Societal Programming isn't the whole story

The irrepressible Blackdragon put up a rather interesting post recently addressing, among other things, the question of why society is more messed up than a football bat when it comes to the differences between the way men treat men, versus the way they treat women:
Why do men protect women but not other men? 
There is massive Societal Programming that states that the lives of men are somehow worth less than those of women and children. When a ship or plane is sinking at sea, women and children are shuttled off first. If they run out of lifeboats, us guys are supposed to suck it up and die. 
Women didn’t invent this stupidity. MEN did. Women also don’t, as a rule, propagate this stupidity. MEN do, including both left-wing beta male white knights and even many right-wing Alpha Male 1.0s.

The sad reality is that the majority of men in modern day society actually support anti-man Societal Programming. I wish this was not the case, but it is. If men supported men just as much as they supported women, what happened in that video would never have occurred. Men wouldn’t be paying alimony or be barred from seeing their own kids either. 
Based on my own educated guesses of reading the stats, about 70% of men in today’s Western world are beta males. “Beta” is a range of course; some of these 70% are extreme, hopeless pussies and others are somewhat confident betas, but they’re still beta. 
These men go along with just about all of this anti-man, woman-empowerment stuff. They laugh at all those commercials that show husbands and boyfriends as stupid buffoons. They think alimony is a good idea, or at least don’t question it. They agree with videos like this. They make hundreds of “OMG you’re so beautiful!” comments on every pic a girl posts on Facebook or Instagram. They turn into whiny bitches when women dump them
And so the cycle continues.
As explanations go, it's not a bad one. Blackdragon is entirely correct to lay most of the blame for Western society's currently FUBARd state at the feet of Western men. As he rightly points out, if Western men simply refused to get married and thereby stopped feeding the alimony machine that gives women every possible incentive to screw them and their men over, the entire system would collapse in on itself overnight. The reason it doesn't collapse, he contends, is because men are programmed to belittle the worth of other men.

There's just one little problem with this argument, and it's a big one. (Yes, that was intentional. Haven't you ever watched Futurama?)

Blackdragon missed, by a very wide margin, the real reason why men generally do not hold other men's lives in particularly high esteem. He simply did not bother to account for the fact that, in reproductive terms, men actually are not worth very much.

I've discussed this before at some length. To put this into perspective, consider one of the more interesting theories regarding the genetic heritage of the world's current population: the Mt. Toba Catastrophe Theory.

One of the logical offshoots of the theory states that, in the wake of a truly Biblical supereruption roughly 75,000 years ago, the world experienced an extinction event on a scale not seen for hundreds of thousands of years before that time. The entire population of humanity, globally, was reduced to something on the order of 10,000, perhaps 15,000 individuals.

(Side note: I've been to Lake Toba and seen the gigantic crater left behind by the eruption. It's a damned impressive sight. Based on that, it's not hard to believe that the eruption did, in fact, wipe out most of humanity at the time.)

The majority of these individuals would have been female. The men died doing what men do- foraging, hunting, trying to keep themselves and their families alive.

The result is that today's human population- all damn near 7 billion of us- is derived from a relative handful of men. They must have been really busy (not to mention thoroughly enjoying themselves), but the human race survived.

Whether you agree with the theory or not- there are good arguments both for and against it- this little thought experiment underscores what I and others like me have argued for a long time: in reproductive terms, men are and have always been expendable.

This is why men fight wars. This is why we fight and bleed and die in truly staggering numbers for causes that, when examined rationally, are simply insane. This is why men take huge risks for potentially huge rewards- and equally huge penalties.

That is why we elevate women- because they are indeed genetically precious. We've had this dinned into us through thousands and millions of years of evolution. The cost of reproduction to a man is tiny; one single man, given access to a dozen or more fertile women, could with minimal effort sire dozens, even hundreds, of children during the course of his lifetime. The cost to women, however, is tremendous in terms of both time and resources.

This, combined with the very real drive that every (normal) man feels to propagate his genetic code through sex with women, is what makes women precious.

And when you combine these two facts with the reality that men take higher risks to pursue higher rewards, and therefore put themselves in harm's way far more often than women do- again, because taking higher risks leads to better reproductive outcomes- you run straight into the logical reality that men must treat women differently from men.

Women are precious. They always have been. And until and unless we face situations where men outnumber women in a given reproductive set, they always will be. (When that exception occurs, by the way, the natural end result is greatly increased aggression and competition among the men; the outcome is that the population of weaker men is weeded out through that competition, until some form of equilibrium is reached, however temporarily.)

So, no, Blackdragon, men don't treat women differently just because of Societal Programming. We treat women differently because we must.

That, though, is the end of my disagreement with Blackdragon- and don't get me wrong, I think very highly of him. For even though Blackdragon failed to account for this rather simple chain of logic, he got the other side of the equation exactly right.

Men are indeed expendable, and women are indeed precious, for the reasons I have outlined above. Any high-schooler should have no trouble following this chain of logic. What is less apparent, but equally important, is that it is men, and not women, who through risk-taking and reward seeking are the builders and maintainers of civilisation.

And that is where we have gone too far in deferring to feminine imperatives.

Not for nothing did Camille Paglia once bluntly state that "if civilisation had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts".

We have gone so far, in fact, that we are now in the process of tearing down and stifling the very ideas and instincts that have led the West to build the most advanced and prosperous civilisation the world has ever seen.

Unfortunately, Blackdragon doesn't actually offer any real solutions to the problem. Let's be clear- he's the man, he's living a lifestyle (at least judging by what he says about it) that any straight, male deep introvert would love to have. But his lifestyle is focused around pursuing solely what makes him happy. More power to him for that. I do not question his right and his ability to live his life on his chosen terms.

Yet his lifestyle is not going to work to rebuild a masculine-centred, dominant, strong, virile civilisation.

If we are going to rebuild Western civilisation- and I am not even sure it can be rebuilt, never mind whether it should be, at this point- then we will have to remember the most painful lesson of all. Our great gift of freedom comes with very real responsibilities, chief among which is the responsibility to understand that freedom doesn't mean having the ability to do whatever you want; freedom is, in fact, the substitution of self-discipline in pursuit of one's own ends in place of discipline imposed by someone else.

It is this lack of discipline, this fundamental unseriousness, that has gotten us to this pass. We have failed to understand that while men are expendable, we are also, seemingly paradoxically, the builders of civilisation. We men support a regime that is now implacably hostile to our freedoms and our existence- and therefore to its own.

That regime will collapse, sooner rather than later if current events are any indication. And a very great deal of truly terrible suffering will follow. The question is, are we as men willing to do what it takes to rebuild afterwards?


  1. I read Blackdragon's blog from time to time and post there very occasionally. From what I can tell its mostly for men with a high libido and how they can thrive in a messed up atmosphere. I'm an outlier there BTW but enjoy the blog none the less . As such its not his job to try and find a way to rebuild civilization or to fix it but to help people cope.

    Now to your main points and its a doosey

    No they aren't interested in rebuilding nor should they since there is nothing to rebuild to not in the scale people are thinking. Big, diverse societies fail as soon as the boot get tired and has to be lifted from people's necks.

    We Men of the West a fractious people and so long as we keep pushing for unity we'll fail

    . To get past that we have to accept smaller, less connected societies, essentially the largest homogeneous polities possible each one strong enough to deter invasion and linked just enough to keep the next imperial boot from their own neck.

    Not easy and while few men want to be a big fish is tiny pond, bigger ponds need more fish. The temptation to overextend is always there,

    The real question no one asks is which "Western" civilization anyway? Roman? Greek? Medieval? Migration Era? Post Modern? They are not all the same.

    The assumption that we have can a mutuality agreed upon healthy ideology that can be extended all through North America and Europe is folly anyway.

    And I said healthy, we have the Cathedral pretty universally which is in my estimation 50% Left hand Path Judaeo-Christian 25% Marx and 25% Graft and it just doesn't work long term

    . Assuming though we can unite people under "Christendom" or "Western Civ" is absurd. Even in the Middle Ages under the so-called Christendom, a mythical concept if I ever heard one we Westfolk gleefully slaughtered each other in droves.

    We have to accept our own natures and find a way to work with them not against them.

    Also re: crowding, despite what the money obsessed capitalists types think . the human race really is well past its carrying capacity , both technically (not enough resources) and social and is do for a die-back sooner than later.

    The thing is there are so many people that of say 90% of the people in the world died , there would be plenty and we'd have a world population around the same as 1700 or so, Plenty for trade, teeming cities, philosophy art and culture

    Its really not an issue of any concern.

    The real concern should be kinship and preserving your clan, you volk and not preserving a doomed civilization anyway.

    Also re: that doom. For the US it was baked in the cake at the time of the founding, we've spent our entire history trying to externalize costs, push the cost of free labor onto slaves , push the cost and effort of manufacturing and its pollution onto some other country etc etc. That cannot go on for obvious reasons.

    So instead of trying to save a doomed society from its own costs save your own people, fellow Men of the West who are loyal to the same goals you are,

    Maybe in time, some new unifying force will come by but if not, I remind people, though violent at times, the Migration Era which is what this will IMO resemble wasn't all that bad.


Post a comment

Contact the Didact:

Popular Posts