it can serve to dampen the creative spirit that is essentially amoral, at times even immoral. Morality guides us in terms of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is proper and what is improper. It erects walls between what is deemed moral and what is deemed immoral. And to enforce these rules, certain institutions gain considerable power to determine what can be said and can’t be said, what can be done and can’t be done. A good example would be Iran under Islamic rule. Even though the Iranian regime has left science and much of the arts alone — as long as they weren’t blatantly anti-Islamic or anti-government — , the climate of fear has a way of stifling the spirit of enterprise and innovation. After all, how can anyone be sure if what he or she is doing might not offend the authorities? And one reason — though there were plenty others — why communism lagged behind the West was the overt moralism that bottled up lots of creative energies that weren’t in tune with Marxist ethics or even humanist ethics. After all, the spirit of enterprise, experimentation, and innovation is essentially individualist, and a powerful individualist tries to distinguish himself/herself apart from others, whereas morality is about finding common ground of shared values and manners with everyone else. Every powerful individual is, with a kind of ‘will to power’, a kind of ‘spiritual’ gangster breaking out of the boundaries of accepted norms. In this sense, it is understandable why a lot of creative and innovative people in big cities have been homosexuals or have seen homosexuals as kindred-spirits. And in a place like Hollywood, uninhibited appetite for money and sex often complement insatiable ambitions for greater fame and glory.
But then, too much of a ‘good thing’ is a bad thing, and it can now be said that what began as a good(more tolerance for homosexuals) has turned into a bad(coercive worship of homosexuals, indeed to the point where bakers must be forced to make cakes for ‘gay weddings’ or else have their businesses destroyed and properties taken from them). And the culture of greater tolerance has turned into demand for Iron Tolerance that now forces everyone to bow down to Jews, homosexuals, and blacks. Homos went from demanding the right to be homo(and to do homo things) to demanding that all of us be forced to sing hosannas or homosannas to their form of deviant from of ‘sexuality’. And of course, Jewish idea of Tolerance is striking down anyone who dares to notice Jewish power and influence.
The US is really defined by Philosemitic Canards, but Jews fooled Americans that any challenge to Jewish power is an ‘antisemitic canard’. As a result, except in the area of hard science and high-tech, Liberal communities are no longer free centers of innovation and experimentation. Political Correctness in all its dogmas and hysterics dominate the urban discourse. Given such a dissipation of the spirit of freedom among urban Liberals, American Conservatives have a golden opportunity to lead the way as the true spirit of freedom and liberty. But they seem incapable of grabbing the horns and riding the bull because the so-called American Right comes in two dead-end forms. There is Social Conservatism that prefers community, consensus, and conformism. As such, it either sticks to staid tradition or trails Liberalism that creates the New Normal. Social Conservatism sticks to the Normal Values of today until New Normal Values of tomorrow become the New Mainstream, whereupon Social Conservatism defends the New Normal as THE Normal. Sticking to tradition means lack of individuality, and conforming to normality means waiting for others to determine the nature of normality. So, if the prevailing Norm says there is only one true form of marriage, Conservatives will stick with that. But if the New Normal says ‘gay marriage is marriage too’, then Social Conservatism will eventually come around to conforming to the New Prevailing Value. Traditional Conservatives are more resistant to the New Normal because heritage means more to them than normality does. But sticking with tradition doesn’t require thought or critical/creative thinking. It means sticking with whatever has been handed down through the ages. And as time passes, the New Normal becomes the New Tradition, in which case even traditionalists might sign onto it. There is no tradition of ‘gay marriage’, but fifty years from now, if ‘gay marriage’ is still around, it will become a part of the tradition of ‘marriage’, in which case even traditionalists might defend it. It’s like once communism became entrenched in Russia, the traditionalists were defending it against those calling for the fall of communism. Indeed, even traditions that started as demeaning insults could become part of ‘sacred’ tradition. When the Manchus invaded China, they forced all Chinese to wear queues or pigtails as a sign of submission. It was meant as an insult to Chinese-ness. But as the Chinese grew accustomed to wearing pigtails over the centuries, it became part of their identity.
It goes to show that traditionalism can be as stupid as it can be sound. If traditionalists are mindful of what-has-been, normalist-conservatives are keen to what-is-the-prevailing-consensus. Charles Murray is a normalist than a traditionalist. When he saw that the powers-that-be were moving toward acceptance of ‘gay marriage’, he jumped on the band-wagon in order to be accepted as part of the crowd. Even as Murray excoriated the elites in COMING TOGETHER for their elitism and rigging the rules that demeaned the rest of America, his main interest in life is to win acceptance and plaudits from the ‘respectable’ Liberal/Jewish community that tolerates and pets him like a dog as their token ‘conservative’. Indeed, acceptance of the ‘gay’ agenda is the Politically Correct queue that Jews force on all gentiles.
As for libertarians, who comprise a substantial share of the American ‘right’, they seem to stand for greater liberty and freedom and often take principled stance against Political Correctness in favor of free speech. However, libertarianism is a useless creed in the long run because it is value-free and identity-free. Freedom and individualism are good and useful, but they must serve something deeper, more substantive, and more meaningful than the conceited cult of ‘me, me, me’. Because libertarianism teaches everyone to see himself or herself as the center of the universe, it is culturally ephemeral and morally superrficial. Genuine interest arises from the individual’s commitment to something larger and deeper than himself or herself. What is so interesting about an individual whose main goal of life is to gamble at casinos, have sex with prostitutes, smoke dope all day, and fire guns at a shooting gallery? Imagine if Dostoevsky wrote about nothing but how great he is as an individual looking for jollies in life. Suppose if Akira Kurosawa made films about nothing about self-centered individuals with nothing on their minds but having more fun. (If the individual is all that counts, there is no need for defending one’s nation from foreign invasion either AS LONG AS one is guaranteed individual freedom under the new order. So, if you’re a self-centered Russian libertarian and if Russia were to be invaded by the French or the Japanese, it shouldn’t matter as long as you’re still allowed to wallow in your individual liberty and freedom for thrill-and-pleasure-seeking.) While we can agree with libertarianism’s defense of certain freedoms and liberties, the difference between libertarians and what-might-be-called-‘constantines’ is that, for the libertarian, individual freedom is the end-all of life, whereas, for the ‘constantine’, freedom is an instrument to preserve, defend, and perpetuate the larger meaningful vision of community, history, morality, and culture. I use the term ‘constantine’ than ‘conservative’ in this case because the latter implies a knee-jerk commitment to whatever-has-been-handed-down or prevails-in-the-present-as-the-norm. But there isn’t much sense in conserving what is false, wrong, ugly, immoral, confused, and harmful. Things aren’t worth conserving simply because they’ve been handed down to us from the previous generation or because they happen to be considered ‘correct’ at the moment. After all, if ‘conservative’ is synonymous with the ‘mainstream’, then ‘gay marriage’ would have to be considered ‘conservative’ in societies where it has been promoted and enforced as the New Normal(aka Jew Normal) in our Jewish-homo-centric or Jomocentric world.
In contrast, it could be argued that there are certain natural and moral truths that are the constants of life and meaning through the ages. Before we ask about the Meaning of Life, we need to ask What Is Life? and How Is Life Created? To understand this, we need to understand the nature and biology of life, and all honest people know the fundamental truths of life. Given how life is created through true sexuality and only through true sexuality, it is ridiculous and foul for a homosexual man to claim that his fecal anus is the biological/sexual equivalent of his mother’s vagina from which he sprung. Indeed, I wonder about the moral degeneration of a society that encourages someone like George Takei to claim that his anus and large intestine(filled with feces) is as sexually legitimate as his mothers’s vagina and womb that birthed him. And I wonder about women who, some of them as mothers themselves, agree with the ‘gay agenda’ that their own vaginas are no more special, unique, and meaningful to the process of life than the bungholes of homosexual men whose idea of ‘sex’ involves fecal penetration where penises are pumped into the fecal tunnels of other men for ejaculation of semen onto fecal matter. Sane people oppose ‘gay marriage’ not out of some kneejerk-conservative clinging to tradition but out of an honest understanding of the fundamental constants that reiterate that life is created in a certain way and that marriage developed as a moralization of this biological truth.
Anyway, one advantage of promoting ‘gay rights’ as a means of attracting talent, especially from around the world, is that it sends a signal that the community is very accepting all kinds of people. After all, if you’re an innovative person who wants the fullest freedom to explore certain possibilities, would you choose a society that clamps down on minorities in a draconian way or tolerates them? Besides, what if some homosexuals and other deviants have special talents as individuals? Wouldn’t a tolerant society make better use of such talents? When a society ensures room for homosexuals to pursue their freedom, it sends a strong message to outsiders and would-be-migrants that it welcomes freedom. After all, if homosexuals, the objects of scorn all throughout history in all societies, are made to feel safe and free in a certain place, it is likely a safe and free haven for all kinds of people. After all, if you want freedom to experiment and innovate, would you choose San Francisco or Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia? You know you’re going to find much greater freedom in San Francisco than in Riyadh, where you have to be very mindful of observing Islamic rules and regulations.
On the other hand, it is very much the case that many cities in the Western World have now become less free and libertine because their policy has shifted from emphasizing tolerance to enforcing correctness. It’s one thing for a city to make room for homos and let them be free but quite another to use all means to force people into celebrating, praising, and glorifying homosexuals(especially as proxies of Jews and globalist elites). If cities carry on like this, the message they send to outsiders will be ‘less tolerance in favor of more correctness’, especially the kind that favors the ultra-privileged as homosexuals especially cater to the upper crust of society. We’ve already witnessed this taking place in colleges all across the Western world. Outside departments like medicine, hard sciences, math, and etc., much of academic instruction and college life is about enforcing correct thoughts and punishing/banishing those who dare to express views, ideas, and opinions that pose challenges to the cornerstones of Political Correctness that compels everyone to toe the line on certain orthodoxies about race, gender, and the like. (There is much less emphasis on class since Jews have grown so rich and since homos rely on rich people to fund their massive campaigns.)
Today, in certain respects, one is likely to find greater freedom in a place like Moscow than in New York. In Moscow, you are free to be homosexual, but you are also free to oppose the ‘gay’ agenda. In cities all across the US and EU, one is not only free to be ‘gay’ but can expect to be praised to high heaven for one’s ‘pride’ of indulging in the ‘sexual’ activity of fecal penetration. In the US, the third-rate has-been actor George Takei(aka George Too-Gay) has been much celebrated and honored simply because he is ‘gay’ and has his white ‘husband’ smear his penis with fecal matter inside Takei’s bunghole.
Of course, homos are the perfect vehicles for Jewish power. If Jews were to have massive parades showcasing their power, gentiles might grow alarmed over excessive Jewish power and privilege. But if homos do it instead, it’s a thumbs up for the idea of Minority Elite Rule, a concept that serves the Jews very well as they are the premier Minority Elite Rulers of America. Also, whatever anger and resentment that may exist toward Minority Elite Rule will be diverted to homos than to Jews who are the puppet-masters behind the ‘gay’ agenda. Indeed, consider the many Conservatives who are upset with homosexual usurpation of power but remain blind to the Jewish power that pulled the strings to make homosexuals the second-in-command in America. By making homosexuals so prominent, Jews have created a safety valve for those who want to spout off against the minority globalist elites. It is good for Jews to have gentiles growling at homosexuals than at Jews. Indeed, by promoting the ‘gay’ agenda, Jews have essentially killed two birds with one stone. By turning ‘gay’-ness into the New Normal, Jews have managed to make a lot of dumb gentiles accustomed to the idea of Minority Elite Rule, and of course, this is very advantageous to Jews since they are the ultimate Minority Elite Rulers, or MERS. But for those hardcore conservatives who refuse to budge to the power of Minority Elite Rule, the main target of their ire will be homosexuals than Jews. Thus, homosexuals serve as both the spear and shield of Jewish power.
Anyway, returning to the subject of Western liberty & decadence and how they relate to the problems of men and women, we need to consider the true conditions of Western success. Because the rich West has gone through the feminist transformation, many are likely to argue that feminism has been one of the necessary underpinnings of the rise of the West. To the extent that the West provided women of talent the freedom to contribute to the sciences, the arts, and business, this is true enough. After all, there are smart women along with the smart men, and a society that fully utilizes its smart women as well as its smart men will have double the number of smart people in many fields than a society that only allows smart men to contribute while smart women are banned from certain professions. Every society has a limited number of smart people, and smart women are smarter than most men just like smart men are smarter than most women. A social order that favors smart men and less smart men(over smart women) is likely to lag behind one that favors smart men and smart women. But then, in the long run, it could be that the former social arrangement will gain over the latter social order. While the former social order will provide less freedom and choices for its women, the result could be that more smart women will choose to be mothers and give birth to smart children, whereas the latter social arrangement, while utilizing the special talents of smart women in certain fields, will discourage smart women from procreating since their lives are so wrapped up with professional obligations. Whether one likes her or not, Hillary Clinton is a pretty smart woman, but she only had one child. She may have done much in life, but her genetic legacy is only Chelsea. Had she been a cookie-baking mother, she might have left behind five smart kids. So, when smart women are allowed to favor economic production than biological production, it will lead to short spurt of energy and creativity for a society, but the society may lose out in the long run because many of those smart women will have chosen to have no kids or only one kid. We are seeing this in Europe and advanced parts of East Asia. As the economic door opened up to women, many rose up the ranks in many profession, and they added to the economic productivity of society. But as they tend to have few kids or no kids, the future looks bleaker from a HBD and IQ-centric perspective.
At any rate, even though the entry of many more women into all kinds of professions and fields may have contributed to recent advances in science, business, media, and so on, it is also true that the West made tremendous advances long before the project of Modern Feminism got underway. Also, science tells us that men tend to be both smarter and dumber than women, i.e. there is a wider range of IQ differences among men than among women. Also, men, far more than women, tend to have the kind of creative energy and individual spirit necessary for powerful breakthroughs in demanding fields. So, one might well surmise that not much was lost in civilizational achievement due to the suppression of female talent in the past. Also, if more women in the past became mothers and had more children, it means they produced more sons, some of whom were destined to become great individuals. Imagine if Werner Heisenberg’s mother decided not to have children or had only one child. As Werner was the second son, he would never have existed. Imagine if Sam Peckinpah’s mother decided not to have kids or have just one child. Sam Peckinpah would never have been born. Imagine if John Ford’s mother had decided not to have kids or just had one kid. John Ford would never have seen the light of day. Imagine if Pat Buchanan’s mother had decided not to have kids or only had one kid. Pat Buchanan would never have existed. Imagine if Charles Darwin’s mother had decided not to have kids or only had one kid. Charles Darwin would never have existed. Imagine if Aldous Huxley’s mother had decided not to have kids or only had one kid. Aldous Huxley would never have existed. Suppose Akira Kurosawa’s mother had decided not to have kids or had only one kid. Akira Kurosawa would never have existed. And so on and on. Anyway, the point is, even though a smart woman deciding to choose motherhood than profession may remove her skills from the talent pool, it is nevertheless true that she may give birth to sons of great talent who may achieve more than she could have herself. Clearly, in the long run at least, a smart woman having many children is better for society than her devoting her life to a profession and having no kids or just one kid. In concentrating on work she may contribute something to society, but, if she had no kids, her talent would have been useful only for the duration of her existence. She would have left no genetic legacy for future generations.
At any rate, the main argument here doesn’t really concern individuals of exceptional talent, men or women. Indeed, the number of individuals with the ability, vision, and/or power to make any real difference in society is minuscule. Most people don’t get to change the world because most people are not geniuses, visionaries, prophets, wits, or some such. Most people range from average to bright in intelligence, imagination, and insight. The purpose of most people is to get along and live good meaningful lives. So, where does the primary meaning of life come from? From life itself of course. After all, life precedes meaning. Meaning is about life coming to understand itself. Life creates meaning. Meaning never created life, and there can be no meaning without life since there would be no conscious beings seeking the meaning of things. Life creates more life.
Now, if mankind existed only as life-creating-more-life, it would be no different from animals and plants that have no means to seek meaning. Unlike animals and plants, mankind has the power of intelligence & language and seeks the meaning of life and the world all around.
At any rate, the true meaning of life is inseparable from the way of life: how life originated, how life continues, how life is created, how it is destroyed, how it is reborn, etc. One can attach any number of meaning to just about anything, but the real point is to have the meaning be meaningful by raising awareness of the core truths of life. For instance, I can say the meaning of life is to take a rock, toss it into the air, and wait for it fall back down and bash one’s head. I can say the meaning of life is about hiking to some valley, standing still until wings sprout from one’s back, and then fly off to Neverland. I can say the meaning of life is to shoot a deer, cut open its belly, and then bury one’s head in the innards and sing “I Did It My Way” by Frank Sinatra. I can say the meaning of life is to fill up a water-gun with Gatorade and shoot it at a homo’s anus in the hope that a pink baby will pop out of it. We can go on and on, but what’s the point? None of it makes any sense or has anything to do with truth or reality. It would be like some male Decathlon athlete, in his sixties, thinking of having his penis and testicles removed and getting a fake vagina in the idea of becoming a ‘woman’. We can play games, but if that’s the meaning of life, then my name is ‘Caitlyn’.
The true meaning of life doesn’t require much contemplation as most of human reality is right there in front of our eyes and within our minds. We know how life is created, why it exists, how it grows old, and how it dies. And how the new life that was created by the old life goes through the same cycles and processes. Whether one likes this truth or not, it is how life is created, and it is why life exists and carries on. Since every human being is a living being, he or she is the product of the process of life, and the purpose of his or her life is to create more life before he or she departs from the world. One’s refusal to do is a rejection of the premise of one’s own existence since the ONLY reason a person exists is because his or her parents accepted the Way of Life, which is to reproduce. If life has been around for billions of years, it’s because of this continuous process of life. Without reproduction, life is like a fire that burns and then goes out forever. (Of course, human life isn’t ONLY about reproduction but about cultivation and refinement. Most of life in nature is about quantity since most organisms are simple and don’t deviate much, if at all, from their programming. Thus, there is no need for parenting, no need for culture or understanding. Insects give birth to thousands of offsprings, and the offsprings only need to hatch and follow their genetic programming. Fish give birth to hundreds of eggs, and the hatchlings are on their own as soon as they emerge from their eggs. Plants release thousands of seeds, and some sprout and grow, most don’t. Birds and mammals, in contrast, do practice parenting, but then, rarely for more than a year or two. Once the offsprings are big enough and can move freely, they are abandoned and left on their own, and the parents forget all about them and go into heat to have more offsprings. A rat can have hundreds of rat-lings in a lifetime. It is a much smaller than insects, fish, amphibians, and reptiles that, for the most part, do nothing or very little to protect or raise their young. Indeed, simpler organisms must rely on quantity since most of their offsprings are eaten or killed in the early stages. A fish may lay hundreds of eggs, but only five of them might mature into an adult fish. A frog may lay dozens of eggs, but maybe two or three will reach maturity. In contrast, a wolf may give birth to five cubs, and two might survive, a much higher percentage than among the lower life-forms. Even among the higher life-forms, the offsprings mature within a year or two, and the mother forgets all about them and has new offsprings to raise. It is different with humans because humans come to full maturity only in the late teens, so there is much need to take care of them. If a woman has 7 children in her lifetime, we consider that ‘many children’, but it’s minuscule compared with most organisms, some of which give birth to literally thousands of offsprings. Also, due to human capacity for memory, language, culture, and technology, the meaning of human life goes far beyond the mere creation of life. Humans need to be raised, molded, educated, and guided to take control of the non-living environment that is their habitat. Buildings, streets, machines, books, medicine, cars, and etc. are all non-living things, but they have become indispensable to civilization and modernity. The danger is that we may confuse these non-living things as the essence of life when they exist only to SERVE human life. We are often fooled into favoring the non-living over the living because so much of power and status derives from control of the non-living materials all around us, like working in an office in a high-rise building. So, we see a lot of women who prefer career over life. They are more interested in having power over non-living things than creating more living creatures. Especially dangerous are non-living things that give off the impression of life: TV, radio, movies, computers, video-games, and the internet, for example. Like the ‘ghostly’ spirit in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, they seem alive, engaging, fascinating, mysterious. In some ways, they seem more alive than life itself. Surely, watching a movie is more exciting than living life. Yet, it is all just an illusion, an opiate, a distraction from the true way of life. Shows on TV seem so alive, but they pull us away from life and prevent us from living life. By making us feel alive via electronic fantasy, they really take us away from the truth of life. Pop Culture is also dangerous because its fantasy gives the impression that kids don’t need parents — few movies about youth have parental figures in them, and even when they do, the parents are no wiser than the children. Pop culture give children and young people the fantasy of living in their own ‘safe spaces’ away from the authority and limitations of their uncool parents whose values and assumptions are behind-the-times and ‘unfashionable’ according to the Pop Industry. These fantasies are sold to children by the industry that doesn’t care about them and only wants their money. And of course, Pop Culture fills the minds of adult males and adult females with sexual fantasies that have no moral obligations or consequences, indeed as if life can be lived as series of vibes.)
Our society make a big deal about individuality and individualism, but life was not created through individualism. A man cannot create a life on his own, and a woman cannot produce a life on her own. And no one made himself or herself be born. Everyone was created and raised by other individuals: his parents, the teachers, and the larger community. Life can only be created through the union of man and woman, and since it takes considerable care and devotion on the part of parents to raise a child properly, there is a need for commitment between the man and the woman who choose to produce new life together. From such an understanding of biology and morality arose the tradition, concept, and institution of marriage. It is a cultural institution grounded in the truth of biology and the primacy of morality. In recent times, the concept of marriage has been degraded by homosexuals(with the backing of Jews), but then, we are living in an Age of Deception & Manipulation, an Age of Fantasy & Narcissism where reality has been twisted into faux-reality based, to a large extent, on mass hysteria, mass delirium, and mass delusions than on clear-eyed rational understanding of reality.
Also, the cult of ‘radicalism’ and ‘subversion’ has become such a cachet of urban middle class culture that even normal people prefer(or claim to prefer) what is ‘different’ and fashionable than what is normal and ‘traditional’. It makes them feel hip, avant-garde, transgressive, ‘more evolved’, and etc. The issue of whether something is true or false doesn’t enter the equation. It’s all about the narcissism of being ‘cutting edge’ or ‘bohemian’. So, even mainstream middle class people affect ‘avant-garde’ air of disdain over those people who are deemed ‘lame’, ‘square’, ‘generic’, and/or ‘boring’. Even normal people want the label of being ‘deviant’.
But because they, like most people, are inherently normal, they don’t really feel comfortable outside the mainstream zone for long. So, what they do is drag the deviant into their comfort zone, thus synthesizing the ‘normal’ and the ‘deviant’ into a sickening concoction like ‘gay marriage’, built on the fantasy that the HOMO is the new LEAVE IT TO BEAVER.
There used to be a time when what was appealing about the ‘gay’ scene was its daring and defiant attitude of abnormality. But to truly traverse in the zone of deviancy was discomfiting for a lot of inherently middle class mainstream people. It was safer to sentimentalize the culture of deviancy into the so-called New Normal.
Indeed, this phenomenon can be seen in college campuses as well. Most college professors and students are middle class people, but they want to feel ‘radical’, ‘rebellious’, and ‘cutting edge’. But almost none of them is willing to be like Che Guevara and pick up arms or be like Antonio Gramsci and pay the price for true dissent. None is willing to move to places like Detroit and become one with the blacks in social rebellion or revolution. Instead, the academics and students prefer to remain in the comfort zone of the ‘bourgeois’ academic environment and instead import ‘radical’ postures and attitudes from the outside. So, even though there are very few rapes in colleges(especially by non-black males), white middle class girls in colleges act like they are the bravest warriors in the front-line against ‘rape culture’ that is raging in college towns. Why risk one’s life and well-being by going after real rapists in Detroit when it’s much safer and more fun to stay within the college comfort zone and pretend that members of the Aryan Brotherhood has taken over the fraternity system and are carrying out horrendous ritual rapes against helpless coeds?
The problem with most normal people is they’ve been weaned on something like ‘normophobia’. Youth pop music culture is largely responsible for spreading ‘normophobia’ among the mainstream. Though weird culture always existed at the margins, the Pop Music scene starting in the sixties began to favor the oddballs over normal-looking performers. Singers like Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett were shunted aside, and in their stead, freaks like the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Pink Floyd, The Who, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Grateful Dead, the Doors, Bob Dylan, and others came to dominate the scene. As these were great talents who produced some of the finest songs in modern times, they could not be ignored from a cultural or artistic perspective. And it must be said that their strangeness wasn’t merely an act.
But the negative aspect of this was that even perfectly normal people looked to weirdos(and put-on weirdos) for cues on what life is supposed to be about. Even young normal people came to disdain normality as ‘lame’ & ‘boring’ and looked to weirdness and outlandishness as the model appearance and behavior.
At least the great Rock acts were genuine in their differentness and eccentricity. It was only natural that some of the most creative and imaginative people would be somewhat odd and weird since creativity comes from a strange & mysterious place. The real problem was that the music industry, along with rest of pop culture media, began to normalize the weirdness as the OBLIGATORY standard for everyone. And this became evident with the rise of MTV in the 1980s where even the most inane pop songs became the basis for some of the most outlandish music videos overloaded with sham appropriations of avant-garde touches. And since the convergence of Pop and Art had received benediction from Andy Warhol, the supposed guru and saint of the age, the whole cultural scene became ever more shameless in appropriating the weird for the normal and vice versa. Perhaps, one of the reasons why so many urbanites were hip to even Ronald Reagan in the 1980s had something to do with Warholism. They didn’t see Reagan as so much of a conservative politician as a post-modernist performance of one. After all, he was the Teflon President, an once-Hollywood co-star with Bonzo the ape as the leader of the Free World. This ‘ridiculous’ part of Reagan was part of his appeal to the yuppie-ism of the 1980s. Yuppies were not socially conservative but considered themselves to be too smart for the stale naive utopianism of the 1960s and early 1970s. So, even if they weren’t respectful of Reagan, they saw him as a kindred spirit, as a kind of conservative version of Andy Warhol who was playing an ironic game than hardcore politics. Indeed, Reagan had a way of Hollywood-izing every issue, and people found it sort of amusing. And if Reagan was indeed clueless, yuppies could see him as a kind of idiot savant.
Anyway, in a world where the weird, odd, and ‘different’ had become the norm in pop culture, especially pop music(the main passion among young people), entire generations grew up with varying degrees of ‘normophobia’. Even if you grew up in the nice quiet suburbs with perfectly normal parents who were doctors and lawyers, you likely listened to stuff like Pink Floyd, David Bowie, the Clash, and R.E.M., all of whom wallowed in weirdness or oddball-ness. The appreciation of weirdness per se was not the problem, especially since many genuine artists have been rather strange and eccentric, to say the least, especially with the onset of the Modernist era that unleashed talents like Picasso, Matisse, and many other experimental artists. The problem was that this sensibility, which had developed with meaning in the realm of the avant-garde, spilled over into popular culture where the weirdness just became a fetish and excuse for trashy narcissism and ugly indulgence. At least in the domain of the serious arts, strangeness had a purpose and was approached with genuine thoughtfulness and fascination. It wasn’t meant to be taken casually and flippantly as fun or entertainment.
But when pop music fused with weirdness via the increasingly experimental Beatles, increasingly transgressive Rolling Stones, increasingly cerebral Bob Dylan, increasingly avant-garde Pink Floyd, increasingly aggressive The Who, increasingly hyperbolic Jimi Hendrix, increasingly fruity David Bowie, increasingly daemonic Led Zeppelin, increasingly neurotic Lou Reed, increasingly hostile punk music, and etc., the element of weirdness/strangeness was less something to approach with thoughtfulness and/or dark passion — as had been the case with modernist experimental music of Arnold Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Alban Berg, and etc. — as something to plunge into like a vat of wine. It became something to accept casually and without inhibition, all the more so since it became so ubiquitous on every TV, radio, and movie theater. (Even so, the first Rock masters must be respected as personal artists who were committed to doing their own thing independent of the demands of the formula-driven industry that simply wanted to formulate and control their own brand of ersatz strangeness as something that could be produced and sold like Coca-Cola. The industry weren’t so much looking for the new Beatles but the new Monkees.)And then, there were books and magazines about these artists and stars, and entire generations grew up consuming the looks, expressions, and antics of weirdos as part of their everyday existence.
All through human history, those with special talent or vision inevitably stood out(as figures to admire & respect and/or fear & resent), but they worked more or less within the range of what was deemed socially and morally acceptable. Michelangelo, singular as he was, created art as tribute to God, truth, and beauty. The rise of Modernism challenged such conventions and categories but, at the very least, emphasized and even demanded serious justification as to why the long-held conventions and norms were being violated or transgressed against. But once popular culture itself absorbed the weirdness and oddities as mere styles and fashion, the masses became attuned to weirdness as part of everyday normality. When Robert Crumb first arrived on the scene, he was part of the underground scene. Soon enough, SESAME STREET and ELECTRIC COMPANY — both PBS shows, respectively for young children and older children — incorporated the ugliness and grubbiness, and later in the 90s, some of the biggest shows were THE SIMPSONS, BEAVIS N’ BUTTHEAD, and SOUTHPARK where outrageousness and outlandishness had become casual. With kids growing up with shows like that and listening to ever-trashier pop music made all the more obscene with their accompanying music videos, ‘normophobia’ became the New Normal. Girls like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz are the products of this cultural shift. Their minds have been fed with so much weirdness-as-norm that acting abnormal is their normality, made all the more depressing by the fact that our mainstream culture now promotes that kind of trashiness as healthy and normal, which is bound to mess up even more girls who are now growing up watching stuff like GIRLS and other garbage that make SEX AND THE CITY look like a Jane Austen adaptation.
If mainstream middle class girls now accept the abnormal and the outlandish as the New Normal, do they wish to move outside their ‘bourgeois’ comfort zone? No, and this is where the phoniness enters the picture. If, in the past, individuals who were different(or chose to commit to the culture of difference) really took a chance and chose a form of self-exile and took risks to go against the grain, individuals who claim to be different and daring today want the outlandish to be brought into their own comfort zones. If Emma Sulkowicz really cares about ‘rape culture’, you’d expect her to have taken a big chance and carried her mattress to parts of the world where rape is a real problem. Instead, she went around begging for sympathy in Columbia University that was more than willing to oblige her bratty behavior. On top of that, she made a total fool of herself by making a rape-awareness video that defies sense. Either individuals like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz are real nutjobs who happen to be favored by a media(that have come under the control of perverts and idiots), or they are boring upper-middle-class girls weaned on so much ‘normophobia’ since youth that they must desperately do ridiculous things to prove to everyone and themselves that they are not only against but beyond traditional normality. As what they do is beyond stupid(and will be replaced by new fashions in idiocy), it isn’t even worth speculating their mental states. But there is something wrong with a society where so much strangeness and abnormality have become so casual, preponderant, and ubiquitous. Strangeness and abnormality have value, as in the great works of Franz Kafka, Luis Bunuel, Salvador Dali, and David Lynch(at his best). Indeed, they derived their power in having subverted and/or challenged normality(ironically at times in defense of it, as in Lynch’s BLUE VELVET), which is to say that without normality to work against, there isn’t much point to the vision of the abnormal. Just like parasites need to feed on the host, abnormality needs healthy normality to feed on. When the parasites take over and the host succumbs to the invasion of the parasitic abnormal as the ‘new normal’, it is not only the death of the normal but of the abnormal as well because the abnormal cannot exist without the normal(to feed on), and it’s a lie to pretend that the abnormal could ever be the ‘new normal’, which is just semantic baloney. For example, two guys ramming each other in the fecal hole can never be truly normal, old or ‘new’.
And of course, there is no absolute division between the normal and abnormal, between the strange and the familiar. Ponder the true nature of normal things, and everything is strange. Indeed, strangeness is as much a matter of perception as of condition. And even seemingly strange things can become familiar and normal once we become accustomed to them. There was a time when most Americans found homosexuality to be very strange. Today, many find it to be okay, even decent, even wonderful, not least because the current mainstream perception of homosexuality comes from TV shows that have whitewashed the ‘gay’ community. When we recall something like ‘foot-binding’ among Chinese women in the past, it seems disgusting and strange, but there in the bygone world, it wasn’t strange at all and quite the desired norm for a lot of women. The killing and eating of dogs in some cultures aren’t strange, but such would strike us strange and monstrous here. If we look at the skin of any person under a microscope, it looks like an alien planet. Sometimes, what seems normal and sane to us under a certain mood may seem ridiculous and stupid under a different mood. So, there is no such thing as perfect normality and no such thing as absolute strangeness. There’s a degree of relativity when we are dealing with issues of normality and abnormality, and this becomes all the more apparent across different individuals with different views of what is normal AND across different cultures with different social/moral norms of what constitutes proper attitudes and behavior.
Anyway, when genuinely abnormal people think or express themselves in strange ways, that’s one thing. At least they are being true to themselves because they can’t help but be abnormal and strange. But when people who are essentially and innately normal(sane and healthy) come under the influence of the cult of abnormality or ‘normophobia’ that has become prevalent due to the control of mass media by Jews, homosexuals, and post-modernists, the result is both a perversion of normality and a corruption of abnormality. Normal people should stick to normal morality and sane/rational mentality. As for abnormal people — if indeed they are truly abnormal — , they have something valuable to offer if their odd ways of perception and expression reveal fresh insights and understandings. What they have to say or show may unsettle and even shock us, but at least there is sincerity and ‘truth’ in their ‘madness’. But when ‘normophobic’ pseudo-craziness becomes the New Normal via mass media and even institutional indoctrination, sanity and normality gratuitously take on ugly features(to win ‘street cred’), and abnormality and eccentricity turn into a commodity(and even official command) backed by institutional power and industry manipulation. This is why the homosexual community has become utterly corrupt in recent times. In elevating a form of ‘sexuality’ where men indulge in fecal penetration and where men & women mutilate their natural organs to become members of the opposite sex, the homosexuality sensibility is the New Officialdom that now crams Worship of Homos down the throats and up the butts of everyone. Any normal person who finds homosexuality to be gross, unnatural, and/or immoral is targeted for destruction and blacklisting in reputation and career. Children are raised from cradle to believe that there is NOTHING WRONG with homosexuality and with even trans-gender-ism where boys and girls are encouraged to undergo surgeries and hormonal injections to ‘become’ something else. Homosexuals, in having taken power over normal society, no longer offer fresh insights and eccentric perspectives. They are too busy screaming that their perversion is ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’, and we better or agree or else(the Big Jew will destroy us). They are just busy night and day in using their power(backed by Jews) to make us swallow that there is nothing strange, weird, and/or gross about homosexuality(and trans-gender-ism). Indeed, they even go so far as to persuade us that homosexuality is even more wonderful than real sexuality. The Apple CEO, the corrupt Tim Cook, would have us believe that his homosexuality(that makes him indulge in fecal penetrative acts with other men) is a blessing of god. And since Jews control the government, most national politicians, Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, elite colleges, top law firms, and the top courts, they give full backing and support to Homosexuals to enforce their agenda on all of us. Jews see the Homo victory as their own victory since the rise of ‘gay’ power means the triumph of Elite Minority Supremacism. If homos who are 2% of the population gain power over the 98% that is straight, it is all the easier for Jews, who are 2% of the population, to rule over the 98% that is gentile.
Jews are so smart and clever in their Power Strategy, and I must hand it to them that they are experts at psycho-cultural terrorism and warfare. Too bad that most of the goyim, being brainwashed by PC(political correctness) and brain-addled with Pop Culture, don’t know anything about this. Of course, there are gentiles-in-the-know who are onto what is going on, but they worry too much about their own careers to spill the beans on the dirty nature of Jewish power since they will be targeted for destruction. Jews and Homos are also extremely powerful because they control much of the Intelligence Apparatus of government. As the video below shows, there are certain people in the government with insider information via NSA, CIA, and FBI surveillance, and they can blackmail anyone; and indeed, that may account as to why so many leading Conservatives have been so docile and lacking in the spirit of defiance and resistance against the secret power of Jews and homos. Jews and Homos now resort to what J. Edgar Hoover once did. If Hoover destroyed some people for their homosexuality, Jews and Homos will destroy anyone for having being ‘anti-gay’ in our nation where Homomania is like a new religion.
Anyway, if homos and trannies are now enforcers of the New Orthodoxy than interesting deviants with fresh/provocative/alternative insights and visions, the vast majority of young people have been turned onto the Fetish of the Abnormal. It is one thing for normal people to value the phenomenon of abnormality for providing new ideas and alternative possibilities — after all, much of the bold and provocative arise from ‘exile’ and ‘outcast’ voices — , but it’s quite another matter for normal people to adopt the Way of the Abnormal as shortcut to feeling ‘special’, ‘hip’, ‘different’, and ‘cutting edge’. It is troubling because it becomes a shallow and gratuitous act since normal people don’t have the real inner substance of weirdness or strangeness. It’s one thing for Robert Crumb to be weird because he is really is — often in unpleasant ways. But when people who are normal try to partake of the Crumb-ian sensibility as their own, they are just befouling their own lives with put-on neurosis that isn’t real to them. It is a sham act that lacks the purity of conviction. Besides, true strangeness is a matter of condition, not conviction, no matter how sincere it may be. Crumb is the way he is because he can’t help it. Worse, since normal people lack the genuine substance of weirdness, the only way they can practice weirdness is as a commodity or command(of political correctness). So, the tattoo craze is the new conformity among so many young people who now get skin graffiti because so many rappers, athletes, celebrities, and friends are getting them. Weirdness has become too easy without any risks. It’s the New Norm of casual look-at-me narcissism that is all the phonier because such expression of ‘differentness’ merely cops the image of a mainstream culture promoted by the industry. Worse, the Fetish for the Weird becomes a command whereby everyone is pressured to agree that the abnormal-as-the-new-normal is just wonderful, cool, and worthy of endless praise. Increasingly, we hear that job places should not be able to discriminate prospective workers for having tattoos. In other words, spread trashy behavior and expressions like a skin cancer among a dumbed-down population, and then force businesses and institutions to pander and cater to them. Genuinely weird and ‘different’ people are wont to find meaning in their own paths and visions. They do not feel a need to force everyone to agree with or approve of their weirdness. If anything, they may, to an extent, guard their weirdness and value it exactly for the reason that it distinguishes them from the rest. But for those who are essentially normal and desperately want to be ‘different’ because all their ‘heroes’ and ‘role models’ in arts & (pop)culture are weird and ‘different’, they can never be satisfied with their own pseudo-weirdness since it lacks originality, personality, and depth. It is a sham put-on, and therefore, the only way they can feel special is by turning the Cult of the Weird into some kind of political movement, a means of ‘empowerment’ whereby being ‘different’ is just an act to gain easy attention and affirmation(and boo-boo sympathy). Indeed, it is rather amusing to watch the industries and institutions dominated by people who claim to be ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’ — thereby appreciating things of weirdness and ‘difference’ — but then expend so much energy on indoctrinating and pressuring everyone to welcome, praise, and celebrate their ‘transgressions’. But if mainstream society so easily, automatically, and mindlessly accept whatever is promoted as properly ‘transgressive’, it no longer has any ‘subversive’ value since the very powers-that-be are promoting it and pushing it down people’s throats as ‘good medicine’. What was once called ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’ is now obligatory cultural and even ‘moral’ vaccine for all of society. Whereas society was once asked to be tolerant of those who are different and strange, now it mandates that we bow down before the so-called ‘transgressive’, praise it to high heaven, and celebrate it like serfs used to revere kings and queens. But of course, the so-called ‘transgression’ has to be properly vetted by PC commissars because ideas and images that are truly challenging to the Jewish-Homo or Jomo-controlled cannot be tolerated in colleges filled with easily ‘tiggered’ millennials who demand ‘safe spaces’ where they can make-believe that college is supposed to be like a kindergarten watched over by mother hens.
Anyway, enough of that. The main subject of this blog-post is whether ‘sexual socialism’ has merit in modern society? But first, we need to be clear about what we mean by ‘sexual socialism’. To clarify its meaning, consider the difference between socialism and individualism(usually associated with libertarianism and/or classical liberalism). According to individualism/libertarianism, what matters most as socio-moral priority is the protection and promotion of individual liberty and personal freedom. It also says every individual should be equally free and equally accessible to rights and opportunities. So, society should not favor certain individuals over others. Every individual should be equally free and have the same chance at success and opportunity. Individualism sees socialism/collectivism as an obstacle because socialism-collectivism says that there are communal priorities and needs that should trump individual freedom and desires. In the case of radical socialism, aka communism, it tries to stamp out individual freedom altogether in favor of totalitarian collectivism that oversees the economic activity of everyone in order to secure the ‘social justice’ of ‘equality’ for all. Such a society may bring about rough equality for most people, but as it tends towards under-production, the end-result is equal poverty than equal prosperity for most people. Also, as such a system tends to be dominated by the members of the party elite who monopolize power, it inevitably results in new inequalities, whereby even the ideal of equality either fails to materialize or falls by the wayside eventually if indeed it had been achieved at some point. Consider Castro’s Cuba, and it’s clear that the Castros and their cronies are much better off than most Cubans who are left with empty slogans. Indeed, some estimate that the Castros are among the richest elites of Latin America. At this juncture in history, nearly everyone agrees — even those on the left — that communism was a great failure. Some leftists may still argue that communism had some good intentions and that many communists were sincere in their idealism, but one would have to either jaded or incorrigible to argue that communism works better than capitalism when it comes to the production and distribution of wealth. Indeed, it became all-too-apparent that being ‘poor’ in the capitalist West was materially superior to being well-off in communist nations — though perhaps not morally or ‘spiritually’.
But what about the relative success of the so-called ‘social democratic’ enterprise in much of Western Europe? In contrast to the United States, European nations have been called ‘socialist’, meaning that they allow capitalist free enterprise but tax businesses at higher rates to afford more social programs and benefits. But then, of course, United States has also seen vast expansions in government expenditures and social programs, along with ‘corporate welfare’. Also, in both the US and EU, the rich pay the bulk of the taxes. The libertarian ‘flat tax’ platform has made little headway in the US and even less so in Europe. So, even though US and EU never came anywhere close to communism, they have adopted a kind of socialism of a mixed economy. (The main point of contention among EU nations is between social-democracies that can sustain themselves and those that cannot. Government operates as a kind of Noble Theft if done right. While communist governments took on the burden of running the economy — rather badly — , most governments in social-democracies do not run most of the economy. Rather, they take taxes from the economy that is created and managed by the private sector. Since government doesn’t create wealth, it can only suck up wealth from the private sector. In this, a kind of grand theft takes place. But to the extent that there are certain tasks that only government can do properly, taxes are needed to sustain state functions. In a society with good national character, the private sector works hard, obeys rules, and pays taxes. And in turn, people in government run a clean bureaucracy and carry out their proper duties; the tax revenues are put to good use. But in societies where national character is low, many people do business the crooked way and try to avoid paying taxes as much as possible. And those in government merely look for opportunities to rob and smooch off the system. In a good society, government may be theft but it is Noble Theft because the money expropriated from the private sector for public revenue is used for necessary services and programs that serve society as a whole. But in a bad society, government is simply Ignoble Theft, and those with government jobs aren’t focused on serving the public but stuffing their own pockets. Noble Theft is about serving the nation. Ignoble Theft — of places like Greece and Southern Italy — is about serving onself. And of course, it’s even worse in places like heavily statist Venezuela and especially Marxist Cuba. As communism doesn’t allow private enterprise to create wealth, there is no wealth for the government to tax. If anything, the government is burdened with the obligation to run the economy, but since there aren’t incentives for hard work, people mostly shirk than work. So, there are constant shortages of even the basic necessities of life. In the end, working for the government simply becomes a privilege to steal a little bit more since you’re closer to the action. For example, if you are in charge of distribution, you might ‘distribute’ a little bit more, or a lot more, to yourself and close ones — and those who are willing to pay extra under the table.)
Anyway, individualism/libertarianism in the West isn’t an absolute and only goes so far. It is balanced with socialism in the belief that there are certain matters of communal and collective good that take precedence over ideological purity of individual liberty and personal freedom. From an absolutely principled individualist viewpoint, such socialist/statist ‘intervention’ is utterly unfair. Why should individual A be taxed more than individual B? So what if individual A makes more money? Is it his fault that he succeeded more with greater talent, diligence, risk-taking, and commitment? Why should he be ‘punished’ by socialism that puts greater burden on people like individual A? Indeed, consider how the upper 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes while the lower 50% pay only 3%. And of course, the tax rates are higher for the rich than for the rest. Furthermore, the lower 50% use up tremendous amounts of tax dollars by receiving all kinds of government services and programs — and of course, bureaucrats and workers hired by the government benefit with jobs and benefits. They pay little into system but take out a lot via welfare programs and other state-provided services. From an individualist and/or libertarian perspective, socialism is unfair because it violates the principle of equal treatment of individuals. Suppose there are two female individuals. One woman is smart, diligent, focused, and responsible. She does well in school, finds a good job, works hard, makes good money, and becomes affluent. The other woman isn’t so smart. She doesn’t do well in school. After high school, she lands a low-paying job and lives paycheck to paycheck. Now, her lowly economic status is NOT the fault of the successful woman. As free individuals they achieved different levels of success due to different talents, outlooks, effort, and perhaps values. So, why should the successful woman be made to pay more in taxes for the sake of the unsuccessful woman? Purely from the viewpoint of individual liberty and meritocratic equality-before-the-law, a successful person should not be ‘penalized’ for the sake of another individual. This should only be the case when an individual has committed a wrong to another person. If one woman stole from another woman, it is the role of the state to mete out justice by taking from the thieving woman and restoring the stolen item to the victimize woman. But if one person’s success isn’t the product of a wrong done to another, why should the successful person be taxed more for the material benefit of the less successful or unsuccessful person? Purist individualists will cry foul, but socialists will say it’s justified for the higher good of society as a whole: the common good. While it’s true that ‘progressive taxation’ places greater burden on the rich, society is more than a bundle of individuals but a community of shared interests and public good. So, if rich people pay more in taxes and a great library can be provided for everyone(even the poor), then society will benefit as a whole even if socialism undermines the purist principle of individual freedom and personal liberty. Also, as important as the individual and his/her freedom are, he or she is an inheritor of a pre-existing community. And as he or she will not live forever, what matters in the long-run is the health and viability of the larger community than the absolute liberty and freedom of individuals. Of course, excessive socialism will stifle liberty and opportunity, what with the state breathing down everyone’s neck, taxing to the point of removing incentives to industriousness & risk-taking, and curtailing freedom in the name of the ever burdensome common good. But some degree of socialism, by providing the basic services and some culture to most people, will make for a more cohesive, organic, and cooperative society — as long as statist programs do not encourage bad behavior like Great Society programs have done by providing easy cash, food, housing, and other goods/services to women(even young girls) who get pregnant out of wedlock.
Now, almost all liberals and even many conservatives will agree that some degree of socialism is necessary for society. Even on the ‘political right’, diehard purist libertarians(who are not conservatives) who want to leave everything up to the free market are rare. They are regarded as lunatics, eccentrics, or silly children. And given the Wall Street bailouts of 2009, the principle of unregulated capitalism is no longer credible. The very voices on Wall Street who’d been arguing for less regulation and more ‘free markets’ during the Clinton and W. Bush era were suddenly pleading for government intervention and bailout money when their massive financial gambling led to possibly the biggest meltdown since the Great Depression. Americans, even conservatives, began to realize that the rich folks who’d been calling for freer markets and less regulation were without principles. If they had scruples, they would have taken the hit when the market imploded and accepted the consequences. After all, capitalism is about taking risks, and Wall Street guys took a lot of risks when the going was good; indeed, they had rigged the system and created the very financial instruments that would reap them obscene profits in the short term. But when the gamble went bust and the housing bubble turned out to be a house of cards, Wall Street oligarchs turned out to be a bunch of sharks and weasels willing to support and play with anyone, even Barack Obama, to get theirs while everyone else got screwed. And of course, at the helm of this double-dealing were the Jews who used their matrix of power in Wall Street, government, law firms, media, and courts to come out richer than everyone else from the crisis even though they’d been most responsible in creating the crisis in the first place. With their control of the media and academia, Jews could also silence critics by accusing them of resorting to ‘antisemitic canards’. According to Jewish Logic, just because some anti-Jewish figures in the past had exaggerated bad Jewish behavior, it must follow eternally that anyone who notices bad Jewish behavior is dishing out the same kind of ‘canard’. But this BS is just philo-Semitic or Judeo-centric canard that excuses or conceals any amount of bad Jewish behavior by crying wolf. Because we can’t cry wolf even when the wolf really has appeared, so many Jewish wolves of Wall Street can get away with murder, grab even more loot, and buy up even more media and more whore politicians who do their bidding.
Anyway, if an argument for socialism can be made to counterbalance the extremes of individualism that may lead to excessive self-interest, cult of self, and economic inequalities, a similar argument can be made in relation to the sexes in the name of the higher/common good. Moderate socialism in economic affairs doesn’t snuff out the essence of individualism. Rather, it maintains a system where those who are able to accumulate more wealth are taxed at higher rates to pay for programs and services for the common good of all. Also, there are certain things that can only be done by the government, like building highways, providing public education for every child who might otherwise not be able to afford education, and maintaining the military, which may also require conscription during times of emergency. There is also the matter of Social Security whereby the elderly are taken care of by funds provided by the younger people still in the workplace. All these programs undermine individual liberty and personal freedom in the name of the higher good, but most people have come to accept them as necessary since a community isn’t merely a collection of individuals but an interactive system of people of shared identity and values. Young healthy people must think of taking care of the elderly and educating the young. If such an argument can be made for economics, why not for the sexes?
If we reduce men and women simply into individuals, then there’s no reason to favor one group over the other. Indeed, we might as well do away with the notion of ‘men’ and ‘women’ and regard each person, whether male or female, merely as an individual who should be judged purely according to his/her knowledge, skills, ability, and talent. If we go by the rules of individualism, then what we need is a totally gender-blind or sex-blind society.
In a way, feminism has been confused and contradictory in arguing BOTH FOR AND AGAINST such a system. Feminists have long insisted that men have been favored for certain jobs whereas women have been discouraged or discriminated. Feminists have demanded that women be judged as individuals than as ‘women’. So, if an individual who is a woman is a good doctor, good lawyer, good accountant, good manager, good scientist, good professor, good whatever, then she should be judged on individual merit, and she should not be disfavored because she happens to be a woman. This side of feminism argued in favor of gender-blind individualism: Judge a man or a woman according to individual meritocracy. Don’t favor a woman over a man because she’s a woman, but don’t disfavor a woman because she’s a woman either. Give her the same opportunity to prove herself as an individual like the men are allowed to do. But if feminism only argued along such lines, it would be indistinguishable from libertarianism and/or individualism. For feminism to be a group-identity movement, it had to emphasize the Power of ‘Sisterhood’. And for feminism to score moral points, women has to pose as perennial victims of the ‘patriarchal’ system dominated by men, especially white males. And since white males have been cast as the arch-villains who supposedly hog most of the power, wealth, and privilege around the world, feminists had to ally themselves with other ‘victim groups’ such as blacks, Hispanics, Asians(to the extent that Asians insist on playing the ‘victim game’ too), homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, and a whole array of so-called ‘people of color’. But this was easier said than done since most non-Western cultures are more patriarchal than Western society. Also, Jews and especially Jewish feminists tend to be very rich, successful, and privileged, indeed far more so than most white gentile folks, male and female. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprise if your average Jewish women makes more money than your average white gentile male — and certainly more than your average black male, Hispanic male, and Muslim male. Also, as feminists focus so much on power and success, there’s bound to be a huge social and cultural division between Power Feminists and most women who may or may not be feminist in their ideological disposition. Power Feminists hang around the upper echelons of corporations and governments. They may bitch and whine about how women are under-represented in the uppermost sectors of society, but the fact is these Power Feminists are many times richer and more privileged than most other people, men and women. Power Feminists expect ALL WOMEN to cheer them on to challenge the ‘patriarchy’ or ‘male privilege’ — especially ‘white male privilege’ even though Jewish male privilege is the biggest privilege in the world — , but their conceits are so divorced from the realities of most women(and most men) who don’t have it so good. When a woman who belongs to the upper 1% bitches about men of the upper 1% and then expects all the women to cheer her on to become even richer and more privileged, there’s gonna be a certain disconnect between Power Feminism and most women, feminist or not.
This is why Ellen Pao got so little support from the hoi polloi, men or women. While the Liberal Elites at the New York Times supported her(or at least pretended to in order to appear ‘progressive’), most people saw Pao’s troubles as elitist and snobby. They couldn’t identify with her elitism masquerading as egalitarianism. It was the feminism of the 1%. Could there have been a resentment of her Asiatic ‘dragon lady’ image? Possibly, but when Sheryl Sandberg called on everyone to ban the word ‘bossy’, the reaction even among many ‘progressives’ was close to “just shut up already.” Again, it was Power Feminism or the 1% Feminism that most people, men or women, simply couldn’t relate to. Since super-rich Jews and very rich celebrities control the megaphone of the mass media, they get to define what is and isn’t feminism. So, Ellen Pao and Sheryl Sandberg claim to be the Face of Feminism. But, a lot of people just see rich bitches who just want more and more. And then you got vain dolts like Taylor Swift saying she is a feminist too.
Indeed, the Taylor Swift case is indicative of how this political game is played. It is less about ideals and principles than “who’s on our side?” In our narcissistic culture, something is worthy or unworthy based on the approval it garners from celebrities. Indeed, homos demonstrated this as they recruited one celebrity after another to their cause. Of course, when famous people were reluctant to endorse the ‘gay agenda’, homos(with the backing of Jews who control the media and laws) threatened and strong-armed those who wouldn’t go along. So, when a beauty contestant was asked if she was for ‘gay marriage’ and she freely answered in the negative, the entire media complex went after her, even digging up details of her private life to shame her publicly. So, the message was out loud and clear. If you want to keep your celebrity status or aspire to be a celebrity, you must go along with the Official Script provided by Jews and homos. Otherwise, expect to be totally tarred-and-feathered and ruined for good. Had Carrie Prejean come out for ‘gay marriage’, she would have been praised to high heaven by the media; she would have been showered with all sorts of prizes. But because she stuck by principles, she was destroyed in the public spotlight, and not a single Liberal in the media came to her defense against the massive coordinated smear campaign. This is what happens when Jews and homos gain control of society. Anyway, the message was out loud and clear. If you want fame and fortune, you better come out for ‘gay marriage’. If not, you don’t have a chance. Worse, you will be humiliated and shamed in public because the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Cabal has a wide network of spies and intelligence networks that can dig up dirt on just about anyone. This is important in the game of power because most Americans are now dumb and shallow addicts of Pop Culture whose sense of right and wrong mostly comes from celebrity endorsement. Just like people buy certain products because famous people ‘endorse’ them in ads, most Americans now agree or disagree on an issue based on what most celebrities say, on the cult-of-the-cool-and-glamorous. It certainly helps the homos that they are so predominant in the makeup, costume, style, and fashion department. Before anyone goes before a camera or gets on-stage, he or she depends on a flock of fancy homos to work on his or her face, hair, clothes, and etc. Having thus become dependent on and intimate with homos who belabor to make them look ‘cool’ and ‘fab’, celebrities and would-be-celebrities come to feel gratitude to the fruity glam-crew. Also, given the low moral bearing of most celebrities who tend to be trashy, narcissistic, shallow, self-centered, devious, and venal, the rise of the New American Morality is truly dispiriting to say the least. American morality is now determined by endorsements from celebrities made to look ‘cool’ or ‘fab’ by homos. I mean who, in his or her right mind, should adopt a particular moral stance mainly because some trashy rapper, dumb athlete, silly actor, nitwit model, obnoxious TV personality, and/or nasty comedian endorses it? Apparently, the majority of Americans, especially the millennials, feel and ‘think’ this way. To be sure, this is a problem on the ‘right’ as well as on the ‘left’. As consumerism and entertainment have become so central to modern Americans — and Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians — , people look to famous people as their spokesmen, their models, their ideals, their fantasies. Especially the immediacy of TV have made people feel as if there are part of the celebrity family. When Talk Show hosts look directly at the camera, the TV viewer feels as if he or she is being spoken to.
When someone like Oprah looks into the camera and make some sappy New Age pseudo-‘spiritual’ speech, dumb American women think the fat black billionaire mammy is addressing them as her dear friends. And Reality TV further dissolves the barrier between reality and entertainment. Things have gotten to the point where what once been Onion material is now part of everyday news to be taken with a straight face. When real news has made the Onion superfluous without most people even noticing, we are living in either very amusing times or very dangerous times, or both.
Though this is a bigger problem among Liberals, it is a problem among Conservatives as well. To be sure, Conservatives suffer less from this problem for the simple fact that they don’t have many blatantly Conservative celebrities to look up to. How many Hollywood actors and music stars are willing to come out blatantly against the ‘gay’ agenda, especially when the entertainment industry is so filled with homos who play passive/aggressive for their cause? They ‘passively’ play the poor misunderstood ‘gay victim’ and plead for sympathy among the famous, but they also hint that if they are not treated with kid gloves and given a huggy-wuggy, they will spread the message throughout the Jomo Cabal network that such-and-such person is ‘homophobic’ and must be blacklisted in the future or marked for destruction. Venal and devious homos love to play gangster politics, and of course, they have the full blessing of Jews who are the biggest gangsters of them all. What else can you expect from a people who’ve become the most powerful ethnic force in America(and therefore the world) but still act like they are the biggest victims for all time? Consider that hideous Jew Matthew Weiner(creator of the terrible TV series MAD MEN)who insists that Jews are a victim group and not to be confused with ‘white privilege’. Such an assertion is hilarious since whites are the ones who should be saying that they should not be associated or confused with Jewish privilege, the greatest privilege that ever existed. So-called ‘white privilege’ cannot hold a candle to Jewish privilege. Your average white person is a peon compared to an average Jew who is far better positioned in life and power. Over 50% of Jews make over \$100,000, and 35% of American billionaires are Jews, even though Jews make up only 2% of the US population. Jews control Hollywood, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, Ivy League universities, the Federal Reserve, the top law firms, most of the media, much of the energy sector, much of retail, and etc. Yet, Jews are bitching that they shouldn’t be associated with ‘white privilege’! No, it is white people who should demand that they should not be confused with Jewish Power and Privilege that dominate most of American Society and Politics.
Anyway, from a purely individualist consideration, there should be no criterion other than objective meritocracy in competition. Everyone should be judged and treated on the basis of his or her ability. Early feminists would likely have agreed on this point because, in the past, women were banned or discouraged from many professions even when female individuals had superior intelligence, talent, and abilities. And this argument is still an important aspect of today’s feminism. Feminists routinely call for ‘equal pay for equal work’ and for the hiring/promotion of women based on individual merit. All other considerations seem to be superfluous or disingenuous according to such principle of individual meritocracy. This is the libertarian aspect of feminism, and hardcore libertarians agree with feminists on this score.
The problem is feminists try to have the cake and eat it too, and this is why feminism and libertarian/individualism ultimately don’t see eye-to-eye. Feminism is contradictory(or confused and hypocritical) because, even as it demands evaluation of merit based on individual ability and achievement, it nevertheless calls for special consideration for women in many aspects of work. For instance, one gripe that women had against the military was that combat units and special forces banned ALL women, even big tough ones. Feminists argued that if a woman-as-an-individual could prove that she’s just as tough as men are, then she ought to be allowed to serve in combat units or special forces(upon passing the physical tests). But when it turned out that most or even all women aren’t capable of performing on the same level as men, feminists have called for lowered standards that apply ONLY to women. Feminists use the same twisted logic at the workplace. On the one hand, they say women should be hired, judged, evaluated, and promoted according to the same standards that apply to men. But as it turns out, there are factors that tend to advantage men in the climbing the corporate or institutional ladder: men tend to be more aggressive, men tend to be more confident, men tend to be more creative, men tend to be bolder, men tend to spend less time raising children whereas women, even those with careers, feel a greater bond and sense of obligation in early childcare(if only because of the emotional bond of having given birth and providing milk for her children), etc. Also, even though male IQ and female IQ tend to be more-or-less the same, men tend to be over-represented in both high IQ end and low IQ end whereas female IQ tend to coalesce more near the center. So, there are all these factors that explain why more male individuals tend to succeed more at top levels than female individuals do. This is the not the product of blatant male ‘oppression’ of women but the result of biological factors that account for genuine differences between men and women. If a male scientist and a female scientist get married and have a kid, the chances are the female scientists is likely to feel a greater bond to the child. It’s just how nature works. Even if she does remain at the job, her constant need to take care of her child will tend to reduce her input at work. It’s hard to do topnotch research when a baby is suckling at your breast. If anything is to be ‘faulted’, it is biology, but then ‘biology’ was never fair. After all, if some men want to have babies, they won’t be able to because nature only gave women the physiological means to have babies. Such inability among men isn’t the result of female oppression of men but of nature itself.
Precisely because biology/nature made men and women differently, feminists call for special consideration for women that violate the principle of individualism and meritocracy. Suppose a male scientist and a female scientists get married and have a child. Suppose the female scientist, as the mother, feels a need to spend more time with her child because a baby needs a lot of attention & devotion and because she feels great affection for her child. While a father loves his child too, it’s hardly controversial to say a mother feels more a special bond to the child for reasons that are physical and emotional. Not only does a woman go through great pain to give birth, but she is likely to hold the child more for the sake of breast-feeding. Thus, her bond with the child tend to be closer on some level. So, the female scientist is more than happy to spend more time with the child, and that means she will partly lose out in the professional competition. It’s the natural rule of win some and lose some. She gains as a mother, but she loses somewhat in her profession. Nevertheless, she gains a great deal in having a child to love, raise, and shape into a civilized human being and productive citizen, someone who will remember and honor her after she’s grown old and died. It’s like if someone chooses to major in law, he or she will less time to study medicine. Surely, a person who devotes all his time in Law will do better in the field than someone who divides his/her time between Law and Medicine(unless the person has an IQ of 500). Likewise, a woman who takes on the role of mother will gain in family-hood but lose out partly in profession-hood. But insipid and selfish feminists bitch and whine that it is so ‘unfair’. They say a woman should be able to be a total mother and a total career-person. So, even if a woman spends less time at work because she spends more time with her child, society should somehow ensure a way for her to do just as well as her male peers who’ve spent more time at work(because they are childless or because their wives spend more time with the kids).
So, feminists invoke individualism and libertarian meritocracy when it comes to opportunities for women in the workplace, BUT they bring up OTHER considerations when the bio-social reality of the world sets in to advantage men in the realm of higher achievement. Feminists play individualism for opportunity but play socialism for outcome. Their argument fail on both aspects because they lack a firm grasp of reality. (Some might point out that this kind of twisted logic mostly comes from Old School feminism that alas was eclipsed by Slut Feminism championed by the likes of Camille Paglia who is more understanding of male nature and aware of biological differences. But Slut Feminism turned out to be just as hypocritical because slut-feminists demand the ‘right’ to dress and act like sluts but then also demand that everyone treat them with courtesy and respect. It’s like someone holding a piece of meat before a dog and then expecting the dog not to salivate and slobber all over the place. It’s like someone taking a piece of string and winding it tightly around someone’s finger and then expecting the person not to feel discomfort. When women dress and act like whores, it’s likely to have a Beavis-Boing-Effect on especially young males whose hormones are raging.
Slut feminism says women should have the freedom to titillate and excite men all they want, but men better not get excited except under command and permission by the women. Consider Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. They sleep around like whores and talk like shit. Sulkowicz, who attended elite college Columbia, communicated with her peers with messages like ‘Fuc* me in the butt.’ She put on the big slut act and screwed around like a whore but then cried rape on a guy with whom she had exchanged ‘friendly’ messages even after the ‘fact’ if indeed the rape really had taken place. If anything, slut feminism has made women even crazier. If some women in the past went hysterical because of excessive sexual repression, some women are now freaking out from excessive sexual expression. They see themselves as free, liberated, progressive, empowered, hot, sexy, smart, and so on, but they soon discover that many of their peers just see them as swinish & stupid tramps with no self-control. In a way, slut feminism has done far more damage than old school feminism. Where Paglia was wrong was in this: she vastly over-estimated the power of feminism just like Cold Warriors over-estimated communism as a world threat. Paglia routinely recounts many instances of feminists screaming, ranting, and crying for blood in the media and academia. She saw this as the Stalinization of feminism. While such feminism was shrill and stupid, in truth it had limited impact on society. American capitalism and consumerism, especially after the 60s, were overwhelmingly pro-sex and pro-slut-culture. On TV, in pop music, in the movies, and etc. the culture was turning more and more sexualized, raunchy, trashy, and pornographic, and there was nothing Old School Feminism could do about it. Sure, the Old School feminists were nuts, frantic, and hysterical, but they didn’t control Hollywood, TV, and pop music. And certainly not the growing industry of pornography that grew exponentially with the advent of the home video and then the internet. So, Paglia saw the trees but failed to see the forest. She noticed the feminist trees shaking their branches and screaming into the wind about the ‘exploitation of women’, but she failed to see the forest as a whole was not composed of trees of feminism but trees of capitalist marketers, consumers, and bimbos. The forest was inexorably turning into a steaming jungle despite all the efforts of Old School feminists to put a brake on such trend. She overestimated the power of feminism and underestimated the power of consumerism, hedonism, and narcissism. If Old School feminists indeed had control of the entire culture, Paglia’s championing of slut feminism would have been vital and necessary. But the fact is, even during the heyday of Old School feminism, the pornographers and sexualists were gaining far greater momentum in the media and entertainment than the feminists could dream of. Feminists were helpless against the power of animal nature in a libertine society. In Paglia’s imagination, the sex industry and slutty pop culture were on the ropes under the barrage of Old School feminist neo-puritanism, but this was just a fantasy. Yes, Old School feminists were shrill and sometimes got some media attention and gained control of certain corners of the academia, but they had almost zero influence on the culture that was growing ever more sexualized in the 70s and 80s, the so-called Reagan Era. The 80s was the decade of the Horny Teenager Movies, MTV whore-fests, rise of Rap, spread of home video porn, raunchy rock concerts, men taking women on dates to foul-mouthed standup comedy shows, and etc. And old school feminism was powerless against this. If it had any effect, very possibly a salutary one, it applied some degree of pressure on women and pop culture to restrain themselves from going full tits-and-ass. But when madonna came along and went total-whore and jungle-feverized & pornographized popular culture, slut feminism was the new feminism as the favored expression of capitalism and corporatism that sought to reduce young girls into mindless slaves of fashion that grew ever skankier and sluttier.
Old School feminism was stupid but provided some degree of counter-balance against the power of consumer capitalism, the modus operandi of which was ‘eat and fuc* like animals’. But with Slut Feminism at the helm as the new feminism, there was one less cultural resistance against the sheer power of consumer capitalist agenda of turning everyone into crass and vulgar animals. People like Paglia tend to associate sexuality with liberation, but when children are sexualized from a young age and become addicted to whoredom, they become like junkies with little self-control, and loss of self-control means loss of freedom to control one’s own life and future; it means one’s entire being is at the mercy of fashions and trashions cooked up in the meth labs of the Pop Culture Industry. Drugs like meth and heroin may make people feel liberated and empowered, but the users in effect become so dependent on the stuff that they lose self-control and become slaves of those push junk on unsuspecting customers. It’s like gluttons may feel free and liberated in the swinish pleasures of pigging out, but they’ve essentially become slaves of the junk food industry. Similarly, millennials who grew up under slut culture spearheaded by Paglia and madonna turned out to be worse than women who grew up under the influence of Old School feminists who, loathsome as they were, did make some room for the intellect and culture in their lives. After all, as ridiculous as Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer became, they were intellectual giants compared to the likes of Amanda Marcotte, Lena Dunham, and Emma Sulkowicz. Old School feminism, as simple-minded as it was, did at have a way of shaming young girls from going Full Whore. This was good advice in some measure because sexual culture under late capitalist-consumerism isn’t about falling in love, romance, and search of meaning as well as pleasure. It is about turning oneself into human sex doll with nothing on one’s mind but fuc*, fuc*, fuc* and suck, suck, suck. It’s one thing to seek sexual expression and search for true love in the world. It’s another to be a slave to the kind of trashy and impersonal consumerist sex culture promoted by the cynical and sleazy operatives of Hollywood, TV, and pop music that turn young girls into the likes of Christina Aguilera, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and other worthless garbage… even though one must say Rihanna’s “Umbrella”, trashy as it is, a masterwork of its kind. Anyway, Paglia’s victory of slut feminism was no real victory. It wasn’t victory for women or freedom. It was just total triumph of consumer-capitalism that turns nature, romance, and sex into impersonal and glossy indulgences feeding the impressionable minds of young brats with the ridiculous notion that they will be ‘empowered’ if they ‘twerk’ like a piece of trash like Nicki Minaj. Late consumer-capitalism is a marriage made in hell between Afro-savagery and High-Tech. The lowest form of human expression by blacks is amplified and marketed by the most elaborate and advanced technology of the West. It’s like Germanic Barbarians made their way to sack Rome on roads that were built with the greatest engineering skills of the most advanced civilization at the time. The highest feat of Western Man is enabling the lowest filth of African Man. The West’s greatest technology in media and communication is promoting and empowering the savagery of blacks in sexuality and music. Lenin said capitalists will provide the ropes to the communists who will hang them. White Man is providing the high-tech dildo to the black man for the latter to shove into the white man’s ass. In the end, Paglia turned out to be just a tool of the consumerist-hedonist industry whose only interest in sexuality is to market it as a drug and rake it all in from young ‘addicks’. Old School Feminism said a woman shouldn’t be judged solely based on her ass and tits. Even if imperfectly, it applied some pressure on women and the pop culture industry to present sexuality as something more than mindless fuc*ing and sucking. Slut Feminism, in celebrating the women as tits and ass, logically came to celebrate men only in terms of dicks and balls. Of course, the Industry prizes this formula since it’s much easier to sell vulgar slop to tasteless pigs than quality romance to men and women of culture. It’s easier to sell something like GILRS and SEX AND THE CITY than something like VERTIGO and L’APPARTEMENT. At any rate, the issue of sexuality is problematic to ideology because biology doesn’t play according to moral or intellectual rules. Liberals welcomed the sexual revolution in the idea that increased sexual freedom will make people love one another more across class lines, ethnic divides, and racial barriers. But sexuality is as discriminatory as it is embracing. Libertine sexuality seeks pleasure through open union with many partners, to be sure. But sexuality is not ‘inclusive’ in a universal or egalitarian manner since it has strong natural likes and natural dislikes. Raw sexuality does not like ugly people, ‘gross’ women, ‘loser’ men, and etc. Sexuality is essentially very insulting, nasty, and exclusionary. So many people face rejections while some gain all the attention. Expecting equality in sexuality is like expecting equality in sports or capitalism. Once that cat is out of the bag, it leads to big winners and big losers.)
In search of a firmer and truer grasp of reality, how about a different combination of individualism and socialism? Being of a neo-fascist bent, we should reject all forms of radicalism and purism. Italian Fascism and German National Socialism failed because of their cult worship of the Great Leader, the myth of invincibility, and(especially in the case of National Socialism) radical racism. True fascism must reject all radicalism because, after all, fascism originated by rejecting both radical socialism, radical capitalism, radical individualism, radical collectivism, etc. Benito Mussolini started out as a pro-violence socialist-syndicalist who eventually came to see the value of tradition as well as transformation, the value of nationalism as well internationalism, the value of capitalism as well as socialism. Also, Mussolini, though militantly pro-Italian and neo-Roman, also respected other races and initially dismissed the deranged racial radicalism of Adolf Hitler. But Mussolini’s egomania got the better of him, and Fascism turned into cult worship of Il Duce that encouraged Italians to turn off their minds and celebrate the swagger of the indomitable Mussolini. If there’s one good thing about the recent crisis in Ukraine/Russia, it has had a sobering effect on Vladimir Putin to play it careful and check his ego. Indeed, a leader is usually at his best when under the pressure and feeling insecure. Insecurity is sobering, invincibility is intoxicating. Usually, it’s better to be cautious than contentious. It would have been better for Mussolini’s ego to been starved than fed. A little emotional belt-tightening would have sobered him up. But Hitler of resurgent Germany provided effusive fodder for Mussolini’s ego that soon lost all sense of reality and proportionality. Putin is a far more cautious man than Mussolini ever was, but he does have some strongman and he-man tendencies — like having photos taken of him doing Judo, shooting rifles, acting tough and manly — , and he needs to be very careful because he’s up against the Jews, a very devious people with the power of US and EU, two most powerful forces in the world.
Anyway, neo-fascism rejects radicalism. It believes every idea has some measure of usefulness while rejecting any idea as the panacea for all problems — like communism, anarchism, and libertarianism claim to be. Neo-fascism neither rejects nor accepts an idea totally. It understands that every idea has a useful limit. It also understands that some ideas are better than other ideas for certain tasks while, at the same time, understanding that just because one idea is more important than another, it doesn’t follow that the more important idea is an absolute truth while the less important idea has no value at all. For instance, certain bodily organs are more crucial than others. Brains and hearts are more crucial than kidney or pancreas. Remove the brains or heart, and the person will die immediately. But, remove the kidney and pancreas, the person won’t die immediately. He or she will live for some time. But because the heart and brains are more crucial doesn’t mean that other organs are not important in their own ways. So, even though capitalism is more crucial to a healthy, robust, and productive economy than socialism is, it doesn’t follow that a society must be totally capitalist and totally non-socialist. There are still sectors and areas in which some degree of socialism is necessary. So, a good society is all about the balance and chemistry of various elements; most people seem to understand this from a common-sense perspective, but because the politics is so often polarized between those who accuse the other side of ‘communism’ or ‘greed’, you’d think it’s a zero sum game during every election cycle. (Worse, some GOP dufuses have entirely swallowed the libertarian line, at least ideologically, as they seem to think all social problems will be solved with yet another round of tax cuts and the like. Of course, in actual practice, they are usually content to be whores and just go along with the pressures of Big Government and Big Business that function in a state of perpetual collusion.) It’s like the art of cooking. Salt is necessary but only to a limit. Just because salt is good doesn’t mean you should dump more and more salt into the mix. Food will improve with addition of salt, but no more than a pinch is necessary. A radical mind, in contrast, figures ‘salt is super’ and crazily thinks that more salt is always the solution: Salt is the solution not only with bland food but with salty food. The radical believes that the food will only get better and better with yet more salt. Of course, excessive salt is ruinous, but the salt-radical will say the solution is MORE salt. Even when the salt-radical admits that the food is too salty, his solution will be even yet more salt to make it less salty.
The radical mentality is all too evident in the case of Greece and open borders. Greece is in the shape it is in because it borrowed-and-spent money it could never generate or pay back. But radical ‘leftists’ have only called for more and more and more loans to Greece. And we know Europe is facing a severe crisis due to massive invasion of people from the Middle East and Africa. But radical political correctness that worships ‘diversity’ says Europe needs even more non-whites because, apparently, the solution to ‘too much diversity’ is ‘even more diversity’. The radical mentality is either crazy, stupid, infantile, or dishonest. One thing for sure, one cannot rationally argue with it because the very nature of radicalism is to deceive oneself and others. It is to make oneself and everyone else blind.
Anyway, the neo-fascist proposal for Sexual Socialism goes as follows. With utmost honesty, it takes into account the reality of the sexual differences between men and women. All truths must begin with the reality of nature/biology than with ideas, ideals, or ideology.
Indeed, this is why neo-fascist morality is more viable than Christian morality. Christian morality on sexuality is puritanical because the Christian premise begins with spirituality and the vision of purity. According to the Genesis, God created a perfect Eden with Adam and Eve who were bound together and with God through pure spiritual love. There was no corruption, no degradation, no shame. It was a world where the lion played with the lamb, and everything was in harmony. But then, the Serpent goaded Eve and Adam to disobey God, and Eden was lost, and mankind became corrupted in soul and flesh. Of course, not all religions begin with a vision of perfection created by God but is then corrupted and destroyed by man’s transgression that leads to the rise of sin. The Old Testament begins thus, and Christianity took this idea further by placing Jesus, the Perfect Man and Son of God(and virgin to boot), at the center of its narrative. According to Jews, the world is fallen and mankind is sinful, but God provided an elaborate and extensive set of laws that would halfway redeem the moral worth of the Jews as long as they paid heed to the Lord’s commands. So, sex can be sinful and wicked but not if Jews went about following the proper rules and laws governing sex, marriage, and family. So, the flesh could be dirty if men and women disregarded the laws and acted on the basis of animalistic ‘boing’, but if men and women followed the moral precepts, it could be meaningful and moral, indeed vital and necessary as life goes on only through procreation and as culture survives through passing of knowledge and wisdom from one generation to the next. And that arrangement was good enough for the Jews.
But since Jesus strove for complete spiritual union with God, He rejected even the morally sanctioned rules of sex and marriage. Thus, there developed an idea in certain strains of Christianity that sex itself is wicked even when consecrated through marriage. According to Judaism, sex could be a shameful evil or a moral good, but according to the examples set by Jesus(and His presumably virgin Disciples) in the Christian Narrative, sex could be, at best, a necessary evil(because the urges are too strong and people want children/families). It is precisely because Christianity was founded on a vision of spiritual purity that a strain of puritanism has informed its world-view through the ages.
In contrast, neo-fascism begins with nature and believes men & women to be animals, or hairless uber-apes. The natural state of man is animalistic and amoral(or pre-moral). If mankind were to exist only on the level of brutishness, men and women would hardly be better than wild apes or ghastly Negroes, and indeed, American Pop Culture(dominated by Jews, managed by homosexuals, and performed by Negroes and their imitators) encourages boys and girls to act like wild apes, slutty whores, dirty skanks, trashy idiots, thug dolts, infantile clowns, and/or demented pimps. Can any civilized society survive and thrive with people acting like savages or beasts? (Just consider the conditions of Detroit.) While neo-fascists accept the primal animal nature of man — unlike Christians who begin with the ideal of the spirit — , they understand the necessity of moral values and laws in order for mankind to develop, improve, advance, and sustain civilization. Neo-fascists accept the truth of nature but, having assessed its dark and dangerous impulses, call for the taming and shaping of nature by the means of values and laws into something meaningful, moral, and productive. Of course, religious people are no less heavily invested in morality and values, but because they tend to begin with the spirit than with nature, they often fall into unrealistic puritanism that seeks to repress too much of what is natural as ‘sinful’. (Or, the problem of late Christianity in the now soulless West is its willingness to be excessively forgiving, especially in the name of atoning for its own sins of having betrayed the spirit of Jesus. Because Christians through the ages were not perfect saints, current Christians must forgive and bless sluts, thugs, degenerates, decadents, and devious Jews in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusion’. But there is a cynical element to this show of pseudo-virtue: “If we forgive others, others might forgive us.” It is true that Jesus preached against knee-jerk judgmentalism and urged people to be mindful of their own transgressions before ‘casting the first stone’, but He nevertheless believed in the need for powerful morality and judgement. His message was judge yourself before judging others. In contrast, the mode of neo-Christianity is “we won’t judge you if you don’t judge us.”) In contrast to religious folks and neo-fascists, the Liberals and libertines have this naive, foolish, insipid, and/or reckless view that the only problem is ‘repression’ and all will be well if people abandon their inhibitions and act and talk like Lena Dunham and Miley Cyrus.
Anyway, given the essential nature of man and woman and of sexuality, we need to address the fact that individualism, especially of the libertarian kind, has serious inadequacies as a social philosophy. Individualism is valid to a point, but it cannot be the core value of any community, nation, or civilization since no individual ever made himself or herself and no individual will live indefinitely. Every individual, no matter how great, was made by other people, namely his or her parents(who were created by their parents and so on), and was educated & shaped by institutions of the larger society. While every individual needs certain rights to safeguard his or her liberty and the means of property & opportunity — and creative or innovative potential if possessed of certain natural/superior talents — , it is foolish to conceive of the individual as the be-all and end-all of everything. No individual is, not even close.
This is why libertarianism, in its purist strain, is rejected by both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe in an organic community united by identity, heritage, memory, race, culture, shared narratives, and/or values. Conservatives believe that an individual is more than an independent being; he or she is a product of a certain lineage, tradition, and obligation. Without such sense of bond and duty, there would be no need for any individual to honor the memory of his or her parents. Such an obligation exists because an individual knows(or should know) that he or she didn’t create himself/herself but was created by his/her parents who took care of him/her as a child. Libertarians might invoke personal attachment and sentimentality to explain why people honor and remember their parents, but according to such logic, there is no need for any larger sense of obligation and duty. It’d simply be a matter of personal feeling. So, if an individual happens to be callous & self-centered and doesn’t much care if his or her parents died, libertarians would be okay with such reaction since life should be just a matter of personal feelings and choices of individuals. There is no sense of cultural burden or emotional responsibility beyond the whims of individual feeling. If what the individual feels and wants is of paramount importance to himself, then it should trump all other duties and obligations. It would only be a matter of individual desires and drives. So, if one individual feels great sadness over his/her parent’s passing, that is good according to libertarianism since it’s a matter of personal/individual feelings. If another individual, who is uncaring and self-centered, doesn’t care one whit about his or her parent’s death, that too is okay according to libertarianism since he or she, as an individual, has no obligation to anything but one’s emotions as a free and independent individual. If one feels no sadness, then that’s just the way it is, and he or she should just go on focusing mainly on his or her self-aggrandizement. Purist libertarians would probably not be much disturbed by the Shelly Duvall character in NASHVILLE who has no sense of life beyond infatuation with the self.
Conservatives would find this view abhorrent. Conservatives believe all children should feel a sense of duty and obligation to their parents, lineage, tradition, and culture. (Even though we all contribute to society, we are above all inheritors of what has been bestowed to us by the struggles, achievements, and the care of those who came before us. Even the greatest individual received far more than contributed to the world.) Of course, conservatives can understand why some children may have come to hate their parents. Some parents are dreadful people and did things to alienate their children. So, there are always bound to cases that explain why some children have come to feel cold toward their parents. But morally speaking and under normal conditions, children should have a certain special feeling for their parents and their culture. And by extension, this feeling should involve the larger community as every family is part of a larger cultural, racial, religious, and/or national realm. Conservatism reminds individuals that they are part of a line-of-a-people. We exist here in the now because of the long line of our racial ancestors that stretch back into the past, and the only way we can continue to ‘exist’ is through our descendants who will carry on with our DNA passed to them. Individualism focuses only on the conscious and (self)aware self, but there is more to life than individual reason and consciousness. After al, we are we even when we sleep. We are we even when we are babies and have yet to gain full consciousness and the faculty of reason. In some ways, we’ve always existed because the DNA in our bodies has been passed down to us from our parents who received it from their parents who received it from their parents, and so on back the very beginning of life. It is because of individualism’s emphasis on the conscious self that we don’t regard fetuses as people. Since fetuses lack consciousness, we figure it is okay to have them killed(which is okay by me if they are Negretuses). Naturally, we focus more on conscious life than on unconscious life since conscious life feels happiness, fright, and all the powerful emotions that unconscious life does not. If one man is aware and if another man is in a coma, and if we had to kill one and spare the other, we would likely spare the conscious one while killing the unconscious one(unless the conscious one is a ghastly Negro or ghastro while the one in the coma is a white person). Conscious individuals naturally empathize with other conscious individuals. Even across species, we tend to empathize more with animals with higher consciousness than with animals with lower consciousness. We’d rather kill a fish than a dog. We’d rather kill plants than animals, as even lower animals have some degree of consciousness.
That said, we need to remind ourselves that the passage of life is an unconscious activity. When the DNA in the sperm encounters the DNA in the egg, neither the sperm nor the egg knows what is going on. Both are actively engaged via biological programming, but neither is aware of the process, no more than any microscopic organism knows what is going on. As the fertilized egg grows and develops, it is utterly unaware of what is taking place. Even when the baby is born, it has nothing like the functioning consciousness. And yet, this is the how life is created: Unconsciously. Modern individualism is so conscious-centric that we like to believe that a conscious mother and a conscious father through their conscious decision created a conscious child who will grow up to enjoy his or her all-too-conscious free will. While it is true that a man and a woman do consciously choose to have a child, they are pushed by drives/desires that are beyond conscious will. For instance, a man or woman consciously deciding that he or she shall no longer feel sexual desire is like a man or woman consciously deciding that he or she shall no longer be hungry or thirsty. It won’t work. Such drives are beyond conscious desire. It’s like if your hand is placed over a fire, it doesn’t matter what you think or wish to believe. You will pull away your hand out of pain beyond your conscious will. It won’t do for you to tell yourself that you will consciously decide to feel no pain. (Consider the hero of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA played by Peter O’Toole. In the beginning, he carries on with the conceit of ‘mind over matter’. He wills himself to not mind the pain of flame burning his fingers. And his conscious-centric power of will gradually grows into a kind of megalomania. He overcomes physical pain to save a man dying in a desert who’d been abandoned by his compatriots. He believes that ‘nothing is written’, at least for someone as ‘extraordinary’ as himself. His conscious will writes its own narrative. But every man has a breaking point, like what the generals say of Colonel Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW. And when Lawrence is captured and whipped by Turks under the command of an Ottoman fruiter, he has his breaking point. He is like Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE who ultimately breaks down before the bosses and begs for mercy because no amount of conscious will and personal defiance can take the agony anymore. Yet, when Lawrence’s manic ego is stoked once again by General Allenby’s ‘slim customer’ charms, he makes himself believe once against that he is a man of destiny and nothing is written for him. He is once again fully in control of himself. But when he watches a retreating column of Turks, he cannot control his vengeful bloodlust.)
Both ‘happiness’ and unpleasantness are two sides of the same coin. One seeks happiness because one constantly feels the unpleasantness of being in a state of non-happiness. If eating a nice meal makes one happy, it is because the lack of food aggravates one with the unpleasantness, discomfort, or even pain of being hungry. ‘Pursuing happiness’ is also a form of ‘escaping unpleasantness’. If a white family seeks happiness by moving to a nice neighborhood, it could be because it is trying to escape the unpleasantness of moving away from a community overrun with apelike Negro thuggery. (Or when safe and prosperous white European nations welcome hordes of immigrants, migrants, refugees, and other suck ilk from non-European nations, they could be seeking the happy thrills of ‘diversity’ to stave off the unpleasant boredom of homogeneity and ‘excess’ order that have led to apathy, like among the Eternals in ZARDOZ who finally welcome the Brutal Exterminators to enter their oasis and liven things up.)
When aware of the object of desire, one feels unhappy and unpleasant(and unworthy) in its absence. We may explain this in terms of conscious desire, but the emotions at the root of such consciousness are beyond and beneath rational understanding. It’s like the James Stewart character in VERTIGO has no conscious control over his emotions after the woman dies.
A man who wants a woman, a woman who wants a man, a person who wants a cake, a child who wants a toy, and etc. are consciously aware of what they want and consciously may strive for ways to get it — like a chimpanzee using reasoning skills to set up boxes to reach for a banana — , but the root desire is the raw stuff of animal drive, the power of which goes beyond conscious will. So, when a man and a woman want to have a child, they are only consciously choosing to surrender to the animal desire of primal life instinct that seeks to perpetuate and multiply itself. Such instinct is ever-present whether one chooses to consciously acknowledge it or not. It’s like the murky mechanism in the borderline between bodily fluids and mental imagery in David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD.
Since so much of life is fueled and propelled by such drives, it would be silly to somehow explain all of human life and history in terms of individual consciousness, freedom, reason, and will. We need to take into account this UNCONSCIOUS aspect of life in order to understand and appreciate the true nature and meaning of human survival, human development, human progress, and human power. Before a conscious individual(the parent) chooses to pass down his or her knowledge, skills, and wisdom(if such be present) to another conscious individual(the child), there is the interval of unconscious life creation and primal growth. Though the parents consciously choose to have a child, they are driven by sexual feelings that are beyond-conscious-control. As Dr. Beavis might say, it is the ‘boing’ element of life.
And before the emergence of microscopic technology and modern biology, no man or woman knew what really happened when the white stuff went from the male penis to the inside of the female vagina. And before the new life grows into sufficient consciousness with fully cognizant faculties, functional memory, and skill with language, much of his/her life is unconscious, pre-conscious, or semi-conscious. It takes awhile for the fetus to develop something resembling a working brain, and even when it’s fully formed into a baby brain, it is essentially useless and unknowing until the baby is pushed out into world from the womb. Once outside, the brains develop quickly, but it takes time for them to develop into a truly thinking and reasoning mechanism.
Because we focus so much on the conscious side of man, we tend to overlook this other aspect of life. Or, when it is discussed, it is generally in relation to how to stimulate and develop the child’s conscious abilities as soon as possible. Some New Age therapy calls for pregnant women to begin ‘training’ their babies when still in the wombs. Even some serious scientists claim that early development of cognitive abilities must be secured in the first three years of life or else the child will never develop to his or her full potential. And such advice often take on an ideological turn, e.g. theorizing that babies, especially white babies, are born ‘racist’ and must be programmed as early as possible into loving certain groups, especially Jews, homos, and Negroes. Given that everything we do requires conscious input, it is understandable why we focus so much on cognitive development and awareness. After all, whoever wrote a novel in his sleep or built a house in a coma? However, such conscious-centrism misses an essential fact of life, i.e. that life is as unconscious as it is conscious. After all, even when we are conscious, how much of the world and of ourselves are we really conscious of? For starters, we only know what is happening on Earth because our consciousness cannot reach across the galaxy like the character’s mind in Olaf Stapledon’s STARMAKER. And even on Earth, our conscious selves can know and process only so much of the world. If we are in a room in a certain town, we only know what is happening in that room and are unaware of anything else. It could be that in some house in another part of town, a rape is happening. It could be that in another town, a murder is taking place. It could be that in some city far away, houses are burning down. It could be that in another city, Jews are conspiring to take over some financial operation. And even in the very room in which one may be situated, one’s consciousness can focus on only so much. Suppose there are ten people in the room. If our conscious mind focuses on one person, it will miss out on what is happening with the nine other people. Also, even if we focus on one person, how much of him or her can we know? Is he or she telling the truth or a lie? And how we respond to that person depends on what we know of him or her. If we know he or she has a dark history, we will likely listen with a degree of trepidation. If we know he or she has a good reputation, we will likely listen with trust. If we know nothing about the person, we may be neutral and curious or judge him based on first impressions. Consider any novel. The writer doesn’t describe all the details of everything but only the relevant, pressing, or compelling details to focus our minds only on what we need to know. And animals are like that if they are to survive. A deer must be acutely alert to possible dangers, and that requires shutting off its mind to all the irrelevant stimuli unrelated to its survival. And politics focuses on who-has-the-power and how-to-get-the-power. (The appeal of religion or meditation in allowing man to reach beyond the sensations and perceptions of immediate necessity, survival, and worldly power, which is always disdainful of the powerless. Evolution developed the senses to focus on and serve the primary needs of hunger, shelter, and procreation. If an animal could meditate, it would soon be dead as, for example, a calmly meditating deer will be pounced on by a cougar or bear. A deer has to be sensitive to threatening stimuli at all times. Meditation and contemplative prayer are a privilege made possible by security of social order created by man. It can only be done in relative safety. When social order breaks down, prayer and meditation are useless. Consider the hapless Russians in the church in ANDREI RUBLEV as they are cut down by ruthless Tatars. Our immediate senses cry out for survival or pleasure — food, fun, thrills, sex, aggression — , and our rational minds operate as analytical machines to make sense of the world and gain advantage in it. The mind can figure out the world, but it cannot be one-with-the-world. The mind can process empirical data of the world and make logical sense of it. It increases our understanding but always at a distance from the world. Religion and meditation, in contrast, seeks union or communion with the world. It dissolves the boundary between our individual bodies & egos and seeks union of man’s soul with the totality of the universe. Since the body is physically limited and prioritizes primal sensations necessary for survival, it cannot serve as conduit to the world. The body is very insistent on seeking selective union and separation. For example, the body seeks union with food because the stomach demands satiation of hunger. The body seeks sexual union with an attractive member of the opposite sex for pleasure and procreation. But the body also rejects what cannot be eaten or may be poisonous. The body rejects ugly and foul people. A guy wants to eat a hamburger but rejects most stuff in the world that are inedible. A woman might seek intimacy with a certain guy but will be turned off by most men who are deemed unattractive. The mind is more flexible and wide-ranging, but the mind is essentially analytical. Instead of merging with the world, the mind separates itself from the world and analyzes & breaks it down to its components in a logical and ‘scientific’ way. A mind is a pair of scissors, a scalpel, a tool kit, and etc. It tinkers with the world than seeks union with it. So, even as science has led us to understand more about the universe, it has separated us more from it as well. Science isn’t about seeking communion but about gaining comprehension. And it operates only in the realm of perception and calculation. So, how do we gain communion with the totality of the universe, with the Tao of everything? Through spirituality that seeks to unite mind, heart, and body into a whole. To be sure, some religions try to separate the soul/spirit from the mind and body, but other religions seek a union of all three into a single entity, and then, it seeks union with the whole of the universe through meditation. Some seek this unity with cosmic truth by transcending the world of man. But some, like Jesus, have sought unity by, first, embracing all of mankind as kindred souls in the hope that the united souls of mankind could one day achieve collective rapture and unity with God Himself. Our bodies urge us to seek the company of men who are materially beneficial and sensually appealing to us while avoiding those who may do us harm. Why hang around the poor when they may rob you or drag you down to their level? Why hang out with the diseased when they are filthy & foul and spread their illness to you? Why linger among the tyrannical when they might whip you and nail you to the cross? From a primal sense of self-preservation and self-fulfilment, it made no sense at all. It’d be like a deer going where the cougars are. It’d be like sheep going where the wolves are. Life sustains itself through struggled separation from other life. Sheep must try to avoid wolves, deer must try to avoid cougars. Humans build safe spaces away from dangerous animals like bears, moose, and cougars. If any life-form tried to embrace everything in the name of spiritual love, it’d be dead in no time. Even without predators, all life-forms can exist only in a very narrow range of conditions. Humans must remain on land because we don’t have gills like fish to breathe in water. The range of temperatures necessary for human survival is extremely limited. Our rational faculty may wander freely but only to ponder things by maintaining a distance between us as subject and the thing-under-consideration as object. Therefore, it is only through spiritual or meta-philosophical meditation that we can commune — or make-believe to commune — with the totality of cosmic truth, like in the opening scenes of the ridiculous TREE OF LIFE by Terrence Malick. This is, no doubt, the appeal of music. While it plays on our sensory organs, it creates the remarkable impression of sensual or even spiritual unity with something bigger. Music brings listeners together in a kind of communal rapture whether in a church, mosque, or concert hall. Spirituality is like silent music though it is often accompanied with music in many cultures. Though spirituality and rationality are seen as opposites, even as enemies, rationality can serve spirituality because the more we know about the universe through scientific discovery, the more we can meditate upon what we know and seek cosmic unity with it. It’s like Carl Sagan’s TV show COSMOS where, as the ship-of-the-imagination hurtles through space accompanied to the music of Vangelis, we become immersed on all levels — sensual, emotional, and transcendental — with the very aura of the cosmos. Spiritual longing seeks communion with the ALL, but the sensual flesh can only survive in a fragile environment, and the rational mind must maintain a critical distance from the world it ponders. In the end of MIRACLE MILE, the two lovers must face physical & mental hell before they are quasi-spiritually made one with the cosmos. There is hell to pay to make it into heaven, as Jesus found out.) Also, how much of ourselves do we really know? People often repress or deny certain truths about themselves. When patients are told of terminal cancer, many patients may go through a state of denial. Some people are so focused on ambition that they may not be honest with their deficiencies for success. Many Nazis were in denial to the very end when the war was clearly lost. And many in the Soviet Union refused to believe that communism was about to collapse until it finally happened. In the US, many white people still refuse to believe the truth that Jews fooled them real good, took over the whole nation, and are using various means to take down white people’s power and interests for good. Like the kid said of ghosts in THE SIXTH SENSE, people see what they want to see. Consider how fat ugly women go to salons, have their hair done, listen to faux-praises of their hair-dressers, and look in the mirror feeling themselves to be attractive.
Even though our culture tends to be anti-intellectual, or at least non-intellectual, we tend to over-emphasize the conscious part of life above the unconscious part of life. This partly owes to our consumer culture that is geared toward maximizing our conscious awareness of pleasure and sensuality. Pop music, movies, TV, video-games, and all kinds of night-life inflate our consciousness with a sense of hyper-being. And people tend to be hooked onto one gadget or another for most of the day. With smart-phones and the like, people are connected to hyper-media-stimuli even when they are away from home. And as the most prized modern professions are hyper-competitive in office settings(or at the floor of the stock exchange) where things are always abuzz, we’ve grown accustomed to feeling that we aren’t alive without excess stimuli and pressure. A place like Las Vegas or Time Square makes this even more apparent with everything flashing, blinking, and glowing all through the night. So, we feel that something has to be ‘happening’ for us to be truly alive. Something must always captivate our senses. The first thing many people do when they enter the house is turn on the TV even when they don’t intend to watch anything. So, modern life is defined by being hyper-conscious of endless streams of stimuli and sensations. Therefore, much less attention is paid to the unconscious or semi-conscious side of life.
And yet, the crucial stage of life is unconscious from the creation of the egg and sperm to their mutual fertilization to the development of the egg into an embryo and the growth of the embryo into a fetus and so on until the baby is born and slowly comes to awareness of his surroundings and learns language and gains knowledge of the world and etc. This is a crucial stage of life that every human must go through, but we tend to depreciate its value because of the lack of consciousness or full consciousness on the part of the fetus/baby/child as thinker, consumer, or reveler. And because it has been depreciated, many women don’t see much value in playing the role of mother. Why bother with a life-form(unborn baby, baby, or young child) that lacks consciousness or full consciousness? Whether due to intellectual or hedonistic conceit, the development of fetus-to-baby-to-child seems beneath the concern of many Modern Women. Consider the Charlotte Rampling character in the British film GEORGY GIRL who finds her baby to be a big hassle and deserts the child in favor of more fooling around for joy and pleasure.
She’s so into conscious-consumerism that the idea of spending time with a semi-conscious baby sickens her. But intellectual women may feel the same way for different reasons. While such women may not be into partying, dancing, and carousing, they value conscious achievement through intellect, research, academics, teaching, and/or critique. They value the Life of Thought & Discourse, but an intellectual woman cannot discuss anything with a fetus, baby, or child. It explains why so many Modern Intellectual Women tend to be pro-abortion. A fetus may be life, but it is unconscious, therefore it is non-intellectual, therefore it is worthless and possibly a hindrance to a woman of intellect. If an intellectual woman gets pregnant, the child might get in the way of her pursuit of Thoughts and Ideas. Better to get rid of the unconscious kid that may become an obstacle to the life of the conscious intellect. Of course, the baby will one day grow up to be a thinking person, but that will take time and some doing. Also, the intellectual and cultural development of the child is left to institutions than to the parents, further creating a distance between parents and children. In the rural past, much(even most)of what the child learned came from his parents and grandparents. Daughters learned directly from their mothers, and sons learned from their fathers. Most of what children needed to learn was taught by the parents who ran the relatively simple economics of hunting-and-gathering or farming/shepherding/ranching. But modern society is very complex, and parents feel intimidated about intellectual, cultural, technical, and professional matters. If you’re an accountant, you might be able to teach your children something about accounting, but what if your children want to be something else? Besides, most parents want their children to ‘rise’ in life, which means succeeding in a ‘better’ profession. An accountant may know number-crunching but knows little or nothing about law, medicine, engineering, chemistry, computer science, and etc. Also, even if an (super-smart)accountant did know all those subjects, he would be too busy with his own work to spare time left to teach his child anything. Also, modern sciences and professions often take years and years of study and practice. In times past, the children of a hunting-and-gathering, farming, or livestock-herding community would have worked side by side with their parents and learned the skills by observation and participation. There are few high-level jobs in the modern world that could be learned that way. As for non-professional knowledge — history, literature, arts, music, humanities, and etc. — , most parents know little of that stuff, especially as few modern people, even among the well-educated, really keep up with serious culture after highschool and college. So, most parents don’t see their role with their children as intellectual or cultural. They see it as personal, emotional, and social. The personal bond between parent and child may be heartfelt and meaningful, but it offers little in terms of conscious consumerism and conscious intellectualism. The biggest pleasures are associated with life outside the family. It is not what you do with your family but what you do distracted away from your family. A family might see a movie together, but even then, each member is not relating to one another but losing himself/herself to the fantasy on the screen. Or members of a family may all have intellectual interests, but each member is likely to have his or her separate area of passion and interest. The father might be a history buff, the mother might be into English literature, the son might be into classical music, and the daughter may be into fine art. Thus, intellectualism doesn’t so much lead to a meeting of the minds as their separation.
These conditions and situations are problematic but understandable given the way of modern society with its disorientation and displacement from any stable sense of continuity and integrity. But in their over-emphasis on matters of consciousness, they overlook the crucially unconscious stages and states of life, indeed without which life cannot exist. (In the ultra-conscious world of the Eternals in ZARDOZ, even sleep has been banished for it is seen as useless.) After all, life cannot be created by the mind. Zeus may have created Athena thus but only in the realm of mythology. Each human life was created by the union of man and woman through their loins, not through their brains. Their brains may have decided to produce a life together, but the process was biological and physiological. As every human life was created that way, all future human lives will be created that way — unless something like technology in Aldous Huxley’s THE BRAVE NEW WORLD supplants the way of life creation. Since human society can only survive through the creation of life and since the emotional well-being of men and women come from family formation and ‘legacy’, we need to address this dimension of life when formulating the kinds of laws that will best serve society. If human life could be created by individuals by themselves — like an artist creating his work — and if ideal child-rearing required only one parent, we could go with individualism(or individualist meritocracy) as the guiding principle of society. But no human life can be created by an individual alone — though exceptions could be made for hermaphrodites — , and ideally children should be raised by the man and woman who created them.
Our modern society puts a premium on conscious-to-conscious relations. So, we value the teacher-student relation but undervalue and even devalue the parent-child relation, especially if it is mother-and-child as it is often associated by feminists with ‘evil patriarchy’ and the ‘enslavement’ of the woman in the role. Such feminist rhetoric is really the product of a fallacy. Yes, it is true that through most of human history women had only a very fixed role in society — but then, it was much the same for most men as well. It was only recently in the Modern West that a new social system developed that first vastly expanded the freedoms and choices for most men and then extended these choices, freedoms, opportunities, and rights to women as well.
But just because an endeavor, activity, or role can be associated with lack-of-choice doesn’t mean it is not essential and crucial to what we are as men and women. (After all, George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE is held back from what he really wants to do out of a sense of obligation to his father’s moral legacy and his hometown community, but he still lived a ‘wonderful’ and meaningful life with wife, children, and friends. Besides, the Howard-Roarkian dreams of most people are not going to come true even if they did embark on that path.) Of course, coercion can be trivial, wasteful, and pointless. Suppose I’m a slave-master and force all my slaves to roll in the mud all day and how like baboons. Suppose my slaves get awful sick of rolling in the mud and howling like baboons. So, upon liberation, they see the end of rolling-in-the-mud and howling-like-baboons as ‘good riddance’, and understandably so, sine it had been a complete waste of their time and demeaning to their sense of self and dignity. But suppose I’m a slave-master and force my slaves to work on a farm, work to build stuff, and work to create thing people need. My slaves wouldn’t be free, and they would certainly resent the fact that I’m forcing them to do these stuff. But it is nevertheless true that they are engaged in essential tasks that are not undignified in their nature. Their enslavement is undignified, but their work is not. (After all, Stalin forced millions to work on many projects, but when the job was done, the people involved felt a degree of pride over their achievement.) It would indeed be fallacious to say that working on the farm or working to build stuff is undignified because it was associated with slavery. Karl Marx understood this when it came to the subject of labor. He saw labor as necessary and dignified. The problem he had with labor under capitalism was it was a form of ‘exploitation’, at least according to his theory of human relationship. But if labor could be liberated from such injustice, it would be filled with dignity. Under capitalism, the work itself was not the problem. The real problem was the unfair relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that supposedly ‘exploited’ the workers while getting richer themselves.
So, work is good, but exploitation of work is bad. It would be fallacious to say that, since work was exploited by the bourgeoisie, work itself is bad under all circumstances. It’s like farming is dignified and essential. Whether one works as a slave or free man, one must farm to produce food for oneself, one’s family, and rest of the community. For much of human history, many people worked as slaves, helots, or serfs on the farm fields. The lack of freedom was undignified, but the work itself was still essential and even dignified.
Same goes for motherhood. Through most of human history, women didn’t have much of a choice when it came to their roles in life. And most of them were expected to play the role of wives and mothers. Therefore, when women gained modern freedoms and rights in the 20th century, the hysterical and specious feminists among them were apt to fallaciously argue that motherhood itself is wrong, oppressive, and wicked since it had long been associated with the subjugation of womenfolks under the system of patriarchy. But this is like arguing that farming is inherently wrong since so much of human history on the farm has been associated with slavery, helotry, and serfdom. Serfdom lasted in Western Europe for a long time, even longer in Russia. But agriculture was always essential to civilization since it provided food necessary to support a large community. The solution then was to end serfdom, not to end farming. Likewise, the solution for women was the guarantee of freedom and rights, not the end of wifehood and motherhood. To a feminist, being a female teacher is more dignified than being a mother. Feminists value teaching as it is about a mind-to-mind or consciousness-to-consciousness interaction. It is seen as worthy of female intellect because education is about the transmission and exchange of ideas(and ideology). In contrast, a mother spends a good deal of her time feeding and taking care of her semi-conscious baby and then semi-rational young child. Since the relation is physiological and emotional, it is seen as less ‘intellectual’, thus less dignified. Also, since the mother’s attachment to the child limits her freedom(to go to night-clubs and act like a hussy), motherhood is seen as ‘uncool’, ‘unfree’, and ‘oppressive’. But then, for there to be any kind of student, there has to be mothers. Teachers don’t produce children from the pages of books, blackboards, and chairs & desks. Teachers teach children produced by mothers. Teachers themselves were produced by mothers. Perhaps, we would all be more appreciative of the ‘unconscious’ process of life from conception to birth to early development IF each of us could remember everything that happened since conception. Indeed, suppose full consciousness begins the moment the sperm enters the egg. Suppose we have vivid recollections of everything that happened from birth to young childhood. We would have a powerful ‘memoric’ attachment to the process of our creation. But most people’s earliest — and very vague — memories go back to perhaps when they were three. We remember very little about early childhood and of course nothing about what happened before that. So, we tend to be conscious-centric. And as our society tends to be sensual-maniacal and/or intellect-centered, we don’t value anything that doesn’t either blow our mind — Rock music, partying, clubbing, roller-coaster-riding, movie watching, etc. — or provoke our mind by the way of ideas — advances in science, technology, and philosophy. We want to feel alive through over-charged sensory-consciousness or heightened rational-consciousness. This is even truer with the fading importance of the church, temple, and other sacred places of worship. A church or temple is a place where the mind and senses are checked so that the ‘soul’ can attains communion with God or gods in the cosmic womb. (Of course, such state-of-mind is alien to Negroes who use churches like discotechs and to certain Evangelical hillbillies who stir up a ruckus in the name of God.) But the proper mind-set in a sacred setting is to ‘let go’, to be freed of one’s animal-sensory ecstasy and ultra-intellectual conceits. Prayer and meditation obviously require the use of the mind, but faith requires the mind to remain in standby mode. Prayer is to surrender to God and leave things up to Him. Meditation is a mindful way of clearing the mind of incessant thought. When we think, we add stuff to the mind, filling our consciousness with topics, issues, subjects, and etc. But in meditation, we clear the mind of all such thoughts in the hope that the purified mind-void will then be filled with something holy and pure, something beyond consciousness that is either sensory-ecstatic or intellectual-thematic. It is then unsurprising that religious people who frequent churches, temples, and mosques are more likely to get married and have children. The religious experience, especially within the walls of the sacred place, encourages a state-of-being that goes beyond consciousness. Church is like womb and tomb, the union of unconscious life and unconscious death. It intuitively reminds people of the cycle of life and death, of how we arise from one unconscious realm and return to another unconscious realm.
Through child-rearing, there is also the heightened realization of the continuum among unconsciousness, semi-consciousness, developing consciousness, and full consciousness. A mother becomes pregnant with an unconscious human life form inside her womb. As the baby is born, it knows nothing and its senses are scrambled. Gradually yet dramatically, the baby develops from a unconscious to a semi-conscious being. And then, it turns into a child with full consciousness but lack of knowledge, experience, and emotional complexity. Ideally, the child grows into a thoughtful adult. So, there is a connection between unconsciousness and consciousness, and a parent comes to observe and participate in this transformation that is deeply meaningful.
Perhaps, what every person needs to do is ruminate on this process of how he or she arose from unconscious mass of flesh to a semi-conscious creature to a conscious child to a fully developed adult. But because we have little memory of early childhood and no memory of our existence before that, we tend to focus on ideas, arts, book knowledge, abstractions, entertainment, and sensory delights as the core meaning of life. But in fact, our unconscious, semi-conscious, and early conscious selves were just as important. Not in an intellectual, professional, or sensual way but in the very fact of our existence, as the very source and the essential stages of life-coming-into-being. Secular folks focus much on the process of evolution, and they mock staunchly religious people for refusing to take evolution into account as the basis of human existence that was predated by proto-human existence that was preceded by ape-existence, and etc. Religious folks like to think of humanity in terms of Creation of human consciousness along with the human body. Genesis says God created man whole. Adam was fully grown and had fully developed eyes, ears, nose, limbs, heart, liver, lungs, brains, and etc. He was created with full consciousness.
The notion that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures without ideals & languages and that such creatures had evolved from monkeys and that such monkeys had evolved from four-legged mammals and that such mammals had evolved from lizard-like creatures, and that such lizards had evolved from amphibians and that such amphibians had evolved from fish and that such fish had evolved from proto-fish and etc. is dispiriting to dogmatic religious folks. They prefer to believe that mankind was created with consciousness of God’s glory. They want to believe that man is special because he is unlike all other creatures.
The idea that humanness should be understood in terms of evolution from lower form of life is upsetting, depressing, and dreary to secular folks who are into evolution. And yet, the great irony is that these very secular folks who believe in evolution prefer not to place much value on the unconscious and semi-conscious states of humanity as they develop into existence within the woman’s womb, is born, and then develops into a child. We know that the fertilized egg goes through a process that is like accelerated evolution. As the fertilized egg develops, it begins to look like a fish, an amphibian, a lizard, a primitive mammal — the embryo of a human looks much like embryos of ‘lower’ life-forms — before it begins to take on a distinctively human form.
And when the baby is born, it is as helpless and thoughtless as a freshly born puppy, kitten, cub, or chick. It is only with time that the baby gains powers of recognition and perception that go far beyond that of ‘lower’ animals. This stage of life is a fact of biology, no less than evolution is. It is a kind of insta-evolution within the womb of a woman. And it takes few years for a human child to be sufficiently more intelligent than a chimpanzee baby or dog baby, aka puppy. Indeed, the human process is retarded in some respects compared to other creatures. A puppy develops much faster and is almost fully adult in a year. Some say that a one year old dog is more intelligent and cognitively developed than a one year old baby. But in a few years, the human child has cognitive abilities that far exceed all other animals, even smart ones like dolphins, chimpanzees, bears, dogs, and pigs(who should be spared and not eaten by mankind that would slaughter millions of innocent hogs just because it is addicted to the taste of bacon).
Anyway, most secular ‘progressive’ types almost overlook the beginning stage of human life because its essence goes against the ideology of feminism. Feminism puts such emphasis on use of the mind to gain social, political, intellectual, cultural, and economic power that the idea that a woman should ‘sacrifice’ her career(competitive edge therein) is problematic, even intolerable, especially if it means that her life must become intimately tied with that of an unconscious being(fetus in the womb) and then an semi-conscious being(baby and child). (It’s all very ironic because even an unconscious or semi-conscious being has more of a mind that the inanimate and artificial things that surround us at work. Papers, machines, tools, gadgets, glass, plastic, metals, and etc. have no life in them, and they are nothing unless put to use by man. In contrast, a baby has a mind that is rapidly developing into a thinking organ.) If the idea of evolution is inconvenient to religious types who want to believe in the conscious unity between God and man from the beginning — Adam acknowledged God as his Father from the moment of Creation — , feminists only care about the conscious life of womanhood that can study and work to gain social/economic position in the world. They overlook the fact that for such people, men or women, to exist in the first place, they had to have been born and had to have been developed/raised as children as they passed from unconscious phase to conscious phase.
Anyway, our proposal of Sexual Socialism prioritizes the higher good of society.
Just like economic socialism, sexual socialism is not entirely ‘fair’ to meritocratic individualism. An individualist-purist may well argue, “why should I be ‘punished’ with higher taxes when I simply earn more due to my higher intelligence, diligence, creativity, and originality?” Indeed, why should he be burdened with heavier taxation while others who make less pay less and those who make very little pay nothing? If he didn’t break any laws or resort to nefarious means to attain his wealth, why should he be compelled to pay more in taxes?
But we believe rich folks should pay more in taxes for the common and higher good. The taxes will support national defense, education, public libraries, and etc., and they will do wonders for society as a whole, at least if they are used properly and not degraded by ideological dogmatism and abuse(as is happening as the result of Political Correctness). While we may wish for every individual to make his or her own way in life — and take care of himself or herself — , there are things of higher/common good that transcend individual interest. A poor community could gain much by having a public library. Children born to poor folks have much to gain from public education. Though born poor and disadvantaged, they can be given a fairer chance at life and social competition by being instilled with proper knowledge. So, given the way of humanity — some people are smarter and/or luckier and have more money and should pay higher taxes for the common good — , purist individualist meritocratism isn’t enough.
Likewise, we need to take a honest look at men and women and at the nature of sexuality. Men and women aren’t merely interchangeable individuals. If men and women were sexless, we could easily overlook the sexual factor. After all, most endeavors in society are asexual in their functions even if certain professions have been more closely associated with menfolk while others have been with womenfolk. What does it matter if a man or a woman is doing accounting? When it comes to physical labor, men clearly have an advantage, and male labor certainly had more value when sheer strength was a crucial factor in economic activity. Consider when most of farming had required a good deal of human strength. Surely, a man could have done more in the fields than a woman could. But with the rise of mechanization and paperwork as the new standard of the workplace, physical labor came to matter less in most economic activities of man.
When it comes to the military, both extreme national advantage and extreme national disadvantage is likely to weaken the distinction between men and women. An extremely advantageous nation like the US with its high-tech weaponry and logistics can allow women to serve in more areas of the military since American Might depends mostly on air power, firepower, and cutting-edge technology. But extreme disadvantage also open up military ranks to womenfolk. It can be partly ideological, as with communism that regarded both men and women as comrades. But ideology aside, a side that is severely disadvantaged may have to rely on everyone to pick up arms and fight, and this means women as well as men — and even children as well as adults, which is why child-warriors are sometimes a feature among groups that are outgunned and out-manned. The Viet Cong was composed of both men and women, and children have taken part in the Palestinian cause against Zionist imperialism with its tremendous advantage in firepower. And despite Nazi ideology that ideally placed women in domestic settings, all Germans were compelled to take up tools or arms when the Allied forces were closing in from all sides as defeat loomed over the horizon. (Some people say women should be able to serve in combat roles as long as they can prove that they are physically capable. But using that logic, why should there be any Age Limit to who can serve in the military? What if a 60 yr old man can prove that he still has the mettle and stamina to serve in combat? Why should he be denied?)
Anyway, men and women are different yet in a complementary way. They are different precisely because their differences are mutually necessary for the creation of new life. It’s like electricity needs both a + charge and – charge. Contrary to all the lousy homo propaganda, there are no ‘two daddies’ in life and no ‘two mommies’. That’s just fiction like the idea of storks bringing babies to couples.
Given the differences between men and women and given the need for new generations of people to carry on with the racial, cultural, territorial, and civilizational heritage, men and women must come together to create new people who shall receive the torch and pass it down to yet newer generations. While individualism certainly has validity, it cannot be the end-all of human values. Every idea has a useful limit, beyond which it has the danger of becoming radicalized and turning into an extremist one-dimensional dogma. Each person needs to guard and develop one’s individuality, but he or she must also know that his or her life is short, therefore it would be shallow, arrogant, childish, self-centered, and conceited to think that he or she is the center of time and space. Each person is just a segment in the thread of life, history, and culture that stretches back to the beginning of time, and if the thread is to continue, he or she must extend his or her life through the creation of new life. No one lives forever but his or her genetic heritage is passed down to the next generation and on and on, if indeed the descendants don’t lose sight of what life is about. And it is through the process of genetic legacy that cultural and territorial legacies also become possible. After all, how can we pass down our culture without extending our genetic-biological line? How can a husband and wife bequeath their property, history, and culture if they have no children? And how can a land be bestowed to anyone if a husband and wife have no children? If Germans stop having children, who will receive Germany as their homeland? Germany will simply be taken over by other peoples. In our modern society, we have a tendency to separate biology from culture, indeed as if culture can go on without biological considerations. We may feel this way because there seems to be people all around. So, even if certain individuals don’t have children, they figure others will have children and those children will carry on with whatever cultural legacy may be handed to them. The thinking goes, “Since other people will do it, I won’t have to.” It’s like no one calling the fire department when a house is burning because people in other houses assume that someone ELSE probably called already. White people need to stop thinking in such terms. They must understand the unity of biology and culture. Not only is a certain biological-genetic legacy important and valuable for its distinctness — in terms of beauty, personality, ability, and subtle traits — but unless there are flesh-and-blood descendants to receive the cultural legacy, culture will die along with the genetics. To be sure, the genetics can survive without the culture, as happened with the Egyptians and Romans who continued to have descendants but whose original cultures were destroyed and lost through time and either buried in the sand or turned to ruins. And even when culture survives, no culture remains the same forever. Chinese have a continuous cultural legacy that goes back some 3,000 yrs, but they’ve also changed much over the years. Jews have a cultural history that goes back some 3,500 yrs, and they’ve changed much as well. But there is something great about a sense of continuity, especially if the continuity is adoptive of necessary changes for the sake of progress, strengthening, and survival.
In the modern world, women are advantaged over men, and this is why we need a form of sexual socialism to even things out. As things stand, it is equally permissible and respectable for a woman to be a full-time wife-and-mother or a full-time worker. Even if a woman decides not to work, no one will look down on her for having chosen wifehood and motherhood. Granted, some feminists might grumble, but most of society will not. Most people will not raise an eyebrow over her decision to devote her time to producing and raising her children. If, on the other hand, she chooses to be a full-time working person and devotes all energies toward her profession, again, her decision will be accepted, even praised, by society. And some women will find ways to balance their personal lives as wife-and-mother and their professional life as careerists. So, such women have the best of both worlds. They can choose the personal life and be respected; they can choose the professional path and be accepted.
But things are different for the men. Though some men choose to opt out of the workforce and be full-time husbands-and-fathers, the choice is not met with admiration or respect by society. And most women have no interest in a man without professional standing in life. Though there has been some effort in certain quarters to make such a choice more acceptable and respectable, it just doesn’t seem right for most people, indeed even those who claim to be okay with that sort of thing. Also, men who find themselves in such a situation feel demoralized and get no respect from their wives.
And while lots of men will be willing to marry women who wish to be full-time wives-and-mothers, few women will want to marry men who proclaim that they want to be full-time husbands-and-fathers. Also, given that it is the woman who becomes pregnant, is burdened by the swelling belly, goes through the process of childbirth, provides the milk for the baby, and is emotionally more vital for the young child, it makes more sense for the woman to play full-time wife-and-mother than it is for the man. Imagine John Wayne as a full-time husband and father taking care of his babies. That is so ‘gay’.
Anyway, women have two good options. She can choose workplace or home-place. Either way, she is respected/accepted by society. In contrast, men have only one good option. He must choose workplace. If a woman rejects the workplace, she can still find a good husband/mate. If a man rejects the workplace, his chance of finding a woman plummets… unless he’s the type to be satisfied with some black bitchass ho with a fat ass who be leeching off government. So, if a job is open for a man and a woman, it makes more sense to favor the man over the woman because he simply needs it much more than she does. She still has the prospect of a respectable life without a job, whereas he doesn’t. If the woman loses the job, she can still have wifehood and motherhood; she doesn’t lose everything. But if the man loses the job, he loses both; he loses everything. Without a job, he cannot attract women of any quality.
So, taking a purely libertarian-individualist position on this matter would be a huge mistake. If indeed the individual is all that matters, then everyone should be judged according to merit regardless of sex. But if society as a whole taken into consideration, then social policy should favor certain outcomes for the general good. Of course, this would apply to cases where men and women are equal or comparable in their merit/worth. In such cases, men would be favored over women, but women should be chosen in cases where they are obviously more qualified than any man. Obviously, if there’s an opening for a position in the biology department, a woman with advanced knowledge of life sciences should be favored over some guy whose knowledge and experience are considerably inferior. A society would have to be idiotic to choose men over women in every case.
But the fact is men and women are different biologically, and they are perceived and valued differently socially and sociologically. No man or no woman is only an individual. Each person is a member of a larger society. Also, every life lasts only for so long, and all generations eventually die out. If society and civilization are to continue with our biological and cultural legacy, there must be new lives, new people, new generations to inherit and carry on with what has been created, built, developed, improved, and preserved by their ancestors. And new life is created through the union of man and woman, and this process entails certain biological truths that simply cannot satisfy every ideological demand of libertarians, feminists, ultra-individualists, and egalitarians. Ideas are important — without them, we would be like animals driven only by instinct — , but the best ideas reflect upon reality whereas the worst ideas tend to reject reality.