All Western nations are matriarchies incapable of organising themselves to repel invaders. Instead, they indulge in the feminine vice of denial.
What form does your denial take?
a) The Western nation you live in is not a matriarchy.
b) The Western nation you live in is a matriarchy, but you don't care to discuss the viability of liberalism properly even if you are part of the political establishment because you will soon be dead and don't care what happens to your society after you are dead because you are an atheist and nihilist with no biological investment in the next generation.
i) You have offspring, but lost touch with them a long time ago and don't care what happens to them.
ii) You do have offspring, but you still don't care what happens to them as long as you can go to your grave with your liberal beliefs intact.
20 comments:
Rather than thinking of Western societies in terms of matriarchy I believe gynocentrism to be a better and more accurate word. The world revolves around women because men want to know them in the Biblical sense, to put it bluntly.
But why? Whether it be patriarchy or matriarchy, men will desire women. Calling a society patriarchy or matriarchy means making a moral judgement on these societies, which is precisely my intention.
what are your thoughts on evolutionary theory? All nihilists and atheists pretty much fully subscribe to it, so the argument that they do not care for their progeny and the future state of the world is null and void.
If they do not support marriage and family values, then they are nihilists and their views should be ignored because they would support policies that would undermine marriage and family values.
we have 8 billion people on this Earth. The number has grown eerily fast from 1900’s. I don’t think anyone will be ditching “family values” any time soon....
@MS You haven't noticed that the West is now a matriarchy?
What evolutionary theory are you referring to? Darwin's? Or is there another one you are referring to?
Evolution by natural selection, yes. And all the work that has been done to expand its scope in the last 150+ years. It dictates organisms to procreate and preserve offsprings for a successful propagation of our genetic material onto the next generation, and so on. It’s just a less romantic way of saying, family and marriage are evolutionarily imperative, thus the family unit in my opinion is not in danger.
I would like, however, to know where your views are coming from? Are you convinced that the Western civilization is collapsing, or is it merely going through a metamorphosis, albeit painful?
What work has been done to expand the scope of what over the last 150 years?
People will always have offspring because they will have the urge to have sex with each other. Marriage is about regulating who is allowed to have sex with whom and its purpose is eugenic. Any society that does not enforce the rules of marriage and good parenting will soon become a degenerate matriarchy and I am saying that the West is now a degenerate matriarchy because of the sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting that liberalism has been promoting.
Even if Western civilisation as we know it collapses, there will still be people living in the West living under a new moral and political system. Since Christianity has been failing for centuries, its obvious replacement is Islam - when the West finally rejects Christianity and Liberalism after acknowledging that both have failed. I can't imagine that it would be Hinduism or Buddhism which have never amounted to much.
oh dear me, I hope not. I am not a -“phobe” of any kind, but I surely do not envision the West thriving under a theocracy. Religions are, I’m afraid, torches of meaning and purpose from the bygone age, an age when we were solipsistic and selfish beyond belief. Everything revolves around us, everything is for US. Ludicrous. In this sense Islam is too, with all due respect, a product of a bygone age. I agree with you that there needs to be a practice of self-restraint and moderation, but please, can we get to it without instituting a celestial dictatorship?
Religion was, is and will always be an opiate, used by us to dull our fears of death and insignificance.
I do not for a second doubt the efficacy of religion as a cornerstone of commonality and congregations, which are beautiful and integral features of the human psyche. I mean, we have been doing it for thousands of years, in caves, grottos, temples, churches and the like.
Do you subscribe to the belief that humanity cannot be moral without there being God or some such?
Moral systems (including secular political ideologies as well as religions) are also in a Darwinian struggle for survival against other competing moral systems eg Christianity v Islam or Liberalism v Islam. The advantage of modern civilisation is that this does not have to be done through war any more but through rational philosophical discourse.
and here I wholeheartedly agree with you, we can have effective change without bloodshed nowadays, and that should be all that matters.
You must have noticed that secular political ideologies have not lasted as long as religion. Why not find something that will last instead of making the rules up as we go along so often that even our leaders do not know what they are and often get confused, as we have noticed all too often under lockdown? The whole point of theocracy is that universal and eternal laws are followed from generation to generation from a source we trust so each new generation is not forced to relearn the lessons of history. In a stable society, we get to keep the knowledge we acquire and build on it. If it offers fewer laws and lower taxes, what have you got against it?
the society who does good deeds ONLY because of a prospect of divine punishment , is not a good society. I believe the answer lies in education and instillment of compassion and empathy and in nurturing an inquisitive mind. To be riddled with questions is far better, than to be acting out a self-righteous dogma.
Humans are fallible, and we know it. Yet we still try to live like we know it all...
Isn't Political Correctness a kind of dogma and virtue signalling a kind of hypocrisy?
The best kind of moral education is the moral education we get from religion, isn't it? Now we just have to choose our moral system.
"the society who does good deeds ONLY because of a prospect of divine punishment is not a good society,"
It's good enough for me. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.
it seems we will never shed our hypocritical skins. Precisely what makes me drawn to existentialism I guess.
The Good Samaritan in the Bible is a perfect story that underlines that morality is inherent and us, it doesn’t necessarily need to be explicitly taught through an overarching framework. The Samaritan who the story refers to is a man who is doing a good deed , and that is before the time of Christianity and “its moral teaching”... makes you think, doesn’t it?
What is the appeal of existentialism for you?
I don’t think existentialism has any appeal whatsoever. It is merely a recognition of the general futility of existence in relation to what other frameworks of meaning offer, which IS appealing but alas, cannot be true.
I’m sure it’s just a phase for me, though. I don’t see a lifetime of wallowing in meaninglessness of it all appealing.
Life may not have THE meaning , but it can sure have A meaning, and a good one at that. One that can serve both the community and personal pursuit for learning, exploration and adventure.
So you are an atheist. Someone who worships the Abrahamic God would believe God created us for a purpose and to be in good standing with Him, we would have to obey His laws, or He will punish us. General belief in this narrative would make people more law-abiding.
I’m sorry to say this but with this mindset we’d still be thinking that stars are God’s cherubim flying around and that we are the center of the universe. All I’m willing to grant is that theism is an appealing and somewhat useful, but limitlessly dangerous illusion.
Do Jews strike you as being stupid people? (Cherubim come from the Torah.) I really hadn't seen cherubim as being a "limitlessly dangerous illusion".
Post a Comment