I was having one of those hypothetical scenario discussions with a friend the other day, when the line between a dystopian possibility and reality became uncomfortably blurred. The hypothetical scenario in question being - what might happen if men began to significantly diminish from public life due to societal transformations. It's concerning how a narrative fueled by animosity towards men is gaining traction in various developed societies, even spreading to more distant ones, such as mine. I recently came across news about a groundbreaking medical procedure allowing women to generate sperm cells from their bone marrow, potentially enabling self-impregnation or impregnation of another woman, the only catch being that the offspring in such a case would always be female. While I'm unsure about the feasibility or legality of such a procedure, especially outside Western countries, what staggered me was the volume of comments that supported the idea of a world without men. Such drastic methods seem to be supported by people who are keen to make men “obsolete” so to speak. I wouldn’t quite say that men can be obsolete, because that would mean that the entire male consciousness can be reduced to a bunch of tasks or roles that could be substituted by women, technology, or rendered unnecessary altogether. I came across a podcast featuring a person known as Teal Swan, who discussed the idea that there is a growing effort to marginalise men by rendering them unnecessary in society. Swan also questioned the impact of a society where women can do everything for themselves, asking what place men would have in such a world, and if women would stop needing them entirely. I don't know much about Teal Swan or her broader beliefs, and I'm not sure how accurate her claims are. While she didn't provide answers, she seems to be asking the right questions. I also have some questions, some of which might be deemed too politically incorrect or controversial to voice openly in modern society. Carl Jung discussed archetypes in his book, Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. If we think of a father, the typical imagery is of a tall, strong figure—a protector, a judge, a disciplinarian, perhaps a hunter or builder. It’s like all the traits of masculinity stack together like a deck of cards. Now consider a mother: the image that often comes to mind is of someone kind, caring, gentle, and soft-spoken, typically holding a baby or child. She's depicted as a feeder, a nurse, a caretaker, the epitome of femininity at its best. What happens when these archetypes become blurred? The traditional roles that men and women have fulfilled in society are vital for raising well-adjusted children. Men have historically provided for and protected their families, disciplined their children and led communities. Women have fed and nurtured their children, cared for sick family members, and maintained the household. It is true that some of these roles, like hunting wild animals or providing physical security, have become less relevant in a society where safety is largely governed by the rule of law. If these roles are outsourced to babysitters, cooks, maids, and robots, what happens to the bond between parents and children? Can children thrive without the active involvement of their parents? If the archetypes of father and mother become diluted to the point where they no longer resemble traditional figures in a child's imagination, what impact will that have on society? Boys might struggle to understand what it means to become a man if the traits typically associated with fatherhood—strength, protection, discipline, and leadership—disappear. Similarly, young girls could find it challenging to understand what it means to be a woman if the nurturing and caring aspects of motherhood become obsolete. In a world where gender boundaries blur, purpose becomes elusive, and family ties weaken, and confusion reigns supreme. Although tasks like providing and protecting can be handled by women or outsourced, and many roles are interchangeable between genders or even replaced by technology, there is more to being a man or a father. The unique male instinct, refined over centuries of survival in the wild, is something that can't be easily replicated or replaced. It is the instinct of the inventor who eased the problem of pain and disease. It's the instinct of the artisan who wielded tools to build infrastructure. It is the instinct of the explorer who drew the maps and established trade routes. It's the instinct of the ruler who established the foundations of societal order. Most importantly, it is the instinct of the father who passed on that legacy to the son.
Phase Two. Document Six. March, 2024 Identifying the Players: Technocrats (Part Two) Covid responses, the trans agenda, and now the
technocratic dynamic, exhibit a pattern. One: someone – not an elected official or you – really
really cares about something or someone. Two: because they really care, and because you are
ignorant (or maybe a fascist), there must be no distracting discussion of the
fine print. Three: the implementation of the solution ‘bypasses’
civil society – the tax-paying voters. Four: note that this model involves an open-ended expansion
of bureaucracy simply because more caring equals more bureaucracy. This
increase in ‘processes’ serves effectively to further ‘hold at arm’s length’
the citizenry. Who knows what an ‘ox bow lake’ is? In Australia, we
call it a ‘billabong.’ Google it. A river
changes its direction a little, and a section of that river gets cut off. Well, that’s what is going on. Society is being made
into a billabong. Two types of anti-democrats – Super Poindexters (technocrats)
and political activists (neo-communists) -- are ‘redirecting the river’ so that
society and its institutions become cut off from the control and development of
their own society. One key to understanding this dynamic is Singer’s
expanding moral circle. No one wants to say, ‘Thus far and no further!’ The
Western Australian Government Covid website provided the following datum: ‘a
96-yr.-old man died a Covid-involved death’ What could this possible mean? A 96-yr.-old man in a
nursing home could suffer a banana-custard-involved death. Invoking the involvement of Covid is a ploy here. It’s a tactic of
Really Really Caring. So, money-printing provides a theoretically unlimited
supply of funding, and Really Really
Caring justifies the shouting down of any desire to discuss the logical limits
of how much the individual must defer to society. This is an inversion of
individualism, of ‘the pioneer spirit.’ So, how is the above relevant to ‘identifying the
players’? Well, with the immigration invasion of Europe last decade, it was the
neo-communists (and Co.). With the trans agenda, same crowd. But did the equation change with the Covid responses? With Covid, the
zealots and the poindexters double-teamed. The zealots, with the slavish
assistance of the MSM, vituperated all and sundry. Meanwhile, the Super Poindexters
worked with gubmints and massive corporations to advance the ‘surveillance
industrial complex’ (and make a ton of money). But ‘technocracy’? Starting in perhaps the 1980’s, we’ve
seem the Super Poindexters leveraging rapidly developing technologies. Three things concern us. The first is that they are so utterly self-centered
that their interest in democracy is nil. The second is that a range of factors makes their
project astonishingly powerful, which
is allowing them to become more central players in everything, and their rapidly
growing power is side-lining all other players. The third is that capitalism and nation-states (like
China) have chimed in on technocracy. Let’s consider this issue later.
