Thursday, January 14, 2016

Family Values = The Value of Families

The political class talks a lot about families. Even Hillary, who barely knows what a family is, duckspeaks about them, usually implying that the only thing allowing families to even survive is lots and lots of government interference and assistance. She has it backasswards, as usual. The existence of the family is the only thing making a stable government possible. Here, of course, is where I depart from the slogan-thinking of my libertarian friends. You know, the individualism thing. Actually, we're not individualistic animals in a biological sense. Can't be. Because a human being can't survive to adulthood without the assistance of adults, almost always parents or near relatives, until he himself attains adulthood. We're not reptiles, who mostly hatch and set out on their own without any upbringing.  "That's just common sense," say some of these libertarians. Well, common sense is a rarity, especially among liberals and liberals who think they're libertarians, so we need to be explicit about that. The family is the foundation of humanity, and the nuclear family seems to be the foundation of the most civilized portion of humanity.

So a sensible polity in the West is one that interferes as little as possible with the natural nuclear family structure that has been common with us at least since the Roman Empire. And, for that matter, it should include laws that encourage the formation and stability of the nuclear family. For some time now, on the other hand, we've had a government that does the opposite, making divorce easier and easier, jumping in to replace the male breadwinner with handouts and regulations, and the female maternal function with more welfare for everybody and transferring social and moral upbringing to the public schools.

Bob Wallace says things better than I do. This is from Uncle Bob's Treehouse [link]:

Failure to Launch

"Class," if it's defined by anything, is about the abuse of people, or lack of it. We have a whole class of no-class bottom-feeders who do little more than attack people, pretend they are victims, and blame all their problems on innocent people. The havoc these people wreak is astonishing.
About 15 years ago I started encountering the phrase, "failure to launch." It referred to a young person who didn't "launch" into adult life.
I've met more than one of these people. Some I know are 35 years old, with eight-year-old children, who spend their time playing video games on the TV. They don't have real jobs, just some part-time ones, sometimes at fast-food places or temporary agencies. It's almost as if all they want to do is play. Were they not allowed to play as kids?
I know one who did have a good job driving a highway rig, but gave it up after eight months because the job so "so lonely I couldn't stand it." I actually understand that. He wasn't cut out to be a long-haul driver. 
What gives here, and why do I see so many of these types?
I see meaning, importance and community as being the most important things in life. If you don't have those, you've got nothing.
Most of the failure to launch adults I know come from broken families, with absent fathers and abusive mothers - and the mothers didn't even know they were abusive. They very rarely do.
One 35-year-old I know, who has a nine-year-old boy, told me his mother hit him with "anything she could get hold of." His father wasn't around because of divorce, and the idiot mother got custody. He works at a fast-food place. He lives with a family whose daughter he went to high school with (who still lives with her family), and sees her as his sister. He told me that. He sees her as part of the family he never had.
If you want to destroy people - destroy society - then start with the families. That's been noticed for thousands of years.
Forty years ago this kid would have been middle-­class, since there were many middle-class jobs available. Not anymore.
I estimate his IQ as about 107.
The lower-classes are lower-class because they have lower-class mentalities. I was raised with these people, God knows. Not much can be done about them, except they, too, need high-paying jobs. It does help.
What has happened today is that men have become marginalized. Not all, of course, but a lot.
It's hard even being middle-class anymore. I know a man who wanted to be a law professor, but when he talked to the dean was informed he didn't stand a chance "because you're white." Incompetent women and minorities are by law given preference (Affirmative Action means "white men need not apply") - and this isn't the first time I've seen this. It won't be the last, either.
Most men get their meaning, importance and community out of their jobs and families - what the loon Freud actually got right when he referred to the importance of "love and work."
Now work has been taken from most men and given to those who do little and created nothing, and love and family are circling the drain like dead bugs. These things have always been under attack by certain people - and for the past 40 years or so these attacks have been enshrined in law.
Does society - and women - understand what's going on with the rejection and marginalization of men? Do women really think they can maintain and run advanced civilization - or any civilization at all? You have to look no further than Hillary Clinton, who's done nothing but ride on her husband's coattails.
I'm going to quote Carl Jung again - women are biologically indispensable because they make babies, and men are culturally indispensable because they make everything else.
Without men, no civilization, no technology - nothing, just grass huts.
I've pointed out before leftism is not about equality but instead about "the murder of the Father," which means men. Out of envy more than anything else. That accounts for the marginalization and rejection of men - to bring them down, to crush them, to destroy them, even if the enviers destroy themselves.
God is also the Father, which leftism, being atheist and materialistic, wants to destroy and replace with the worship of the State, whichs means Man. Or, today, perhaps Woman. Either way, it's a catastrophe.
But then, we always have catastrophes. I don't particularly mind that. You have to not let it bother you. It doesn't do any good to get emotionally involved in these things. Try to fix them, yes, but not get upset at them.

Quibcag: This is the Kudo family, from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン)

1 comment:

  1. "But then, we always have catastrophes. I don't particularly mind that. You have to not let it bother you. It doesn't do any good to get emotionally involved in these things. Try to fix them, yes, but not get upset at them."
    Which is why men don't "do" feelings. Expression of emotions other than rage are profoundly disapproved on the spear side of the fire, whether negative (fear, disgust, despair) or positive (affection, loyalty, enthusiasm). The male is expected to "maintain an even strain," to show nothing too much, to contain himself.

    The eternal feminist carping about how men should "get in touch with their feelings" has always impressed as akin to carrying a lighted sparkler into a warehouse full of loose nitrocellulose.

    They have no real idea of what they're trying to ignite, do they?