The speed of social change in the modern era, and in particular in the contemporary West, is so rapid that we all are liable to feel a bit lost.
A recent example of this was provided by none other than Hillary Clinton, that most “progressive” representative of global oligarchy. You see, the 71-year-old Clinton, whose presidential campaign was premised on making history as the first female presidency, still believes in biological sex:
In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’
However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.
‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’
Hillary’s squirming on the topic caused visible glee in the foul-mouthed comic artists at The Daily Stormer. Meanwhile her daughter Chelsea also believes that men claiming to be women have a human right to play in women’s sports.
There’s something truly surreal about these kinds of developments. One wonders where to start.
This sort of insanity has been a long time coming. The truth is that Western civilization has been steadily feminizing for at least the last two centuries. The decline of men has become a topic of conversation on the outer edges of the mainstream media. Men’s decline has been at once biological, economic, social, and moral.
Witness the testosterone levels:
In Western Europe, the decline of men has been systematized through the use of quotas in favor of women. In June 2000, France voted a law requiring political parties to have 50% female candidates. Today, the European Commission has a stated objective of having at least 40% female managers, an objective that can only be reached by systematically discriminating against men in promotions. The EU wants to impose a similar legal quota for publicly-traded European companies, to have 40% women on all corporate boards. This would also apply to fields, such as tech and sciences, where there are few female applicants to begin with.
At the risk of discouraging people, and I think we should always be realistic, I believe the decline of men has not bottomed out yet. In Western Europe certainly, the process of evicting excess “white males above 50” – a common phrase in France – has not been completed. While there are certain protections in the United States, I suspect that “woke capital” and pious H.R. departments will become more aggressive in discriminating against men, in the name of equal outcomes between the genders, itself tendentiously equated with equal opportunities.
The predominance of women is not without consequence for liberty and excellence. A 2015 Pew poll found that women were almost 50% more likely to support government censorship of “statements that are offensive to minority groups” than were men. Women, particularly left-wing women, are more politically intolerant: one survey found that 30% of Democratic women had blocked, unfriended or stopped following someone online for their politics, as against only 8% of Republican men. The London Times reported in May 2016 that female students overwhelmingly supported censorship of university publications if these were “considered offensive to certain groups.”
Naturally, any number of truthful statements may be painful or “considered offensive to certain groups.” Most pointedly, any suggestion that men and women have meaningful biological and psychological differences, and therefore to some degree should have different social roles, will be considered “offensive.”
This highlights the self-reinforcing nature of the Western societies’ feminization.
Any rational and fact-based discussion about gender equality and the right roles for the sexes is impossible in our society. It is impossible because we cannot even bring ourselves to recognize the reality of biological sex – hence the increasingly-widespread insanity of allowing male-to-female transsexuals participate in, and thereby dominate, women’s sports. In the face of such insanity, all our ancestral wisdom and modern science – not to mention my own scribblings – are quite useless: there’s no helping people who are too dishonest or cowardly to see what is in front of their own nose.
However, for the sake of our young white boys – who are already being scapegoated for the inevitable failures to achieve equality and who need to take up their place in society as proud and confident men – I will provide a brief account of sex differences and what gender relations might look like in a healthy society.
Biological sex differences beyond the mere reproductive apparatus, known as sexual dimorphism, is the norm in much the Animal Kingdom. This reflects the differing evolutionary strategies of males and females. Almost every difference imaginable is possible, according to that particular species’ differing evolutionary strategies for males and females. Typically, while females carry and (where applicable) nurture offspring by default, males are more competitive and have to prove themselves in some way to get the female’s approval; whether this means rams battering their horns against one another or birds preparing elegant nests or showing off their spectacular plumage. (On which see David Attenborough’s innumerable nature documentaries, which typically boil down to animals struggling to get food, not get eaten, and find a mate.)
Sexual dimorphism can be non-existent or extreme. In the case of the deep sea angler fish, the small male bites in the female and gradually fuses with her, until all that remains is a pair of gonads attached to the female’s body. So far, there is no angler fish “masculinist movement” arguing for the interchangeability and equal rights of male and female angler fish.
The differences between men and women are certainly not as severe as among male and female angler fish, but they are not negligible. To be brief: men are competitive and achieve their highest reproductive potential through conquest, while women are consensual and achieve their highest reproductive potential through nurturing. A successful man might have dozens or even hundreds of children, a biological impossibility even for the most successful woman. Men’s evolutionary strategy is high-risk, high-reward. Women’s is low-risk, low-reward.
A successful man would be engaged in collective struggles with other men to seize resources, to build, to discover, while a successful woman would secure resources from her man! And Nature has equipped women with all the psychological traits and emotional skills to do so. A man is attracted to a healthy, beautiful woman. A woman is attracted to a socially successful, prestigious man with money, one who is at once a provider and a bad-boy (she is very torn on this), so as to provide for her and protect her. Hence, the media have breathlessly reported that the economic decline of men is a tragedy . . . for women’s marriage prospects!
In the prehistoric tribe, a successful man would have spent much time physically exerting himself, hunting animals or warring against other men, as part of a coalition of men. Women would have spent much of their adult life incapacitated in the home, pregnant or caring for small children. The psychological traits appropriate for these two modes of life are of course vastly different.
If you ever engage in any kind of physically difficult group endeavor – say you move to a different home with all your furniture – you will typically find that men and women revert to their traditional roles. The men will be literally doing the heavy lifting and building the furniture, while the women will be cleaning, cooking, and providing moral support (the value of which should not be underestimated).
Women also seem to be natural enforcers of social values. While men have historically controlled the priesthoods and the media, it is women who nag their menfolk to live up to the society’s established social norms and be respectable. (No doubt part of the reason why homosexuals have become so prominent in the far-Right since the latter has become heretical.) It is said that Spartan women would murder their own sons if these ever fled battle and that it was Byzantine women who murdered the soldiers who had been ordered to destroy Christian icons. Across Europe today you will find that old women are virtually the only ones left going to the villages churches.
As we have become comfortable, so our societies and culture have become feminized and infantilized. Today, it seems that women project their mothering instincts upon all the approved “victim groups” of the world: homosexuals, migrants, and minorities all are their symbolic substitute children. Any measures which does not treat these groups as “equals” with heterosexual child-rearing European families – even if salutary for the common good – is then considered mere vicious “bullying.” In the United States, White Democratic women have driven most of the shift towards the demand their be equal racial outcomes, even if discrimination is required.
In my view, following Aristotle and Darwin, human ethics must be founded upon human nature. Humans are social and potentially rational beings, who exist through the creation of successive generations, passing on hereditary characteristics. To the extent that men and women differ biologically, this may imply that, ethically, there should be different social roles for them, in order to foster maximal individual and collective human flourishing.
The most obvious of these is military service. Men being physically much more powerful than women, societies have always discriminated against men, by requiring them to serve in the military, while women stayed safe at home. (Hollywood has not yet attempted to show how strong, independent black women were central to the success of the D-Day landings, but there is still time.) The social expectation that women stay at home to take care of children is exactly analogous to this. An optimally-organized species will have sexually specialized roles, to some extent, for the benefit of the species.
The Spartans, the Aztecs, and Mussolini were all in agreement: childbirth – probably the most intense experience a typical postmodern may live today – is to women what war is to men. And so, it probably is not a coincidence that male authority has wholly collapsed at the same as peace has triumphed in our lands.
Even a couple generations ago, every day our grandfathers had to show daily heroism: working in the fields, in mines, on fishing boats, or in the military, come rain or snow. By this effort, they secured their families’ livelihood and their own paternal authority, not to mention their own native toughness.
In 1914, the Western nations dominated the world and the white race made up perhaps a third of the global population. Since then, Western nations have been in headlong decline and Westerners themselves will be minorities in their own historic homelands within a few decades. Now that is a historical reversal! These developments have coincided with democratization and, in particular, female suffrage.
The idea that feminine pursuits are less necessary and honorable, or that women have historically been powerless, is vulgar feminist slander against womankind.
I am rather doubtful that the process of feminization can be reversed, at least any time soon. I don’t even think it has peaked yet. Things will get worse before they get better. But this should not discourage you.
On the one hand, at the personal level, the general effeminacy of the current generation will make it all the easier for a young man to shine, with just a bit of effort. As it is written in Hagakure: “So many men now seem to have the pulse of a woman. There are few who can be thought of as a real man. This means that one man can surpass others by making just a small effort.” Work out, make money, form a posse, dare to have some sense, and you’ll thrive.
Western history is marked by cycles of decadence and rebirth. For the old Pagans, the rise of Christianity was a disaster. Renewal however did not occur by attempts to reset the clock. The thoughtful and zealous philosopher-emperor Julian’s project of restoring polytheism ended in abject failure. Rebirth came rather with the rise of a Germanized form of Christianity in the Middle Ages, setting the stage for the Crusades, the Reconquista of Spain, and the European conquest of much of the world. Similarly, Tocqueville was eminently realistic in the nineteenth century, knowing that “democracy” (meaning the ages of the masses) was inevitable. Hierarchy and a kind of aristocracy could only return later, in a very different form, in the twentieth century. So I believe things stand with the feminization: our mode of life means that this will not be changed. I am not even particularly optimistic about the Eastern Europeans or the Chinese – I suspect the latter’s men will crumple once their mode of life matches ours. But that does not bar renewal . . . we must adapt, create new forms, be creative . . . Young men will have to rise up to the challenge.