Tuesday, July 12, 2016


      On Saturday, blogger Insanitybytes wrote some thoughts upon one of our posts relating to the Dallas police massacre. It's apparently generated some controversy among those who take exception to our Traditionalist approach.

       What is especially noteworthy in all of the objections is the universal assumption that Traditionalism somehow emerged in vacuum; and is a matter of opinion rather than several centuries of human cultural evolution. They take especial exception to the concept of nuclear, monogamous families with clearly-defined gender roles as the foundation of Civilization.

         Although Christianity does teach monogamy and family, these are concepts inherited from the culture in which Christianity originated. It is inherited via the Romans, who adopted it from the Greeks, who, in turn, adopted it from the Egyptians. Considering that the Jews and Persians were polygamous, the early Christians must have seen some observable benefit in adopting the Graeco-Roman views on marriage.

           These ancient peoples observed, through contact with radically different systems, that monogamous cultures with strongly defined family units produced the most stable and most advanced societies. This is only natural, since under a monogamous system, women and children become highly valued as integral parts of a society. In polygamous societies, they simply become commodities; and in uncivilized cultures without familial structures, women and children have no value at all. This is why we have seen throughout Western Civilization, an emphasis on positive male role models and considerable provision to insure that fatherless children are carefully mentored.

             Extrapolating from the nuclear family to society at large, we observe that Western concepts like Justice (from Graeco-Roman sources) and Love (from Christianity) underlie our traditional system of Law and Government. Since Authority in the traditional sense is predicated on the stability of the family, destroying the family destroys our system of Law and Justice with it. And we even have historical precedent here: the family declined in pagan Rome and it fell; Christians, with their family cohesion survived and even converted the Barbarians.

           This is not as complicated as postmodern sophists want to tell us; hence the brevity of our original article. Traditionalist views are not arbitrarily imposed; they have developed by working with, not against human nature.

              As Insanitybytes as pointed out elsewhere, both genders have properties and qualities unique to themselves bestowed upon us by God and Nature for our survival. Recognition of this fact and ordering society in deference to it is what separates Civilized Man from the Uncivilized Savage, or the primitive ape. Without the restraining influence of civil and moral law, along with positive social and norms, the tendency in human nature is that the best qualities of each gender diminish while the worst elements increase.

                Deconstructing gender does not make human nature magically disappear.

                The male nature will be competitive and strive for significance; whether those desires are channeled into building and defending societies and providing for families or channeled into mass violence and sexual conquest for its own sake depends on how much society values males. The female nature will be cooperative and nurturing; whether that translates into caring for a community and raising children or descending into obesity, sexual perversion, and drug-addiction depends on how highly society values females.

                  The Cultural Marxists controlling current social norms value androgyny and that is a main reason why American culture is characterized by violent, emotionally unstable, and irresponsible men along with sexually frigid, drug-addicted, and emotionally immature women. Both of which are reproducing future generations less capable of self-governance than before.

                  So is there a connection between familial breakdown and events like Dallas? Absolutely. Why should we expect civilized behavior from breaking down civilization? It is a logical absurdity.

                  But the truth of the matter is that the Cultural Marxists do not really desire Civilization. Their vision of Utopia is one without law, religion, government, family, or gender; with the pursuit of pleasure the ultimate good. They call this postmodernism when in reality it is pre-civilization. Their Utopia is suited to apes, but not to human beings.

                   Traditionalism, in contrast, is nothing but an affirmation of the legitimacy of our common heritage. Civilization is not perfect and never will be. It is a constant state of reaching for an Ideal---to which our religious and moral beliefs give impetus. But to maintain it requires construction, not destruction. There are only those two alternatives.


  1. This was really well said, thank you. I appreciate your clarity and the way you lay things out.

    This was very true, "Deconstructing gender does not make human nature magically disappear." Somewhat amusing, but men tend to have a competitiveness about them, so here in postmodernism we have men declaring they can do all things better than women, including womanhood and femininity. The woman of the year is Caitlyn Jenner, a former man. We have some former men now trying to compete in the Olympics as women. The essence of human nature and many of our genderdized behaviors do not just magically disappear when we start calling gender nothing more than a social construct.

    1. Thank you for your support. Male competitiveness is not an inherently negative thing, as Feminists claim, nor a mark of superiority as many Manospherians believe. When properly applied, male competitiveness drives social progress. But without male leadership roles, it recoils negatively on society.