Summary: Enough analysis. This post describes the first part of the solution to the gender war: forming groups to act. Drunk with individualism, we appear to have forgotten this. But no solution to the gender war is possible without men first standing together for a common purpose.
Summary of previous chapters in this series
There are few white and black hats in the gender wars. There are few good guys and bad girls and vice versa. The feminist revolution is the logical next stage in the evolution of western individualism (details here). But patriarchy was the reward for men to join the rat race (see here and here) and we have nothing to replace it. Now comes the pushback, as men on the street develop new values and insights. Game, which is toxic to feminism. Red Pill knowledge, which is poison to marriage.
These changes in the behavior of men and women are destroying marriage as an institution. But marriage is the foundation of the Republic. It ties individuals into the whole of society and connects this generation to the future. New social structures are needed. Who will build them? Here is some analysis and speculation about the future.
Individuals and groups.
A society often embraces or exults its weakest aspects. So it is with individualism in the West. Its extreme form is libertarianism, our most popular imaginary social system (replacing communism), built on ahistorical beliefs taken from novels. My favorite is “an armed society is a polite society!” As a result, our largest grassroots political movements fail because their people do not want formal leaders (e.g., see the Tea Party and Occupy movements). Our leaders love this. It keeps us fragmented and weak – alienated from our own society.
So it is in the gender revolution. Radical feminists have captured major institutions, using them to implement their ideology. Men have respond like frightened sheep. This has allowed feminists to implement drastic changes to America with blinding speed, as social changes go. Almost all the institutions in America have joined the new orthodoxy, from the Boy Scouts to conservative Christian organizations. (see here and here). So the men who rebel are outlaws. They craft solutions as individuals, such as Game and MGTOW (men going their own way).
But there is always a counter-revolution. After generations of increasing alienation from themselves – slowly – men’s automatic systems engage, behaviors hard-wired into men. These are the equivalent of a BIOS – the instructions in a pc’s permanent memory. When attacked, men band together into packs. Tight groups with common beliefs and goals, respected leaders, and willingness to act. Not organizations, run with Roberts Rules of Order and committees. Packs, like wolves. Organic social structures, developed thousands of generations ago on the Serengeti plains of Africa.
As individuals we are weak. Only standing together are we strong. This allowed us to survive before the invention of fire. It was the foundation for many civilizations of the classical era. Men of the Greek city-states stood together to form the phalanx. Their women would say “come back with your shield or on it.” (Cowards would break the line, dropping their shield to run away). Almost three thousand years ago the Etruscans created the symbol of the fasces — sticks bound together to make an axe. This was the symbol of the Roman Republic, and was adopted by America’s Founders (it is seen throughout the Capital building). That insight will work for us today.
The spark that creates fires.
“Anger is easy. Anger at the right person, at the right time, for the right reason, is difficult.”
— Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics (paraphrased).
“Telemachus, now is the time to be angry.”
— Odysseus, when the time came to deal with the Suitors. From The Odyssey(1997).
(1997).We can only guess at the motives and goal of packs that will form in the next generation, probably composed mostly of Millennials and Generation Z. Anger is a common starting point. Anger at reverse discrimination, at drugging of boys, at the government’s support of Girl’s Game (easy divorce for women at advantageous terms), at universities’ kangaroo courts for control of speech and prosecution of doggy sexual harassment claims, and American institutions’ increasingly tight regulation of “toxic masculinity” — by which they often mean “masculinity.” (For more about anger as a political tool, see section 11 here.)
Some packs will form for fellowship and mutual support, such as sports, games, or ideology. Red Pill thinking encourages self-improvement, especially physical fitness. Some packs will form to pursue political goals: elect a friend or colleague, support or oppose a proposed law, pursue a neighborhood project, or defects from a mainstream political party to create a new group (that is happening now with the proliferation of alt-Right groups).
Any of these can come first or in combination – anger, common interests, or politics. The original purpose matters little once the machinery of pack formation begins. Men automatically organize, train, and recruit for the group.
Men’s alienation from existing organizations will drive the formation of countless packs, each a petri dish in which a thousand variables combine to produce a unique product. Eventually some of these groups will have the right mixture of people, beliefs, resources, and opportunities to go viral (it only takes one such group to change a nation). They will begin the counter-revolution. They will accomplish what no numbers of individuals can do: change the institutional structure of an increasingly anti-men society.
Individuals form groups. Groups work together to win.
The strength of the wolf is not teeth or claws. It is the pack.
Pack formation is a hard-wired process, and like all such it is amoral. It produces biker gangs, inner city gangs, and organized crime networks as easily as reform movements. See how the fasces’ glorious history was contaminated by its adoption by Italy’s fascists. The difference between a failed State and a successful one is how this process works. The West has tended to produce groups who seek to improve not just their conditions, but also those of the community – and the nation. Reform movements which began as small groups have shaped America since before the Founding.
- In 1785 Benjamin Franklin and others organized the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society. Others formed around the nation. They meet across the northern states in 1854 to discuss their dissatisfaction with the existing parties. They formed what became the Republican Party.
- In 1764 Samuel Adams and his fellow Boston activists organized a resistance group. Then they reached out to like-minded people in other colonies, forming Committees of Correspondence. Eleven colonies had Committees by February 1774. They gained experience operating on a local scale. They formed the nucleus of shadow governments in the Colonies, which later formed the core of revolutionary governments.
- Local unions first began in the early 19th century. They grew despite being repeatedly and violently crushed by mercs (hired by business owners) and militia (controlled by politicians owned by business owners). In 1932 union members helped elected the Democrats and bring forth the New Deal.
But this automatic machinery just as easily produces criminal groups, such as gangs which evolve into evil organized crime networks. Sometimes groups founded with good intentions become evil.
- Sometime between December 1865 and August 1866, six former officers of the Confederate army started a fraternal social club in Pulaski, Tennessee. Other groups copied them, rapidly spreading across the South. They quickly evolved to become a political force. Their name was derived from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλος) which means “circle.” The KKK.
Much depends on how these groups balance working for their own needs versus those of their communities and nation. That will determine how fast they grow and with what effect on America. Packs that replace our excessive individualism with extreme group loyalty can put America on the Highway to Hell.
“Their citizens glorified their mythology of rights and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.”
— Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers(1959).
(1959).How will women respond?
The gender war is a coed conflict. The Thirty Years War was fought in the 17th century about religion but had Catholics and Protestants fighting on both sides. Today radical feminists have triumphed with the support of their male allies. Some are fellow travelers. Some are leftists who see radical feminists as useful shock troops attacking western society. Some are useful idiots. Some are beta orbiters.
The organizations of the counter-revolution will also have both men and women. Some women will share the men’s values and interests. Some women will be (as always) attracted to strong men. For example, there are hot young women even in most successful groups — even misogynist ones. Bikers, the Bloods and Crips, paramilitary groups (e.g., militia, Antifa, Black Bloc), all-men sports teams – almost all successful groups have women as supporters or participants. {Trivia: 30% of esports fans are female.}
Side note: – This is also true of men. The story is told of General Maxwell Taylor inspecting the 101st Airborne before their 1a.m. drop on D-Day into the darkness over Normandy. He asked a private “Do you like jumping out of airplanes?” The soldier replied, “No, sir! I like being with men who like jumping out of airplanes.”
Perhaps most importantly – if the counter-revolution becomes strong, large numbers of women will defect from feminists’ losing teams to the new winning teams. That is in their BIOS. See Rome’s abduction of the Sabine Women, Kipling’s story about the Norman Conquest (“Young men in the manor“, 1906), and countless similar episodes in history. Men also do this. Everybody loves winners.
The next post discusses the values of the counter-revolution. These new values will end the gender wars.
Also see Dalrock’s article with his comments about this post.
See the other posts in this series
Describing the situation and how we got here.
- As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- Is a return to traditional values possible?
- Starting World War G: the gender wars.
- Society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- Game is toxic to feminism
- Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage.
About solutions.
- Men find individual solutions.
- Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
- The end to World War G (the gender wars)
- Men standing together can end the gender wars.
- The next phase of the gender wars will end the gender wars.
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, and about marriage. Also see the tip jar at the top of the right sidebar.
Books about the new era of gender relations
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters
The Privileged Sex
I am not sure if you are aware of this but this is a good pdf on a phenomenon on why Patriarchy and civilization is correlated: The Garbage Generation
by Daniel Amneus (1990).
It’s posted at this website.
(1976), and president of Men’s Defense Association), “Amneus is the leading theoretician and articulator of the Father’s rights and Men’s rights movements”.
.
.
Editor’s note: see Daniel Amneus’ entry at Wikipedia. Amneus (1919 – 2003) wrote this as an emeritus professor of English at California State University, Los Angeles. He specialized in Shakespearean textual criticism. He was the only man listed in Who’s Who of American Women. According to Richard Doyle (editor of The Liberator, author of The Rape of the Male
Info,
Thank you for the pointer to that. I added info to your comment about the author to encourage people to click on it.
LK you asked me some time back if I had any books I could recommend. I haven’t read much of The Garbage Generation, but what little I’ve read makes me want to read more. That isn’t exactly a recommendation, but it brought your previous question to mind. I would recommend The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000
by (atheist) Callum Brown (2009). He does a fascinating analysis of the themes in British literature. I wrote about this here: The roots of modern Christian wife worship.
Another I would highly recommend (at least the first few chapters) is The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition
by C.S. Lewis (1936). I think you’ve already seen my posts on that one, starting with Courtly Love: The origins of cuckchivalry.
Dalrock,
Thanks for the recommendations!
One spur to these posts was the, imo, low analytical content of most articles about the gender wars written from a man’s perspective. Lots of description, less about how we got here, almost nothing about how to reform society. These posts are a small step to better understanding of these matters. Eventually I expect to see useful books about these things. That will mark the next stage.
Rather than CS Lewis I would recommend Denis de Rougemont’s Love in the Western World
(1956). it is a very long time since I read Lewis but was not impressed.
And for the later developments of the European sensibility, The Romantic Agony
by Mario Praz (1951), an extraordinarily unrecognised masterpiece. Unfortunately much of the quoted material is in French, so it will prove frustrating to anyone whose French isn’t good enough to read Flaubert in the original with pleasure. But it is a brilliant piece of work, as relevant now as when published.
George,
Thank you for these pointers to useful books!
I’m often amazed to see how many men were able to see what was happening so far in advance!
Info,
I looked up The Garbage Generation. From the publisher: “Professor Amnéus’ second book on gender theory examines the increasing prevalence of crime in our society and places its genesis directly on the doorstep of the mother-headed household.” It was written during the last stage of the great crime rise. But rates of mother-headed households has not dropped, but crime rates have collapsed.
Doesn’t that disprove his theory?
You are right. So that may suggest that single motherhood is a necessary component in making a person a criminal but not sufficient in itself.
However there is good evidence to suggest that single motherhood is greatly correlated with poverty nonetheless regardless of the reduction in crime:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/poverty-and-single-mothers-new-york-times/
And the lack of father figure likely results in more instances of wounded masculinity among their sons.
I think that searching through the results of duckduckgo all seem to note that single-motherhood has a high correlation with poverty.
Info,
That’s unquestionable – now. Unlike in 1992, when Dan Quayle was savagely attacked by liberals for saying that quite obvious truth (see Wikipedia).
“So it is in the gender revolution. Radical feminists have captured major institutions, using them to implement their ideology. Men have respond like frightened sheep. This has allowed feminists to implement drastic changes to America with blinding speed, as social changes go. Almost all the institutions in America have joined the new orthodoxy, from the Boy Scouts to conservative Christian organizations. (see here and here)”
I agree that whatever it is has happened very fast. I’m not sure that ‘frightened sheep’ is a proper description however. It has after all been institutions mainly staffed by men who have initiated and followed through on the changes. So I am also not sure its feminists, ie women, who have implemented the changes.
I remain puzzled as to why exactly this all has happened. Why has it gone to the extreme that it seems to have? Why is it that the rules on divorce and child support with or without paternity have commanded enough support to be passed?
A lot of the changes that have occurred were surely correct? There was no reason why an intelligent and able woman should have been forced to leave teaching just because she had married (as women of my mother’s generation were). Equal pay for equal work seems a basic fairness issue. Votes for women? The Victorian Married Women’s Property Act? But in many respects it has gone off the rails, and I am finding it hard to see why everyone has agreed to it.
Its not so much men going it alone, its men doing it to themselves!
The very strange thing that I notice is not just this kind of thing. Its rather a shift in emphasis – you see it clearly in the UK Guardian, its the extreme focus on minority concerns as if they were universal. We have for instance Lady Gaga being applauded for having made popular music ‘queer’ – their word. Why is this so obviously a good thing? We have the idea that there is a ‘community’ consisting of gay men, gay women, bisexuals and the transgender of both sexes, and the idea that transgender and gender dysphoria are mainstream concerns for the front page.
This, how its happened, how papers like the Guardian have become dominated by women columnists with degrees in English or Media Studies who seem to think they are authorities on just about any political, medical or social issue they choose to write about…
I am probably the oldest person commenting here, with very long memories, and in many ways stare at the way society has evolved as if looking at life on another planet.
George,
Many of the points you make were discussed in earlier chapters of this series – which discussed how we got here. This discusses what comes next.
As for your larger points about the evolution of society — they’re interesting, and I too have wondered about them. They’re over my pay grade, so I don’t write about them. I’d like to see analysis of someone who can.
No, George, you are not the only one with a long memory. I was around long enough to see when Bethlehem Steel went down in Lackawanna, NY, the women went to work to keep their families together and keep the children fed. Not for ideology’s sake. To keep their husbands fed.
If there is one thing that is common to the story of every small city that has gone to the dogs in this country, part of the story is the internationalization of finance. Money is the life-blood of cities, and when you drain the goose that lays the golden eggs of her precious bodily fluids…
Shelly,
“If there is one thing that is common to the story of every small city that has gone to the dogs in this country, part of the story is the internationalization of finance”
I lived in Buffalo when Bethlehem Steel went down in Lackawanna, NY. It was sheer stupidity of management. They stuck with obsolete processes to the bitter end. The Lackawanna plant was once considered the 4th largest steel mill in the world. They opened a major expansion of it that was obsolete on the day it opened.
That is the story of many US corporations in the 1960s and 1970s. Autos is perhaps the classic. This weakened them so that the vultures of the finance industry could attack them.
I remain puzzled as to why exactly this all has happened. Why has it gone to the extreme that it seems to have? Why is it that the rules on divorce and child support with or without paternity have commanded enough support to be passed?
–Extreme individualism. The uniquely American focus on individuality and “equality”.
–women’s voting as a bloc, women acting as a bloc. Women’s ingroup preferences, i.e. “Team Woman”, is multiple times stronger than men’s ingroup preferences. Hence, why there is no “team Man”.
–the fact that men are hardwired to protect women at all cost
–women’s use of their simultaneous political strength and physical/monetary vulnerability to ramrod political change and favorable divorce laws through
–women’s use of children as bloody flags and moral shields: “Do it for the Children!! We have to protect children! What kind of monster are you that you can be against more child support! What, do you want children to starve! You hate women! You hate children!”
–liberalizing sexual attitudes and mores
thedeti —
I don’t see individualism as being an explanation, more as part of the phenomenon in need of explanation. Yes, it is probably true that the developments have included the family becoming less of a factor, and perhaps friendships becoming more limited and transitory, and people becoming more isolated and self dependent.
But what is in need of explanation is why this has happened. Much of the LGBT emphasis in places like the Guardian is about me and my feelings and needs, and I have noticed increasingly that the columnists occupy more and more of the paper, and write increasingly from a purely personal perspective on anything they touch.
The Guardian is a sort of wind vane for the liberal left in the UK, but its not just there. I opened Die Zeit a few months back and was astonished to read some lady giving a detailed guide to how she masturbated, and which techniques worked best for her. Anyone who remembers what Die Zeit was…. Serious and strait laced to a fault. No more.
I see it being part of a general rise in a sort of personal wishful thinking on policy issues. In the present context, a classic example is the wishful thinking that we can make men into women or vice versa by surgery and hormone treatment. Perhaps the wishful thinking of some of the other views on gender that this series has been about. But there are plenty of other examples all over the place from other policy areas. I connect it to the rise of post modernism, that is, extreme subjectivism and moral relativism. But that too is part of the phenomenon, not the explanation. Why did that become such a popular view?
This is great food for thought.
I think you are right that packs will play a powerful role in whatever comes next. As you observe exactly what kind of packs form and the nature of their impact is not something we can hope to accurately predict. One troubling aspect of this is that it would seem there would be a strong bias toward “outlaw” packs. Of course not all outlaws are the same. But men are legally forbidden from creating men only organizations (where women are happy to be hangers on). To rework a phrase from the gun debate, when male packs are outlawed, only outlaws will form (and join) male packs.
The other unknown is how the rest of society (married beta men) will respond to the packs. It would seem that to some degree we should expect beta married men to attempt to respond with their own packs. But this would depend on the strength of the government. Ironically it takes a strong and ordered government with a high degree of male trust to create the specific style of disorder we are currently experiencing (enforced matriarchy). So far the beta married men have formed a pack to enforce the matriarchy. Outlaw packs of other men might cause them to double down in this regard (I would expect this today), or it might cause them to meet the threat on more of their own terms.
Dalrock,
Thank you, as always, for sharing your thoughts on this material!
(1) “One troubling aspect of this is that it would seem there would be a strong bias toward “outlaw” packs”
That’s a powerful point. On a superficial level, any group fighting aspects of feminism is an “outlaw” (illegitimate, evil) group to the ruling establishment. As are individuals using Game and Red Pill insights.
But thinking about your comment raises a deeper point. Feminism has unleashed women’s desire for “bad boys.” Outlaws. And women are important supporters in any successful social movement (I wanted to discusses this in this post, but it was already far too long). So might they push the counter-revolution towards extreme forms of outlawry (speaking metaphorically — or perhaps even literally)? That’s worth some thought.
(2) “The other unknown is how the rest of society (married beta men) will respond to the packs.”
Again, that’s something I had not considered. In the emerging communities discussing Game, MGTOW, and Red Pill divorced men are prominent. I don’t know how married men (like you) or married beta men (like me) will respond. Again, that’s worth some thought.
(3) “we should expect beta married men to attempt to respond with their own packs.”
This is a conceptual point. As I see it, packs are composed of beta and alphas. Without the latter, there is no pack. They can’t form their own packs. Beta married men are the pillars of the community. My guess (guess!) is that they will join successful counter-revolutionary groups — but play a small role in their creation and early stages.
(4) “The other unknown is how the rest of society (married beta men) will respond to the packs.”
I agree. This will depend on factors discussed in the next post – which discusses the values and goals of the counter-revolution. (This is by far the most difficult of the series. Ideas welcomed!) Too extreme, and few will join. Godwin’s Law always applies (for good reason). I think (I’ll check on this) the Nazi party was too extreme for family men until its late stages.
(5) “So far the beta married men have formed a pack to enforce the matriarchy.”
Again, a conceptual point. Betas don’t form packs. More importantly, there has been little pack formation in American since the 1960s. Feminists (men and women) have captured most of Americans major institutions. Beta men have gone along with this process. Some as active supporters. Most passively.
(6) “Outlaw packs of other men might cause them to double down in this regard”
I had not thought of this, but now that you’ve pointed it out — I agree. A large fraction of men will (as always) support the established institutions, no matter how hostile those institutions become towards them. That’s a lesson of history. In Star Trek, Captain Kirk makes wonderful speeches about humanity’s refusal to be slaves. History shows that we’re perfectly comfortable being slaves, and seldom revolt (that passivity makes slavery feasible).
My apologies in advance for brevity.
Spot on. One thing we can already see is the evangelical Christian embrace of the “Christian” outlaw biker as the ideal man. See Mom’s Night Out for one example (another more recent movie escapes me for the moment). Good men generate tingles, after all.
I would consider us both married beta men (more below).
This is where the Game definition* of Alpha/Beta causes confusion. I mean the term in the Game sense. Men who commit to one women are by definition Beta. Many of these Beta men are highly effective leaders of men. Betas are also in my opinion the most (potentially) powerful packs because they are patient and have skin in the game (my apologies for using a currently overused term).
* More specifically Heartiste’s definition at Defining the Alpha Male.
Dalrock,
Thanks for the explanation of “beta/alpha” in a Game sense. I’ll add a note about this to the post.
I am using it in a biological sense, as with wolf packs. Hard-wired human behavior that let us survive in wild against fierce competition.
Note: I saw a diorama of a sabre tooth tiger at the Museum of Natural History in NYC. Men could fight these large powerful animals and win — but only as packs. Lone Rangers probably quickly eaten, dropping out of the gene pool.
On the evangelical embrace of the outlaw biker as the epitome of manhood, see the picture at the top of Rober Ebert’s review of Mom’s Night Out.
Contrast it with the image the movie presents of married fathers at the top of the review at Focus on the Family.
Darock,
By themselves, your reviews of “Christian” family movies should be sufficient to start a counter-revolution. No wonder churches in America are filled with women, elders, and children. It’s a march to extinction.
But there is always a remnant. But it counts only if they are willing to stand together and act. That’s the missing element today, imo.
Edit: The second review is from Focus on the Family. Note that while the review contains objections, they are not to the portrayal of married Christian fathers as hapless buffoons and the outlaw biker as the ideal man.
Here is the other example I had in mind regarding the noble bad boy biker. In this one the noble bad boy biker* reforms the uncouth sexy bad boy movie star making him suitable for the strong independent 34 year old pure Christian woman: Bad boys, single moms, and the love of a strong independent woman.
You really can’t make this stuff up.
* Who is dedicated to aiding single mothers.
Dalrock,
Your comment reminds me of an important subject I’ve wanted to write about. Both of us have written about modern films and TV as mirrors showing our decay. Here are some of mine. First, about the hit TV show “Castle.”
Here are other posts about seeing ourselves in other media.
These are easy and fun to write. But enough description and analysis! We need more discussion of inspirational models role models for me. But there is a problem with this. Classic films and TV show strong men. But they show women of a kind that are rare today. When discussing these films (“this is the kind of women to look for”) young men hear “find a unicorn.” The behavior of classic strong men would be quite mad if matched with modern women.
That’s a conundrum I don’t know how to solve. Your thoughts?
The interesting thing is classic movies understood that not all women are unicorns. John Wayne movies in particular had a method of dealing with bratty women that is downright shocking to our modern sensibilities:
John Wayne Spanks Elizabeth Allen in Donovan’s Reef:
First spanking Scene in McLintock:
Second spanking Scene in McLintock:
Dalrock,
“classic movies understood that not all women are unicorns”
I didn’t explain that clearly. Classic films show a wide range of women. In them men successfully pair with good girls, or bad girls that reform. There is nothing in these implying that such women are rare. In Casablanca police captain Renault says to Rick (Bogie)…
Now the unexpected has become routine. Such women have become scarce. In fact, in our big cities that are unicorns. The raw material of women and men does not change. But society molds personalities and incentives shape behavior.
Dalrock,
About those spanking scenes —
This brings us to a second problem. Not only are women different than in the past — raised differently, operating with different incentives — but our social system is different. Classic films showed wild alpha guys being domesticated by women and wild alpha women being domesticated by strong men. But about the latter scenarios. Those were possible because it was considered right and proper that the men should act strongly — considered by both society and the women themselves (even if they didn’t like or want it).
But today men’s attempts to be the head of his household (note the possessive) are inherently illegitimate. As you have well documented, even Christian conservatives cannot accept the concept. This means a man marrying a strong women is in a match in which she has the high ground. Shaw, as usual, saw this long ago. John Tanner is the alpha guy in Man and Superman
(1905). A nice guy, well suited to be a white knight, he well understands the peril of marrying a strong woman.
Now let’s look at those clips from three John Wayne films. Young women consider spanking to be assault. At her discretion she could call the police and ruin those men’s lives. As I said, young men today have no useful role models for dealing with young women — except as abject betas. I reject the idea of husbands use of Game, every day for a lifetime, as a fantasy social dynamic. It’s the equivalent of communism on the Left and libertarianism on the Right — fun imaginary systems. They can be useful sources of ideas, as is Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
— but shouldn’t be a basis for action.
“A society often embraces or exults its weakest aspects. So it is with individualism in the West. Its extreme form is libertarianism, our most popular imaginary social system (replacing communism), built on ahistorical beliefs taken from novels. My favorite is “an armed society is a polite society!” As a result, our largest grassroots political movements fail because their people do not want formal leaders (e.g., see the Tea Party and Occupy movements). Our leaders love this. It keeps us fragmented and weak – alienated from our own society.”
Larry,
Good article, I agree with a lot of your theory on pack formation as it relates to the past. However, if the trend in younger generations is leaderless movements, why would that suddenly change? And what is causing this phenomenon? As you said, individualism. But it’s built up within people’s heads in the younger generations. They have not undergone the trials by fire necessary to become humbled and perhaps even become a leader someday.
If everyone is leader then nobody is.
John,
“if the trend in younger generations is leaderless movements, why would that suddenly change?”
That is the big question. My (speculative) answer: under stress our core programming will kick in. Our “BIOS.” This can be seen as an emergency safeguard, engaged when normal social mechanisms have failed. There are countless examples in history. But it is always unexpected, since its roots are in us as individuals — not those of our society or institutions.
“ My (speculative) answer: under stress our core programming will kick in. Our “BIOS.” This can be seen as an emergency safeguard, engaged when normal social mechanisms have failed.”
Larry,
There is no doubt in my mind you are correct about “BIOS.” It’s an extraordinary thing. It’s going to take a lot more stress for it to kick in to the point where the current population seeks leaders, perhaps only war on American soil at this point but who really knows. Everything is much too stress free right now, even with the problems.
“But society molds personalities and incentives shape behavior.”
That’s the biggest problem we face. Society keeps moving in a direction where everyone is made to feel special and unique. And they act as if they are. What’s really going on inside their heads is anyone’s guess. I’d imagine a lot of anxiety.
However, if you have almost an entire generation of people validating that perceived greatness amongst themselves, the enemy becomes all too clear, everyone that is different from them. Millennials vs Baby Boomers, Narcissistic vs. Mentally Stable, Insecure vs. Confident, Unhappy vs. Happy, Weak vs. Strong, Hedonistic vs. Moral, Lazy vs. Ambitious. I think it’s obvious which groups have the numbers and they are only growing larger. And the powers that be have been very willing to further validate them, lead them and by extension, the rest of us, in any direction they want. They are their leaders.
That’s the war, the deluded vs. the realistic. It’s no wonder everything keeps getting more absurd.
Whether this was all by design or not, I don’t know. But if it was, it’s been executed to perfection.
I’ve long pondered what will cause “the Emperor has no clothes” moment for all of these people. Whatever it is, it grows to be necessarily more monumental by the day. And it will not be at all pleasant for anyone if it ever does happen. It’s grown much too far out of control.
Pingback: Patriarchal packs (part 1)? | Dalrock
In regard to leadership and leaderless movements:
Please look at the Alt-Right vs. Antifa conflicts this past year. The Alt-Right was very successful when it operated under 4th Generational Warfare rules. Any “official” leader is quickly character assassinated and destroyed, as are any prominent thought leaders, by the entrenched media and feminist primary hierarchy.
There’s definitely a yearning in the conservative movements and men in general to follow a leader, but this is a guaranteed way to lose, as noted with the Tea Party or the formation of the ISIS caliphate.
Where it is successful, as per Gamergate and the Alt- movements, there are no leaders, just men taking the initiative as individuals and organizing packs. When they followed this rule, along with other 4GW principles, they exercised considerable power.
This was negated by the “Unite the Right” fiasco, lead by an Occupy leftist, who squashed the momentum by trying to organize under his banner. Don’t do this, as tempting as it might be.
It is not time for E Pluribus Unum.
vfm,
“Any “official” leader is quickly character assassinated and destroyed,”
That’s not possible with sensible leaders, men who understand reputation and the value of the moral high ground. Like MLK Jr and Gandhi.
“as noted with the Tea Party”
No leaders was a key ethos of the Tea Party.
“the formation of the ISIS caliphate.’
ISIS did not fail because it had leaders. It failed because it had many powerful enemies AND did not even attempt to get allies — both basic violations of grand strategy. Also, it had beliefs and policies which quickly alienated otherwise loyal people in the areas they controlled.
“Where it is successful, as per Gamergate and the Alt- movements”
I assume you’re serious. No comment.
“It is not time for E Pluribus Unum.”
It never is for groups that lose.
Larry,
Where’s the Tea Party now?
As for “Sensible” leaders, which moral high ground? What reputation? If you’re talking public reputation in the current environment #metoo just showed how easy it is to burn down. Trying for a “moral high ground” is the path Conservatives have taken, and they cannot even conserve a bathroom.
Larry: “Some packs will form for fellowship and mutual support, such as sports, games, or ideology.”
VFM: ““Where it is successful, as per Gamergate and the Alt- movements””
Larry: “I assume you’re serious. No comment.”
Well, Larry, you ain’t getting far if you want to play Libertarian and turn up your nose at two examples of the very pack behavior you’re desiring.
“ISIS did not fail because it had leaders.”
ISIS failed because it tied itself to a piece of ground with leaders and organization as if it was a nationstate. It violated the fundamental rules of 4GW, where they had previously been so successful operating as a $GW organization with 4GW rules and yes, they had the moral high ground as long as the US was there in a Krush Kill And Destroy mission.
What I’m saying here is that these packs cannot tie themselves to leaders beyond local ones, cannot take or hold territory with any kind of formality, build structures or own property without risk of being burned down. Our own American Revolution did NOT start with a unified resistance, but with informal groups, local action, and a network of leaders that could not be easily destroyed, though many were individually, because they had no formal hierarchy.
Last, only packs that fully exclude women from participating will be successful. Others that admit women, even supposedly ideologically pure women, will fail. If women want to be with men in these kind of packs, that’s fine, but they don’t participate.
“So far beta married men have formed a de facto pack to enforce the matriarchy.” Larry, I think you and Darlock need to reconsider this with other posits that you have stated. In particular the coming counter revolution and that women have to be part of the solution, especially wrt to the way the sexual market works.
Such as, will the betas support the matriarchy? yes now, and yes later; they will double down if for no other reason than cognitive bias. Add in the economic incentives, they will not have much of a choice since they are already married! Both of you have had the economic disincentives as part of your posits. Look at how it almost has to work for married betas. Culturally and economically, to do the opposite would negate their standing in both.
It just will not necessarily be the matriarchy of today. The successful family is about real marriage. There seems to be an assumption that women not only do not want the baggage of a real marriage, but that women will also not want it as the dark knowledge of their failed revolution becomes common. I find this unbelievable. Not for numbers of women, but for numbers of women after the counter revolution and dark knowledge has made it to cultural sized numbers of women.
At this point women in society, are in the superior position for sex, men for marriage. I think we need to add the women’s BIOS cutting in. The question I ask “Will women who have grown used and expect a superior monetary relation be content with the falling off of economic support from their actions, as more men recognize that they are in the superior position if they become economically successful without marriage?” One of the old myths of the past was marrying by falling in love with the wallet. Economics is such a basic part of humanity, I can not see that women’s BIOS will stay dormant. It seems so contrary to your posits that put us in this situation in the first place.
The societal failure is not just in marriage, but also in economics. Betting on both sex and money seems to be a better deal than either alone. The incentives that women now enjoy, are destroying both the sex and the economics. It is not sustainable. Now perhaps society will fail first, but that will have to be the seeds of a new arrangement since it is unlikely that humans will give up both sex and money.
Sun Tzu told us to know our enemy and know ourselves if we want to be victorious in battle. I think this involves a fundamental attitude towards our enemy that he she and/or it must be destroyed, Carthago Delenda Est, and we must survive and prosper. Wolf packs have been mentioned here. Well, can you imagine a successful wolf pack that lacked a killer instinct? We should listen to General Patton, and make up our minds to rip our enemies guts out of their bellies and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.
Jsol,
“think this involves a fundamental attitude towards our enemy that he she and/or it must be destroyed”
Sun Tzu — and almost every other strategist in world history — would be appalled at that. It’s nuts. Quite mad. Carthage is hardly an example to follow. It worked for Rome, but such belligerence has put countless others down the toilet.
Advice: if your strategy requires you to be Rome, it won’t work for you.
It seems implausible that men would form a pack which restores individual male female links, aka families.
What possible pack benefit would that achieve and how would this process pull the pack together?
I could see a return to Mormon style polygamy as much more plausible, along perhaps with a female counterpart structure. That seems a more likely evolution in a society which has made every effort to have the state supersede the family as the source of economic and social conditioning.
It could be argued that the misogyny evident in rap music is a faithful reflection of the pack mentality fostered by the feral upbringing young men receive in the ghettos. What is the mechanism to redirect that constructively?
I look forward to the balance of your proposal, but as yet am skeptical.
etidiant,
“What possible pack benefit would that achieve and how would this process pull the pack together?’
Packs are not unitary entities. They have no existence except of the individuals that comprise them. Producing better families or other such things is a common goal and benefit.
“I could see a return to Mormon style polygamy as much more plausible,”
A “return?” “Mormon style polygamy” has not been a system in the west — ever. Not in Rome, not in the tribes of Germany and Gaul. Also, it is not a stable system unless there is a stratospheric level of inequality or external source of young women. Also, who is advocating that?
“What is the mechanism to redirect that {ghetto culture} constructively?”
Who knows? Why is that significant to the rest of America? We’re talking about fixing one specific aspect of America, not a cosmic reset to fix all its problems.
”A “return?” “Mormon style polygamy” has not been a system in the west — ever. Not in Rome, not in the tribes of Germany and Gaul. Also, it is not a stable system unless there is a stratospheric level of inequality or external source of young women. Also, who is advocating that?”
That system would need a permanent state of male mortality to such an extent such that the operational sex ratio of women continually surpasses the men.
And that the ability to gain more wives is exponentially more difficult.
Although I am unsure if that would work in a Spartan society. I am unsure of the implications.
A pack needs to have a common cause for cohesion, which can be as simple as a shared opponent (Sharks vs Jets). However, in this case women can’t serve as opponents, so what cements the pack? Building an engaged group around the guiding principle of ‘better families’ is hugely difficult, especially as the media and the entertainment industry are unsupportive at best.
RE polygamy/polyandry, we do have sky high levels of inequality in this country, so the economics suggest this as quite a plausible outcome. In China, the practice of multiple wives for wealthy individuals was routine, even institutionalized with the household pecking order setting the first wife on top. The practice has not yet spread here in the US because contraception makes infertile sex easy and convenient.
etudiant,
“However, in this case women can’t serve as opponents, so what cements the pack?”
Are you serious?
“especially as the media and the entertainment industry are unsupportive at best.”
That’s been true for every social reform movement, ever.
“we do have sky high levels of inequality in this country, so the economics suggest this as quite a plausible outcome.”
That’s quite false. We have levels similar to at other peaks in US history. We didn’t have polygamy them. The West has often had far higher levels of inequality, yet never had a “Mormon-like system.”
With regard to the ‘spanking scene’, I don’t think its ever appropriate in a relationship between two adults to resort to this sort of thing. Whatever you have after this, its not marriage. Men who take advantage of their greater physical strength to hit women are contemptible. I have never struck a woman in my life, never would — well, only if being seriously threatened with a weapon — and despise those who do.
Whatever an acceptable future is, and however it emerges, it has to include the rational and morally correct aspects of the emancipation of the 20C. Right to work, right to vote, education…. I also don’t think couples who are splitting up should have to prove misconduct to a court of law. There are many unjust things in the present situation that should be rectified of course, paternity being an egregious example.
But I suspect the underlying thing that is driving this among the young is the lack of any deterrent to sexual promiscuity. Antibiotics were profoundly beneficial – a careful reading of the impact of the dread of syphilis in the literature of previous centuries shows not only the health and welfare benefits, but also the great emtional relief that came from it. But they brought with them a freedom that we have not learned to use responsibly.
George,
Your values are commendable, but you have totally missed the point. Your values were not common a few generations ago, and would have been considered weird in the west and much of the world a century ago.
“Whatever an acceptable future is, and however it emerges, it has to include …”
And a pony, too.
I just came across something that may be a factor – you can see the outlines of a possible causal mechanism. According to Pew
“In recent years, young adults have been the age group most likely to live in multigenerational households (previously, it had been adults ages 85 and older). Among 25- to 29-year-olds in 2016, 33% were residents of such households. Among a broader group of young adults, those ages 18 to 34, living with parents surpassed other living arrangements in 2014 for the first time in more than 130 years.
— Pew Research.
Do you think maybe that this could be a factor in the rise of transitory individualism? People cannot afford to live independently, so they do not form permanent social bonds in the form of new families. Therefore their relationships become ones of temporary hookups of longer or shorter duration, as long as we feel like it and no longer. They also have more disposable income, though for relatively frivolous things, they are probably not saving to buy a house. Which is getting increasingly futile anyway.
And this would be a causal link between the economic situation, the consequences of the credit bubble, and the situation regarding gender, relationships, family, divorce etc.
Someone of 20 or 25 living with parents has a whole different set of pressures and priorities than someone living independently and seeking to establish themselves, which historically usually meant start a family.
In terms of girl game and how they’re delaying marriage until their late 20s: women who are living independently are pursuing this path as well. So I do not believe the underlying cause is that of young people living at home, and thus delaying adulthood.
From personal experience, I’ve been living independently since college (and one could argue since I was 18). Yet this has not lead me to getting married, buying a house and starting a family. And it wasn’t for lack of trying on my part.
Now that I’m slightly older, at the age of 28, and having learned about how women are delaying marriage, I can’t say I find marriage appealing anymore. Nor buying a house (pity, since I have a 790+ credit score). I would’ve made an excellent workhorse. Oh well…
Vyasa,
“And it wasn’t for lack of trying on my part.”
Without making this personal, there are countless articles about this — by both men and women. Those by women usually (often inadvertently) show why they are single. Ditto many studies by social scientists (e.g., see these posts about a deep and large study).
The more serious problem is that women are offering men participation in an institutional structure that gives them a bad deal. Young men are supposed to guess what a young women will do in the next ten years, following marriage and kids — with ugly consequences if they choose poorly. Facts show that her romantic pledge “to death do us part” means nothing. Few young men can accurately predict what a young woman will do ten minutes in the future. It’s not rational to accept the offer.
George,
“Do you think maybe that this could be a factor in the rise of transitory individualism?”
Multi-generational households, esp of relatives, are steps away from individualism. Individualism rests upon individuals’ economic independence. More broadly, anything that puts individuals in a shared living environment forces shared tasks and some kind of group identity — countervailing forces to individualism.
I remember when all the small manufacturing cities closed up shop as a boy in upsate New York one fine late 1970’s day. General Electric in Schenectady and Utica (which combined employed well over 60,000 people). Amsterdam with Bigelow and Mohawk Carpets…………downsized slowly from the 1950’s onward to the 1970’s when the last vestiges left. Johnstown, Gloversville……garments, gloves, textiles. Savage Arms in Utica. Beech Nut in Canajohaire. The huge meat packing plant in Albany (Tobins First Prize hot dogs for the most part).
Construction ground tro a halt, putting my father unemployed for the first time in his life. This is when my mother went to work full time as a nurse and I became, like countless other of my age group…a “latchkey kid”
People left. Moved. Many just gave up. Many just accepted the new standard of living and worked retail.
Jason,
I grew up in Buffalo, went to school in Ithaca, and worked in NYC and Boston. I well understand what you are describing. But misgovernment is a big part of that story.
High taxes, irrational and often criminal government, powerful organized crime syndicates, unions which were often corrupt or even criminal. Most of those upstate cities and towns were run like dystopias.
When I moved to California in 1987 it was like moving to a new and better world. Government was largely rational and honest (but not Heaven, which is conservatives’ typical comparison). Low levels of organized crime. Little oppressive unionization (we could use more).
I tell California natives stories about business and government in NYS and Mass. They are shocked.
The amazing thing is that everybody didn’t leave NYS in the 1970s. Or that its people did not rebell and vote in new officials. Perhaps the high-energy people just left for the west and sunbelt.
I moved out to California in 1995. After undergrad in Vermont, and grad school in Troy (another upstate dump of a city).
There were a few things going on back in the 1970’s in upstate New York. Some factors could have been controlled. Some could not. I remember mom working full time, and we only used the heater in winter ONLY to prevent the pipes in the house from feezing in 1979 / 1980. We all “lived” in the kitchen….electric stove used for heat.
Rough times. Thing is, the area still has never really recovered. Sure, more people work for the State. Sure, Saratoga Springs……even through the hard times was still a destination in summer…………
I was back last summer before I took my long Adirondack hike. My first visit back since my mother dying in 2009……..it is very, very rich folks and very, very poor. Get outside into northern Saratoga, Warren, and some of the cities I mentioned above…………..frightening. Really frightening.
Jason,
“Some factors could have been controlled. Some could not.”
I’ll take the other side of that. All of the most significant factors leading to the relative decline of the NE, specifically update NYS, were under the control of its people acting together. See that list in my previous comment.
In a Republic people have the power and the responsibility. Americans have forgotten that. We are and will pay a heavy price for this.
Jason,
“it is very, very rich folks and very, very poor.”
That’s the pattern in most of America. As a Boy Scout leader we visited countless small towns in the West. Most had a few rich people, a tiny middle class (a few professionals, a few small small business owners, a few small landowners — and a large class of peons. Most work in jobs that are a combination of seasonal, part-time, minimum wage, no benefits. There is little upward mobility, and most of the young with potential flee to the cities.
This pattern is spreading across the nation as inequality rises — and small towns and cities die.
“After generations of increasing alienation from themselves – slowly – men’s automatic systems engage, behaviors hard-wired into men. ”
Seriously? I must be defective, since I’m not out there “forming a pack.” Of course, if that behavior were “hard-wired” (God, I loathe that phrase) it would happen instantly, rather than lying dormant for years, even generations. Generations for pre-programmed behavior to emerge! How does anyone write such a sentence?
PAT,
“I must be defective, since I’m not out there “forming a pack.”
You must be trolling us, instead. When people say “Americans are doing”, they don’t mean every single one.
Larry,
Upstate New York could not control the winter and the skyrocketing fuel prices at the time. In 1977-1979 it was some of the harshest winters at that time in recent memory. Goodness, you grew up out in Buffalo! I am sure you have memories of the Blizzard of 1977. Quite a few people died in their cars a few yards from houses!
Production stops and slows in the harsh winter of the northeast, and upstate New York…….the people themselves, the Unions and the like could not be responsible for that. Also add into the second oil / gas crisis.,,,in 1978 / 1979. That hit the northeast hard, especially those winters…
Physical plant. The carpet mills of Amsterdam, the glove tanneries in Gloversville and General Electric works in Schenectady were just old. Buildings approaching the 75-100 year mark. Little or no room to expand. So now you have Greenville, South Carolina……low taxes, a moderate climate and land and room to expand and have a state of the art facility instead of trying to revamp an almost 100 year old factory or works thus killing production…..
,
Plants didn’t need the water power like they did. Many other states now had fine polytechnics that were cranking out some competent folks……and for a long time, upsate New York and western New England had the draw on this. Rochester Institute of Technology, Union College, Worchester Polytechnic, and my own grad school Rensselaer Poly……..
I remember my family parking the car ion Scotia at Collins Park in the summer of 1979…..we walked on to the Western Gateway Bridge that crossed the Mohawk River to Schenectady…..and we watched the last barge float on by. The Erie Canal was over and done. The lifeblood of the industrial upstate and on into the Great Lakes / St Lawrence Seaway had come to an end.
Taxes, Unions, and the corrupt machines (Albany, Democrat and Utica, Republican) throughout the upper Hudson and Mohawk Valley played their part………my Aunt Ida worked her whole career on the line at General Electric in Utica. She once said before retirement in 1980 “You couldn’t correct anybody……..they would get the Union steward and claim you were harassing them,,,,,,,you would tell someone to do a task, and they would reply “that’s not in my contract” when years before, you would just do it”
Jason,
No more about this. It is totally off-topic. A few closing comments.
There is a large body of research about the decline of NY. I suggest you consult it. The political and economic factors I listed are far more important than the cold weather in the 1970s. The population decline – the most obvious indicator of decline – began in the 1960s and continues to this day.
“Little or no room to expand.”
Land is and was cheap in upstate NY. Absurdly so by comparison with urban California. There was ample room to expand.
“Plants didn’t need the water power like they did.”
Direct use of water power as a substantial power source ended in the 1920s.
there is good news and bad on the patriarchy front. the good news: there are still many places in the world where patriarchy is the dominant social organizing principle. the bad? those places are the poorest and most backward places on earth. not sure i want to go there.
Jay,
What is your point?
Do you believe that life is binary (but gender isn’t)? Either patriarchy as it was or our current system?
Do you believe that we have no choice but to watch if men continue to refuse to marry? Your solution is to say that Saudi Arabia is the only alternative?
Please explain, because none of that makes any sense.
There are many forms of Patriarchy. Like in Ancient and medieval East Asia as well as India, Classical Greece and Rome as well as Medieval Europe.
Each of them share commonalities but they also differ. For example Christian Patriarchy treats women with far more dignity than Islamic Patriarchy.
Its a false dichotomy to choose between Islam and our current situation.
Larry,
I have read all these posts with interests and appreciation. I live in Australia, where some of what you are describing may be happening. But I miss real data. On what body of data do we conclude that women are abandoning marriage, for example? On what body of data do we rely for referring to beta and alpha men?
Some things have been happening for a long time, like the movement of women into the professions. But I can’t see a ‘tipping point’, or maybe I missed it.
Don,
(1) “But I miss real data.”
There is no doubt that marriage rates are falling, as you must have seen in the posts describing marriage and the high divorce rates.
(2) “On what body of data do we conclude that women are abandoning marriage”
Women love marriage. Men are the ones that are “abandoning” marriage. As was discussed in some detail. But for the short version, see the countless books and articles about “men who won’t commit” and “how to get your man to marry you.” Do you see many of the equivalent articles written for men?
(3) “But I can’t see a ‘tipping point’, or maybe I missed it.”
Zero for three, suggesting that you have not well read these posts. I don’t believe in “tipping points.”
I disagree. Men standing as private individuals and refusing to take the battlefield will continue to show that no gender war exist. The only males participating in the gender war are just adult male human beings and they are giving Men a Bad Name. Only selfish adult males are fighting for and against a stupid female ideology.
Feminism is the new female religion and they are more dogmatic and radical than Islam..
Of course some males will participate on both sides but that proves they are just male humans not Men.
Men are hardwired to learn from the past and they are too smart to take the battle field against females..
The only gender war that is being fought is among adult male and female humans not “men and Women”
Men and Women Both have enough understanding to know what propaganda looks and sounds like..
It sounds like lies.. I define Corruption as a lack of truth..Men and women know the truth, but selfish humans hate the truth..The guilty have the most hatred for the truth..
Harpo,
I don’t understand what you are saying. You appear to be ignoring the feminist regime in schools, government regulators, non-gov entities (Scouting, churches), and businesses. Men as individuals cannot stand against them. Boys are shaped by them, before they have any ability to push back.
Anyone who believes that men and women are opposites are only human beings and have not evolved into Men and Women yet..Human beings are tribal like creatures that believe in luck and other superstitions. Men and women would never bet their lives on luck. They know that Men and Women are two halves of one being, not opposites. The woman is the more valuable halve of a Godly unit. The man is the less valuable halve of the same Godly unit..Men play the role of God the slave to his master the woman..No one really serves god because there is nothing short of children that he could not go forth and get for himself. He plays protector and provider to his family and back when people understood this dynamic men were thanked and praised for what they did. Now Men are only Blamed for everything bad that happens in society..Responsibility was,is and always will be a Manly trait for Men know its nothing but the Blame..Jesus was not responsible for all of our sins yet he took the blame..
He took Responsibility, but that did not make him the responsible person.
Have you ever heard someone say about another that they are irresponsible, while placing blame and shame on that person. Contradicting themselves without realizing what they are saying..People are ignorant about the definitions of commonly used words. Try this experiment on ten people..Ask them these questions: If I said “you are incredible” would you take it as a compliment? I have found that 7 out of ten would thank me for calling them a liar..
Credible= believable.
Incredible= unbelievable
We are convicted by the words of our mouth is what my Bible says.. This creates a system where even the judge
need not judge you and only has to listen..
Education is learning “HOW” to think not “WHAT” to think..Learning “WHAT” to think is indoctrination and its done to an extent in every public school. Higher level universities supply
us with higher level indoctrination.
The organic natural heavenly law of the Bible should never be taken from the USA for if it ever is removed
This will become a nation not worth fighting for..
Love and respect to all without prejudice
Harpo,
Thanks for the explanation. There are no firm answers, and every new perspective helps us to understand what’s happening.