Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
The duties remain, but the actual structure that supported and encouraged performance of those duties have atrophied.
Agreed, and I'd totally support fixing them back up (reactionary Monarchist, here).
That promise has been eroded and replaced with nothing, the duties have no real attachment to any underlying purpose whatsoever, and the previously stableish equilibrium has been wrecked by unpunished defectors.
How can you not expect rebellion at that point?
Because material comfort, electronic distractions, ersatz simulacra of success, etc. dull the rebellious spirits of the youth. Obesity, falling testosterone levels, and psychiatric drugs all suppress it further. Plus, peasant revolts have always failed outside of East Asia, and modern states have (or are gaining) various institutional and technological advantages that make them increasingly rebellion-proof.
Basically, all the same reasons Tyler Cowen gave in Average is Over for why we won't expect rebellion when 80% of the population, rendered economically superfluous by automation, are immiserated and packed into overcrowded favelas to subsist on beans.
They ain't going to fight for a civilization that doesn't at least pretend to work in their favor.
Oh yes. This is indeed a recipe for the collapse of liberal civilization, with basically two possible outcomes depending on how well memetic transmission of modern Western views can be maintained.
Where the Traditionalist view fails now is answering what equally-unchosen duties and obligations apply to women, what mechanism is attempting to enforce their application to women, and what society's duties and obligations towards men are. The answers to those three questions seem to be a hat trick of "nothing," which makes the Traditionalist view less than compelling.
For the Fox News normie-con values of "Traditionalist," or the kinds of (now shrinking) church congregations Dalrock used to write about, sure.
But, yes, some real traditionalists, who have managed to resist the GOP-flavored version of feminism, do at least have answers for the first and third questions, even if, due to their small size, their enforcement mechanisms are limited (at least for now).
I've had similar thoughts about the sorts of opsec blunders reported in cases like this. (I'm reminded of /u/KulakRevolt's Substack piece on Mangione's many mistakes and how to avoid them.) And like some here note, I find it understandable that these men make such trivially-avoided mistakes, given that we aren't talking about the most rational, sober-minded people here.
But there's one simple phrase that makes me doubt that "causing mass death without inherently presenting yourself as a target of investigation" is simply as easy as "practicing even rudimentary opsec" — and that's "parallel construction."
Sure, in this, or any other particular case, the media narrative we're given for how the cops found them is probably true, and they probably did make the blunders described (again, not sane, rational sorts). But if "a lone man with a grudge against the world" was instead caught through some Three-Letter Agency's massive Fourth-Amendment-violating secret domestic surveillance program, that's not what we'd be told. No, we'll be given an alternative narrative of how this individual was found through perfectly-legal police methods, which would probably look something like, well, what we see in news reports in cases like this.
So, maybe your initial "try anonymously mass-shooting and you won't stay anonymous for long" position might still be true after all, just not for the same reason.
The answer the "Traditionalist" view, which I've outlined above, gives to these questions is perhaps best exemplified in comments by Fox News talking head Tomi Lahren, as covered in this Shoe0nHead video, particularly the bit she said on Piers Morgan's show, on the topic of what women owe men in return for their efforts (at about 15:17 in the linked video):
Tomi Lahren: And as a woman, I want a strong man who is a protector and a provider; that will go to war if need be; that will protect me, protect my family; make money.
But I don't think a man needs to "get something out of it" to be a manly man, a protector and a provider. If you think you—
Andrew Wilson [over her]: So, nothing. So you've got nothing.
Lahren: —need to get something out of it, I, quite frankly, don't consider you a real man.
It is your born duty as a male to work, suffer, and sacrifice for women, children, and society with absolutely no expectation of reward for it, simply because it's part of being a man, and if you don't do it, you're not a man.
In asserting this duty, Western traditions will tend to emphasize it being the will of God, or some such; East Asian ones will tend to put a bit more emphasis on owing it to the spirits of your ancestors. But in the end, they all reject the liberal/libertarian "pure individual," atomized and unbound by any obligation or duty not freely chosen. Instead, you are born in a particular place, a particular time, to a particular family, in a particular class, a particular nation, and, yes, with a particular sex. This unchosen role into which you are born comes with equally-unchosen duties and obligations to which one is bound. (Like the "filial piety" owed to your parents — even if you didn't choose them, and didn't choose to be born — recognized by pretty much every culture save the Modern West. Note, after all, that the first of the Ten Commandments involving one's duties to fellow human beings, as opposed to the earlier commandments covering one's duties to God and the sacred, is "honor thy father and thy mother.")
Cities in the sunbelt are hiring.
Yes, but then you still have to start all over on building up that pension…
Seeing the many replies downthread, I'm reminded of two video clips I saw on Youtube sometime back.
One was one of several "highlight reel" compilations of Nov. 2024 election night coverage by various left-wing outlets (watching them go from confidence to doubt to cope to crashing out is hilarious), this one an all-black online show. At one point, the low performance of Dems with young men comes up, and one of the older women points out "Well, what do we have to offer them, except increased economic opportunity for everyone who isn't them?" (IIRC, the response was a half-hearted 'well, the other side is so evil we shouldn't have to earn anyone's vote'-type argument.)
The other was a short clip Shoe0nHead played from a left-wing Youtuber. This was a skinny, very gay young white man, and he was stumbling over his words trying to assert, in the most unobtrusive way possible, that there's actually something to the "male loneliness epidemic" — at one point he says "I'm trying to think of how to say this so my own side won't murder me" — and then his female guest (it might have been Taylor Lorenz) responds with "Well, the whole problem with the 'male loneliness epidemic' [eyeroll] idea is that it's an idea that centers men and men's problems."
(I also recall other lefty streamers making post-election comments about how, if you're a straight white male, that yes, the Left hates you; yes, Dem policies probably hurt you; yes, you'll probably do better with Trump in office than you would with Harris… but none of that matters, you have to vote D anyway. The Left don't have to earn your vote, they don't have to do anything for you — they are the Good Guys, and thus entitled to your vote. You have a moral duty to 'vote blue, no matter who.' When people aren't voting for the Democrats, that's not the fault of the party, it's the fault of the electorate; the party doesn't need to change, the voters do.)
What is a young man supposed to do when he's hobbled from the start by educational programs that favor women, college admissions that favor women, jobs programs and diversity mandates that favor women, and a general social environment that favors women?
"Man up" and overcome all the challenges that face him through masculine vigor and endurance, all with an uncomplaining stoic demeanor, or die trying? Recognize that he is the "disposable sex" who has to earn his personhood through deeds and through suffering?
The Bible is special too. But Christians don't think we should ban the Bible in order to protect it. They think we should disseminate it as widely as possible precisely because it's sacred and it brings people into contact with the sacred.
Maybe Protestant Christians, perhaps, but I know plenty of Catholics, at least, who think the Bible should have been kept in Latin and read in whole only by priests.
They're gonna instead form a human wall against it because the dem apparatchik who 6 months ago was calling for their total defunding and disbandment tells em to?
Yes, because that apparatchik and his associates control their paychecks; and even more, their pensions. Just ask the cops. It doesn't matter how Red Tribe they are, or their own personal feelings, they'll do whatever they're told to if they have to in order to protect their oh-so-precious pensions.
What actually happens is the police decide they’d rather live to cash their paychecks than shoot at federal troops.
And if they're told that any officer who doesn't follow orders to shoot at federal troops will no longer have paychecks to cash, nor their precious, precious pension?
If popular opinion is in line with Trump, then the votes should bestow enough power onto the Republicans to formally change the regulations.
"Should," according to a civics textbook model of how our "democracy" works, but, as we can see, it clearly doesn't. Yes that's "the whole point of a democracy," which is why its absence demonstrates that our "democracy" is a sham.
- Prev
- Next
The partition of Czechoslovakia?
More options
Context Copy link