Henry Dampier

On the outer right side of history

  • Home
  • Contact

December 11, 2014 by henrydampier 9 Comments

Feminists Need Support From Men

Feminism can’t function without the widespread support by men, and that support can only be maintained if the people who shape the beliefs of men remain ardent feminists.

The most notable success of feminists in the United States has been the establishment of nationwide no-fault divorce laws, along with the enormous family court system that supports it.

This system is becoming more unstable as fewer people elect to go through with a feminist marriage. Feminism has always had trouble with marriage, equating it to a form of prostitution, but the financial relevance that feminism has, the thing that creates an enormous incentive for most women to cooperate with the ideology, is the institution of feminist marriage with all of the impressive privileges that it grants to women.

Dalrock coined the most salient term for describing the new female power: threatpoint. Women in marriage have a permanent advantage in negotiation with their husbands, in that they can unilaterally dissolve the partnership and be financially rewarded for it. With the help of a halfway competent lawyer, they can use all manner of libel and defamation to gain lifelong alimony, child support, and a share of the assets held in common and the husband’s assets as well.

What this tends to mean is male deference, supplication, and submission in marriage. It is not so much that the husband is supplicating to the wife, but supplicating to the wife’s ability to call down the might of the state upon the man and on the marriage. He lives as a free man only at her whim, and should her whims change, her will can be enforced by the state.

This is rather like a single employee at a shareholder owned firm being able to loot the company whenever, and renegotiate shareholder rights upon the arbitrary decisions of a government judge.

Men have increasingly reacted by opting out of marriage entirely, because it’s become a legal arrangement that uniquely disadvantages them, creating a shadow liability. The wife has a permanent option to buy the marital assets that she can exercise at the expense of her legal fees.

Since marriage-looting has become more difficult to pull off, as men either slack or just don’t pursue marriage, we see in the press attempts to scare up false rape accusations and other methods by which a woman could secure legal rights to men’s assets through the use of her sex and her wiles.

Again, men don’t have to even provide this opportunity: they can avoid women entirely, take a flight overseas to enjoy foreign women, visit professionals, or otherwise find alternative occupations than having anything to do with a woman who will demand deference while preserving a uniquely privileged option for herself.

This sort of change does not even have to be consciously pushed: feminists themselves are doing an excellent job selecting for men who hate, distrust, and fear the feminist state. The men who trust the system get looted in a systematic fashion. This sort of method selects for men who shirk marriage.

The key question is how long that feminists can enjoy their positions of influence. The answer is, didactically, stupidly, is as long as men permit them to enjoy their positions of influence, and not one second longer.

The idea behind the contractual family, the quick-dissolve family, is that it makes for greater happiness, that people should be permitted to pursue their own ends, and that permanent relationships of any kind are somehow oppressive, because they are inherently egalitarian.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Social Commentary

December 10, 2014 by henrydampier 25 Comments

Why Millennials Are Garbage

If I had to generalize, the main reasons why the Millennial generation is dysfunctional is because of insulation from competition, organizational chaos around them, and a resultant lack of healthy friendship. This is what people tend to mean when they use terms like ‘atomization.’ It’s not just that people are isolated, it’s that they’re isolated in a chaotic social environment.

People in the business press will often try to explain why millennials need to be treated differently to manage their unusual psychologies.

In the US, we’ve gone from what was once a highly competitive culture into a cut-down-the-tall-poppy culture that’s more common in Asian countries, Europe, and South America. Part of the reason for this is that this is the first generation to grow up with enormous numbers of new people from Asia and South America. The positive spin that’s often put on this is that it’s a less materialistic culture. Well, that may be, but primitive tribes without plumbing are also less materialistic. A certain amount of materialism is what keeps humans out of the trees.

This generation is also the first to really bear the full brunt of feminism and women in the work force.

All of this leads to caginess, social fracture, romantic nihilism, and corporate dysfunction.

This is a generation that, as children, tended to be used as chemistry sets for new psychiatric theories that tend to be developed and discarded in five year cycles. The results of using children’s brains as chemistry sets seem to be, at least from self-reports, widespread psychosis.

People whose formative experiences were having quack doctors tell them all the ways in which they were disabled and deficient (while simultaneously telling them that they were talented and special) lead to people with a strange sense of identity.

We’re what happens when you have classes for middle schoolers that explain why promiscuity is healthy and masturbation is a great idea. This was a bold social experiment, and now we know what the results look like. It’s not just the chemicals, but the pioneering psychological theories pushed onto people without much thought about the potential damage that might be done. Libraries have been filled with books of untested notions, and then those ideas have been promoted at scale at schools, universities, clinics, and hospitals.

The baby boomers get a lot of credit for being the vanguard of the ‘sexual revolution,’ but even those that have divorced tend to have an idea of what romance and monogamy means. It’s difficult for people in the older set to understand how, among young people, even in the upper classes, monogamy has become strange, and even a perverse behavior, before increasingly fewer feel the pressure to go into a sham marriage to satisfy someone’s baby rabies.

While millennials are highly educated, they’re educated in a system that has watered down standards to the point of uselessness. Meanwhile, many of those people with watered-down credentials believe that they are entitled to high positions in the workforce. This leads to frenetically chaotic competition in which employers with limited legal means to discriminate among employees based upon ability have to sort through huge numbers of people who are all desperate for work, without being permitted to efficiently test the capacities of the people looking for that work.

Additionally, many of those people are saddled with debts that push them to compete much harder for work than they probably should be. Demand for labor to repay debts (created ex nihilo, with a ‘native advertising’ campaign called K-12 paid for by the government) displaces demand for labor based on capability and interest to do the job.

That all happens in the larger context of economic chaos caused by Federal Reserve policy, egregious acts like Obamacare, and foreign competition taking advantage of the civil conflict within the US.

Faced with this pile of problems that single people can’t solve, the typical response is to pray for the apocalypse. That’s understandable. It’s also the morally wrong response.

A lot of the common life problems that millennials experience are due to people no longer really looking after one another. Families, which are supposed to fulfill this purpose, have been greatly damaged or obliterated in enormous numbers. It’s sort of like what happens when formerly owned dogs become strays. Their hair gets patchy, they don’t eat good food, they develop weird habits, they have trouble socializing, and they become incapable of doing ordinary dog-like things.

People aren’t much different. Without close friends, family, and spouses, people tend to become unhealthy, erratic, and unproductive. They begin worshiping strange idols, obsessing over useless paths of knowledge, making bad art, and abusing drugs. The people that are supposed to help other people to resolve their problems will tend to instead just do what they can to triage the dysfunction, tell the person who has made themselves worthless that they still possess essential worth, and go on to the next dysfunctional person.

The reason why we hold each other to standards of behavior, health, and appearance is because a breakdown of this process causes the breakdown of civilization: city by city, town by town, village by village, family by family, person by person.

Apocalyptic violence only makes those problems far worse and usually has multi-generational negative consequences. Chaotic civil war doesn’t select for civilized traits. The people who thrive during chaotic civil wars are killers, pimps, smugglers, and whores in that order. The higher arts disintegrate almost immediately, because delicate spirits must either coarsen or escape to survive the conflict. Keeping the electricity running and the plumbing working is a big enough challenge: producing literature and advancing technology becomes impossible.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Social Commentary

December 9, 2014 by henrydampier 18 Comments

Baby Boomers Will Be Kicked To the Curb

Because it’s not possible for the government to meet its entitlement obligations to the Baby Boomers, in part because previous generations pursued a strategy that increased the expenses of raising children to the point to which the government had to pursue mass immigration to fill the gaps in population growth, the baby boomers counting on government checks to handle their medical expenses and pensions are certain to be disappointed.

No one will tell them this, because to do so outside of a crisis situation would be to provoke an enormous political backlash for all the people involved. It will not be possible to pass a ‘responsible’ budget, because a responsible budget stiffs a large portion of the country out of what they’re owed.

The left-wing solution, which would be to seize the assets of corporations and high net worth individuals, would only provoke a capital flight of such stunning swiftness that it would be truly shocking. Unlike previous eras, in which most wealth was tied up in physical goods and inventory, now most wealth is expressed in terms of ownership rights, in terms of access to information and talent, and other intangible goods that can be transferred across borders within hours or days.

Tearing the fabric of the entitlement state would destroy the keystone of the nation-state, namely the social security and medical care programs that have been affirmed repeatedly as the only method by which an abstract governmental entity can ensure that everyone has some skin in the game with the federalizing institutions.

It’s not something that can be simply cut to balance a budget without provoking a political crisis in the way that burning buildings and lynched government officers constitute a political crisis. While it may be possible to make it balance on the spreadsheet, it’s not possible to make that balance with the capricious mob which is both emotionally and legally entitled to money which is not there.

The only ‘responsible’ move, which would be to raise taxes and lower entitlement spending, is not feasible, because lowering entitlement spending is what would provoke crises. Introducing means testing to these entitlement programs would have similar negative effects — the entire program is less important because of the actual money involved, but because it gives everyone in the society a stake in the survival of the federal institutions. If you remove that stake, you remove some important symbols of egalitarian citizenship, along with the incentive structure that makes it all work.

The honest, responsible solution would be to devolve the Federal state into a collection of smaller, regional states with governments more appropriate to the differing characters of the residents. The responsible way to handle it is to address the insolvency of the state before crisis forces a resolution.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Politics

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • …
  • 113
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • New Contact E-Mail and Site Cleanup
  • My Debut Column at the Daily Caller: “Who Is Pepe, Really?”
  • Terrorism Creates Jobs
  • Dyga on Abbot’s Defeat
  • The Subway Vigilante On Policing

Categories

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 158 other subscribers

Top Posts & Pages

  • New Contact E-Mail and Site Cleanup
  • My Debut Column at the Daily Caller: "Who Is Pepe, Really?"
  • Terrorism Creates Jobs
  • Dyga on Abbot's Defeat
  • The Subway Vigilante On Policing

Copyright © 2025 · Generate Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

%d