This is an important one. So I want you to pour yourself a martini, get a nice comfy couch and light up a cigar. You'll be strapped in for a while on this one.
Though traffic has improved drastically when I started posting about the Manosphere, I occasionally get the question,
"Why did you switch from economics to The Manosphere/Feminism?"
or
"Why did you abandon economics for all this Manosphere stuff?"
And the answer is simple.
I haven't.
While a higher percentage of my posts could be deemed "Manosphere" the reality is that economics and The Manosphere (or the fight against feminism) are actually one and the same. And not only are they one and the same, I contend the most cutting-edge, evolutionary developments in economics are not in central banking, nor international finance, nor the demise of fiat currency. The furthest, most deepest front lines of this economic war between communism and freedom is where The Manosphere and feminism are duking it out.
Right off the bat it is not obvious how battling feminism is related, let alone, part of economics, let alone "
the cutting-edge" of economics. And in all intellectual honesty it wasn't until I sat down to figure out this post did I realize how they are indeed one and the same. But what originally alluded me to think the two were related was the fact my "transition" from economics to "Manosphere" was very natural. So natural, I didn't even realize it was happening. So natural my readers didn't know it was happening. All of the sudden my blog, as well as others, were writing about both economics and the Manosphere, suggesting the two were at minimum VERY closely related and tied together, at least philosophically.
So what makes them the same? Well why don't you take a big swig of your highly alcoholic drink, take a seat and be prepared to be floored as I lay down some serious "Super Awesome Economic Genius" (TM).
First, we have to ask ourselves what is the most important thing in life to humans? Some will say riches, some will say wealth, some will say health, but those are all wrong answers. The correct answer is "other humans." The reason why is that out of EVERYTHING on this planet, humans are the most interesting, entertaining, dynamic and intellectual things we'll ever run into.
For example, have the most advanced XBox video gaming system out there. It is still finite. It is still non-sentient. It cannot think, it cannot challenge you, and cannot engage you beyond what it is programmed to do. It is limited. The only reason it CAN challenge you (within the confines of what it's programmed to) is because OTHER HUMANS programmed it that way. Furthermore, what do most people with video games do to maximize their fun? They go online and PLAY AGAINST OTHER HUMANS, suggesting it is human interaction, not a pre-programmed pixelated campaign to kill Nazi's or zombies that provides genuine stimulation to people.
Another example - when do you cry? Chances are when you ding your car or sell your boat, etc., you don't cry. But when a family member or a loved one dies, you cry. Why? Because a human is the only thing you can really love, as well as love you back. You could even make the same case for pets in that pets, though not as advanced as humans, have some of the same characteristics. They are not finite, they are not programmed, dogs certainly have personalities, they are dynamic (meaning they don't do the same thing over and over again like a robot), and you can interact with them. A Ferrari, you can't.
In other words, have all the things you want. Super computers, Ferrari's, an awesome career, you name it, there is nothing more advanced and engaging that another human being. It's what we're programmed to respond to, it's what we're programmed to be intellectually stimulated by, other humans are the most important thing in our lives.
Second, since human beings are the most important things in our lives, which ones mean the most to us? Of course we don't PERSONALLY KNOW every one of the 6 billion humans on the planet, but the ones that are important to us fall into three categories - family, friends and loved ones.
It is here we must discern between men and women because, after all, we are trying to tie economics to the MANosphere. Additionally, we have to make some assumptions that are not going to apply to every man in the world, but will hold in general. Specifically, we must discern the order or hierarchy in which the average man values the above three - family, friends and loved ones.
In general, the average man is going to love
His wife first. Sometimes TIED with his children for first, which means HIS FAMILY comes first.
His children second
And parental-extented family TIED with friends for third.
This doesn't mean he wouldn't lay his life down for his friends. This doesn't mean he would abandon his friends once he found a woman (though that does happen). This is just ordering these for the sake of intellectual discussion.
Regardless, the point is the single most important thing in a man's life is his wife and children aka HIS FAMILY (not his parents, cousins, siblings, aunts, etc.)
Third, since a man's wife and children are the most important things in life for him, how does a man go about getting a family? He has to attract a woman to become his wife. And how does he do that?
He goes out, kicks ass and takes names.
The "kicking ass" and "taking names" primarily manifesting itself in the form of economic production.
This means he goes to school, learns a trade, stays in shape, develops a personality, develops hobbies, invents, creates, innovates, invests, enriches himself and does everything within his power to increase his marketability to attract a woman. In short he becomes the most powerful economically productive unit in all of society.
However, it doesn't stop there. It's not like he's running a marathon, passes the finish line and then quits once he attracts a mate. He must keep going and continue being the powerful economic production unit he is because chances are there will be little kinder that need taking care of.
So in short, the majority of economic production in this economy is incented and prompted by a man's strong psychological and instinctual desire to compete for a woman, secure a mate and then start and maintain a family, resulting in an economic model that looks like this:
However, there are some significant ancillary benefits to having effectively every man in the country working this hard, being this creative and being this productive. Namely pure economic dominance for the US. With all men engaged in the economy, working their best, trying their best, uninhibited by government regulation, taxation or politics, there was no doubt which country was the #1 economic power in the world. Additionally, in being the #1 economic power in the world, the US could afford not just the largest,but the most advanced military in the world ensuring our safety. So while the above model is on the micro-economic level, the macro-economic model looks like this:
Now here is where it gets interesting.
Let's just say, "hypothetically" you are an enemy of the United States (or any free and successful country). You are a communist psy-ops specialist in the Soviet Union. Or heck, just a communist ideologue from the Frasier School that wants to ruin the US. Whatever your origins, you are a communist that wants to destroy the US. You envy its economic wealth, you envy it's economic production, you hate how it's dominant and #1, and it really grinds your gears they did it by letting people be free and do what they want. You know you can't take on the US militarily, so how do you bring about its demise efficiently, effectively and cheaply?
Well if you look at the two charts you'll see two bottlenecks or weak spots than can bring the whole thing down.
You target the wife/women or the family. PREFERABLY the wife/women because that's the first bottleneck before a family is created.
And now your are starting to see why feminism, The Manosphere and economics are related. Since the majority of this country's (an any other free country's) economic production is based on a man's desire to live a happy life by getting married and (sometimes) having children, if you can destroy the quality and caliber of women, let alone the incentive to get married or have children, you can destroy the economic productive capacity of the United States, and thus the country itself. Thus, you see that feminism really isn't about "helping women." It is nothing more than an thinly veiled economic and political attack against the US, freedom and capitalism. This is why I call it "Killing the American Muse."
I didn't know what a "muse" was, until I read this
Sinfest comic and looked it up. A muse is (in societal terms) a woman that instills creativity, innovation and determination in a man. ie-any babe that stirs our souls and we think might be marriage material. You see this all the time where if a hot babe walks by men suck in their guys, puff out their chests and do whatever they can to impress her. However, to be a true muse you must not just be good-looking, but also inspire the man, incentive him to do great things, work hard, etc., which requires you are nice, kind, witty, charming, and
supportive. The qualities and characteristics of a woman that makes her a good wife, creating the saying "behind every successful man there is a woman."
Of course, if you look at what feminism has done and intends to do to our women, you can see it is in COMPLETE opposition to these qualities and traits. You are not supposed to support the man. You are not to help him out. He is the enemy. He is your oppressor, you are not a team. You will co-lead. He will compromise. You will be difficult, you will be belligerent, you will get in his face, you will nag, you will whine, you will complain, you will make demands. You entitled girlfriend! You will have a career, ef the family and ef him, you can have it all, test-tube babies, turkey baster babies, career comes first, I'm a cougar, I can date younger, EPL, Sex and the City, 40 is the new 25, I'm a heroic single mom, you go grrrrl. Vote for higher taxes, men should pay more, we're oppressed, the wage gap, evil patriarchy, free day care, free health care, free education, Obama's pecks, won't somebody please think of the children,
I have my masters, where's my cushy 9 months a year government job? Big is beautiful, you're so shallow for liking skinny girls, you should love me for me, shame on you for liking that type of girl, we're going to shove fat acceptance down your throats.
Well how the hell is THAT kind of muse going to instill ANYTHING in a guy but sheer disgust?
Simple, it isn't. Feminism never intended to "improve" the American Muse. Feminism is nothing more than a cover for communists to destroy it and thus destroy your incentive to produce.
The question is, though, are they succeeding? And the answer is sadly yes.
In corrupting and destroying the quality and caliber of the average American woman, these veritable communists have completely disincentived men from participating in getting married, creating families and forming careers. Men are getting married much later, and some, not at all because of the various legal and financial risks involved. Men are having less children not just because they can't afford it in today's economic times, but BOTH parents MUST have careers! Children be damned. Worse though, (for the rest of society anyway) is that men are completely abandoning their traditional male roles and checking out of society altogether. Not that they aren't dating. Not that they aren't working, but they're not "manning up" as so many bewildered western women would like them to. They are realizing just how little money it takes to support one man and choosing the path of least resistance. They are living at home, not going to school, not bothering working hard, not trying their best, not inventing vaccines, not becoming doctors and not aiming to "achieve something greater." They are
making just enough money to get by, live their lives, smoke some cigars, drive some motorcycles, service their needs and then die. Thus, the new micro-economy is looking like this:
Pay particular note to several items in the new economic model.
1. The amount of green (economic production) is a lot less. This is in part because the guy no longer has any calling to be a husband or a father. That job has been replaced by the government. The guy no longer has anything to do with the "mom" or the "children" and therefore only needs to produce the amount of economic production that is necessary to support himself.
2. Also note the significant amount of "faux" economic production. Namely the welfare spending of the government and the "make work government jobs" that are disproportionately filled by women. Also, notice such an
economy of nothing but teachers, social workers, therapists, counselors, etc. is unsustainable, thereby requiring additional financing by the Chinese (again, not real economic production).
3. Notice the disconnect from the guy. The guy is standing alone, separate from the upper half. This means he is not only alienated from the economy, but also socially alienated. He has no family, he has no children, and if he does, thanks to divorce chances are he is more or less removed from that as well. He may as well be removed from this entire economy and country, and this shows in more and more men looking overseas for not just jobs, but families and lives.
4. I didn't draw it, but the upper half of the economy will inevitably demand the "guys" below pay more in taxes to support the government-daddy-hubby matrix. More schools, more health care, free day care, etc. etc., just look at what the feminists and communists are clamoring for and you'll see. Additionally, this only provides further incentive for the guys below to work less, if not, collect a government check themselves, if not consider green pastures in other economies.
Ultimately though, the above model results in something that is loathed by BOTH ardent feminists and religious conservative types - the HATED Peter Pan Syndrome Man or "Manchild."
With their primary incentive (women) to engage in economic production eliminated why should they? Without a potential future wife, let alone children, they can stay at home and bang on their drums all day because the average man needs a mere fraction of the money to survive and support himself than the average woman does. Oddly enough, men seem to be OK with this. It's other people that are having the problems.
The feminists/communists are pissed because these naive men were supposed to keep on working to pay the taxes to support their socialist utopia (though I doubt most feminists think that much about budgetary economics and fiscal policy).
Religious types are angry because these men aren't "manning up" and creating more Christians/Muslims/Jews/Etc.
Women are angry because "
why can't I find a maaaaaan?" And "
where have all the good men gone!? Why, I have my triple masters in social work and I'm an independent strong woman! You know, that's what it is! Men are sexist pigs who are just intimidated by a strong, independent woman like me! You probably want one of those hot, long legged, big boobed women! Well, you know what, you're shallow! If you don't like me and my muffin top, then you're not good enough for me!"
Meanwhile today's marrying-age man (most likely VERY aware of the divorce his father went through in the 80's/90's) is noticing some of the benefits of bachelorhood, XBox and scotch.
Regardless, the larger point is not the socio-romantic consequences of the "Man Child" or "Peter Pan Syndrome." It's the economic consequences. Communists, poorly dressed as feminists, have taken the one thing that truly matters and has given men reason to live throughout history away from them- a wife, and consequently a family. Without that incentive men have no reason to work hard, innovate, create or excel except for themselves. Some, yes, will go onto try hard and create riches for themselves, but most others will merely create enough economic production to "get by" pursuing leisure over labor (besides, with this economy, like they have a choice). This wreaks havoc on the economy in that by taking out that one bottleneck (women) feminists have effectively sent the US economic engine into a coma, producing a mere fraction of what it's capable of doing.
Ergo, we here in the Manosphere aren't "bashing women" because it's a "he-man woman's hater club." We aren't here because we find the battle of the sexes interesting. And we aren't here because we're whining. We're here for economic purposes. We are identifying, warning people about, and assailing the single largest economic threat to not just this economy and other free-market economies, but to freedom across the globe. Feminism is NOT about women, it is a Trojan Horse for communism. And all the accusations in the world of us being "sexist" or "misogynist" will never stop us from pointing that out and exposing feminism for the evil it truly is.
Hey, did you like this post? Then go buy something (that you have to buy anyway) on Amazon.com. The Captain gets a commish and it keeps him from having to work a real job in banking, and keeps him writing good stuff like this. Besides, it pisses off all his previous banker employers that he's successful and they're stuck dealing with problem loans and collecting collateral.
