Greetings from Bellingham, Washington, where I am visiting old friends and supporters, and finishing this blog where I started it, thereby coming full circle in a way that seems poetic and just.
This week’s post was going to be the absolute final one, the conclusion; although I started thinking that the first post of June has become more or less traditionally the blog’s anniversary issue, so it would be nice to end it on the big fourth anniversary. Also I considered that I wouldn’t want the final appearance of the sidebar to include in the final month’s offerings my endorsement of Donald Trump for US President. (It might give people the wrong idea about me and the blog in general.) So I’m sitting here in a guest room of the house of a good guy named Clint and am still trying to get a clear idea of what I should write about. I have lots of ideas, but no clear one for what would be appropriate for the second-to-last installment of this little dramatic literary presentation. So it looks like I may just meander aimlessly.
One of my foremost interests lately is still the strange phenomenon of political instability in recent Western society, particularly in the USA, Western Europe (including the UK), and Canada. For example this morning someone sent me the news of yet another talk by Milo Yiannopoulis being (violently) shut down by Black Lives Matter enthusiasts and leftist pro-Bernie Sanders supporters at DePaul University. Then I clicked on a link showing anti-Trump protesters (also consisting largely of Sanders supporters) burning American flags, throwing rocks at police, and trying to break into a recent Trump rally in New Mexico in an attempt to shut it down. Some of the organizers of the anti-Trump demonstration were attempting to keep it nonviolent, but they eventually failed, with the demonstration turning into what police later called a riot. I still say, based on what I have seen, that most of the hatred, hostility, and howling hysteria at demonstrations in America, most of it, is coming from the political far left. (That may or may not include all the rioting black people in urban areas.) And it is finally starting to get more coverage in the big corporate media (who mostly lean to the left and hate Donald Trump) because leftist radicals are starting to cause trouble for the media’s favorite, Hillary Clinton. Anyway, just saying.
It is too easy to adopt a side in a controversy and despise the other side as a bunch of fools, or worse. I’ve noticed an inclination toward that tendency in myself of course, and I assume others have noticed it in me also. So it’s good to bear in mind that everyone is doing the best they know how, and that everyone, aside from a few hypothetical enlightened beings, is literally delusional. I was reminded of this recently while watching a two-part video by Sargon of Akkad (here are parts 1 and 2) discussing a fellow that Sargon often refers to as Black Hitler. The guy is an American black supremacist who openly and virulently hates white people, often calling them “toilet-seat-complectioned Neanderthal cave beasts,” and even finding politically correct and rather soft-headed white people to testify against themselves on his videos. Anyway, in part 2 of the aforementioned video about “Black Hitler,” Sargon shows this man essentially having a rather extreme emotional meltdown in which he is, through his tears and sobs, expressing just how deeply he hates everything white people represent, and to some degree why he hates them/us. And at the very least one cannot help but see that this fellow is deeply, terribly unhappy. Even Sargon, who is often pretty cynical, was backing off and expressing feelings of compassion. It just goes to show that people who hate others and deliberately cause trouble for others tend to be unhappy people themselves. A happy person is most likely to live and let live. Troublemakers and “bad people” tend to be unhappy, and are lashing out in pain, even if they happen to he smiling or hooting with laughter while they’re doing it.
But forgiving others for their trespasses seems to be going as out of fashion as the Christianity which formerly endorsed it. In the new PC ideology all the responsibility seems to be on the person who speaks, with none on the hearer. In the old days people were advised to retain some equanimity and emotional maturity and forgive someone who spoke offensively, whereas now anyone who speaks in a way that could conceivably be considered offensive to somebody is seen as someone to blame and silence, and not usually with compassion. The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, with most of us seemingly not aware that a place in the middle, with regard to responsibility in a conversation or with regard to political orientation, or spirituality, or whatever, is usually wisest and most conducive to the happiness of the majority.
The same is true with regard to gender. First we had an overtly male-dominant society. As feminism became more mainstream more people began seeing this as wrong…but instead of finding balance, with masculine and feminine virtues being equally honored, now we have the pendulum swinging toward feminine dominance, with masculinity itself being seen as a problem to be eliminated. This results in a situation even more out of balance than before, and more unstable. But it’s politically incorrect to say that.
So I guess I’ll just round out this meander with a few reflections on male/female relationships in Western society—certainly not as complaints, but as respectful suggestions, more or less. I must admit that I have always had a natural, instinctive, intuitive admiration for and openness toward women, but that over the past few years I have become intellectually somewhat more inclined toward a kind of misogyny. I assume that the aggressiveness and man-bashing of feminism nowadays have bred more misogyny in American culture than there has been in a long time, possibly ever. But, on a rather dim bright side at least it helps me to remain a celibate monk. I would prefer to love women, however, even if I don’t cohabit with one. Love is very important in life. Love is acceptance.
Part of my trouble is that I have a degree in Biology, and am inclined to see human beings as a species of animal when I am not seeing us as embodied spirit. We are a kind of upgraded ape. And being a head-oriented objective male besides, I freely acknowledge that men and women naturally differ physically and psychologically. We have natural human instincts that are bred into us, and male instincts (largely because of male hormones) are different from female instincts.
One instinctive difference between men and women, speaking very generally, is that women are more inclined to favor security to freedom, while men’s preference tends to be vice versa. A liking for security for everyone is one of the numerous reasons why women are more likely to lean toward the political left and socialism. It is also a reason why women, again speaking very generally, tend to try to keep their mate (usually a man) under their control, as much as they are able. But this leads to an interesting problem, which may be of interest especially to guys who read this.
Have you ever been outdoors and seen two butterflies fluttering around with the one if front engaging in hyperactive evasive maneuvers and the one behind in hot pursuit? Sure you have. Well, the one in front is female, and the one behind is male. This is because female butterflies have evolved a behavior pattern of trying to escape from amorous males. This ensures (get this) that only a male who is faster and more agile than the female in question can chase her down and mate with her. It makes perfect sense: A female should mate with a male who is stronger than she is, in order to give her offspring the best genetic traits possible. Many species of animal are like this, including humans.
In the book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan and his wife (whose name I don’t remember, and am too lazy to look up), the authors cite the extremely politically incorrect scientific finding that women are actually more likely to date a man who successfully date raped them on a previous occasion than they would be to date a man who tried to date rape them, but failed because she succeeded in fighting him off. This is the same instinct at work: A woman instinctively has more respect for a man who is stronger than her. The same instinct accounts for the fact that women are more likely to be unfaithful to their mate with men of higher status and social power than their mate—like their doctor or boss, for example.
So here’s the interesting problem. A woman will try to bend a man to her will, and if she succeeds she will experience a certain satisfaction, but she will also lose a certain amount of respect for him. So if the man displays the firmness of his backbone and refuses to be her “beta bitch,” so to speak, will she love him more? Well, maybe. That’s the way it allegedly used to be, but nowadays feminist and “progressive” ideology may have inhibited the latter response in favor of outraged indignation and loathing. Sorry, guys. Mandatory equality has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the works of natural heterosexual relationships, in more ways than one, or even ten. The new societal norms result in a no-win scenario for men, or at least for men who mate with the new breed of Western woman. I don’t know what to tell you on that one, except that you should be very careful, and that celibacy really does have its advantages.
Still, it’s better than old-fashioned male dominance though, right? Well, not necessarily. It is true that men had many social advantages over women, and I really do not endorse inequality of opportunity between the two sexes. (I won’t use the word “gender” here, as recently there have come to be any number of those.) But a family setup in which the man went out and worked for a living, making all or most of the money, while the woman stayed home most of the time and raised children and maintained a home and a family, was a system that did work for a very long time, and which was pretty much in harmony with instinctive human nature (which nature the new ideology denies, but the new ideology is based more upon what feels right than on empirical facts). But consider: Not only did it prove to be a system that was viable for propagating the species, it really did include feminine influence in society on a par with male influence. This is true because in the old days almost every human being had as her or his primary guide in the formation of their character none other than a woman, their own mother. This was a profound power of women, which unfortunately is belittled nowadays, and not only by feminist ideologues. It is also true that consumerism and an unnecessarily high standard of living contribute to having both parents working, with small children farmed out to daycare centers where said children learn to be politically correct. But even the unnecessarily high standard of living is largely a feminine by-product, as it is also feminine nature to dislike discomfort and a Spartan existence more than men do, and to care more about what the neighbors think.
The old-fashioned way, with women being expected to be more virtuous than men and to raise children, inspired a respect for women that is now in decline, partly at the insistence of feminists. Much of a man’s inspiration to “make good” and be a supporting member and even defender of women and of society came from this age-old value system. Western men have become less interested in being dedicated fathers, with deleterious effects on children. (My own father had a profound effect on my character, as he taught me such qualities as fearlessness, determination, and a love of freedom that I would not have acquired from my mother or from a schoolteacher. They taught me other things.) Statistics show that children raised without a father are much more likely, for example, to resort to a life of crime later in life. So simply replacing fathers with a socialized welfare state is not working out nearly so well in that regard as the system it replaced.
Here I would like to ask a serious question to any woman who reads this. What could be more important, fulfilling, and sacred for an ordinary, normal woman than to create a new human life and to nurture it, teaching that new person how to be a good and happy individual? Seriously. How could imitating a man and pursuing a career be more important than making every effort to be as good a mother as possible? This seems so obvious to me, but feminism has actually disdained traditional motherhood to some degree, being in my opinion rather misogynistic, as it rejects possibly the most important role of a woman in human society and encourages women to be like men instead (in addition to pressuring men to be more like women). But men can’t take up the slack on creating new humans. Only women can perform that miracle. Most men don’t have the nurturing, mothering instincts that most women have either. Personally I am sorry to see that Western civilization is neglecting an age-old and revered feminine role out of a kind of pseudoscientific new social ideology.
But I do believe in equality, and in equal opportunity. If a woman wants to pursue a career instead of staying at home for the first several years of her children’s lives, or chooses not to have children at all, that certainly should be her right. But the choice of adopting the old-fashioned way should not be vilified or despised. Motherhood is a sacred thing, and should not be neglected for the sake of political ideology and the adoption of masculine values. Being a mother is about as feminine as a woman can possibly be, especially if she is a good and wise and conscientious mother. A kind of misogyny teaches women to imitate men and despise what is truly feminine.
So anyway, this is my last public appeal on this blog for the health and well-being of society. Take it or leave it for whatever it is worth, and be happy and well. And forgive me my trespasses, as I also forgive those who are indebted to me.
ah, I love the Pacific Northwest
(this is what it's like)