Sexual utopia in power..

For some odd reason I cant add to the thread!

Nevertheless, I just wanted to say I have read it in detail and its pretty much similar to the sort of thing I have read or understood from my own observations over the years in its description of the "effects of feminism"..

Not sure I really agree with the model he presents of the "male sexual utopia" as that is not from what I have noted about mens nature a possibility under any reality for the vast majority of men, breaking marital relationships to enable men to have sex with many women would not create "harems" for men, as equal numbers of both sexes would mean that they would merely have "time share" access to women, does not take into account the feelings of men or women who while they may like the idea of having more choice, natural jealousy would preclude them from wanting to share...

The same goes for the female "sexual utopia" idea, it was never a realistic notion..

I am not even sure that "feminism" is the true culprit, we can always assume that the elite shapers of society had a hand to play in directing social attitudes, but the individuals shaped their behaviour towards the "immediate gratification" model of selfishness when social attitudes and also technology (invented by men) made such things possible with "limited implications" (legalised abortion, the pill, etc..)

The elite encouraged "individualism" in both men and women, and feminism was embraced by MEN eagerly as part of this selfishness..

Declining birthrates were deliberate policy of the elite. They noted the correlations between high populations and several damaging factors, namely POVERTY and WAR.. The west was "optimally populated" for the next 40 years following the major culls of two world wars and a brief baby boom following.. LOW DEATH RATES are more of a problem now, with massive numbers of retired and non productive elderly folk..

War has never been a popular pastime for men, who die in wars, nor is poverty (men seek to avoid it especially when they feel responsible for women and children, as they have always done..)..

So, the ways of feminism, were accepted, nay, actively enjoyed by the first few generations of men who rolled in the economic "doubling up" of earning power.. (while it worked that way!)

The serious failings with feminist statist ideas were always predictable by anyone with enough foresight, because quite simply, its a total fucking dumb ideology that was bound to burn its own tits off after 3 generations.. 3 generations of selfish fucks.. Who did they expect to keep them under control when the responsible generations had all died off? The Nordic states are getting to realise that the old work ethic of the protestants is just not there anymore in the "rights" based culture.. Even raising kids is a state job these days in their minds! The more you prop folk, the harder they lean!

But, that dumb ideology was appealing to men who did not like being traditional men, (too much responsibility) and women who thought men had it easier, hence, did not want to be "powerless" (money) women!!

So, they pulled the wool over the eyes of even quite intelligent sheeple..

Ideas to deal with the situation, such as the marraige strikes, breeding strikes, increasing selfishness and rejection of women by men are of course doomed and make matters worse in the long term for people all round..

The suggested solutions provided by the author, well, they are pretty much on the ball!!

It is rare to see anyone setting out such a pretty clear and hard to fault set of corrective measures..

However, of course, it is more likely that "feminism" will also simultaneously have to run its ugly course, and men will suffer, as men always have..

Before the advent of full-scale feminism, they suffered death at war, suffered in the work place etc..

Now, they suffer pretty miserable lives, but is that worse than wholesale slaughter of millions and tyranical work ethics?

Individuals, as ever, make their decisions on the micro-economic level..

That has to work within the constraints of the macro level laid down by the faux democrasy of the state..

The only way to tie the two ends together and get them working properly is the unthinkable..

Get rid of the vote for married women.

Give men the family headship they need, and the right to vote for their families interests..

The man is talking my language!!

Any woman or man who does not like that, well, they are welcome to carry on in feminists equalitarian "sexual utopia" and become miserable or extinct with the childless greers.. End of the line for feminism!

Love honour and obey..

That is the bottom line and the time-proven answer to the problem..

For those who know the score!! Men and women alike!

Those old bastards were not far wrong were they?

As Harry Patch, (last surviving WW1 soldier) used to tell the new soldiers when he did his tours of the camps aged 108.. "The idea of women fighting on the front is the most ridiculous and stupid notion.. Wars can decimate huge swathes of the men, but as long as the women folk are kept safe at home, the remaining men can get the population back up to the correct fighting level with a generation.. Kill your breeding stock, and you are buggered.. You may even bring the enemy home inside them!" (Or that was how my nephew recounted it to me anyway!!)

Pater, if you couldn't add to the other thread, please let me know what happened so I can fix it.  You should still be able to move this thread into the other thread.

Yes Devlin understands that these "utopias" are not possible, which is his point.

I'm not going to comment about "the elite" since this goes in a direction that I am not interested in going.

Sounds like we agree on the rest except that I want to clarify what it means for feminism "to run its ugly course".  What it means is the destruction of civilization, usually permanently.  This has happened many times before.  When civilizations fell, they almost never recovered.  Rome/Italy is the only example of a place that I can think of that was civilized twice.  Every other successful society became a basket case permanently.  Visit Egypt today and look at the museum.  They had a great civilization 4000 years ago.  Today they are pathetic as a culture.  In Mexico, they had the Olmecs, the Maya, and Aztecs, each from a different area and each more primitive than the preceding culture.  My theory is that when a civilization falls, its co-alpha genes get wiped out.  There is no good genetic material left to start a new culture.  What was different about Rome?  It had a key subculture, Christianity, that saved the right values and therefore saved some co-alphas.  But Christianity grew when Rome was at its peak.  It could not have grown as it did in a barbaric environment.  We are now in a situation where most of the world has been absorbed into Western culture.  If Western culture falls without any alternative subculture being formed, then I think this will be the permanent end of civilization.  The time to address this really is now.  In 100 years, I think it will be too late.

I tried to access the thread repeatedly but it kept coming up with an error message..

There was a note to say "inform us of this" which also produced the same error.. So I was not able to do that either..

I dont think the civilisation we have will "collapse" in the manner of other civilisations..

The west is, as we know "multicultural", so within the broader context of a nation, there are many "supported" or effectively independant subcultures.. These will take over in the battle for hegemony..

I dont know much about the collapse of civilisations, but I think much may be related to mass disease, crop failures and other events, or invasions from other civilisations..

At the same time, there have always been other civilisations that grow in time to take their place..

For example, if we take it as read that the roman civilisation was a great technical and social achievement in its heyday, with little competition, but collapsed for whatever reasons (lead poisoning of their leaders?)..

Then, it was eventually replaced and surpassed by other civilisations, even if it may have taken a long time..

The vikings and northen races were not developed in the same way, but, when populations increase, naturally, the folk start to become civilised by necessity..

Much of this is related to the food supplies, farming needs, etc..

I personally think the current excesses of feminism ARE still under check by the "patriarchy", it is merely a tool..

I see state promoted feminism as a form of "enforced chivalry" to women, a legally based model of what was previously voluntarily done by men.. And this is what men resent to most of all..

Men can either claim back their natural rights, (in the manner of subcultures, religious or other) or go along with allowing themselves to be mugged by the system..

Men have to work smart, because while feminism is in my view a mere "social blip" that will burn itself in the next few generations, what will follow is a purer, less gender divisive form of even greater state control..

Feminism is fucking men over now..

In the future, the "new world order" of megastatism will fuck over women just as effectively..

I think there will always be a "dual society" of folk who operate under the "male head of family" model and folk who operate under the "state headship" model..

I think there is that divide now. But it will become more pronounced in future as folk wise up and adapt..

We are living in a patriachal world, when we look at the true leaders of our world..

The domininance of feminist thinking and "matriachy" largely  is an illusion of the folk who are seeing things from a more lowly viewpoint..

The logic of law and social control, will always be the domain of the higher males..

The feminists, I repeat, are mere tools to implement that control over the lower males..

And few folk genuinely give a damn about lower males..

Regarding the "elite", it is perhaps not necessary to discuss the nature of the elite etc for the prime purpose of this forum in creating the culture that is possible, but any discussion about the forces that shape societies cannot really avoid recognising that they are a strong influence on the direction of society and which values are taken on board and "enforced" by the heavy hand of the state..

We have had some trouble with Nabble so it make have been at a time when the database had problems.  But you should be able to merge the threads now.  Or I can do it if you prefer.

I'm not sure how much history you know, but in the book "Sex and Culture" Unwin makes a strong case that empires fell because they suffered the equivelent of feminism.  Let me quote Unwin where he starts talking about Rome from the time after Augustus and you can tell me what you think:

-------------------------------
In some parts of the Empire, however, the old Roman traditions were preserved. In Italy, Gaul, Illyria, and Spain, the old idea of the family was still put into practice. The ladies even did their hair in the old-fashioned way, long discarded by those who lived in the city. The sons of these women went to Rome, succeeded to high office, and controlled the Empire. They entered the senate and restored some of its old authority. From this provincial stock came Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines.

It is often supposed that in the second century the Roman Empire was at its strongest. These provincials were the men who gave it strength, conditions in the provinces being such as to produce social energy.

Then in their turn the provincials reversed the habits of their fathers by extending their sexual opportunity. Paederastry also was not unknown. The lack of energy displayed by their sons and grandsons is apparent in the records of the third century.

Yet once more there emerged a group of men who had spent their early years in an atmosphere of compulsory continence. I mean the Christians. They had survived many violent persecutions; eventually they dominated the Empire, which in the fourth century recovered the strength it had shown in the second century. The Edict of Milan may have been a political move, but Constantine was right in thinking that the Christians were the men on whom he should rely. Then the Christians in turn changed their habits. In the matter of post-nuptial regulations they compromised with civil authorities; they also encouraged, even commanded, their finest women to be sterile. Then the Teutons overran the Western Empire. These Teutons possessed, in regard to sexual regulations, the same absolutely monogamous ideas that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, and Romans had once possessed, and later discarded.
-------------------------------

A little explanation is needed. Unwin published this in 1934. As an anthropologist, he discovered a perfect correlation between controlling female sexuality and societal development. But he could not understand the cause of this, so he wrongly attributed it to the idea the regulating female sexuality limits sexual opportunity for men and that this repressed sexuality is a source of energy. He reached this conclusion because he was influenced by Freud and because living in the 1930s, he could have no real understanding of what it is like to live in a society where the plague of feminism is in full force. This is why he makes the comments above about men's sexual opportunity, but what he is really observing is the relaxation of the regulation of female sexuality.

This pattern of increased rights for women followed by the collapse of society is something that he found to universally true through history.  So what comes next for us is not more state control, but rather more corruption and more inefficiency as Western culture slowly descends to the level of the third world.

I tried to merge the threads but was faced with a logistical problem as I did not have the address needed.. Must have misunderstood how it works..

I agree. Letting women run the show is the deathknell of any organisation, be it family or state!!

Female led cultures will always tend to be parasitic on the wider culture that supports such destructiveness, for whatever odd reasons.. They require immense support to barely function..

Such cultures are doomed if they allow the destructive forces of matriarchy too much power..

Which is why I have a tendancy to ignore feminism on the whole.. It is a crock of shit..