Archives

cultural destruction – men and boys first

While many lay blame on the feminist movement, publicly financed by George Soros, The Bilderberg Group has spent half a century destroying the nuclear family where each member of a multi-generational family contributed what they are best designed for. Every strong culture throughout history has been much the same with age and gender differences celebrated, making them strong, vibrant and resilient.

LBJ’s “Great Society” was a major turning point. That the people of the previously famous “Free Country” allowed that and subsequent assaults to happen spelled the eventual demise as certainly as a tombstone could.

A more subtle, but perhaps more significant turning point was when the government involved itself in education, first as an option, but finally as a mandate. A pervasive government-operated training regimen required of nearly all youth throughout their entire developmental period is a certain recipe for societal destruction.

I don’t want my children fed or clothed by the state, but if I had to choose, I would prefer that to their being educated by the state.

Today I am pointing out several good articles on the topic with blurbs and links, I include the next post, The War On Men in its entirety.

The following article from Fred On Everything was hard to clip. The whole thing is good. I give you a portion, but go there to read the whole delightful thing.

Kids: Then and Now

by Fred Reed

OK, so why is the country falling apart? Specifically, why are kids blowing each other away? America has become a source of wonder the world over with its Colulmbines and hundreds and hundreds of dead in Chicago and Baltimore and its burning cities and riots. Other advanced countries don’t do these things.

America didn’t either until recently. Why now? Something has changed, or some things. What? People under under forty have never seen the country when it was sane. Let me point out things that have changed, at risk of sounding like a boilerplate cadger: “By cracky, wen I was a boy, we could amuse ourselves for hours with just a piece of string and a couple of sticks.” Let’s compare today with the Fifties and Sixties. I mean this as sociology, not nostalgisizing.

I think that a combination of social changes have led to tremendous stress on today’s kids that my generation did not suffer. To wit:

In my rural Virginia school, there was no racial tension. We were all white: teachers, students, parents.

The black kids went to their own school, Ralph Bunche. We had virtually no contact with each other. There was no hostility, just no contact. The academic gap didn’t exist in the absence of contact. Inintegration would prove cruel when it came. and the black kid s sank to the bottom. The causes can be argued, but the fact cannot.

There was no black crime to speak of or, as far as I knew any black crime. Certainly blacks did not shoot each other, or anybody. Neither did we. The reasons I suspect were similar.

Divorce was extremely rare, so we all had parents. Whether it is better that unhappy couples stay together or that they divorce can be argued, but they then did stay together. It made a large difference in outcomes if one accepts the statistics. The welfare programs of the Great Society had not yet destroyed the black family, which I speculate accounted in part for low crime.

Drugs did not exist. These appeared only with the Sixties. A few of us had heard of marijuana. I read a clandestine copy of The Naked Lunch. That was it. We drank a lot of beer.

In the entire school I remember only one, moderately fat kid. Why? Because, I will guess, we were very physically active. The school had PE classes, football and basketball teams, and so on. In summer kids aboard Dahlgren spent their days at the base swimming pool or swimming in Machodoc “Creek”{{it was perhaps three-quarters of a mile wide–bicycling, canoeing- playing tennis. The country kids chopped cord wood, lifted hay. There was ice skating for hours in winter. Gloria, my best girl, got up at four a.m. to help her father pull crab pots on the Potomac, Though feminine, she probably could have thrown a Volkswagen over a four-store building. Again, I offer this not as nostalgia but as biological fact with effects.

Physical fitness has. I suspect psychological consequences. For example, ADHD did not exist. Boys are competitive, physical animals full of wild energy and need–need–to work it off. Boredom and enforced inactivity are awful for them. Two or three hours daily of fast-break pick-up basketball did this. If you force boys to sit rigidly in school, with no recess or only physically limited play, they will be miserable. If you then force them to take Ritalin, an approximate amphetamine, they will be miserable with modified brain chemistry. I don’t think this is a good idea.

more …

————————————————-

A letter to the boys & young men of America.

In an aside, the school shootings are taken at face value in the above video. In reality half of them were false flags with patsies going down for a politically crafted carnage, while the other half were staged theater with no real shooting victims at all, only society at large as the victim both intended and real.

————————————————-

Decline of the Western Male, Part 1


Martin Spengler

Civilisation by its nature is a masculine project, but Western civilization is in its essence – feminine.

The driving purpose behind the science and technology of the West is to make life easy, comfortable, safe, and amusing. These are feminine desires not masculine ones. Western men have striven for centuries to deliver such a lifestyle to their women, and over the last 70 years or so this effort has borne fruit in the unsurpassed standard of living enjoyed by large sections of the population in Western countries. But the more it has done so, the more the essentially feminine character of the West has come into play. Masculine values, masculinity, men, these were all necessary to bring us to this point, the achievements of science and technology are products of the masculine impulse to make an impact on the world, to understand it, shape it, to create with it, to build with it, for their enjoyment in part but most of all for their women and children, and for the sake of the larger civilizational project to whose success they are committed. But to the extent this project is realized, and life does become easy, comfortable, safe, and amusing, masculinity becomes increasingly redundant, and fades into the background. In its place the feminine becomes primary, a process that has accelerated to an enormous extent over the past half-century with the arrival of the “sexual revolution” in the 1960s.

In the world that is emerging, there are no limits, nothing that women cannot do, nor anything that requires the masculine impetus to turn outwards towards the wider world, to discover its secrets, confront its dangers, for there is no longer is an outside world. Once we reach the point where everything that exists is either an oversized shopping mall, an air-conditioned office building, a campus safe space, a theme park, or a McMansion, masculinity has served its purpose and has no further place, other than to supply routine maintenance services in the background. In this world everything is self-referential, reality is what we make it, truth is what we decide it to be, on the basis of what makes us feel comfortable, safe, and amused. This is why the internet and social media are so central to our culture, why reality TV is our iconic genre, celebrities our key figures, entertainment our main industry, marketing our critical skill set, and brand value our ultimate asset. It is also why #fakenews is a thing.

more …

————————————————-

Very much related to the cultural war on men and boys is breaking down our previously homogeneous culture into small fractions that can be pitted against each other. Absent real men and cultural harmony, our society is a sitting duck for those who would rule the world.

While this next article is about the destructive result of striving for ethnic diversity, the concepts apply equally to forced uniform feminization of men and boys.

Classroom Diversity and Its Mentality of Taboo

by Charles Geshekter

Anyone who applies for an executive or upper management position at a university these days must demonstrate a “strong commitment to diversity.” That’s because diversity, according to campus dogma, provides real educational benefits.

Counting and mingling students and professors by race, ethnicity or gender is supposed to broaden perspectives and enhance classroom learning. That might be true in academic departments built on identity politics—I don’t know. But what about in the rest of the university?

For example, what critical perspective does a black academic bring to microbiology, civil engineering, or the study of African resistance to European imperialism that a white scholar cannot? What distinctive viewpoint does a Hispanic professor rely on to explain French colonialism, the rise of the Land Freedom Army/Mau Mau in 1950s Kenya, or trans-Saharan commerce that a black instructor cannot?

The idea that one’s ancestry gives a professor insights that others cannot have is indefensible.

My maternal Russian heritage gives me neither special wisdom nor even interest in Peter the Great, Gogol and Tolstoy, or the collapse of Soviet communism. Knowledge, understanding, and insights about history derive from careful study, wide reading and travel, and broad communication with people who agree and disagree with you. One’s surname, gender or racial admixture is never a substitute.

As for the students, defenders of diversity groupthink maintain that students from underrepresented minorities bring especially novel viewpoints to classrooms, making them essential for higher learning. The former president of California State University, Chico, where I taught for 40 years, once assured me that simply having a variety of students clustered by race or ethnicity contributed to a “livelier mix” in classes.

His view is appallingly mistaken.

… more …