Breitbarti published last week a piece by one Milo Wagnerii titled The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Societyiii. It is by and large not bad, one of the early pieces to voice some general points extracted from what will later become an overpowering torrent in public discourse.iv I'd like to make a few spot comments, to correct the parts where the author, no doubt driven by youthful overexcitementv mixed random items in the soup. Like so :
In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs.
The thing links to a rather firebrand article on the topic. It's true that as far as France is concerned, fatherhood is a social rather than a genetic construct, and you can go to jail or be fined 20k for even trying to go to Spain to have a paternity test done (which is why the Spanish trade in paternity testing is booming). This is kind-of quaint and perhaps a little bizarre, but then again think that similar procedures are also banned in India. The reason for both is, simply put, that people are idiots, which is hard to dispute.
In any case, I am unpersuaded by the arguments offered. To understand the differences, let's start with this ancient European joke going something like :
- A long married patriarch with seven sons lays on his deathbed. His sons parade in order to show their respects. The first six are tall, handsome, strong, cheerful young men. The seventh is an exercise in absynth fueled depression, pale, hunchback, rotten teeth, crosseyed, short a leg and long an arm, the works. After they leave, the old man turns to the old woman sitting by the bedside,
- Tell me the truth now. He isn't mine, is he ? It's okay, I forgive you.
- My dear... it's quite a little bit worse than that. He is yours.
Add to this the recent amusement with the press in the case of the French president taking some woman over to somewhere or the other. The
English prudish speaking "journalists" went completely crazy over it ("but he's not taking his wife ?!?! why!!11 onoes how embarassing!!11") then a day later went completely crazy over how the French press doesn't give a shit ("We'll bus some real puritan derps from London to show you how it's done!!1"). Right, someone's going to show the French how shit's done. Color me unimpressed.
So, I get it, the mores and lives of other people seem scandalous to you. This is okay. You also seem to think like Caliban : that you, simple and clueless as nature left you, are somehow the measure of all things in all places. Arrived at this point the road before you forks, and you have to pick one : either man is the measure of all things, but then man is meant in the superlative and you're explicitly excluded, being not man ; or else man is not the measure of all things but you are just as much a man as anyone. Pick your poison, whichever it is. You can not have half of each.
In school, boys are screwed over time and again. Schools are engineered for women.
This is true. It is also neither novel nor particular to the English world. The same exact phenomenon was observed when the Soviets tried mass education. The same exact phenomenon has been and will continue to be observed whenever "schooling" or "education" are implemented with a view to cheapness : the best fit to cheapness among humanity are females. They don't mind sitting in a room and doing needlework, of any kind. Not nearly as much as men do, at any rate. And so in all the times and places where sitting in a room doing needlework was expensive, for whatever reasons (such as the relative expense and rarity of walls) male education flowered and females counted as simpletons. The early West, the Greek world, take your pick. Conversely, in all the times and places where sitting in a room doing needlework was cheap, for whatever reasons (such as overpopulation and generally inflation) female education flowers and men count as simpletons.
Perhaps this is a good time to take solace in that older discussion of historical imperativity ? I give you Kink High!
In the US, they force-feed boys Ritalin like Skittles to shut them up.
This is a serious problem. Anyone care to look into it already ? Genital mutilation for girls is bad enough, but central nervous system mutilation for boys is worse. I'd much rather keep one brain than the other, wouldn't you ?
We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had
This is a sad state of affairs, but it is mostly a manifestation of the indelible, unavoidable fact that you suck. I understand you don't think it's "your fault". Maybe it's not. But the fact stands that your grandparents controlled a much larger percentage of the intelligence, wisdom and skill of the world, which is the direct cause here.
Suppose there's an island, and a hundred people live on it. Suppose this island works exactly like one of those old adventure games from Sierra, and you get points for completing it. Suppose the maximum the game allows is 100, and the 100 people distribute on a Gauss curve around 50, with exactly one newborn at 0 and exactly one wise guy at 100. Life's pretty sweet, right ?
Suppose some accursed intellectuals come by and invent a whole technological, scientific and industrial revolution. The max the game allows is now 175`312. That's right. The hundred people distribute on a Gauss curve centered on 57. The bottom half spend their time talking of lizard Hitler, the top half keep mentioning this ars longa thing.
So you don't like that you have a quarter of your grandparents' wealth ? Lawl. You don't have a quarter of a percent of their game completion factor, yo. Not your fault ? Tell it to Sierra.
No, seriously, tell Sierra to make simpler, shorter games because you don't like sucking.
All that wouldn't be so bad if we could at least dull the pain with girls.
I've never heard of this working, and it seems a very bizarre approach to the problem in any case.
Yes, poor serf peasants, tied to the soil across Europe, from the German Empire to the Russian Empire took solace in the fuck - as they couldn't afford impotence and blindness brought by liquour - and so had large families and no means of support. I am thinking perhaps the only problem here is that the "beautiful ones" are not nearly poor enough yet. But, there is hope on the horizon : Bitcoin is here. In a few short years they will be.
Never before in history have relations between the sexes been so fraught with anxiety, animosity and misunderstanding.
To quote Kissinger, "Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy". So, yes, never before. Except of course for all the other times.
To radical feminists, who have been the driving force behind many tectonic societal shifts in recent decades, that's a sign of success: they want to tear down the institutions and power structures that underpin society, never mind the fall-out.
This is like saying Obama has been the driving force behind Obamacare, or that the pre-selected scapegoat has been the driving force behind whatever risky activity is being contemplated. I suppose it works better on younger, less versed men ?
But, for the rest of us, the sight of society breaking down, and ordinary men and women being driven into separate but equal misery, thanks to a small but highly organised group of agitators, is distressing.
It is not thanks to the agitators, or much related to them. Really, Milo : they're not doing anything other than what you're doing, and that is, trying to find things that'll happen anyway and sit right in front of them. This unspecified "organised group of agitators" is not in any way different from you and your group, and you all together are in no way different from that crazy old man who wakes up at the crack of dawn to stand on a rock and announce loudly that he is now making the Sun rise. In some times and places such skullduggery passes for a big deal. In most times and places it's a function for the common rooster, one of the less intelligent of all birds, which are of course the less intelligent of barn animals. Just sayin'.
Particularly because, as increasing numbers of social observers are noticing, an entire generation of young people—mostly men—are being left behind in the wreckage of this social engineering project.
I could see the argument, except history prevails upon me. Consider this quote :
- How come a young strong fellow like yourself isn't out there up to his neck in this land rush ?
- Why ? I do alright.
- Those people are going out there to build a new empire.
- Fine, let them have it.
It comes from a 1939 movie for chrissakes, and it's about an earlier time still. Humans, like all mammal species, work by creating large swarms of generally useless beta males that get culled. There's nothing particular or specific about this most recent repackaging of the same principle, just the light is thrown on the stage at a slightly different angle.
But much more importantly : how many people did Wyatt Earp shoot to be a hero ? What happened to them ? Why would I care now about all the losers, because we're suddenly socialists, but the sort that masquerades as "conservative" and "anti-feminist" so nobody will know the difference ? There's a difference.
Stop trying to giggle the fucking Overton window. This, if you're curious, is how Americans broke the US : first, they put on a hat labeled X and did something very fucking stupid. Then, they took off the hat labeled X and put on a hat labeled non-X and did something just as very fucking stupid, but "the other way". As if there is such a thing. And in between the horns of this giggle - having the same nutty faggot that was arguing in 2004 for gay marriage ; then turn around in 2014 and argue "against" the changes but also in the same direction they went - you have the complete collapse of what once was the best place in the world. Prior to that infamous traitor abraham lincoln, that, but nevertheless.
This is the height of fashion in "progressive" aka socialist environments : "reform" doesn't go in straight, so you gotta jiggle it. And "the people" are generally too fucking stupid to realise that a) it's the same apparatusvi doing both ends of the jiggling, and b) the thing isn't moving back and forth, no "reaction" of the socialists actually annuls the previous "progress" they blessed the world with.
A rather Stalinist tactic, for what it's worth : first, have Yezhov pester the hell out of the country, then behead Yezhov for having pestered the country. Did it bring Osip Mandelstam back ? So then ? Pasternak is sufficient and good enough right ?
The new rules men are expected to live by are never clearly explained, says Rivlin
- Make the fucking rules.
- Explain them to women.
- Stop whining.
The result? "A lot of nice but awkward young men are opting out of approaching women because there is no opportunity for them to make mistakes without suffering worse embarrassment than ever."
Right, "worse embarassment than ever" is what exactly, some chick derping on facebook ? A bunch of retards complaining that I killed that Andreas Antonopoulos fuckwit ? Nobody cares.
Stop trying to convince aspiring young men that they should care. They shouldn't care. This "embarassment" is strictly a female affair, like pregnancy. Men. Do. Not. Care.
At my alma mater, the University of Cambridge, the phenomenon barely registers on the radar, according to Union society president Tim Squirrell.
"I don't think I've really noticed a change recently," he says. "This year has seen the introduction of mandatory consent workshops for freshers, which I believe is probably a good thing, and there's been a big effort by the Women's Campaign in particular to try and combat lad culture on campus.
I can't begin to tell you just how indignant this crud gets me.
Seriously, "consent workshops" ? Where what, they tell you how things are, and you tell them to get fucked, because things are how you say they are and nobody asked themvii ? And they'll do what, flunk you ? Whine really, really indignantly ?
Grow a pair, people. Tell your Comissar of Pointless she's fat, ugly and stupid. Start calling campus idiots she whether they're actually male or female. The only correct reaction to bullshit is escalation.
The only correct reaction to bullshit is escalation. viii
In short: they grew up, dysfunctional, under-served by society, deeply miserable and, in many cases, entirely unable to relate to the opposite sex. It is the boys who were being betrayed by the education system and by culture at large in such vast numbers between 1990 and 2010 who represent the first generation of what I call the sexodus, a large-scale exit from mainstream society by males who have decided they simply can't face, or be bothered with, forming healthy relationships and participating fully in their local communities, national democracies and other real-world social structures.
Nice repackaging of the Bitcoin revolution, but it won't take and it won't wash.
The reason "national democracies", ie, the socialist state control structures masquerading as "local"ix as well as "other real-world social structures" such as you know, the actual socialist state, stretching across the exhausted West are dead has very little to do with the reality of sex or the virtuality of culturally constructed gender.
It doesn't start with sex, it won't end with gender, and it can't be patched by a dry bone thrown in the 12th hour by an establishment goon under cover. To make it perfectly clear : Georg Ritter von Flondor, and what his unhappy life can teach us, or in other words I will have your heads, I will use them to decorate pikes around my castle, and some two bit propagandist or other won't save you.
I hope we're clear on these points.
third-wave feminism, which dominates newspapers like the Guardian and new media companies like Vox and Gawker, but which is currently enjoying a hysterical last gasp before women themselves reject it by an even greater margin than the present 4 out of 5 women who say they want nothing to do with the dreaded f-word.
Newspapers which nobody reads ; new media companies nobody cares about. But yes, it is a last gasp, and yes it is quite hystericalx and well... Hey, stupid women ? We need to talk. Smart women don't want to be with you anymore.
Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women
What men are supposed to represent for women isn't coming from women. Patriarchy is a thing because nobody likes living in a world populated by little girls, and this emphatically includes most women. So, don't fucking ask them what you should represent for them, self-directed education doesn't work. Represent something for them, bring your own fucking adventure already.
Death of a thousand metas, this current bullshit online I swear. "What should women signal to men they want men to signal to them back". "How should men interpret and react to women's signals as to what men should signal to them back" it never fucking ends already. And you know why it never fucking ends : because people like Milo wish to a) have it easy writing and b) keep doing it forever. So they construct this array of nonsensical, meta structures, exactly for the reason academia devolved into a more expensive process of basically spinning for google
spam SEO : it's cheap, and you can do a whole lot of it. This is also how you know Milo is one of them, part of the problem and so on. He doesn't want to stop making fastfood, he just wants to pretend that if he cuts the buns square rather than round he's now totally not doing fastfood anymore.
As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things.
For one thing, this isn't true.
For the other thing, shut the fuck up, go to the kitchen and make me a sandwich. Men aren't the new women, around to please women, the new men.
The notion that the genders are fluid and the boundaries soft only exists in the self-delusional outlook of people who have spent a lot of time contemplating nonsense. If you pick a random word and repeat it to yourself five thousand times you may briefly come under the misapprehension that it "isn't really anything" and it doesn't have a clear definition. Both of these last for as long as you're dizzy.
He goes on: "Almost all young men have attended mandatory sexual harassment and anti-rape seminars, and they know that they can be fired, expelled or arrested based more or less on the word of any woman. They know they are basically guilty until proven innocent in most situations."
I have no idea where this is the case. I have personally never lived in such an environment. If such an environment exists, you have literally no excuse to remain there for a minute longer.
No excuse whatsoever.
"The media now allows radical feminists to frame all debates, in part because sensationalism attracts more clicks than any sort of fair or balanced discourse. Women can basically say anything about men, no matter how denigrating, to a mix of cheers and jeers."
The error here is to imagine that "clicks" matter in any sense. They do not.
The majority of "men's studies" and "men's rights" books and blogs that aren't explicitly pro-feminist are littered with apologies to women.
Unlike modern feminists, who are driving a wedge between the sexes, Men's Rights Activists "actually seem to want sexual equality," he says. But men's studies authors and male academics are constantly tip-toeing around and making sure they don't appear too radical.
The foregoing is uninteresting, the majority of anything fails to matter. Meanwhile, I am not a "men's rights activist" whatever that is, but Trilema sure as hell isn't tiptoeing around anything. Have a looksee for yourself, then wonder why exactly is it that the entire echafaudage of "counter-feminism" or whatever carefully avoids mentioning Trilema.
So they have authors and assorted "academics" that've failed so far to say anything of interest on the topic. They collectively can't produce enough ideatic material for one Trilema article, I wouldn't publish their boorish, pointless crud if cut 99%, yet "the discussion" of impotent derps is about... other impotent derps and the impotency of impotence. Fine, whatever, just... why are you calling it something else and why are you pretending that you're representative for the something else ? The entire thing looks like Piracy by Farmers. Stories From The High Seas By People Who Never Left Ohio. What the shit ?!
Their feminine counterparts have no such forbearance, of course, with what he calls "hipster feminists," such as the Guardian's Jessica Valenti parading around in t-shirts that read: "I BATHE IN MALE TEARS."
"I'm a critic of feminism," says Donovan. "But I would never walk around wearing a shirt that says, "I MAKE WOMEN CRY." I'd just look like a jerk and a bully."
I actually, literaly, bathe in female tears. And I bathe women in my piss. So I'm like too radical for this discussion, right ? Gotta go back to your watercooler & waffles, right ?
Enjoy. Just remember that the High Seas don't go away just because you've resigned to "doing your part" in the rural agricultural economy of Ohio.
Anyway, there's also part 2, which is even less interesting, even less important "let me try to get more clicks by telling you how many clicks I got". The nonsense is even thicker, with crud such as
The absurd result is that geeks, queers and dykes are dominating the discussion about how men and women should interact. Jack Donovan, for example, is gay, as is your present correspondent. It's as if gays are the only men left prepared to fight masculinity's corner.
Yeah totally, go rub one out imagining you're me, yo!
But it gets better :
(As a side note, here's an argument you won't read elsewhere: gay men test significantly higher, on average, for IQ, and we know that IQ is at least partially genetically determined. Gays don't reproduce as much now they don't have to keep up the pretence of straight relationships. In fact, surveys say they barely reproduce at all.
Is it too much of a stretch to ask whether society's newfound tolerance of homosexuals has made society... well, a bit more stupid? Granted, it sounds far-fetched. But while there's no doubt that liberating gay men from the shame of their secret double lives has been a moral imperative, driven by compassion, no rapid social change comes without trade-offs.)
There's a very good reason for that random correlation. To quote The Typologies of Homosexuality
From the ranks of proper homosexuals society recruits exceptional people, those Michelangeloes or Turings of the world, a detail probably explainable by reference to the fact that exceptional performance (vulgo genius) has something in common with the assumption of rare (and perhaps unpopular) personal preference: the courage to ignore orthodoxy in favor of truth.
Being gay doesn't make one smart. Being smart doesn't make one gay. Being famously smart and being gay correlate in the same way "being in the hospital" and "not having pneumonia" correlate with venereal disease. You're in the hospital for some reason.
But this is the minor infraction in the quoted aside. The major infractions are two. One is to imagine IQ is a thing. It is not, it's pure nonsense. The other is to imagine that "genetics" and IQ somehow correlate, both of course understood in the most pedestrian, infantile and simplified manner possible.
If IQ existed the way Milo thinks it exists, we could generate science simply by giving high IQ people important problems and socialists everywhere would be clamoring to have people's pay docked and taxes increased on an IQ basis. Because otherwise "it ain't fair", innit!xi Meanwhile at reality ranch, Mensa is made primarily out of intellectually boring, financially broke people.
If genetics worked the way Milo thinks they work, we'd have heard of Newton's son and Sapho's daughter. Have you ? Why not ? Oh, right, because they were gay. I forgot.
Let's close on a happy note. Here's a welt.
- A personal site/blog turned "media empire" of sorts, much in the manner of Arianna Huffington's post. Apparently this is how things are done today, you work for a donut shop your entire life and then "sell" your "life's story" for rich people to make a donut shop chain in your name, which will be different from any other arbitrarily named donut shop run by rich people because reasons. As opposed to, you know, actual independence.
In any event, Andrew Breitbart (ex Drudge editor) wasn't aryan enough, being a blond man rather than a Greek woman, so he's twenty years younger and dead already. Plus, his legacy is "conservative" rather than "liberal", whatever those terms may mean (generally, nothing much). [↩]
- Nothing too substantial, one of those "hello I'm totally gay" hipsters of the South Park generation. After a string of youthful failures he most recently tried (unsuccessfully) to latch on to the GamersGate thing. Aspiring aparatchicks have always tried to walk in front of parades, that the curent crop also does it seems neither remarkable nor indicative. [↩]
- It's gotta be "sexodus" or something because you totally can't matter in today's world unless you name things. I have written about this purely American brand of idiocy before, can't be bothered to rehash. Stat rosa pristina, derps! [↩]
- Because you can't possibly have anything done right, everything has to be overdone to all hell then undercut by something else overdone to all hell. Hey, at least it keeps lots of people
employedbusy, which is a big deal in postindustrial circumstances. [↩]
- I seriously and plainly do not think there's any sort of conspiratorial nefariousness involved. [↩]
- Not the same people, of course, but that doesn't make a difference because individuals don't exist and people don't matter in socialism. [↩]
- Imagine! The utter height of pretentiousness, where the school imagines it is going to tell the freshmen how the freshmen at that school are. And they themselves... what the fuck are they for ?
The freshmen tell the school how they are, and how things go for them. The school adapts to them, not the other fucking way around. What is this unheard of nonsense! More stealing of the farmers cow AND the farmer's "having being stolen from", amirite ? [↩]
- I have no idea why this even needs explaining. If you play poker, what do you do when you know someone's bluffing ? You call it. So fucking call them on it!
Otherwise, people offered the choice between ignominity and war who choose the former get the latter anyway, only later and worse. [↩]
- Nicolae Ceausescu also pretended himself "national". He was not. [↩]
- If you're unfamiliar, the medical history of the "hysteria" disease starts with "women not being happy with their place in the world" cca 1800, to be resolved with slapping and cold showers. [↩]
- This last bit is perhaps a weak argument - not like insanity ever prevented the socialists from fielding an "argument". [↩]