People vs. the State vs. Major Corporations — What might the future hold in store for Americans?

“Is Government Inherently Immoral? Stefan Molyneux debates Tom Willcutts”:

Having watched this clip once already with plans to run through it a 2nd time, I have a number of thoughts to share at this time. While I’ve enjoyed several of Stefan’s videos on topics pertaining to childhood development, in this conversation I lean closer to Tom Willcutts’ views and will try to explain why.

Never completely understood the anarchist position despite trying many times in the past. They basically wish to abolish or somehow completely undermine and make obsolete any form of government, starting with the present one. And what seems to confuse people who do not identify as anarchists is that the message put forward typically says little about what will happen next. As in doing away with government being one step in a process, but then what? In the above debate, Stefan does attempt to address what he believes will occur, arguing that the “free market” could run and provide much of what’s currently being controlled by Government. The common Libertarian stance, or, more accurately, what I’ve come to plainly refer to as the neoconservative stance.

I’ve explored the Libertarian Party and libertarian political ideology for more than a decade now, giving up on the LP when Bob Barr was nominated as its presidential candidate in 2008. What I saw clearly happening throughout the G.W. Bush administration was that “Libertarianism” became all the rage, associated with everyone from Ron Paul to this country’s founding fathers to members of Bush’s Cabinet. Suddenly everyone wanted to identify as a libertarian of some sort. That’s all fine and good, except that the message being loudly promoted became one of “neoclassical” economic theory popularized by the teachers within the University of Chicago’s School of Economics (e.g., Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, etc.), which originally was informed by positions put forth by the Austrian School of Economics. My familiarity with Austrian School economics isn’t extensive, but I remain relatively open-minded to the debated ideas stemming from that camp.

It’s the Chicago School of Economics that I take greatest issue with, having learned enough about it to smell the rats involved. Milton Friedman was an egoist possessing little empathy, and his teachings reflected that in their calculating manner. He was part of the social engineering project, whether he clearly understood that or not (though I believe he did, as evidenced by his involvement in helping shape U.S. foreign policy in ways detrimental to countless persons living in countries in South and Central America — read Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism to learn more). What I personally witnessed around me was a growing number of people coming to parrot that neoconservative language taught by people like Friedman that political insiders and prominent businessmen in the 1980s onward repeatedly appealed to.

(Quickly, let me also say this: call it “neoliberal” or “neoconservative,” it doesn’t really matter much since both labels point to what essentially amounts to the same movement, confusing as that is. Apparently we in the U.S. refer to it mostly as “neoconservative” because of its militaristic approach, whereas outside of our borders “neoliberal” is the term used when the IMF and World Bank impose their new-age form of economic colonization. Language confusion certainly doesn’t help when people are first aiming to learn about these topics, but for whatever reasons that’s how it currently stands. To see a more detailed breakdown, check out this link.)

So taking this whole trend into consideration, which has been moving in this direction for several decades already within academe and political circles, now expanding into the American mainstream, we see a number of Friedmanite utopians running about today preaching the gospel of this version of the “free market.” The problem with this is the naivete involved, as if the corporate world were some sort of godsend intended to replace all forms of government for the betterment of humankind. But that is a fantasy narrative being peddled to members of the public severely disenchanted with our government’s shenanigans. Please make no mistake: I too am extremely disenchanted with my government and what it has devolved into throughout the 20th century. Americans have lost the reins and have a monster now in our midst that aims to control so much of what we do and how we do it, to the point of diminishing our quality of life. But the thing is that major corporate players have been involved and intermingled from day one in what’s become of the U.S. Government. Politicians apparently tend to be be very weak-minded and status-driven individuals who respond when money talks. Major corporations have played within markets and political spheres all across the globe for as long as they’ve been in existence.

The United States declared its independence the very same year that Adam Smith published his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith was considered one of the key pioneers of political economy, which for him spun off from his studies of moral philosophy, so we need to understand that economics as we think of it today was in its fledgling phase when our country was being formally founded. Or, more accurately, being wrestled out from under the control of Great Britain through engaging in the Revolutionary War, which lasted until 1783. While corporations technically have a lengthy history dating way back, what we think of as modern corporations got their start beginning in the late 1700s as well. While the United States was expanding its territories and figuring out how to manage this brand-new form of government, corporations continued ‘evolving’ over in Europe (as well as in the U.S., though stricter regulation existed in the 19th century to limit how corporations could be used, taking into consideration the ‘public good’). So we see our government coming into being alongside this evolving notion of corporations, and that’s very important because it wasn’t long before these entities came to increasingly intermingle and dramatically affect one another.

I’m not a historian and won’t pretend to be one, but these are thoughts that run through my mind when pondering what’s happened to peoples in the U.S. and abroad in modern times. Understand that history is absolutely relevant when any economic theory’s merits are being discussed. I personally need to ponder from the historical vantage point, to the best I’m able to understand times so long ago, because otherwise it’s too easy to take things for granted, as if it couldn’t be another way. People express that attitude all the time, as if nothing that came before matters today. We seem to think modern times sprang from a vacuum, as if the social realm is inconsequential compared against anything that can be measured and empirically observed and calculated. And that right there is a big part of the problem I take with neoconservative economics — dubbed as the “rationalist” approach.

“Rational.” I’m growing to dislike that word because of how it’s used to dismiss that which can’t so easily be broken down into technical language and then quantified, which is what various schools of economics aim to do today, economics no longer being viewed as a social discipline (which it is). Anything predicated on human behavior and choices will be fickle business — unless, I guess, if it were possible to determine human behavior and shape people’s choices. Sound familiar? It should, because that’s what advertising and marketing has aimed for for nearly a century.

This issue is so much bigger than corporate power on its own precisely because our government has gone along with the schemes hatched by the business world. They’ve been attached at the hip for a long time already (though government has dropped the ball in regulating businesses in the 20th century, a task our government wasn’t originally set up to do and that few Americans can agree on how or if it’s even proper for lawmakers to attempt to do), and what this has done is it’s allowed select corporations to grow to never-before-seen size and scope and for the few largest to corner markets in the most important and popular sectors. What we eat comes from major corporations. How we farm today is decided by major corporations. As is where we shop and what is available for us to buy, and to a sad extent what we’ve come to value (as well as devalue). Heck, not even water is off-limits when it comes to corporate control. Government has allowed this to occur, but that genie is out of the bottle today and flexing its power across the globe, especially in poorer countries where governments easily cave to financial incentives.

People sometimes argue that if government were removed from the equation, we could contend with corporations directly. Well, we could contend with corporations right now, yet so few of us seem interested in doing so. Many (if not most) people are relatively content so long as they have a job and a home and tasty foods to eat and several creature comforts and toys. This topic goes back to my thoughts on human domestication, which I haven’t fully laid out a position on (not even sure that I’m capable of doing so just yet), though a couple of my videos broached a couple angles to that topic. So when talk begins about how we’ll simply do away with government, which is intended to be an organization controlled by the people, and on our own confront corporate power (that few people seem interested in taking on in a serious way, especially if it will result in them having to make major sacrifices, and it will), I have to wonder how we think we might accomplish this.

The libertarian, anarchist position put forth by a few people I’ve watched debate argue in favor of some sort of corporate utopia where we the people vote with our dollars and boycott companies that violate what we deem sacred. In theory I love the idea, but when burdened by practical concerns I become very wary. What might’ve been a decent idea back a hundred years ago or before might not translate so well into this new age where we the people have become utterly dependent on the Corporate State to provide us with what we need and want, younger generations not having been taught the skills necessary to produce our own food or clothing or shelter. A further obstacle is in place now because corporations own most of the materials we’d even need to get started, meaning they ultimately determine the price we wind up paying for anything and everything (nevermind their “free market” big talk — if it came down to the citizenry seriously challenging the Corporate State, we’ll find out how shallow that lip service really is). Then there’s the issue of Americans working for these corporations, dependent on them for income. Then we have to look at the property rights problem, because undoubtedly corporations claim more land than we realize and will likely buy up whatever is abandoned by government (another concern is foreign citizens and companies buying up American agricultural land and houses at a substantially increasing rate in recent years).

In a nutshell, there’s a lot here to consider, so assuming that corporations will be easier managed (and hopefully dominated) once government is out of the picture doesn’t delve into the complexities of this situation. Government, at least theoretically, is intended to be bent to the will of the people. Corporations are intended to be bent to the will of the market, but once a few dominate the market and have already successfully done away with most small business competition, how are people now effectively planning to go up against them? Dollars are their currency, not necessarily ours, because they do the price setting and they also determine people’s wages. We may possess the labor and skills they seek, but corporations can also rather easily draw from labor pools all throughout the world, effectively undermining rebellion in any one particular country. This is what we’re up against. We lack an infrastructure that isn’t corporate-dependent, and their executives are well-aware of that. We the people lack a means of feeding ourselves, doctoring ourselves, and thanks to so many citizens’ passivity we probably no longer have access to the weaponry needed to stand a fair chance at defending ourselves.

People want to talk about militaries and private security forces, believing we the people will somehow be able to afford that as well, nevermind that corporations stand in a much better position to be able to afford such defense. And again, they can draw from foreign paramilitary pools that we Americans cannot access, which then could potentially gain a united front of corporations access to sophisticated weaponry. (Think: Israel.) People don’t want to hear this, and I’m sorry, but I am trying to be realistic. That doesn’t mean I favor the government, especially not as it stands now, but I happen to know that corporations aren’t in any way by their design intended to be concerned with what is actually in the public’s interest. They are profit-driven, first and foremost, and shareholders of publicly-traded companies have also lost control of the reins, leaving so much up to the whims and desires of the executives and fat cats hidden behind these legal fictions. Corporations are an economic vehicle, and without any regulations in place to limit them they will grow, expand, dominate, and suppress competition whenever able. Kings of the concrete jungle, you might say.

People like Stefan speak of arbitrators as if that will prove an effective alternative to the courts and juries of today. Much as our courts are screwed up and in serious need of an overhaul, hiring arbitration services won’t likely produce fairer results, especially not when corporations have the money to spend and we the people do not. They will form alliances with arbitrators and likely will come to decide for us, printed somewhere in their mountains of small print, which arbitrator will be used in the event of a dispute. You don’t want that, but how will you refuse if you remain in the situation as we do now where we are dependent on corporations for so much? Most people won’t be willing to accept unemployment as a condition of rebellion — keep that in mind, because they will become your snitching enemies, your competitors, they and various foreigners driven by desperation and/or blind desire for the “good life,” the so-called “American Dream.” Because of their support, the system will go on and will grow outside of the bounds of what we can imagine today (as scarily alluded to in the recording played back of Stefan’s vision of corporations cutting off people’s credit and bank access after being accused of a crime).  Don’t expect much pity from these people.

So what then is the solution? That’s a damn fine question. I do not know. How do we take on the corporate setup and bring it down to where it is manageable and answerable to the will of the public and its consumers? I believe this is where government can be worthwhile, depending on how diligently we manage it, which Americans have proven poor at thus far.

The question of whether government is inherently immoral troubles me. It nearly seems irrelevant when the bigger question is how to manage civilization. Because that’s apparently what people want, right, civilization? If so, a form of governance, however limited in scope and power, will prove necessary in order to allow this many people to all inhabit one geographical area in relative peace. Whether we like it or not, laws must be established, though I personally believe we have way too goddamn many and not enough that are clearly worded and of actual value to common persons. The rise of civilizations hasn’t wound us up to where we humans in general are rising up so much as a relative few have risen to extraordinary power that allows them (and the corporations they hide within) to exploit the many. The major difference between civilization today versus centuries ago is the incredible advancement in technological innovation and sophistication. That too is largely cornered and controlled by major corporations where not under the domain of universities and our government. In the absence of a government I believe it is naive to assume the government’s and universities’ share would be relinquished to the people. It would help to hear how people think they’d go about ensuring that did occur, because simply assuming and wishing and praying isn’t enough, not when major corporations wield as much power as they currently do.

This is an interesting topic, partly because it forces me to see the potential benefit in the role of government despite our failure at maintaining the project that’s been underway for over two centuries in this chunk of land staked off and named the U.S.A. It was a new idea and we did lose control over it, largely due to people being kept busy working and being easily seduced by the promise of easier living and being dazzled by the assorted offerings that have sprung into existence over the last 150 years (not to mention the propaganda generations have been raised up on via education curricula and media outlets), culminating in so many today being blinded by science to where they can’t see anything but technologies and petri dishes and mathematical concepts and statistics and other sorts of abstractions. We’re losing touch with reality, yet eagerly are chomping at the bit to refashion current reality into fitting some vague ideal claimed as capable of maximizing the “good” for the greatest number of people. A utilitarian’s paradise. Long on banter about technical in details, while short on appreciation for our social and psychological needs. This is what anarchism is showing me, and it disturbs me, because whether people like Stefan are able to understand this or not, they will play right into the hands of corporate power if they endeavor to go that direction without any institutional backing of their own.

There’s so much more that can be said on this topic, and I’d love to continue on, but I’ve tuckered myself out typing this at the moment and will have to leave it to be picked up another day.

Dialogue between Dr. Corey Anton and Stefan Molyneux (on Capitalism, Materialism, Freedom, and Death)

What a treat. Tonight I stumbled across this clip of Professor Corey Anton talking with Stefan Molyneux:

I’ve watched numerous videos posted by Prof. Anton and recommend his channel to others. Recently Stefan came back across my radar and now, lo and behold, I find these two are familiar with one another. And this is why I appreciate youtube.

“Malcolm X: Make It Plain”

Malcolm X: Make It Plain (Full PBS Documentary):

Elaborating on a “Response to an MRA”

A video I uploaded back in January titled “Response to an MRA”:

In that I was reading aloud an email response I’d sent back to an MRA who’d been corresponding with me. Having been approached by a number of self-described MRAs through email already, I figured it might be helpful to make this response public so as to cut down on me needing to repeat myself. I’m not interested in joining or backing any gender-related movement, having had my fill of making sense of feminism throughout much of my 20s.

In an exchange of comments with fabrizionapoleoni and Thermic Light on the comment thread since last night, I’ve decided to go ahead and post this here to try to flesh out my own thought process a bit.

As stated in the video and also in the comments, I’m not of the belief that waging a major legal battle against feminism will likely prove fruitful, and here’s why. First, let me expand on what I think of feminism.

From the way I see it, feminism became a tool of the government several decades ago intended to drive more women into the workplace so as to generate more taxable revenue and stimulate the economy. The feminist movement served also to divide the sexes and pit them against one another in workplaces as well as in academe, which trickled down to affect households and set off a boom in suing for divorces. We see this. The sexual liberation revolution that accompanied the second-wave feminist mantra came at a time of Judeo-Christian values dramatically losing their hold over people due to advancements in scientific understandings and economic concerns coming to eclipse all else (this trend had been in motion for a couple hundred years already, heralded by the Enlightenment Era and later the introduction of the Industrial Age), leaving people in the confused state of value anomie where greater subjectivity entered the arena and allowed much freedom of expression and experimentation that continues on ’til today. Not that I necessarily take issue with the sexual revolution, seeing it as a natural reaction to the suppression of female sexuality under Abrahamic religions, this being an attempt to establish a more favorable balance for women going forward. I take no issue with that on the surface, but what we don’t tend to think about is the propaganda promoted to tap into our selfish interests and to stoke hostilities between the sexes.

Keeping this as brief as I can, what ultimately wound up happening is feminism and its organizations grew in large part thanks to financial infusions from major contributors tied in with the government, as well as from the government directly. Why did the government do this? Because higher-ups sympathize with the plight of women? Not hardly. Rather it was because they and their corporate sponsors stand to benefit in a variety of ways. First off, feminism involves a lot of fear-mongering, particularly when it comes to topic of rape and child molestation (not that these aren’t incredibly important issues), where the fever-pitch scream over these matters inevitably sought redress through the courts and promoting protectionist legislation. Feminism preaches a great deal about “empowerment,” yet its real message tends to revolve around victimhood, which tends to focus primarily on women and children’s suffering. Every topic must be framed in how it affects women or mothers of children or female children, and this is justified by claiming that everything outside of feminism caters to the male perspective, as if the common man were being fairly represented already.

Saying nothing new to people so far. But what’s really interesting to me is how this sleight of hand proved exceptionally divisive, especially in light of more women increasing their dependence on the State and less so on men. But we have to remember it wasn’t too many decades back when these social programs were nonexistent and most men and women had to rely on one another to grow enough food and rear children. Pitiful was the widow or single mother who had to rely on the charity of others or churches or enter into some low form of servitude to make ends meet. Now that has all changed and feminism has aided in protecting women and children from bleak fates, or so it gives the appearance of doing. In there is where everything gets really complex and crazy, because the feminist movement embraced the notion of promoting and extending the role of the State in getting involved in our lives. The charity received is accompanied by government intrusion through the formation of an entire league of social workers and CPS employees — people who earn incomes from monitoring other people’s family situations.

But it goes deeper than that obviously. With the pushing of more laws and greater penalties, including mandatory sentencing, we saw immense growth in the penal system. More prisons built and filled, primarily with men. A huge number of which are in there on drug offenses, which is another area where the feminist movement supported tougher sentencing in the name of protecting children. Prohibition has ties with feminism going back to its inception, most notably in the alcohol prohibition of the early 20th century. In other words, when social problems confront us, the feminist movement tends nearly always to push for the State to step in and criminalize behavior on our behalf, but nearly all popular movements have aimed the same way over the last century. And where they branched off and called for individual action, their leaders were assassinated (as in the case of the most prominent civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X).

Let’s think about that for a moment, because what those two men advocated is largely where I am coming from. Dr. King spoke from the position of people changing their hearts and following their consciences, referring to the tradition of Jesus and other peace-builders. Because he understood that the problem lies within us all and that laws alone won’t change us. Malcolm X understood that power never concedes itself without being given a fight. He understood that new laws alone couldn’t rectify past injustices, remarking that you can’t stab a knife in a man’s back 9 inches, pull it out 6 inches, and then call that “progress.” He understood what ails us is deeply entrenched in our cultures and argued for the individual to grab hold of the reins of his or her own life, to take back power by refusing to bow to unjust authorities, by being willing to fight back by whatever means necessary (not excluding utilizing the courts, though he learned the hard way there too). He did not see this as a battle to be fought and won primarily within the courts, but out here in the streets, out here where we can make a difference through what we choose to do or not do, through our resistance and our rejection of that system. Both men died as a result of speaking the truth.

Returning to feminism, we saw the rise of the welfare state, promoted as needed to care for women and children and the disabled. Sounds nice in theory, except the programs established are ran by our horribly inefficient, bureaucratic nightmare of a government. Notice how little is said as to whether so many kids should be born out of wedlock as has become so common; instead attention is focused on blaming fathers for abandoning their children by not paying enough toward their support. Why have so many fathers stepped out on the families they’ve helped create? Does this not point back to people being chewed up by the economic wheel, either by employers (in conjunction with the IRS) or by the courts when marriages dissolve? I contend that it’s a cultural problem, a failure of this society to leave communities to care for themselves and determine their own collective fate. Over time communities have been broken down and each of us individuals are set out on our own, pulled primarily by economic pressures while attempting to dodge being taken advantage of. The feminist movement, whether intentional or not, helped exacerbate this problem and has done very little to counteract it.

Then enters talk of our public education system in the U.S. Lord, help us there. That’s an indoctrination program of our young people, teaching them false histories (or glossed-over history anyway) while encouraging them to engage in such movements that see the legal contest as most relevant. Furthermore, it’s a glorified daycare to set children while parents work, because nearly everything in life anymore revolves around money, acquiring it and, Americans’ favorite pastime, spending it. Young people are not taught to think critically, not unless it pertains to the scientific realm, and even there attempts appear to fall short.

Thinking about the scientific realm for a moment, another major player in this whole fiasco of the last century is the field of psychiatry, which one might initially think more women would oppose considering its history of focusing on “correcting” women who rebelled against previous societal norms. But no, feminism has become entrenched in that field, supporting and circulating its pseudo-scientific “findings” as well as accepting and adopting its lingo.  That right there worries me. Because psychiatry is closely tied to the State (not to mention advertisers and Big Pharma, but that will be discussed another time) and has been utilized to promote conformity, dicing the public up under labels said to require chemical or institutional “treatment” for varying degrees of “maladaptation.” I’m surprised more people aren’t spooked by such a field where their claims are based not on actual scientific evidence but on a social planning agenda. Psychiatry is the field of social engineering, plain and simple, and it’s brought forth tons of “experts” prescribing for us how we need to live our lives and how to raise young’ns (notice though how swiftly opinions within the field change, demonstrating how psychiatry and psychology are fields of study of human behavior, not unlike sociology, and have no place being equated with medical science). Psychology and sociology (and anthropology and philosophy, etc.) are all incredibly interesting fields of study, but they are not scientific in the way people have come to assume psychology and psychiatry to be. It is propaganda that has pushed that belief on the uncritical masses, allowing psychiatry to rise in popularity and fuse itself with our government (which is two-fold, because on one hand it is employed as a controlling mechanism to interfere with the social realm, but also pharmaceutical companies wield great lobbying power to influence Congresspeople to embrace and promote this insidious alliance).

And as in the case of everything these days, it all leads back to concerns over money and the economy. While the feminism movement is angling to promote women in positions of power throughout the power structure currently in place, it does nothing to overturn that system, though there are claims that once infiltrated, the system can then be altered from the inside out. All that says to me is this is one way in which fascism can establish itself, because the status quo will only be enhanced, never overthrown or dismantled from within as some feminists may dream. Fascism is the alliance of State and major corporations, whereby this combined power comes to control and exert enormous influence over nearly all aspects of society. When we consider that one arm at the government’s disposal involves the field of psychiatry and its drug sellers, can we doubt that will come to play a bigger role as time moves on, if only under the guise of promoting jobs and helping people? Because those are hot fields enlisting lots of foot soldiers to spread their message of “mental health” (whatever that means on any given day). A number of self-professed feminists are involved in the so-called mental health system, with a great many newcomers joining each year. That is disconcerting.

Whereas the feminist movement came out loud protesting against the Vietnam war, now we see mostly those on its fringes still making a fuss and joining in the serious antiwar rallies. Old women mostly, from my experience. The economic costs of endless warfare and the sacrifice of our young people to the war machine is one of the gravest concerns confronting us, yet the feminist movement busies itself worrying with injecting more women into academia and upper management positions in the business world, or embarking on slut-shaming protests, or squealing about differences in pay — trivial concerns if this system winds up buckling under due to financial overreach.

In a nutshell, the feminist movement today runs counter to what many of us thought it was supposed to be about, namely taking to task a system run amok. But whatever. Aside from securing voting rights and women’s reproductive control over their own bodies, the movement has been used to create more problems than it can solve. It’s time to move past reliance on gender-specific movements and to take in the bigger picture, which to me asks of us how we can fight back against these forces at play in our society. The only answers I can come to is that we as a people and various collectives therein must reestablish our ability to care for ourselves in community settings. What I’m referring to here involves neo-agrarianism, because without food and water, we won’t last long. More importantly, without regaining control over providing for our most basic needs, we will grow increasingly dependent on this system, that is our government and major corporations, to provide what we need at the prices they set, paid for by the dollars we must earn from them.

To bring about a neo-agrarian revolution, land must be secured and/or reallocated to serve purposes beyond pure aesthetics, and intentional communities will have to form in anticipation of future secession. I realize people don’t wish to hear this, but without taking the first step to generate what we need to survive, nothing else can progress. Because where we stand now we are hopelessly dependent on the State/major corporations (particularly food producers) to provide for our sustenance. And you can bet that will be one of the first things jeopardized if it ever comes down to civil war.

The way I see it is we have two choices: prop up the status quo, which includes the entire infrastructure we’ve grown dependent on, or figure out ways to reduce our reliance on that system so as to be able to fight against it. Without ground to stand on, disrupting the current system will likely lead to a lot of pain and little gain. But either way, it should be obvious that I favor the latter option. People who remain caught up in the legal contest are, unwittingly or otherwise, playing into and perpetuating the current system. The fines and taxes we pay feeds it. Do people realize that divorce courts are making a killing for the State, all because we allow the State to control the institution of marriage? Takes money and effort to change laws, and it takes even more to protect said laws once on the books, as feminists will tell you. Beyond that, there’s virtually no way to effectively attack all of the forces driving society today through the legal system because it is broken by already being bought and paid for. We will go broke trying, just as we will go broke thinking we can contribute even a fraction of what corporations contribute to buy the loyalty of politicians.

We are faced with a serious conundrum with no easy answers, and I don’t think it’s possible at this point for any consensus to be reached. For those operating under faulty logic, I say let them go their own way. Let them learn for themselves what will and won’t work. This is why my mind keeps returning to the notion of people fragmenting off into smaller, intentionally-created communities where the members share common objectives and beliefs. Much as I can appreciate diversity, and I believe it can still be preserved under this strategy through trade alliances, it has bogged us down to where we can’t agree on much. So we’d be better off splitting and going our own ways versus continuing to fight one another, tooth and nail, trying to convince one another, turning toward domination strategies when that fails. We’ll drive one another increasingly insane if we keep this up.

Furthermore, our evolutionary history prepares us for smaller group engagement whereby we have more influence and negotiations become possible. Once things get too big and too out of control, we wind up at each other’s throats down here on the ground while the puppet masters loot us and force leashes around our necks. That is no future I wish to take part in. Yet another reason I am keen on not producing children forced to contend with what lay in store. One way or another, it’s going to be ugly. It’s a matter of whether that ugliness will come through the preservation of the status quo and its ceaseless wars and its drive toward micromanaging us all, or if we’ll be willing to get down and dirty in defense of another way of life. As always, the choice is entirely up to us. If we take no action, we will simply be swept along with the tides, and surely we can see where that will wind us up.

That’s enough to say on that subject for now, but anyone wishing me to consider different angles feel free to post a comment.

Dr. Faye Snyder speaks with Stefan Molyneux

What an excellent interview and discussion between Stefan Molyneux and Dr. Faye Snyder. So glad I was turned on to looking her up today. All this talk about childhood and development has me tripping down memory lane a bit, reflecting and thinking…

[TMI story-sharing since removed.]

Thinking about personal histories and childhood bonding (a personal post)

Normally I’d prefer to use this blog to point to writings, films, and other sources of what I consider interesting information and ideas. When I started this project, it was my intention to remain relatively private with my personal business, seeing as how my face is now attached to my words online. And everything written on this Internet feasibly becomes permanently part of the public record.

But I was just struck with some thoughts again tonight that tie into the ongoing talk on “evil” and the sickness of our society. Not ashamed of who I am or most of what I’ve done, so I might as well share a little about who I am so as hopefully to make more clear my perspective.

Earlier a couple of commenters on my “Why I’m No Longer a Feminist” video comment section brought up Dr. Faye Snyder, someone I’d never heard of before. Searched for her on YT and listened to the first few minutes of a man reading her piece titled “I Am Adam Lanza’s Therapist.” Then my own thoughts crashed in, because while the RAD acronym is new to me, thoughts on this topic are not. How you are brought up and how well you bond with others is so supremely important. I do know this, to where it’s easy to take as granted that others, on some level, acknowledge this as a truth as well. People who are deeply traumatized as children grow into broken-spirited adults. We Americans live in a society that has grown socially toxic over time, and it’s because we the people are broken, coming from broken homes and broken communities. All that leads to broken dreams, broken spirits, broken hearts, and, in some cases, broken minds. This I do believe to be true.

“Reactive Detachment Disorder” — guess that’s one way to label the symptoms of broken lives. Where do we think all this depression is stemming from? All this anxiety and self-destructiveness? This cowardice? I get it. Personally refuse to speak in DSM lingo, but I do comprehend some of this heart-breaking problem we have today. It’s everywhere and we’re all observers and participants. So too do we all play the roles of victimizers and victims.

It deserves to be stated that social complexities are mind-blowing because unlike with physical and chemical sciences, there’s really no math to explain it or experiments that can control for all possible variables. And the social and psychological sphere is constantly in motion, never at rest, always moving on through time and Ages. We tend to think of the bulk of human history simply as “progressive” (but it depends on one’s definition there). When you add in ponderings on physics and imagine how that all might tie in, life becomes so big, so amazing, so wondrous and beyond comprehension that to me it justifies being referred to as “God.” It’s not merely chemical and physical and biological processes — life is bigger than that, especially for us humans in our ongoing struggle to make sense out of a life as beings separated from the jungle and tribal conditions that marked much of our evolutionary history. So many metaphors exist pointing to this space in time when humans became more than animals, which is to say more complex, more consciously aware, cast out of the animal kingdom to proactively determining our own destinies. Thinking in this way, the social realm becomes no trivial matter, nor can it be easily explained and put into neat language for others to digest on-the-go. But I’ll try my best at breaking things down as I see them, from my own perspective, as this blogging project unfolds.

Returning to the topic of Dr. Snyder and talk of the Sandy Hook massacre while reflecting on so many that came before. The Columbine massacre occurred when I was 17, and youths of my age group were caught up in the goth fetish and/or violent rap music and/or heavy metal (as was I, to an extent). Thinking back, we were an angry lot, teens of the ’90s. And I can’t speak for where others lived or who they hung around, but I bounced from state to state as a teen and wound up dropping out of high school to start working. The people I befriended included some very angry people, very pained and training in how to pay it forward. Tried to avoid those characters, but they’re out there.

One boy I dated when I was 15 and he was 17 had been sexually molested by his father, as had been his sister and he suspected his younger brothers were enduring it in his absence. He was one messed up individual. The abuse had required a surgery when he was very young, under 6, and left him wetting the bed from there on. This is just a boy I met and wound up dating for a few months who unraveled these details over time. We parted ways and 5 years later he called my stepdad, asking for him to give me his number. Talked to the boy two times on the phone, and in the second conversation he told me he was being accused in the courts of sexually molesting his very young daughter. I walked away and want to hear no more, because after briefly knowing him I’m sad to say that he maybe could’ve done such a thing. He was a broken individual on such a serious level that his life will forever be fucked up. That is such a sad truth, seeing how serious dysfunction breeds dysfunction for the young going forward and their young too, somehow, some way.

Met a lot of people over the years, most of whom I don’t keep in contact with. Met plenty at schools and at coffee shops and, later, at bars. All kinds of people. But the people who particularly interested me were those closest to me, members of my own family. I grew up watching my Papa (grandpa) suffer inside, knowing he’d suffered his whole life, abandoned and abused. I related to his pain and he to mine, much as our circumstances differed. He was a long-time alcoholic, and it hurt his kids. One of his kids was my mother. I do not know of my biological father, nor he of my existence. I was born out of wedlock to a 19-year-old single woman who lived with her parents in a trailer in a small town in Mississippi. My mother is not right in the head for reasons I’ve never been able to understand completely, but talk with my Grandma over time leads us to believe she may be this way because of head injuries sustained as a baby in a bad car accident.

Let me say right now that my Papa is one of the most important people in my life, and I love him and his memory forever. He was not what I would call a fully good or fully bad man. He was a complex man with pain in his heart and wounds that would not entirely heal, so he lived as an alcoholic until he was 50 (and I was 9). It’s been said that he could be physically abusive and I’m well-aware of how he could run his mouth. But he’s the closest to a father-figure in my life, and we shared a strong bond. He has certain qualities of character that I look up to and respect immensely. For example, through him I learned someone can be afraid, truly afraid, and still summon the strength and guile to stand up and confront people when needed. He had pride and a heart. He didn’t believe in kicking an underdog when they’re down, unlike lots of other people in our town. He wasn’t afraid to stand up to authority and tell it like he saw it.

But underneath all of that, I occasionally glimpsed that little boy in him that was injured by the people he was raised by. In whispered conversations in the kitchen in the early morning hours, my Grandma used to tell me stories about Papa’s past, about how his mother left him with his grandfather when he was 6, screaming “You can keep the little bastard!” I cry just thinking about that, about how it must feel carrying that around in one’s heart for 65 years (he died at age 71 in 2011 — may he be resting in peace now). She told me of how his father and stepmother yanked him from his loving grandfather and essentially made my Papa their slave, working him hard at physical labor, pulling him out of school after the 8th grade and regularly severely beating him until the age of 17 when he escaped by lying about his age to join the National Guard. He met my Grandma a year or so later and they immediately began creating a family of their own.

My Papa was an alcoholic throughout all three of his kids’ upbringings, and he was an angry man who saw injustice everywhere. In a number of ways my and his personalities are a lot alike.

I spent half of my upbringing with my Grandparents, and my infancy was probably redeemed thanks to them and their care and support for me, particularly up to age 4 (which is when I was moved away with my mother and stepfather). I bonded with my Grandma especially as a baby because she was the one who tended to me the most, and she’s very loving toward babies which is a blessing. Papa too, at least by the time I came around — he just lit up and we bonded. Some of my favorite memories are of riding around in the little pickup truck right beside my Papa, him prompting me to chat on the CB radio to his trucker friends, feeling like such a big girl going with Papa to do his day’s business. He’d show me off to his friends like I was really something. I would’ve followed that man anywhere. To some he might’ve looked like a worn-out man in a cap, spitting chew and talking shit (lol), but he was the biggest man in my universe. None have yet to compare with his originality.

But unfortunately the pain and suffering he endured isn’t some anomaly. So many people running around deeply hurt by their pasts; plenty hurt bad enough that they got problems, emotional, psychological, social. One could argue that in today’s society we’re all touched by the pain, somehow, some way, directly or indirectly through our media and our shared culture. We’re touched by one another, figuratively speaking (or literally, as is sometimes the case). I see as I look out on people I love and also on strangers that early childhood trauma, abandonment, and abuse leaves a hole in people’s hearts. It can’t be helped and it may never be completely restored. I don’t know and won’t make definitive claims, but this is how I see it. And that pain tends to pay itself forward, somehow, some way.

This is another reason why I decided many years ago to not birth children of my own. I wish for the cycle to discontinue so far as I’m concerned. People can tell you all the self-help info they’d like, but there comes a point when the risk isn’t worth it, that it’s better to acknowledge that more nurturing and attentive people are better suited for parenthood. And that’s fine by me. There’s plenty else to do besides breed — one of the great joys of living as a woman in this moment in history when I have the option to make this choice thanks to technology and cultural transformation.

I’ve tired of typing about this right now, so let’s just leave it there. Part of me cringes revealing such personal information about myself and my family, but it represents part of who I am as one individual out here, one drop in the collective bucket.

Navigating in the New Economy — an excerpt from the book “Dark Ages America”

Today I’m looking at the book Dark Ages America by Morris Berman (2006). Let’s begin on page 15:

Liquid Modernity is the title of a book by the Polish-British sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, who defines it as the condition of a society that lacks a clear sense of orientation, or the kind of stability that derives from a long-standing tradition or set of norms. In Will Hutton’s version of it, it is a situation in which all of life is lived in “a permanent state of contingency.” It is the social and cultural face of globalization, the ideational and emotional counterpart of the New Economy. America has been the cutting edge of this way of life, a society characterized by speed, fluidity, and transience—obsessive change, in short. Being modern in this context means having an identity that is always shifting, always “under construction.” In effect, says Bauman, it is like living a life of musical chairs. The problem is this fluidity is not a choice we are free to make. Despite the unifying patriotic rhetoric that permeates the United States, on some level Americans are not really fooled: at bottom, each person knows he or she must continually “reinvent themselves,” which is to say, go it alone. America is the ultimate anticommunity.

Of course, we didn’t get to this peculiar state of affairs overnight. The notion that each person is free to choose his or her own destiny was the ideal of a New World that was rejecting the social chains of the old one. As the British writer Ian Buruma puts it, “the promise of freedom in America is precisely to be liberated from the past.” Not for Americans the suffocating restrictions of class, history, religion, and tradition, but rather the absolute weightlessness of choice. This remains the lure of America for many traditional cultures, or at least for many individuals in those cultures: the world of limitless possibilities. The irony for Americans, however, is that in the fullness of time, the limitless possibilities and the absolute weightlessness of choice became as suffocating as the social restrictions of the Old World. American citizens cannot choose not to participate in the utterly fluid, high-pressure society that the United States has become. Liquid modernity, is, in short, quite rigid: a world of compulsive self-determination. But since it is norms that make life possible, when normlessness becomes the norm, the social order turns into a hall of mirrors. The way of life, says Bauman, may prove to be the greatest discontinuity in human history.

Work

The consequences of liquid modernity show up in many areas of American life, including, notably, the realm of work. It is, after all, the arena in which most of us spend most of our waking hours, and the impact of globalization here is going to be especially telling. What do we find? Within a single generation, almost everything has changed. A young American with moderate education, says Bauman, can expect to change jobs at least eleven times during his or her lifetime. The modern place of employment, he adds, typically feels like a “camping site.” Fleeting forms of association are more useful than long-term connections. The main source of profits are ideas, not material objects, and so everything seems ephemeral. Workers know they are disposable, so see no point in developing any commitment to jobs, workmates, or even to the tasks they perform. Everything seems to be ever new, endlessly produced, consumed, and discarded. Globalization means greater competition, intercommunal (and, often, intracommunal) enmity. The most functional work attitude in such a context is one of cynicism. 

[…] Similar descriptions (sans sociological analysis, for the most part) can be found, among other places, in the Wall Street Journal. Thus reporter Clare Ansberry describes the “just in time” labor force that has to make it “in an ever-more-fluid economy.” In Cleveland, for example, the Lincoln Electric Company shifted salaried workers to hourly clerical jobs. A & R Welding of Atlanta maintains a cluster of welders to work out of state, when needed. In South Carolina, the Nestle Corporation has created an in-house roster of part-time workers “who stick by the telephone to hear if they should report on a given day to assemble frozen chicken dinners.” Flexibility, writes Ansberry, can be a euphemism for less pay (and fewer benefits) and largely random work arrangements, but workers really have no choice: it’s that or nothing. The New Economy takes no prisoners.

A dramatic case study of the new work ethic is provided by computer programmer Ellen Ullman in her memoir, Close to the Machine. This new ethic, she says, is one in which all of life is about “positioning.” Projects and human connections bubble up and collapse with dizzying speed; everyone is running his or her own little virtual company in which skills aren’t cumulative and everyone is disposable. There is constant talk of “teamwork,” but it is a phony courtesy, part of the workplace “process.” In reality, says Ullman, we are all “creatures swimming alone in the puddles of time.” Her description of the people she met along the way is that of nonpersons, people who say and do all the right things but who seem to be completely empty. And all of this, she concludes, is very likely everyone’s future:

We wander from job to job, and now it’s hard for anyone to stay put anymore. Our job commitments are contractual, contingent, impermanent, and this model of insecure life is spreading outward from us. . . . We programmers are the world’s canaries. We spend our time in front of monitors; now look up at any office building, look into living-room windows at night: so many people sitting alone in front of monitors. We lead machine-centered lives; now everyone’s life is full of automated tellers, portable phones, pagers, keyboards, mice. We live in a contest of the fittest, where the most knowledgeable and skilled win and the rest are discarded; and this is the working life that waits for everybody. . . . Where we go the world is following.

An equally disturbing portrait is provided by the American sociologist Richard Sennett in The Corrosion of Character. What is now absent from our lives, he writes, is a sense of narrative coherence. The way we have to live in order to survive in the New Economy has set our inner lives adrift. One can no longer deploy a single set of skills through the course of a working life; in fact, the fastest-growing sector of the American labor force is that of temporary job agencies. The domination of consumer demand has now created a “strategy of permanent innovation.” Skill, craftsmanship, and commitment are dysfunctional in a world in which, according to Bill Gates, one should “position oneself in a network of possibilities.” Such a world, however, might well be regarded as a form of dementia.

[Emphasis his.]

Let’s leave off there on page 17.

Blue Gold: World Water Wars

This is one of my favorite documentaries to share with others, titled “Blue Gold: World Water Wars”:

Anyone know what time it is?  Better start wondering.

And all for what?  For power. Simple as that. For power, greed, money-lust…a desire to achieve ‘god-like’ status among humans.  For what?  You’d have to ask them. Probably because they have a vision of it working out in their favor, perhaps believing their ideologies (if they indeed embrace any) are the cure to what ails humanity. Or perhaps it grows out of contempt for fellow humans. I don’t know. But it is real and serves to teach us the deeper meaning of that which we term “evil.” From what I can tell, it appears evil is frequently born of sheltered, willful ignorance and a sense of special, selective entitlement.

This documentary is also available for viewing on Netflix. To learn more about this documentary, check out the official site here. Quoting from that site:

In every corner of the globe, we are polluting, diverting, pumping, and wasting our limited supply of fresh water at an expediential level as population and technology grows. The rampant overdevelopment of agriculture, housing and industry increase the demands for fresh water well beyond the finite supply, resulting in the desertification of the earth.

Corporate giants force developing countries to privatize their water supply for profit. Wall Street investors target desalination and mass bulk water export schemes. Corrupt governments use water for economic and political gain. Military control of water emerges and a new geo-political map and power structure forms, setting the stage for world water wars.

We follow numerous worldwide examples of people fighting for their basic right to water, from court cases to violent revolutions to U.N. conventions to revised constitutions to local protests at grade schools. As Maude Barlow proclaims, “This is our revolution, this is our war”. A line is crossed as water becomes a commodity. Will we survive?

Why I’m No Longer a Feminist

Now, let me back up to the month of November 2012 when I posted a video titled “Why I’m No Longer a Feminist”:

Probably would help if I added a bit of background information on who I am and what my experience with feminism involved. I originally became aware of feminism’s existence during teenagehood, though I had no direct exposure to it back then aside from television programs and talk in glossy magazines marketed to girls (like Cosmo and Glamour). During my freshman year in college (1999-2000), I purchased my first computer and discovered feminism in greater detail online. Now, I was attending school at Mississippi State University and wasn’t all that sociable with others, so at that time delving into feminism was pretty much strictly limited to the internet, though my husband (now ex) considered himself a feminist and we did discuss topics pertaining to that movement. We both come up with and embraced a libertarian spirit (as products of the same small county), which then dovetailed into supporting women’s rights to do with their own bodies as they see fit.

I remember becoming aware of NARAL and NOW online back when they were offering free kits to anyone who asked that included pro-choice literature and posters to put up around campus, but like I said we lived in Mississippi and my husband staunchly put his foot down on this due to the likelihood of this leading me to be targeted and given hell. This was at a time when there were no abortion clinics in the state, though I am told there now is one.

So I contented myself with learning and reading online, which is when I first came up against a band of feminists who really threw their weight around and ridiculed me and let it be clearly understood that I was naive and ignorant and should sit back and listen and read rather than speak up and interfere. That would’ve been when I was 19. So for a while that’s what I did. I read and listened and a couple years went by.

I moved up to the Midwest once again when I was 21 after my husband and I decided to split. As a young woman single once again, the world appeared to be my oyster, and I went about earning a living and picking back up on continuing my education. Continued reading and listening and then jumped back into the feminist arguments, again mostly online despite living in a much larger, more open-minded city. The reason for that probably has a lot to do with me not knowing a lot of women in person, and those I do know and get along with don’t consider themselves feminists necessarily and aren’t too interested in discussing those sorts of topics. The feminists I did run up against in academia or out in society didn’t seem to have much patience with me or my questions, so not much in-person dialogue took place that I can remember. Wasn’t involved in any local groups and didn’t attend any rallies. Most of my friends tend to be male, and we did and still do discuss feminism from time to time, but the breadth of their understanding of it was that it pertained to women’s reproductive rights, which they all pretty much support. Mostly I tell them what I’ve learned and they take it in. When I’ve asked how feminism has affected their lives, most stated that they don’t see really how it has, aside from being reared to be respectful toward women (as was the norm long before feminism came into existence). So, not much drama occurred there. Had a few verbal bar feuds, as to be expected when we drunks get to running our mouths.

But when I went back online and decided to really get into what all was being said and to speak my piece, I found out just how unpopular my beliefs were. One major source of contention between myself and many feminists I interacted with online revolved around the question of sexual agency. While on one hand they argued that we women have so much power, on the other and at the same time they spoke a great deal about us being victims to violence men can and do inflict upon us, particularly rape. Now, I don’t feel like going into much detail here on my experiences in dealing with men or what life has taught me, but I will say that I’ve always been a strong advocate for women arming themselves and becoming well-acquainted with their weapon of choice so as to be properly able and willing to use it if needed. Seems to me that cuts down significantly on worrying about being victimized when you are in possession of an equalizer. Doesn’t even have to be a gun; tasers and stun guns work too, as do knives and brass knuckles and whatever else happens to be handy. Well, you wouldn’t believe how unpopular of a position that apparently is in some feminist circles. Holy cow.

Now, combine that with my hesitation in accepting the notion that women should walk around scantily clad and expect no repercussions at all (that’s not to say we deserve to be attacked, not at all, but cat-calling is predictable) and you might imagine where those fights led. I still struggle to see their logic, because to me, if I’m out walking around in public half-naked I’d expect back then to have to deal with men’s come-ons. And because I’m no fool when it comes to understanding how some men will treat you when you appear young, dumb, and defenseless, I did make an effort to protect myself. Hell, even a canned air horn is something to consider to draw attention from others if you’re afraid and being confronted by a strange person. My point was that there are options, though I also certainly know that walking around scantily clad isn’t the only way to wind up receiving unwanted male attention. But the issue made over the right to self-defense really stuck in my craw when dealing with a lot of feminists because they were arguing in favor of gun control, which to me seems completely antithetical to their professed goal of remaining safe and secure. If a woman wants to remain safe, why not take power into your hands and do what you can to ensure it? That was my primary argument there. But many of them had jumped on the liberal bandwagon and the Democratic Party pushes for gun control, so they then followed in suit, and I don’t feel very many critically considered what they were advocating there. Because basically that’s arguing in favor of a situation where you have to rely on police protection, and one thing I do know is cops can’t be everywhere all at once. Depending on what neighborhood you live in, they might not even show up after being called. Besides, police are part of a retributive justice system, which is to say they seek out people who have already committed a crime. And my experience dealing with police has shown me that their response can be a mixed bag. Sometimes they care. Sometimes they don’t. Depends on which officer is on duty that day, I suppose. And they surely don’t want to receive a call every time someone feels creeped out by someone else who has not yet perpetrated a crime.

From there we went on to argue about prostitution and pornography and women’s agency in regard to being involved in those forms of employment. There’s lots of disagreement within feminism in relation to the sex industry, though many feminists appeared to take the position that women cannot freely engage in such work because they are being exploited, and even to desire to do such work is a sign of past psychological damage within the woman in question. So, if she wants to earn money engaging in sexual acts, she’s sick or seriously misguided and therefore lacks the agency to decide that for herself, but if she wants to “ho around” for free, that’s perfectly acceptable and nobody better talk bad about it. Okay. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The minority of feminists in support of sex work, those today referred to as “sex positive” feminists (which is a weird label, IMO), argued from the position that sex work somehow leveled the playing field between men and women, as if that were the preferable arrangement for any two people interested in seeking out sex. Some bolstered this with economic arguments, stating that the money is good so therefore that makes it worthwhile to pursue — basically benjamins speak and they listen. And let me say that plenty of the so-called “sex positive” feminists strike me as a bit kooky in their defense of sluttiness. And I don’t mean that to be mean necessarily, just an honest observation, because I see there as being more sides to the argument than feminists were bringing up. Either they’re victims in a male-dominated society or they’re empowered, money-making freak hos doing nothing of greater consequence than businessmen — no in between, no third or fourth possibilities, no deeper thought given to the intricacies of how using one’s body in so intimate a way affects the participants involved in such a transaction. And that’s about where I’d had enough and began backing toward the door. That would’ve been about 2007.

But there were many discussions throughout those years, such as women’s roles in the military, women’s advancement in businesses (with lots of griping and complaining that there aren’t more female CEOs), discussions among ethnic women about how mainstream feminism caters primarily to middle-class white women’s interests (which I do believe was true originally, though ethnic middle-class, college-educated women are being actively brought into the fold nowadays), socioeconomic class divisions with lots of talk on how to allot resources to the poor, the perceived imbalance of educational choices, and, of course, the ongoing debate about whether a stay-at-home mom supported by her husband’s income can even consider herself to be a feminist. I read a lot of people’s opinions, followed countless links and tried to make sense of an untold number of academic journal articles written by self-described feminists. The jargon employed within their movement got to where it turned me off, because patriarchy is a central tenet that you can’t get past, can’t deny, and can’t resolve to virtually anyone’s satisfaction.

What is patriarchy? I’ve come to see it as the old way, meaning the several-thousand-year period marked by societies and cultures being shaped, in part, by special attention paid to patrilineal lineage. That era only recently began to dissolve (100+ years back), something commonly attributed to the first wave of feminists in their securing for women the right to vote, though I tend to believe it was waning prior to that. Why? I don’t know. Probably because religions were already beginning to slowly die out, Abrahamic religions having provided the great narrative for patriarchal societies. With the lessening of that stronghold, cultures become more flexible and paradigms begin to shift. But with change comes chaos, so the trade-off brings with it growing pains.

What we’re left with today is a weird hodge-podge constructed in a past that no longer seems as relevant, updated and retooled again and again since the 1940s by men and women with new objectives, and no one seems to know where to steer this ship. Generally speaking, feminists place what I consider an unwarranted amount of faith in the State and centralized power to realize their dreams and to provide for their protection. Many men seem unsure of what their role is supposed to be anymore, and I can sympathize with their confusion and feelings of being left out of a meaningful position in the new narrative others are busily constructing for the future of society. I feel left out too, but in a different way. I feel like once all the talk about rights settles down, we’ll be left to realize we dropped the ball on our responsibilities to one another, especially a lot of women who believed the horrible Disney-fied lie that they could have it all (a committed partner, children, a demanding career, a healthy sex life, an active social life, exotic vacations, a fulfilling existence and time to enjoy it). They’re being run ragged by their own selves, and it shows. More than that, it affects everyone around them. When locked up in an echo chamber one comes to believe they’re on the right path, but what is it a path to? A fantasy is all it is. And not even that great of one when you really stop and think about it.

When I first took up interest in feminism, it was because I believed in my right to do with my own body as I see fit, and I still feel that way as much, if not more, today. What I discovered I didn’t want to sign up for or take part in was this great lie, this massive experiment in social distortion supposedly in favor of women but in the end appearing to not be truly in favor of hardly anyone. Men are not automatically our enemies, though specific individuals may prove to be, and the same holds true vice versa. Most men are no more guilty of upholding “patriarchy” than are most women, even self-professed feminists. The problem isn’t in men universally, it’s in people, all of us. History swings back and forth over time, favoring some more than others in any given period, but we were all simply born into it and none of us are responsible for having created the past. All we can do now is move forward, and I think that’s a discussion that needs to be brought out to include everyone, not just this sex or that one. This group or movement or that one doesn’t get to decide the fate of all going forward. No. That’s ludicrous. That, in itself, is bigoted, because it pretends that members belonging to one affiliation or another are necessarily more “enlightened” and therefore in the best position to decide for everyone. But plenty of us are deeply unhappy with the options being handed to us and we reject this queer “utopia” others seem intent on striving toward and dragging everyone else along in tow.

There’s plenty more I can say on the topic of feminism, but it will have to wait until another night.

MRM vs. Feminism & Additional Thoughts

In a video I created in January 2013 with the same title, I attempted to argue for why I see the MRM behaving not unlike the feminist movement. It wasn’t a great or well-planned video, but I went ahead and posted it up on YT because the sentiments expressed are true to how I feel. Some further details unfortunately were left out and were added in a follow-up video, which I’ll also post below.

Okay, so to spell out the comparison being made in the first video.

Feminism

  1. Has encouraged a spike in the divorce rate, in part by convincing women that they don’t need men and by helping elevate the status of the single mother in the eyes of society.
  2. Is instrumental in creating a situation where women increasingly depend on the State to meet their financial needs. Examples include economic assistance for single-mother-headed households and affirmative action legislation creating incentives for the hiring of women in choice positions. Women also depend on the State to provide for their defense, as in the case of domestic violence situations (because feminism asserts a non-violence stance that excludes the right to self-defense via the utilization of firearms or other weaponry).
  3. Women’s studies courses have abounded on university campuses over the last few decades.
  4. Granted women the right to abandon children (up to a certain age, depending on state laws) at hospitals or “safe havens” without requiring any further involvement, financial or otherwise, in their children’s lives and upbringing.

Men’s Rights Movement

  1. Discourages men from marrying, citing that the law benefits women at the expense of men and claiming that prenuptials don’t provide enough enough certainty when it comes to protecting one’s assets.
  2. Men are turning to the State in an effort to have laws drafted in their favor or to have existing laws enforced against female offenders proportionately. This seems fine and reasonable on the surface, but underneath we see the same drive toward creating a legal contest of one-upmanship. I argue that more laws on the books doesn’t ensure “equality,” whatever that terms stands to mean anymore.
  3. Men are dissuaded from acting without legal backing for fear of the law being used in turn against them and their interests.
  4. Men’s studies courses are now being proposed on a few college campuses.
  5. Given rise to men proclaiming the right to abandon children created without their express verbal consent (nevermind their sexual consent), leaving the mothers solely responsible for the children’s care and upbringing, which would lead more mothers toward greater dependence on the State in the absence of fathers.

I went on to say that both “camps” appear to share the goal to relinquish women and children to become financially dependent on the State. In such a scenario, the powers of the State are expanded to meet these expectations, which is a major concern for those of us who are libertarian-minded and strongly believe the government is already encroaching too much into our lives and families.

Feminism and the MRM sow seeds of distrust between the sexes and encourage battling it out through introducing legislation and in the courts. Both use children as a means of punishing and/or extorting partners. Both promote agendas that assuredly will expand the role and scope of government interference in our personal lives. Both proclaim to be about promoting “equality under the law,” even when taken to absurd extremes that are proving undesirable to most of us, male or female.

Leaving aside the notes I had written up for that video, I went on to talk about the grave and obvious difference between terminating a pregnancy and abandoning children already brought into full existence. And of course my views proved controversial and unacceptable to some who accused me of “using” the plight of children to defend women maintaining the upper hand in this ordeal, as is a popular feminist tactic (so I was told). So let me attempt to break it down like this. Here is my position in a nutshell:

  • As much as male and female adults and their rights do matter, those rights do not automatically trump concerns for any offspring they may bring into existence.
  • Children ARE NOT items or objects to be compared with a boat or house or any other non-living thing. Children are human beings in their own right and have needs that differ from those of adults that if not tended to may very likely result in children growing up into resentful, poorly adapted, emotionally stunted adults whom we all must live with. Poor quality upbringing affects the child in question, first and foremost, but over time it comes to affect those he or she comes into contact with and wider society as well. That’s no small matter.
  • There is much more to caring for children than providing for them financially. If this is not deeply grasped by prospective parents, I urge you (man or woman) to not breed. Love asks of us to 1.) genuinely care about, 2.) be responsible for, 3.) gain knowledge of, and 4.) respect the individuality of the person we claim love for. Simply providing child support payments does not qualify as love any more than simply coming home to someone every night. Love is a much deeper experience, and I find it is rarely if ever even mentioned in discussions of this sort, despite it being an integral component in the development of any person’s well-being.
  • If we can’t resolve these matters among ourselves, interpersonally and as communities, we will invite more government involvement in our lives and especially in the lives of our young. This is unacceptable for a great many reasons and most assuredly will not improve the situation for anyone, save for the selfish few of child-rearing age at this point in time who care more about doing what they want than tending to their responsibilities to persons they help generate.
  • Rights DO entail responsibilities, and the two concepts cannot be divorced from one another. To attempt to do so is to make both rights and responsibilities hollow ideas that no longer hold water.

Rights are protected by us — that entails us making responsible choices in defense of our rights. Take for example the right to vote. You can claim to have it all day long, but how do you ensure your vote is counted? If you cannot do this, the notion of having a right to vote means little. Take as a second example the right to bear arms. If one doesn’t bear arms or defend others’ right to do so, it becomes a moot point. Another example is the right to free speech. If we tolerate some speech being labeled as “hate speech” and thence outlawed, how free can speech really be? So circling back, we have the right to protect ourselves to the best of our ability from unwanted pregnancies. But so too do children have the need to be raised up with people who want and care about them, because otherwise what quality is there in an unwanted, unhappy existence? If you realize you do not have any interest in caring for a child, it is your responsibility to do everything in your power to ensure that unwanted pregnancy doesn’t become the outcome. Men do possess options here, as many if not more than women possessed prior to the legalization of abortion and the availability of modern contraceptive options. On that end, it is a practical consideration, much as I understand some people think it to be unfair and lacking. But the alternative to seeing it this way is to shirk responsibility and to allow the bulk of consequences to fall onto the only innocent party in the equation: the child created. That is truly unfair and unnecessary.

People speak of the importance of agency, and yet when it comes to sex it’s as if everyone puts their blinders on. Women currently have more options at their disposal to protect against unwanted pregnancies and should do better with putting them to use, but knowing that does not absolve men from their own responsibility in protecting themselves and children they don’t wish to co-create.

We each work with what we can. Nobody promised us a rose garden. Life isn’t perfect, nor will it ever be, nor can it be made 50/50 between the sexes at all times and on all levels. That’s not a world I’d even wish to see, because that would require a form of extremism that undoubtedly would drive us all up the wall. My goal wasn’t to be mean to any of you out there on the internet, but I have to take a stand and argue on behalf of the silent party in this battle between the sexes, because children lack a voice and can’t make an appeal to you until after being brought into existence.

My final argument on this subject is that this is no world to bring people into who will have no one to rely on, no one to protect them and their interests, no one to place their needs as a top priority. To simply assume that one parent or the other will suffice, that your involvement is not necessary, is a lie people are telling themselves to be absolved of guilt. If you’re not there, how will you know if the child you helped create is being raised right? How will you know if your child’s needs are being met or if Momma is off with her boyfriends, leaving baby at home neglected? It is a horrible lie to pretend that you, as co-creator, have no stake in that and no responsibility for allowing that reality to go on unexamined. I can completely understand people’s desire to not father children unless it is expressly intended, and this is why I urge you to do what is in your power to safeguard your decision and to prevent a new life from coming into being and potentially winding up damaged and full of despair. Because that’s no life for anyone to have to live. Not anyone. We, adults of today, have the power to do better than that.