Men in a matriarchy are despised by their women so much that they actively want to destroy their own civilisation to show their hatred of their men. But these men are either too stupid to realise it, or too frightened to challenge the matriarchy, or just don't care because they have no biological investment in the next generation, being childless bachelors, or just don't give a damn what their badly parented offspring, grandchildren or descendants will think of them as men who never defended a principle because they are materialists who do not understand or care about such concepts as morality or posterity even if they happen to be a philosophy professor.
In a matriarchy, nothing is fit for purpose.
Philosophy departments do not teach anything useful, philosophy courses are not about teaching or defining wisdom but about wasting time talking nonsense in a society where no man will ever defend a principle. Indeed, men no longer know what a principle is, much less what it is for.
It is just as well that such a degenerate society will soon be extinct.
When men become women, who will defend the women?
12 comments:
How will society become "extinct"?
There will always be people around even after your civilisation falls. A society becomes extinct after revolution when a new order is imposed, or after conquest when a new one replaces it using a new moral or political system.
Thank you for clearing up the "how".
There are many revolutions - for example, we are here using the internet revolution, aswell as the social media revolution, both of which have made massive changes to society - so which specific "civilisation" or "society" is teetering on the brink?
I think liberal democracy is going to be taken out with the trash after it died on 3 November 2020.
If that is the date for the US Presidential Election, then there are plenty more aspects of what is loosely called "liberal democracy" that seem healthy, with a big covid qualification. At the very least, that more people as a percentage of the electorate came out to vote since the 1900 election despite the unprecedented pandemic, to me at least suggests that voters still think that that small part of what liberal democracy can mean is healthier than ever.
But democracy has always been limited by the nature of the economy aswell as by international economics, it is limited also by national security concerns and by wider issues of sovereignty, as it is too by people's other, non-political interests.
Liberal democracy cannot be said to be working if you have to steal the election to get the result you want.
hmm, isn't that a moot point at best? When the losing party voted in the Senate to approve the College decision, is there sufficient evidence to state that the election was stolen?
You don't think it is at all suspicious that the Guardian of the Constitution, SCOTUS, refused to even hear the evidence for Trump's legal challenge?
No, I don't think it's suspicious. The Court just wouldn't try the case there and then in January without clear and overwhelming evidence brought before it. It might look at it in October if a proper case can be composed, rather than a decidedly patchy and conspiracy-laden farrago. In the interim, there are plenty of cases at state level, but none so far have proved anything substantial.
Not being a Trump supporter, you would say that.
My study of American Politics was a long time ago, but the Supreme Court is not unlike other courts, with a big backlog of cases, and so, like our own Director of Public Prosecutions (Keir Starmer, Labour Leader, was DPP before entering Parliament), has to determine whether requests for hearings have got sufficient evidence to warrant its time. If any cases percolate up from the states, or if in October the Supreme Court itself thinks there's a case to hear, then it will hear it.
The system isn't broken, there's no conspiracy among the 9 members to do Trump down, 3 of whom were appointed by him, and 3 by the Bushes.
Wanting Biden to be President, it would suit you to think that.
Post a Comment