I am starting to understand why idiot savants like George Lucas can’t leave anything alone, and so like Georgie and so many others that decide they have one more thing to say, I realized there was (for the moment) something that needed to be said.
I had an epiphany during an intimate moment, that there is one thing that the sphere, the libertarians, the traditionalists, the MRAs and almost everyone else dances around but doesn’t want to admit.
A piece of the red pill that is hard to swallow, that most men don’t want to swallow, even after swallowing the truth about hypergamy and women’s nature.
We talk about the nature of men. We believe that because we are men, that we understand our own nature, we even accept as given that people in society (even feminists that exaggerate the evils of men) on some level understand the basic drives and nature of men (even as they want to change those drives and basic nature).
We like to believe that the veil that hides our vision is the “mystic” of women’s true nature. Once that veil is torn, we are free.
There is a reason democracies all end in tyranny. There is a reason people flock to communism and socialism and liberalism, despite the facts that show how horrible it is. There is a reason otherwise bright men foolishly want to believe there are better men (there are not) that should rule over them, the longing for “a king.” Why libertarianism will never be more than a fringe movement.
A reason why beta males so easily and happily became dogs in our society, why so many men become white knight judas. Why People have nostalgia for the past, or think their religion is the one that should rule them all (but also explains why religion ebbs during times of plenty.). The answer for why good people do nothing.
And why ultimately, the attempts by socons, MRAs and any other group trying to save western civilization will fail.
We want to believe it is outside forces (the same kind of crap the feminists believe) that have made men weak. Or that it is some huge conspiracy.
Even as we forget the truism that you cannot con an honest man (or more precisely unwilling man).
First though, lets start with the lie, a lie woven into the fabric of western civilization as much, if not more so than all the rest:
When I was a boy, I remember reading a science fiction story (that I can’t for the life of me remember the author or the title) about an alien (or group of aliens) that captured a human being despite the warnings to stay clear of us.
It was a very flattering piece of literature. The man, despite being shown repeatedly that escape from capture and imprisonment was impossible, never gave up, never gave in and eventually escaped.
We like to believe. Want to believe that men want to be free. That they would rather die than be slaves. That we would be unbowed and unbroken if imprisoned. That we would rage like snarling animals against our captors. That it is intrinsically part of our nature to be free. God made us this way. That our natural inclination is be “rugged individuals.”
Even though the evidence is clearly the opposite. That there are millions that are relatively docile in incarceration in the United States alone.
There is only one freedom that the vast majority of people, male and female, long for:
The Freedom From Responsibility.
We talk about women naturally wanting to submit to a dominate male, but the natural inclination of most men is to submit. Which is why the henpecked husband has been a staple of literature from before Shakespeare.
For some the dominating male is “God” for some the fearless leader. It doesn’t matter. Most men want someone to tell them how to live.
The hearts of most men long to submit. To go back to their childhood where they don’t have to worry about anything, except the fear of punishment, they want to be told what to do, what to think, how to act.
People don’t want to be free. Its a burden, its a responsibility, a chore, it is easier to embrace liberalism and expect your social security check than to look after yourself.
The only time people want to be free is when their survival depends on it, when they think the goodies on the other side are really going to be better, and even then they’ll be afraid to leave the chains.
Submissiveness is a species wide trait.
You cannot extol men to be free and expect them to embrace it.
They won’t.
Pingback: Randoms « Foseti
What if we were designed to submit?
Talley: So what? Evolution or God, the result is the same. A creature that longs to submit and lacks the sense or the will to care what he submits to. Blame it all on rebellion if you want, but that looks like a design flaw to me. Unless you want to take the full on position that God wants us to submit to all “authority” keeping in mind that the Devil offered Jesus the whole world and all the world’s leaders belong to Ol’ Snitch (something that is conveniently forgotten in reference to our own leaders.) which brings us full circle to the position that Christainity is arguably an act of rebellion agaisnt the world (which C.S. Lewis argued in his writings).
Of course its a design flaw (LOL!)!! Only those who think for themselves are truly human.
Longs to submit: let’s stipulate yes.
Lacks the sense or will to care what he submits to: This is the variable. Maybe the turning point for humanity is to be able to discern the best sort of submission.
Submission to ones own desires results in hedonism.
Submission to the King/Dictator/Emperor/secular power results in a variety of outcomes based on how good the king is.
Submission to an aesthetic results in Athens. Great while the golden age lasts.
Submission to law results in results in Sparta.
And then we have submission to God or a god.
I could go on, but I have the sense that this is a well-worn path of thinking. There are deep grooves where many have gone before.
Yes, Dave, exactly. Is it really controversial or a little-known fact that men, by nature, want to submit to authority? And I disagree with the insinuation that this inclination is always a sign of weakness, a source of shame. It can be, in the instance that you describe:
To go back to their childhood where they don’t have to worry about anything, except the fear of punishment, they want to be told what to do, what to think, how to act.
But of course the argument about whether there are actually legitimate authorities is a larger metaphysical one.
Yes, Dave, exactly. Is it really controversial or a little-known fact that men, by nature, want to submit to authority?
Of course this is obvious to me. A good friend of mine questions the notion that humanity is an intelligent species. Rather, he suggests that humans are a species of termites with a few intelligent individuals, who are disrespected most of the time.
And I disagree with the insinuation that this inclination is always a sign of weakness, a source of shame.
Of course it is a sign of weakness and a source of shame. How can anyone right in the head disagree? Of course I am contemptuous of those with this inclination. I think people with this inclination deserve whatever suffering they experience.
But of course the argument about whether there are actually legitimate authorities is a larger metaphysical one.
Of course not. This very concept of authority is utterly disgusting to me. I find it highly offensive.
It’s worse than that. American men not only want to submit to other men or God (as a Christian, I find this submission the only one I can argue in favor of – and it’s not easy for me).
Most men also want to submit to their women. They want their wife to fulfill the role of mommy so they can be a little boy again. This is why you see so many American households when the wife is making all the decisions and the hubby is obeying, like a little boy. One hundred years ago, Jung observed this in American marriages.
http://www.welmer.org/2009/08/13/carl-jung-founding-father-of-game/
As you say, the only freedom most human beings want is the freedom from responsibility.
Esther Vilar said it beautifully: “Slavery is the natural state of man and he is only happy when he is a slave”. (More or less, I quote by heart).
Which class of men are you talking about? Humanity is a 3 tiered race: The owners, the middle, and the slaves. The slaves is always the largest group and they’ve always been bred to submit. Give them freedom and get the old south and Hattie. The middle is the top end of the slaves and the bottom end of the owners and tends to submit as required but doesn’t necessarily desire it. In a free age the middle exercises freedom, in a slave age they build small power bases and largely submit. The owners rarely submit and when they do it’s usually a deception to keep or expand their own power.
Most of the cases where you have non slave men submitting are cases were men realize they don’t actually have any power in this society and adjust their lives accordingly.
There is a difference between noble and ignoble servitude. Think about this post a bit more.
I’m hoping to put up a criticism of Nietzsche in the near future.
A good friend of mine that I used to go clubbing with in SoCal noted this same observation. Most people are naturally submissive and are just waiting for someone to come along and tell them what to do. We used to joke about using this reality to create some new mass movement so that we could become the next Hitler or Stalin. My friend pointed out that Hitler used to paint houses before going into politics, citing his humble background as argument that we could do the same.
I actually have no problem with this kind of thinking. None at all. I can complain about the flaws in other humans, or I can find some way of utilizing those flaws to pursue whatever objective I want out of life. The second is more pro-active, and it is always better to be pro-active than to just sit around and complain all the time.
This attitude of mine is especially true with regards to religion, which I view purely in instrumental terms. The notion of actually believing in any particular religion is really quite silly to me. Rather, its a question of why others believe in any particular religion and how I can make something by using that fact.
Accepting the flaws of human beings is best done by recognizing that they are a resource to be utilized, like any other resource. The question is not why the world is not the way it should be. Rather, how to make one wants based on accepting the world around you just as it is.
Pingback: La Boetie: Not Spanish For The Bowtie | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Was the SF story Cage a Man, by F.M. Busby?
http://docs6.chomikuj.pl/1606160712,PL,0,0,Busby,-F-M—Demu-01-03—The-Demu-Trilogy-UC.txt
Pingback: Prometheus « Hidden Leaves
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Mid-August Edition « Patriactionary
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – Cypher’s Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/08/22 « Free Northerner
Men want to be free” and “Men want a leader to follow” are both oversimplifications – men are clearly innately capable of both loyalty and rebellion. (More generally, it is an error to go from the denial of the “blank slate” to an underestimate of the significant flexibility of human nature).
The roles of leader, follower, and outcast are all part of our natural heritage. We can’t all be leaders, and billions of us can’t all be outcasts on one planet. The argument against untrammelled female hypergamy is that it undermines the role of follower. The sentiment above that “authority is disgusting” is the corollary.
What we need is leaders who return loyalty to their loyal followers. What we have instead is democracy and the false promises of equality and freedom for all.
Pingback: But are You Master of Your Domain? « Hidden Leaves