Monday, 2 December 2013

The Path to Misanthropy

Being an MRA (Men's Rights Activist) doesn't make one a misogynist, as many of its opponents claim. What it does is make you keep following the rabbit hole passed misogyny and into full blown misanthropy. It is an interesting journey, fraught with many revelations about human nature that are both interesting - and dangerous. Learning about our base natures, and how much of a slave humans are to them, can get kind of depressing because it exposes so many of those "pretty lies" we tell to ourselves as false.

I am not sure if following the path was worth it or not. I find it leads to a place where have to ask yourself how much free-will humans actually have over our animal instincts, and the more you explore, the more you realize that our "thinking brain" is merely rationalizing the will of the "instinctual brain." Yes, we have a certain degree of free-will, but it is finite. I did not choose to be heterosexual, for example. I was born this way, and from this point forward, many of the further rationalizations my brain "thinks of" are actually based on this subconscious instinct that comes from the animal world. What kind of girls to date, which to marry, what kind of career do I need to support the children I will have with her, what kind of car will we drive to protect them best... it all derived from my "thinking brain", but that brain is merely supporting instinctual prerogatives over which I had little choice. It is possible, however, to use our brain to separate ourselves from our instincts and examine them, although, even this separation is often a minefield of inbuilt biases which are difficult to separate from our emotions. It is all very fascinating, in many regards, but the emotional aspect - often portraying complete hopelessness - is difficult to deal with.

There is lots of talk floating around about "The Red Pill," coming from the movie The Matrix. The thing is with the choice between the red and blue pills, is the blue pill is the one that leads to a nicer life, at least on the surface - and maybe the surface is what really matters. Just as our "thinking brain" justifies the instincts of our instinctual brain, maybe the surface of reality is all that the vast majority of humans need to function properly in life. If you detach yourself from religious bias, for example, you can see that regardless of what your religious beliefs actually are, religion plays a role in unifying a large group of humans - by the millions - to all adhering to a similar social system without them consciously choosing it, so that we may have a functioning civilization. Social mores are created this way, and to a certain degree they are absolutely necessary to have. Think about it in this way: When driving a car on the road, everyone in society adheres to the moral code of driving on the right-hand side of the road. Because we all do this, travel by road works for us. However, it is equally valid to drive on the left-hand side of the road, as they do in Britain. Either side of the road works just as well as the other, so long as everyone is unified in the same system. Mix them up, or have no moral codes about which side of the road to drive on, and chaos would ensue and travel by road would drastically be reduced in usefulness. Religion, regardless of what you believe about it spiritualy, does indeed unify large amounts of people with the same "moral code" so that we will function as a society. You may, on an individual basis, be able to choose your own morality - as many claim - but your own morality only works so far as others around you will tolerate it. If you believe in the morality of owning private property while your neighbor does not, I foresee many problems arising between the two of you in the future.

Thus, the Blue Pill is necessary but it needs Red Pill knowledge in order for society to work. The problem we have today is that the Blue Pill we are offered has been altered to be completely divorced from the reality which used to make it work. Maybe another way to put it is that as we prosper as a civilization, we produce so much that we begin to divorce ourselves from the reality of the way the world works. An agrarian society that deals with getting their food directly from plants and animals by manipulating their sexual cycles, would probably not be as inclined to believe in Blank Slate Hocus Pocus between the sexes as people who get their food at the grocery store. Society could greatly harm itself in very short order if it let the urbanites decide how the farmers should go about their business, couldn't it? In this regard, "pretty lies" don't matter any more. All that matters is what works. As soon as it stops working, the city people run out of food, things collapse, and people leave the crumbling cities for the countryside and discover where their food comes from again.

This is really where most of our problems lie - we are divorced from the reality of our biological natures as humans. We have destroyed the system which once unified us in putting our sexuality into something constructive, and we have replaced it with nothing. Moral bankruptcy is not just about "right and wrong," it is also about what keeps society functioning, or not, as a whole - just like we can only use the road system if we are all on the same page about which side we should be driving on.

I don't care whether you are a feminist or an MRA, the distinction between the two is often completely blurred. I see the real difference between people as those who believe in the Blank Slate and those who believe we have much less choice over our biology than we are told. Most of the Boomer Generation has believed in the Blank Slate all their lives, and ultimately, there is a belief in society that we can "change" human nature. I do not believe in the Blank Slate. I do not think we can alter human nature. I think we can manipulate it. I think we can inhibit it. I think we can channel it. But I do not think we can fundamentally change it. In this regard, the feminist who marches bare-breasted in a slut walk, demanding men change their sexual natures to suit their nudity, is little different than the MRA who believes that with enough lobbying, propaganda, laws, and funding to make it happen, women's fundamental nature can be magically changed into something it is currently not, nor ever has been in history. Both beliefs are simply divorced from reality. The sexes are different. If they weren't, one of us wouldn't be necessary and we wouldn't be here. In fact, the biological purpose of two sexes is difference, not sameness.      

Men are not any better than women. In fact, my experience as an MRA has made me come to loath both sexes equally. We are both screw-ups in our own regard, and for every predictable behaviour that "Game" exposes about the fundamental nature of women, there is correspondingly predictable behaviour for males. Hypergamy and an underlying hostility to the majority of males are as innate in woman as competition and hostility between males is innate to man. It starts with our very male and female reproductive cells - an egg passively being "taken" by the most aggressive and strongest sperm. The female produces many biological difficulties, such as acids to weed out the lesser sperm, and the sperm themselves are competing amongst themselves to "be the one," and in doing so are hostile to the other sperm... in the end, the egg passively accepts the most dominant sperm that has passed the most tests. The whole process is hostile to the vast majority of males and while the female appears to be a non-active, passive participant who resists the male sperm cell, the whole process is actually fulfilling her biological destiny. An egg that doesn't get fertilized is objectively a failure in its existence, after all. This is where the whole essence of "male" and "female" begins and why there are different sexes. There are many species which do not reproduce sexually, but they are not as advanced or adaptive as species that have male-female sexes. The very purpose of two sexes rather than one is for them to be different. How foolish then, to think they are the same. Even further, how futile to try and make them the same when the strength of having two sexes is in their differences.

In fact, there are several lower species that can alternate between single sex and two sexes, depending on environmental circumstances. Mostly, when in a safe ecological niche, they are single a sex species. However, when they are put under environmental hardship, in order to rapidly adapt and survive, they separate into male and female until the hardship has passed, at which point they revert back to single sex species again.

But, ultimately, it is self-correcting. Just as when the grocery stores go empty and the city folk once again learn where their food comes from, when our Western economic prosperity disappears the sexes will de-androgynze for survival purposes. It worked this way during the Great Depression, which put an abrupt end to the long list of demands the Suffragette Movement was making at the time, and it will work the same way if we have hardship in the future, which our society seems hell-bent on creating through massive debt creation while off-shoring all of our jobs. We can only afford to believe the pretty lies when we are wealthy, once hardship comes, we separate the sex roles and start from the beginning all over again. There is not going to be an "end" to misandry in 2020. What there will be is an end to the gravy train that funds it politically, as well as countless other things we now take for granted. But, the underlying "nature of the sexes" will still be there. The men will still be competing amongst each-other to "be the one" and women will still be hoping they get "taken" by "the one" while being hostile to those she feels are inferior. You just simply cannot get rid of this, as it is the very essence of why there are two sexes. We can control it, inhibit it, regulate it, and channel it, but we can't get rid of it. If we could, there would be no need for two sexes.

All in all, I don't like what I've found about the human condition, but I'm also glad I've taken the effort to learn about it because it affects the way I look at the world and helps me navigate many of the pitfalls along the path of life. However, I'm as fed-up with whiny MRA's complaining the free beer isn't cold enough as I am with whiny feminists complaining their birth-control pills aren't publicly funded. A good lot of them are upset and attacking others for not doing enough, and to their specific liking, while not actually doing anything themselves. You can all go to hell along with the feminists as far as I am concerned. If something is lacking in my previous work that you don't like, you are more than welcome to get up off your fucking ass and make it to your own liking. What's stopping you? The high pay and the praise you will receive for your efforts?

I am no longer too concerned about "men" as a group. There are so many people aspiring to be chief from the wings, that I am sure a Spartacus will soon arise like Jesus Christ. He will not be me, however. Sorry to say, but I am far more interested in living life on a personal level that works for me, than giving a shit that the free beer isn't cold enough for free-loading guests. Go on and AMOG each-other to whatever victory you wish. I give you my blessing and my indifference.     


"If one were building a myth around the nature of males, the center of the drama would be the moment when females took over the reproductive cycle, monopolized it, and left males with nothing to do but compete for their favor. When that happened females effectively emerged in control of male evolution, for it was only those males that met their terms and danced to their tune that were able to reproduce. Conceivably this need not have happened; had the males organized themselves, and agreed to ignore all the females, then eventually the females would have had to come looking for them. They might thus have gotten the females to do all the work, from accumulating the protein to arranging the mating (although actually if the males really had tried a trick like that the females might just have evolved a bisexual lifestyle and dispensed with males altogether). 

But in reality gender solidarity was never an option; sexual creatures, as pointed out earlier, have an individualistic, anarchistic bent and seldom engage in compacts that entail sacrificing for the common good. (For example, there is no known case of a predator species - humans perhaps aside - successfully adopting a quota system, even though these can increase prey yields considerably.) Instead males compete with each other for the available females." -- Fred Hapgood, Why Males Exist; An Inquiry Into The Evolution Of Sex, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1979, pp. 96-97

No comments:

Post a Comment