During the last two weeks, there was considerable excitement---mostly in the Catholic circles---about a case going to the Supreme Court which had the potential to reverse Roe vs. Wade. The case to my mind, seemed suspect from the beginning. Why would the Republicans be pushing this issue after nearly 50 years of doing absolutely nothing? The case fizzled out, essentially; but it lead to the Junta approving the sale of over-the-counter abortifacient pills. Always follow the money. Big Pharma's got another windfall, and fetal-tissue traffickers like Planned Parenthood can cut down on their overhead costs. It's also quite noteworthy that the Regime approved this move within a week of the holiday honoring both the world's most famous Birth and the world's most well-known Mother. If nothing else, the leaders of the New Order are big on their symbology.
Contrary to what the clucks in the Manosphere like to say, the Rise of the Abortion Industry (and Radical Feminism in general) is a result of the Decline in Masculinity which began infecting the West during the last half of the last century. We were discussing the first stages of the decline in the previous article, and we saw how a weakened and degraded generation of men promoted Radical Feminism; which women of the 1950s through the early 1970s regarded as mostly a fringe movement.
Despite today's dogmatic Settled Science, the position of power that modern women find themselves in is not a normal condition. Women haven't come to this position because of some mythological neo-Marxist proletarian rising of consciousness; nor is it because of what the Red Pills claim about some equally mythological 'Feminine Imperative.' The Feminine Instinct is ultimately to give herself to a Male strong and secure enough to allow her to build a safe and stable home. What's commonly termed female rebellion is always reactionary in nature. Whenever we see feminine assertiveness against masculinity, it's against male weakness---not strength---that they are actually protesting against.
Revisionist historians like to point to World War 2 characters like 'Rosie the Riveter' and pretend that women became aware of their own 'power' and independence from men. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women of the late 1940s in general were relieved that the war was over so that they could go back to homemaking again.
The same Social Scientists who noted the decline in postwar masculinity also noted that the levels of dissatisfaction among women with the problem was also rising. Before 'No-Fault Divorce' became normative US law, the American divorce rate was already climbing well into double-digits throughout the 1950s. In 1952, psychiatrist Frank Caprio wrote: "Today, 34 out of every 100 marriages end in divorce. Divorces mean one thing: more broken homes which, in turn, jeopardizes the security of the children of tomorrow. Psychiatrists will bear me out when I say that the number of neurotic wives whose psychosomatic complaints can be traced to sexual frustration are legion."
Concomitant to those trends, America began to experience an increase in sex crimes. J. Edgar Hoover noted as early as 1947 that "the most rapidly increasing type of crime is that by the degenerate sex offender." Benjamin Karpman, the leading authority on sex crimes of that day wrote that, "Exhibitionism is the most commonly reported offense: comprising between 20-35% of all cases," and noted that most offenses of the time were of this passive-aggressive nature. Of the cause of this particular crime, Karpman further stated that "Exhibitionism may be a compensation for phallic inferiority or psychic impotence. Exhibitionists often suffer from inferiority, inadequacy, and impotence. They need to demonstrate their masculinity and potency...Most are quiet, docile, and submissive; they have made few attempts to adjust heterosexually." Lowell Selling pointed out the same year that "The exhibitionists usually believe that their potency is declining." So much for all the romanticization of the 50s and 60s males as masculine archetypes.
In the 1945-1975 period, the reaction of women to the decline in masculinity was also apparent in popular culture. Women of the late 40s to early 60s had a strong tendency to Escapism, which was manifested in the rise of television dramas especially those featuring strong, adventurous, and heroic men. Hollywood films were romantic adventures featuring knights, pirates, and other fighting men who typically were also strictly monogamous. The mid 60s to early 70s, the attitude of women took on a certain air of Desperation. There was an unmistakable sense that finding a worthy husband was a major concern for many of them. Pop culture directed at women then mostly centered on relationship struggles. The more fantasy-driven genres began taking on surreal tones of women in highly unusual circumstances holding marriages and relationships together.
The reason that women began to embrace Radical Feminism during the 1970s and 1980s was less ideological and more reactionary. In individual relationships, women will always push back against weak men. The first instinct of a female is protection of her home, which she'd rather defer to a man but will step into his place if she feels that she has to. Secondarily to that, her devotion to the man leads her to try and shame him to assuming his masculine responsibilities. In the wider social field, the rise of Feminism in the 70s and 80s was that same dynamic played out on a larger scale.
If American men then had stood up for themselves and had even a shred of self-respect left, things like legal abortion and no-fault divorce never would have become two defining aspects of our culture. In historical hindsight, it's difficult to comprehend the suicidal course that men of that generation seemed to have willingly followed. We know from tradition that God's First Commandment to the first man was to "maintain the Garden and defend it," which was followed by the creation of "a helpmeet" and the two were tasked to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." And so we see the traditional beginnings of the Family as the basis of Civilization. We also know from (real) Science that men not only have an instinct to obey this tradition, but that they also have an instinctual fear of insignificance, inferiority, and failure. It is not a natural thing for human beings to go against their own instincts.
It's no argument to blame women per se, because they've only done what women always do: "Whither thou goest, I will go," and followed the men over the cliff. In spite of all of the contemporary virtue-signalling about empowered women, they're still doing the same thing that their mothers and grandmothers did during the 70s. The only difference is that women then were trying to recall potential men back to a sense of responsibility whereas today, women have largely given up and sunk to the levels of modern men. If we continue at this rate, there will be no gender distinctions left within a decade.
What was really an undercurrent of a problem among men during the 50s and 60s became overt in the post-Vietnam Era. WW2 servicemen returned and were celebrated as heroes. Korean War servicemen returned home and were treated with indifference. Vietnam War veterans were treated with contempt. For those of us who grew up during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the Vietnam Veteran become a symbol of the antihero to whom many of us who rejected the growing cultural Misandry and demasculinization.
But the mere fact that traditionally masculine archetypes had become antiheroes was in itself a testimony that the tide had turned against us. Heroes of film and literature were men operating outside the Letter of the Law---typically over the interference and objections of weak, pandering superiors. That was the perfect symbology of the State of American manhood during the 70s and 80s. It was even reflected in the political divisions which really first manifested at this time. In the 70s we had Gerald Ford---a premier legal scholar, war hero, and former star athlete---against the likes of effete degenerate a la Jimmy Carter. The 80s saw the Election of a robust Ronald Reagan as president alongside the conniving, compromising George Bush as vice-president. Ford and Reagan were both so thoroughly hated by the Mainstream Left that they became somewhat like political antiheroes, even to this day.
The rise of the antihero showed that in the period roughly from 1975-1990, there was a strong feeling among many men that something had gone radically wrong. Men were in fact being marginalized by weaker men who wouldn't have been able to compete in a fair and normal society. Corporate America in general wanted more women in the workplace because they could be paid less and would tolerate workplace environments that self-respecting men would not. Big Pharma and the Insurance Cartels liked Abortion-on-Demand. Larcenous Divorce Lawyers found a quick dollar in No-Fault Divorce. And American men? They were freed of the responsibility of supporting families. In fact, it was only the responsible, traditional men who suffered from these changes. They were the ones who got edged out of their careers, stiffed for unfair alimony and child-support burdens, and lost control of authority over their own offspring.
This has brought us to the point where we are today. The weakness of postwar men produced another generation of men unprepared and unable to function as men in a socially useful way. The best of the younger men have a sort of malaise about them too; most of them have learned useful occupations and try to cope with from which they are alienated as best as they can. One gets the sense from talking to most of them that their philosophy of life is deeply Fatalistic. Most of this class of men have a level of personal satisfaction and self-respect, but it exists side-by-side with a hopeless view of the future.
Others sacrifice their self-respect and go along with the New Normal. A large percentage can't cope and turn to violence, narcotics, perversion, and end in either suicide or a violent outburst. Then the ridiculous Red Pills enter the mix and compensate for their latent homosexual tendencies by doing a lot of peacocking and blaming women for their failures.
As we mentioned before, this is not a sustainable social situation. If anyone doubts this, they should spend some time reading the opinion pages in a few foreign news outlets. The Russians, the Chinese, the Moslems, and even resurgent elements in India, Turkey, and Japan---all societies far more virile than we are---sense our weakness and are circling the Anglosphere like a bunch of sharks that have smelled blood in the water. Nature abhors a vacuum and Nature is never cheated; and if we don't start turning boys back into men again, Nature is going to step in and do it for us. The question is: how do we do it?
No comments:
Post a Comment