Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘choice’

Having communicated online with serious supporters of men’s rights, I know for a fact I’m not the only one who can tell a difference between the intelligent observations made on the Spearhead, and the stupidity of just some of the comments there (see also: sites like AltRight and Occidental Observer, which have a similar and rather obvious cognitive dissonance between the writers and certain, to put it politely, slightly kooky readers). Normally the Bizarro World is limited to the comments left at the above sites which is the way the internet works and, should you be aware of a certain commentor’s history, you know to ignore them and scroll down to find saner comments. Recently though, the Spearhead decided to print a rather curious and ill-conceived piece by Joe Zamboni trying to link population issues to men’s rights.

His article begins with these strange claims – “Women overemphasize the importance of all things reproduction-related because it’s the basis of their claim to being treated like royalty, to tyrannical power over men, and to gender supremacy. Females focus on sexual attraction (clothing fashions, hairstyles, make-up, plastic surgery, etc.), sexual relationships, romance, marriage, having babies, motherhood, child care, raising children, teaching children, and many other reproduction-related activities because this fundamental strategy confers prestige, power, and influence on females.”

What Zamboni does not realise is that this in for a good reason. Anyone who thinks that sexual attractiveness and reproductive success is related to ‘tyrannical power’ is extremely sexually hung up and should go see a doctor. These things, you see, are somewhat integral to human existence, and this is why reproduction-related activities do indeed confer prestige, power, and influence on females. In a healthy society (ie. without feminism) this also applies to males. Just think of how, in polygamous societies,  males displayed their prestige by the number of children they fathered and supported. The same was true of pre-industrial Europe – feminism was itself ultimately a consequence of the disruption to gender relationships caused by the Industrial Revolution. We should also remember that in both pre-Christian (ie. Roman, Celtic etc.) and Christian Europe the status of ‘bastard’ implied only the absence of automatic inheritance rights and no serious social stigma; however men were expected to provide financial and social support to their children – at the very least, bastards had the right to board and lodgings with their father.

In such social circumstances the fathering and support of bastard offspring actually conferred prestige to males, and it was in female self-interest not only to procreate but also to grant sexual access only once support for the possible child was guaranteed (and before access to modern contraception and ‘safe’ legal abortion, the potential costs of sex were very real). And because the support of bastard children was a source of prestige, there was no incentive for men to abandon a pregnant female – of course, in traditional societies lower status men who fornicated and refused to (or couldn’t) support their offspring were either ostracised, outright driven away from the community or outright killed; this is the point feminists deliberately ignore whenever they present ‘patriarchal’ cultures as misogynistic and we will return to it later.

But for now we should remember that anyone who has studied the history and philosophy of feminism within its political context of Cultural Marxism will realise it isn’t simply a ‘hate movement against men’ any more than the pro-choice agenda is about killing babies for kicks. The emphasis of aggressive feminism has always been to present a moral critique that undermines centuries-old family and gender roles (things that are not merely social constructs and that cannot be separated from the human nature itself; feminism, dismissing the facts of human existence, are really against the nature of human life itself – people who deny their own animal natures ultimately hate their own worthless lives).

Therefore according to the perspective of feminism, not only men are to be considered as wicked oppressors in terms equivalent to daft theories of class warfare, because women are certainly not spared criticism from feminists; although women’s choice is celebrated by feminists, women who prefer a traditional gender role are shamed are of course denounced for their lifestyle choices by the very same people who cheer for childless career women sleeping their way to the top. And we all know there is nothing a feminist likes better than a servile beta male too spineless to stand up for his own genetic interests if he wants his wife to bear his children – yes, to feminists there actually is such a thing as a good male.

Only in this context may we understand the push to get women into the male workplace and to enact legislation and quotas that compensate for what we know to be biological gender differences; it’s also why feminists pushed so hard to legalise and normalise both contraception and abortion to remove the barrier of reproduction from blocking equality in the workplace (where they were unable to deny that a gender difference was purely non-cultural, life deniers still refused to concede defeat in the face of reality). To people at war with their own animal natures, whether they are male or female, healthy bodily functions are a disease to be prevented or treated by seeing a doctor, you see.

Joe Zamboni’s curious piece is actually very like feminism and its noteworthy that his target is the actual nature of females, rather than feminism as the divisive and poisonous ideology that it is. The supposed threat of global overpopulation, a genuine problem only in some parts of planet Earth, serves here as a moral critique of traditional social mores including truly masculine roles as fathers and providers that require parenthood and stable relationships (but not necessarily marriage in the sense of a legal and financial arrangement). Though a proper criticism of Erlich’s lot and their silly arguments deserves another post and I don’t have the space to do it here, we should all remember that most resource consumption and wastage – the real environmental threat – actually takes place in countries that aren’t overpopulated, and that the native population of developed countries such as Germany, Spain and Japan is actually below replacement level and in many cases topped up by high-fertility immigrants. In other words, the overpopulation issue is a total non-issue when we are thinking about the sexual, relationship and reproductive mores of our own societies because we now face the opposite population crisis, and no one should be swayed by guilt into denying their own desire for sex or reproduction – nor should it ever be used as an argument against our own procreation at a time when every life is especially precious.

According to Joe, our ‘infatuation’ with reproduction is only an ‘alleged’ evolutionary strategy though everything nonhuman in nature seems to present the very same ‘infatuation’ without receiving moral blame for it – just as white people and European tribes are uniquely singled out for criticism by the anti-racists, humans are not a part of nature to the life deniers, you see. Of course there is no ‘alleged’ at all about procreative instincts being evolutionary strategies, it is a scientific fact – the ‘alleged’ bit is a ‘pretty lie’ indeed. Its quite obvious here that words such as ‘infatuation’ have been deliberately chosen to reframe useful and necessary gut instincts as something irrational, so we don’t think of them as something that exists for a good reason. Within the same actual paragraph as he dismisses procreative instincts as only an ‘alleged’ evolutionary strategy, he himself astonishingly implies that they really aren’t just something alleged, when he says such emotion has ‘outlived its usefulness’, and slips in a few paragraphs attempting to associate men’s rights with the kooky antinatal movement simply by juxtaposition.

Despite the fact that world overpopulation is constantly anvilled into our heads via Big Media to facilitate our replacement by cheap labour Poles, Pakis and Mexicans, Joe says that “Few people dare to talk about how humans are dominating, crowding-out, and in many cases exterminating nearly every other species on the planet, with the exception of insects and rodents, and those that we harvest for food (such as cattle).” Joe neglects to say this only happens in places such as Africa, and that whites are aborting, contracepting and abstaining ourselves into near extinction as most of the planet breeds like friggin’ rabbits. I’m reminded by such people of the genius Sir Francis Galton’s belief that the warnings of Reverend Thomas Malthus would only reach or appeal to those with the highest IQ, with an obvious dysgenic effect as they would only decrease the numbers of those with intelligence and self-control, not omega male serial impregnators and their odious like.

Joe offers the bizarre advice to men that “There is no rational justification to act as though any particular woman is a queen bee”. This is clearly nonsense from a genetic point of view – very special people are clearly worth the extra investment of this sort. Of course this doesn’t matter to those who bizarrely believe that “Life should not be all about babies and bringing still more people into the world” because surely the genes bestowing things like intelligence, physical health and physical attractiveness only matter if its actually OK to pass on those genes. I doubt he ignores the attractiveness of his mates when he’s after sex, though. Why doesn’t he override that ‘alleged’ instinct? Joe, you instinctual animal with your overemphasising of sexual attractiveness.

Ignoring evolutionary biology when it doesn’t suit him, Joe claims that “Supposedly humans are intelligent and self-aware, not simply instinctual animals” in spite of the huge corpus of biological knowledge proving Nietzsche right about the conscious mind being a function of the body. One of the ironies of the secular ‘despisers of the body’ is that they say things which only make sense within the context of a bogus mind-body dualism handed down to us by Christianity. Biologically, anything is costly to an organism should it impede the organism’s own fitness, that is, the survival of its own genes, with the corollary that the fitness of an individual or a group provides a completely neutral measure of what is the best for themselves. Whenever human self-awareness can lead to one’s own genetic death, then it becomes objectively toxic to us – why not override careful reflection with wholesome animal instincts? Just like our general intelligence exists to find ways round our immediate problems, those gut feelings wouldn’t be there if they didn’t have a purpose, so why shouldn’t indulge them if it feels good?

By the time Joe gets to saying that “We need more personal freedom, more self-actualization, and more pursuit of happiness (in whatever form that may take for an individual)”, he has lost grip of reality altogether. I wonder how Joseph Z would solve the problem of affluent whites, who have remained childless by choice else have personally chosen a below replacement family size of one over-indulged trophy brat, precisely to persue their own happiness as they wish and at any cost in resources.

In fairness the kind of Greens who are concerned about there being too many white people do genuinely possess consciences, and this is why Erlichtard messages appeal so much to them. The problem begins because consciences allow people to deceive themselves the way people always do, and still do what they deep down feel to be wrong – ultimately there’s nothing desirable about allowing ‘freedom of conscience’ because it merely allows hypocrites the right to make something up as they go along just to hide behind. Like sinful medieval Christians grovelling to the LORD for confession, these people turn up at recycling facilities every week in their awful SUVs they only bought for social status reasons despite knowing how they guzzle gas – the people who ‘care’ most about global warming actually create a far greater carbon footprint than the rest of us, but they don’t care about the Earth (TM) in their day-to-day existences. To such a selfish but self-righteous mentality as typifies our urban elites, the idea that its virtuous not to procreate is naturally seen as a moral liberation from nasty traditional pressures to think of one’s obligations as a part of a natural group which is defined by kinship and genetic relationships. Married to the rhetoric of freedom of choice, bringing freedom free from all guilt to consume as selfishly as possible – its all OK so long as you don’t have any kids, just turn up at your neighbourhood recycling centre every week or you’ll burn in Green Hell!

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Joe at all that all societies curtail individual freedoms because choices carry costly consequences for others in the group. It is indeed akin to slavery if only women have reproductive rights, but in centuries past when contraceptives and abortifacients were far less effective, there was very little reproductive choice for either gender and no means for women to control men; the answer is to abolish contemporary reproductive freedom to allow a return to sanity through restoring the kind of natural, harmonious relationships between the genders which used to be taken for granted.

Right towards the end of the paper Joe enters a morally disgusting sentence into his text – “If a woman who had sex with you does get pregnant, insist upon and then pay for an abortion.” Now in fairness, Joe does tell people also to get a vasectomy or use condoms instead of relying to abortion, but the fact he does so reveals yet more self-deception – if abortion is an acceptable solution to a pregnancy problem, then why should anyone bother with contraceptives? Of course such people must realise abortion is wrong themselves, or they would neither bother to avoid ‘needing’ one nor think to rationalise the ‘personal choice’, because to them it would be no worse than simply taking a tooth out.

All over the internet its easy to find arguments against abortion that make sense from the ‘rights of the child’ angle, but that isn’t really my concern here. No, its the kind of thinking that led him to come up with such selfish nonsense which is worthy of an in-depth analysis (sowwy it isn’t really selfish, not if you self-decieve it’s to save the world).

The idea that someone should pay for an abortion implies he accepts responsibility for the pregnancy, and therefore should not face responsibility like a man. I suspect Mr. Zamboni has been vasectomised or uses condoms to prevent an abortion, but still there are men who are genuine shits and really do behave like this, they blame the girl if she does get pregnant even though they never asked about birth control first, and they should by law cough up to support the child (and though I’d rather such men didn’t breed, they really shouldn’t be allowed to even ask for an abortion – besides the ‘right to life’ argument, the ready and safe availability of the cop out merely encourages certain people to be irresponsible). For that matter I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t want some jerk impregnating their daughter and paying for their grandchild’s death behind their back. Men’s rights? I’m fine with that, but for which men? Like women’s rights, the rights of men must be matched with responsibilities. In traditional societies it would actually be up to other men to regulate and punish the sexual misbehaviours of other men, not side with them to get one over on feminists who would themselves probably have been interpreted as witches threatening fertility, probably.

Notice the lack of sensitivity Zamboni shows regarding abortion even though many men lost children in this way; he selectively shows concern for the male victims of female reproductive rights if those males didn’t want children, but none at all for the male victims of abortions who wanted to be fathers. (Liberalised abortion was pushed by feminists for a reason, and if female reproductive rights is like ‘slavery’ for men, men benefiting from such services are like the few black slave owners in the American South – both men and women who use such services should be named and shamed on the internet. Nothing to hide nothing to fear – and don’t you have a right to know what your sleeping with? To know the risk of a woman ‘getting rid’ of your child, or of a man saying ‘get rid of it’? If the state won’t do it…)

Ignoring foetal rights (and they do have a right to be born!), if either population control or MGTOW ever begins to be abused to justify such awful and irresponsible behaviour towards others who have already been born, then they will have then turned into something evil. And that’s whats wrong with both feminism and this crazy article – its ridiculous for someone to condemn pronatalist social mores which created balance for the sexes, whilst also complaining about what has happened since they were abolished.

Sex is linked to reproduction – those opposed to reproduction ought to be consistent and live like monks, at the very least it would demonstrate their own moral sincerity and show they aren’t abusing moral stances to rationalise selfish lifestyle choices. Sexual urges and reproduction are also linked to gender, and the only reason for two genders to exist is because it is in their natures to coexist and compliment one another in their roles which relates to genetic survival through investment in ones offspring.

Men have overall lost out through the absurd gender war with a few undeserving exceptions; most women, though you would not think it listening to certain people, are either worse off through it too or unaffected. Feminism was a movement that benefited affluent, educated women – in the short term that is. In lower down social classes, like my background, some community values still exist and females lack the indoctrination and social reasons to behave like feminists so simply ‘dating down’ would be a financially safer bet for men, not least because women from lower financial classes don’t expect marriage in the same way wealthier women often do. Whilst every shift towards the anti-masculist pig system, was aided and abetted by certain men who sought the abolition of ‘patriarchal’ mores guarding society’s daughters. Wouldn’t it be better for most decent people if things were simply put back?

Whilst the last thing anyone needs is more personal choice. When you’re living in A Brave New World, decent people might actually benefit from a little more control over people’s lives where its appropriate. If we don’t want to live in The Handmaid’s Tale, we need a few more moderate reforms to curtail people’s behaviours in the bedroom and afterwards, before those kinds of draconian measures become necessary. A dystopia like Gilead is at least a functioning society – something that ours isn’t.


Women’s Excessive Emphasis On Reproduction

Joe Zamboni

Like

Curious why you shouldn’t be concerned about overpopulation in your area?

“Careful reflection” about having children: Christine Overall and Paul Ehrlich

Kevin MacDonald

Link

If you’re interested in pre-industrial gender relations, take a look at these.

Medieval Monogamy

Laura Betzig

Link (.pdf)

Monogamy and Polygyny

Walter Scheidel

Link (.pdf)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Regulus Seradly

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

Destroy Zionism!

Exposing the World Parasite