Feminism vs. GIA

In my last post I described how Rousseau’s idyllic pre-civilization, socialism, and the Feminine Imperative are actually one and the same.  I”m aware that some of my readers prefer that I focus on masculine issues, other prefer it when I write about politics, still others when I write about culture.  I might emphasize one aspect or another for a while, but to me it’s all the same.

The society that today’s left hopes to construct is one in which we share a collective responsibility for the well-being of our children.  The biological female imperative is Alpha fux/beta bux (AFBB), and the “beta bux” portion would be taken care of through a coercive tax system in which the betas would get no credit whatsoever for their contributions to any particular woman’s children; it’s hard to feel gratitude for men you’ve never met who have no choice but to help you.

This frees her up for Alpha fux.  Women would obviously prefer that the Alpha sticks around after he’s done with her, but if he doesn’t, a magical “somebody” will help her with the bills regardless.  At least as long as the Democrats win the next election.

Such a system contradicts Truth in three fundamental ways.  The Truths it violates are those on which Western Civilization is based, and those that epitomized America’s Founding.  In no particular order:

1.  It violates Individual Liberty  (I) in that individuals are required to support the well-being of others; those who played no role in the creation of a child are required by the state to support it.  The freedom of a woman to bang whomsoever she pleases supersedes the freedom of a man to reap the fruits of his own labor.  Hence, in our efforts to define freedom as “feminine power”, we ignore the aspect of freedom that only requires we be left alone (liberty).  The notion of rights becomes hopelessly distorted, causing each of us to focus less on what we can produce and more on how much we can coerce.

2.  It tears away our very moral foundation (G).  Women require AFBB, but as we outsource BB to unknown and abstract betas, we dis- incentivize the moral, reliable behaviors like fidelity and a strong work ethic in all men.  Not only will the betas have no reason to do the right thing, Alphas will get theirs regardless.  In fact, the more primal aspects of the female sex drive (AF) often encourage men to be as immoral as possible.  Joran van der Sloot is about to get married, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has a fan club, but the guy who develops the app that helps you balance your checkbook may not get any female attention at all.

Right or wrong, female attention drives men like nothing else.  So if females care not for right or wrong, don’t expect many men to, either.

Moral behavior often has no reward.  However, healthy societies develop social sanctions that somewhat mitigate the harmful effects of morality and fight against the advantages of behavior that knows no moral restriction.  Societies in decline do the opposite.  That’s what we’re doing.

3.  It violates the realities of economics and human nature (A) to such an extent that the Gods of the Copybook Headings will be forced to “with terror and slaughter return.”

The socialists assured us that if we granted women more “economic liberty” through replacing the money that her husband used to provide that children would be better off, and the women who fell for it watched their sons grow up in prison or become quite losers who don’t produce grandchildren.  They tell us that if we punish achievement through punitive tax rates that we’ll achieve just as much regardless, and the states that practice this nonsense lose their jobs to the states that don’t.  They tell us that respecting women will inspire them to respect us back as we watch our most beautiful women fall for the likes of Chris Brown and Jesse James.

They told us that increased access to abortion would lead to fewer unwanted children, that pouring tons of money into our slums would make them vanish, that increased home ownership would lead to a stronger middle class, that “the stimulus” would stimulate the economy, that women could have it all, that a printing press could create value, that the programs they support would lead to “power to the people” instead of just more power to an unaccountable bureaucracy in Washington.

Reality, be it mathematical, biological, economic, or physical can not be denied.  A is A.  Pretend otherwise and suffer.

If we used to live in quasi-socialist tribes but stopped, there’s a reason we stopped.  Perhaps we learned that average guys work harder when they’re allowed to reap the fruits of his own labor and isn’t regarded as a slave.  Maybe somebody noticed that kids who had both a mother and a father caring for them tended to be happier than those that didn’t.  I’m not saying I approve of all the restrictions women in prior eras faced, but maybe somebody recognized that if Ethel does whatever the hell she wants with her body that she’ll just give it to the town pickpocket.  If liberty is the absence of external control and we don’t have moral self-control, what’s left to keep us in line?

To the feminists/leftists/socialists, call them what you will, the answer to this final question is simple:  do away with liberty.  The best way to control us, to make it seem like they have to control us, is to destroy our moral foundation.

God is what God is.  I am what I am.  A is A.  GIA is what made this country great, and only GIA will keep us from destroying ourselves.

This entry was posted in Alpha, Family, Feminism, Foundations, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Feminism vs. GIA

  1. Pingback: The Heavens | Alpha Is Assumed

  2. Eric says:

    I actually really like what you’ve said. And that’s coming from a self-professed socialist. Hear me out for a minute please. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance, but in my understanding, Marx has a pretty valid critique of capitalism. Of course I’m not a cultural Marxist who applies the concept of class struggle along gender lines, but let’s say for example we lived in a post scarce society, wherein there was enough food to go around, and with ‘adequate distribution’ of the surplus wealth created in society, we were able to overcome other current limitations such as reliance on fossil fuels etc and public goods such as roads, infrastructure, healthcare etc were well funded.

    Let us say that we also maintain structures for competition between worker owned firms, for collectively allocated funds, eg. quarterly contests for prospective startup founders. The social value of starting your own workers firm (and convincing others to join your venture) would provide incentive for workers to advance technology and increase the efficacy of labor-saving devices. It would also be an avenue for alpha leadership to blossom. It’s simply a different way of allocating funds. Rather than private banks allocating funds only to those firms that they perceive to be profitable in the short term (spurred by federal interventionism into the private sphere which is the inevitable result of the concentration of capital), we would allow the workers to allocate funding on a basis of what would produce the best result for the commonwealth in the (slightly) longer term. Humans are only so self aware, I know.

    What is far fetched about this proposition? I acknowledge that Marx’s analysis did not take into account man’s desire to prostrate before others for a sense of safety and belonging, but I think structures and and rituals could be enabled to take the place of man’s current subservience to capital.

    Probably my biggest sense of cognitive dissonance is in relation to the female half of the population. Women tend to favor work that is self-actualizing, rather than inherently productive and/or immediately of value to the larger community. The question becomes, in this prospective system, would women’s lack of interest in the social hierarchies of men and/or weakening of these hierarchies in the interest of equal outcome (affirmative action, identity politics etc.), rather than equal opportunity, prevent such a system from success? Would their hatred of anything remotely resembling meritocracy destroy such a system from its inception? I suppose it is a likely possibility.

    Also, just to clarify, I am open to the conservative/libertarian position, so long as it acknowledges that both positive and negative liberties are important, which most libertarians in my experience do not tend to do. I really like reading your blog by the way, there’s a lot of good insight, though I think you sometimes have an oversimplified view of what leftism is (and for good reason, most leftists these days are ignorant, complaining, ineffectual bigots with a victim complex thrown in for good measure. That’s not to say conservatives don’t have their fair share of idiocy too, but frankly I really have a disgust for most leftists because of their self-righteous censorship tendencies.)

    • Martel says:

      Sorry I somehow missed this comment for so long. I noticed it tonight when it’s too late to reply, but if you’re still paying attention, I’ll do something in the next couple of days.

      • Eric says:

        I am indeed still on board, no worries Martel. The longer I read stuff from your perspective and from those similar to yours, the more I am incensed by cultural marxists and their self-serving moral relativism.

        FYI, the deprecation of those who would seem to be my ideological allies does not come from a place of self-hatred, but rather from my understanding that these people are selfish hypocrites.

        When you do write a reply please do it in this thread, or if it’s a full post (not that I mean to imply you should or have to write something of that magnitude) please notify me here as I’m subscribed to this thread.

      • Martel says:

        “…we were able to overcome other current limitations such as reliance on fossil fuels etc and public goods such as roads, infrastructure, healthcare etc were well funded.”

        Believing this could ever happen is a HUGE assumption. Demand will always exceed supply unless there is some sort of pricing mechanism to both restrict demand and incentivize supply.

        I could be misinterpreting, but it seems like you’re advocating something along the lines of worker-controlled co-ops. I can’t analyze this because I’m not quite sure what it is. However, the profit motive has proven to be the most effecient resource-allocator (when not improperly incentivized by the government), and it creeps into any decision anyhow. Workers might ostensibly distribute funds according to the greater good, but altruistic motives are often trumped by nepotism or other incentives. I agree that we should think more in the long term, but I see no reason that what you advocate would actually encourage that.

        “but I think structures and and rituals could be enabled to take the place of man’s current subservience to capital”

        Which requires some sort of reprogramming or “cultural marxism.”

        I agree that positive rights are important, just not as important as the negative ones. And when a government gets into the business of enforcing positive rights, it can infringe on the negative much more than vice versa. I’ve dealt with this issue several times before:


        I wish I could have answered your questions in more detail, but every time I’ve tried to answer this (including this one), about 70 distractions pop up. Anyhow, any further clarifications or questions are welcome.

      • Eric says:

        Thanks for the reply. I’ll give those articles a read and let you know if I have any other questions. Keep doing what you do!

  3. Pingback: The Weapon | Alpha Is Assumed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s