May 28, 2023

German National Socialism went off the rails with imperialism and war, but, prior to war and destruction, its social policy on the family was sound. Feminists shriek that the NS policy put women in the home and placed men at work, but it made good sense(and the New Deal Era in America wasn’t all that different; in both the US and Germany, women entered the workplace in sizable numbers only during the wartime due to manpower shortage; when men returned from war, they took up the bulk of the jobs again). Both NS and ND understood the relation between biology and sociology. Men’s role is to ‘hunt’ and bring home the bacon. Women’s role is to take care of the home-space. So, jobs are many times more important to men than to women.

Also, functionally speaking, women can fill TWO places in society. They can function as homemakers or as workers. In contrast, men have only ONE place in society: at work. When they come home, it’s with the bacon. It’s like primitive men brought the meat from the hunt.

Now, among many animals, males play no role in ‘family life’. ‘Family’ in the natural world often consists of only the mother and her offspring. So, the animal-mother must both provide and protect. But, human society developed for both the males and the females to play important roles in raising of the children(though less so among blacks). Unlike male animals that lack any understanding of fatherhood, i.e. their own seed produced the litter, human males came to realize their blood-connection to the children of the women they humped.

So, what is the man’s place and the woman’s place in this dynamic? Women can fill two places. She can work or she can take care of home. Man has only one place. He has to work.
Even a woman expelled from the workplace has a meaningful place in society. Place in the home. But if the workplace is taken from the man, he has no place in society, not least because most women will not marry ‘losers'(men without jobs or men with lower-paying jobs). When women take jobs(especially well-paying ones), they are taking jobs from prospective men who need them far more than women do. If women were to lose their positions in the workplace, they still have the home-place. But if men lose positions in the workplace, they cannot go home(because they can’t even start a home life). To be sure, both men and women lose out in the long run if women dominate the workplace. Women can do most jobs that men can do, but their failure to produce sufficient numbers of the next generation will mean societal decline.

Consider the One-and-Two-Dic*-Hypothesis. Imagine there are two guys. One guy has one dic* while the other guy has two dic*s. Suppose there is a need for a dic* donation. Who should lose the dic*? Obviously, the guy with two dic*s. Even if he loses one dic*, he has one left, whereas the other guy will have no dic* if he loses his.

One could say women have ‘two dic*s’ whereas men have only one, metaphorically speaking of course. (If dic* talk is too vulgar, replace dic*s with hearts. Surely, a person with two hearts is in a better position to give up one of his/her hearts than a person with only one heart.) The problem of the Modern World is that men have been browbeaten into letting women dic* them around too much. Women are told that it’s great to have well-paying jobs AND be mothers as well. So, women should be super-women(or ‘supermoms’) and have it all, and society must do everything possible to ensure that women can be both the most successful workers and the most fulfilled mothers. Such a society not only leaves men dic*less but ball-less. It pegs them in the arse.

In order to have meaningful bio-socialism, we must have a law that says a family can only have one earner with income higher than $90,000. If a family is allowed to have two high-earners, it concentrates wealth in elite communities. Two incomes that could have supported two families go into ONE family, especially one that is likely to have only one or two kids. Bio-libertarianism is a destroyer of worlds. We need bio-socialism that takes into account the biological underpinnings of social reality.

Also, too much of the discussion focuses on the premise that people are essentially individuals and economic units. But this is a shallow view of reality. Individuals don’t just pop into existence out of the blue. No life was ever created by ideas or ideology, any more than by homo activity. No life ever leaped out of the pages of a book or the screen of a TV or mobile device.

All humans are biological products of their parents who are biological products of their parents and so on. Before they are anything, they are life-forms and organisms. Life is created through the union of men and women, and males and females are most fertile, moral, and mutually fulfilled under specific conditions. While every man or every woman is an individual, a male individual has his male needs/abilities and a female individual has her female needs/abilities. Men and women may be interchangeable in most professions(that are asexual in function), but they are NOT interchangeable in life.

Men produce sperm, women produce eggs. Men are stronger and better able to protect the home. Women are warmer and kinder to the kids. Fathers and mothers impart different influences on the kids, and both are essential in a yin/yang way. But because so much of the discourse is about individual rights and economic competition, we overlook that men and women aren’t merely interchangeable operators in the actual saga of life. Sure, the tranny cult would have us believe a man is a ‘woman’ with a wig & hormone injections and a woman is a ‘man’ with a dildo-strap-on, but that’s just decadent and delusional(not to mention batshit crazy).

Feminism makes no sense because it emphasizes womanhood as an identity but then ignores and neglects what makes women distinct from men. Feminism is really asexualism. It says women should take part in professions where their female-ness doesn’t matter. After all, a female accountant is just like a male accountant. An asexual number-cruncher. Emphasis on professionalism makes one’s sex irrelevant. There is no such thing as a good FEMALE law clerk or good FEMALE baker. The skills necessary in those jobs can be done by men and women. Professions, with few exceptions, are asexual in their objectives and operations.

Now, some professions are better with men because they require lots of muscle strength and manly attitude. And some are better with women(or homos) because they involve ‘dainty’ or whoopity stuff with fingertip than hand-grip work.
Because most professions are asexual in character, it makes little sense to emphasize female-ness in relation to them. There is little to distinguish a female short-order cook from a male short-order cook, a female insurance agent from a male insurance agent. They are given a job to do, and they do it.

Where women are truly different from men is in the way of life, sex and reproduction, and parental role. So, if feminism is really about the particularity of femininity, it should focus on what is unique and special about women: What women can do that men cannot do(or do well) and why women must do them to fulfill their womanly roles in the long flow of the river of life.

The question need be repeated, Why did nature design women that way? With that understanding, a better society can be conceived in which women do their womanly things in partnership with men who do their manly things.

Feminism also fails as an egalitarian ideology. While it calls for equal opportunity for women in the workplace, it is only because women with extra-smarts want to rise as high as possible to marry and have kids with high IQ men who are just as rich or richer. So, it’s about elitist-minded women wanting to be equal with elite men. It’s not about the equality of all sisterhood or equality of women with the under-privileged of society. When feminists called for ‘take your daughters to work’ day, they weren’t talking about working class women without some fancy college degree to wave around.

While there’s some validity to the concept of modern individuals, men and women, guaranteed of rights and liberties as economic units in a materialist society, we mustn’t put individualism or economism at the core of consciousness. At the center must be the sense of ourselves as organisms. Laws, culture, society, and freedom arose from organisms, not vice versa. While it’s not enough for us to be mere organisms(like brutish animals) because we are creatures of culture, ideas, and civilization, the fact is we are organisms before anything else. And even the abstract ideas and values in our heads exist only because we have organic matter like brains with neurons and hearts that pump blood.

If all of culture/civilization were to vanish, humans could create new ones through renewed imagination and inspiration. So much was destroyed by barbarian invasions and wars, but surviving humans revived or reinvented culture and civilization(even surpassing the earlier cultures that were destroyed and turned into dust), e.g. the Renaissance.
But if human organisms were to vanish while all their culture — museums, art works, architecture, libraries, etc. — remained intact, it would be the end of everything. Besides, culture is useless without people to revisit and appreciate them through the organic faculties of eyes, ears, and the mind.

As people age, they grow a bit tired of culture because they’ve seen it already: Been there, done that. But then, it’s precisely why they need to have children because kids experience culture/nature with a sense of wonderment, thereby reigniting its significance for the parents as well. This is why Christmas continues to be special for families with kids and grandkids. Even though the adults no longer believe in the magic, they sense it once again through their children.

Our core sense of self needing to be organismic than individualistic or economic, we need to ask WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT optimizes the existence of humans as creatures of continuity in the endless cycles of life and death. How are men different from women and vice versa, and how can that truth be acknowledged to arrange for social and professional roles that produce the greatest good for most people.
This is where the (bio)socialist element comes in. Purely from a libertarian viewpoint, every woman is primarily an individual. And if all women, as individuals, want to take well-paying jobs from men, they should have the freedom to do so. The ONLY thing that should matter is the desire of the individual. But what would be the long-term and wider consequences of such socio-economic practices? It would spell doom, ultimately for the women as well as for the men because neither sex can survive/thrive without the other. It’d be like a society where everyone on the football team decides to do his own ‘individualist’ thing instead of knowing his place in the game. Imagine if an offensive lineman demanded that he be the quarterback and if the kicker said it’s his turn to play running back. It’d be chaos.

Also, humanity must understand that home, not work, is the center of life. In other words, work exists so that people can bring something home. It’s like a primitive savage goes hunting not just for the hell of it but to bring the kill back to the community to share with his family and kinfolk.
Home should be the constant in life. People may go from job to job, from place to place, but the one constant must be the family and home. It’s no big deal to leave a job to take another, but it’s a serious matter to leave one’s family, though, to be sure, in our decadent-degenerate age, much of the stigma has been removed from people abandoning or rejecting their spouses or children. It’s no longer shameful for men to renege on their obligations as husbands/fathers. It’s no problem for women to get pregnant and raise kids on their own(with government assistance) while they shut the doors on the fathers of the children. Or, worthless white skanks shunt off the kids(often mulatto) to be raised by the grandparents while they whore around some more. (Barack Obama’s mother was just a higher variation of whore-life.) The current culture doesn’t put home/family at the center. Rather, the ego-driven individual occupies the center. Even when a man or woman decides to have a family, it is not to serve the family but to have it serve one’s own ‘needs’ on the conceit that ‘one can have it all’. It’s just another trophy in the game of leggo-my-ego.

In an ideal society, people work so that they can bring home the bacon. It is in the home that genuine attachments and deep devotion exist. There is love for spouse and kids. And when people grow old, the only people who are going to care are the members of the family.
After all, how many co-workers over the years in the various companies one worked at are going to be at one’s deathbed and funeral? Because the Home is central and because the Workplace really exists to serve the Home-place, a sane society must prioritize the MAN’s position in the Workplace because that is his ONLY WAY HOME. Without a place at work, men cannot go home because they can’t get married and build a home. In contrast, women have a place at home even without a place at work. They can marry someone and take care of the home while the man labors at work to bring home the bacon.

Anyway, the basic fact of life-and-culture is that women have two dic*s and can afford to surrender one. In contrast, if men lose their one-and-only dick*s, it’s all over now, baby blue.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *