To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task.~ Frederick Nietzsche
Someone posted my recent blog post, The Feminization of Everything, on Reddit yesterday, and some other people posted a link to my article on other blogs, resulting in the single biggest day of blog traffic I’ve had on any blog I’ve hosted.
I’m not sure if it was done as a joke, as a prod, or as a genuine contribution to a string, but the person posted my article under the “feminism” subreddit. Of course, this subreddit is largely populated by feminists and my article is receiving some interesting comments. Actually, it hasn’t received one positive comment, though some frightened individuals appreciate my article, as it’s received twice as many “like’ votes as dislikes. It is #3 in the “hot” tab under feminism, and #1 under the “controversial” tab.
I have never posted to Reddit, never used it to increase blog traffic. When I post links to my articles, it is usually because I want honest input from people I trust or know; I’m willing to see others’ views, and I want to know the weaknesses of my own arguments. Many times, blogging is a very inferior way of expressing one’s views on issues, as they tend to be written spur-of-the-moment. A book would be better. I don’t handle my blog in a professional manner, though perhaps I should.
One comment on Reddit stated that my article seemed fascist. Another called it a “tantrum” and “junk”. One more implored others not to read the article at all, apparently afraid some may find some good in it. I’m not sure if I should be honored or dismayed by this person’s opinion. I lean towards being honored. The last 5 years of my life have provided ample opportunity for self-examination, a crucible of honesty with myself. I realize my weaknesses, my strengths. I have something to say, I see problems in the world, and every so often a person comes along who can’t help but obsess about the tragedy of it all. Such is my melancholic personality.
Are my views fascist? I’ve asked the same question myself. And I’m willing to concede they are at some level. But it’s almost meaningless to me. The only reason it’s not completely meaningless is because I know I’ve made the right people uncomfortable. Change for the better rarely occurs without pain and discomfort. The term fascism is as meaningless to me as the word “drug”. What kind of drug, aspirin or Methamphetamine? A single word cannot probe the intricacies of reality.
I regard the modern world as incredibly unauthentic, a poseur propped us by the rich daddies of yesteryear who did most of the work. Acting as children, we play make believe in the mansion built by our forefathers. The mansion is crumbling for lack of maintenance.
I won’t spend time writing about the misuse and overuse of the term, “fascist.” The criticisms of the lazy usage of the word have become as cliche’ as the word itself. I will say however, that if someone wishes to insult me with a commonly misused and misunderstood word, “reactionary” would be more appropriate. I would not deny the label.
Surprisingly, I found the definition that best suited me, not in Websters, but in the online Urban Dictionary:
One who supports Reaction in opposition to the general progressive Western zeitgeist, often accompanied by a sense that the expansion of democratic politcs has made life in general much worse either in absolute terms, or measured by what should have been achievable with modern science, reason, and technology; usually believes race is a real genetic construct and therefore not surprised at disparate average outcomes across large population groups; often believes human evolution has in part or in toto shaped human nature, which therefore cannot easily, or at all, be changed very much by social engineering and/or conditioning; usually believes heirarchy is imprinted upon mankind by nature and/or God, and that heirarchy is not only not necessarily evil, but desirable and even inevitable and ought not be torn down for any but the most grave reasons; tends to support tradition either as revealed by his religion and/or as successful adaptive memetic developments which usually solve deep and complex problems in human societies; anti-revolutionary; anti-socialist; anti-communist; anti-whig; anti-democratic; anti-globalist; skeptical; (once a term of derision, most reactionaries of late do happily so self-identify)
Tom suddenly realized he couldn’t find a single Republican at the convention who didn’t hail FDR anything less than a great hero. He remembered knowing conservatives in his youth who opposed both FDR and WWII. But where were they now? They had disappeared, but their thoughts and words had not. Tom hadn’t changed his mind about much in the past 25 years, but he suddenly realized he was a Reactionary.
Adequate, though, not of course complete. Years ago a friend of mine, whose opinion i respect, said that my thinking matched that of a gothic king, a pejorative remark that I like to wear as a badge of honor.
My view is generally that the world is worse than it was no more than 50 years ago, not because of technological progress, which serves to partially blind us to the inadequate order that now holds power, but because of the current social order, or more appropriately, disorder, that now reigns. Just because you have a microwave and an IPhone does not mean the world is a better place than your great-grandfather’s world. Of course, some things are better, but in aggregate they are not. We are a deeply unhappy society for reasons the ancients would have easily perceived. But our instincts are dulled by mall shopping. We resort to gulping Zoloft.
I recently explained part of my world view to my wife, who generally agrees with my ideas on how men and women should act. I said that I did not believe marriage was a democracy. Democracy is possible when there are thousands or millions of voters because it’s easy to find a majority; the chances of a perfectly even vote are practically nil. However a marriage is made up of two people. A democracy of two does not work well at all. There is a distinct chance that two people will disagree on issues, and when, in a marriage, those issues involve money, sex or other fundamentally important issues, it’s important that there be a system for resolving those conflicts. In my marriage, that system is me. I get to decide if my wife can spend $400 on a new purse. Yes, that’s right, it’s patriarchy, not democracy. If it were democracy we’d both be angry, me at her expenditure, her at my reaction to it. Carrying on this way results in the the end state of most marriages today: Divorce. We of course have had our problems, like most. The problems lessened when the rules were states explicitly: She is woman, I am man. Stay in your lane, I’ll stay in mine. Surprisingly she agreed with all of it. I realize that most of these things should have been worked out before we got married, but it is the current social order that demands they not be worked out, that problems be resolved through the magic of democracy.
Instead of the magic of democracy, I told her, that in exchange for me having the power to veto a $400 purse purchase,that should a 250 pound felon with a machete decide, at 1 o’clock in morning, to enter our house to steal our flat screen tv for himself and be willing to kill anyone unarmed and unable who tries to prevent him from getting it, I will stand and fight while she and the children exit the back door. Also, if we ever take a cruise, as on the Titanic in 1912, and we begin to sink, she and the children can get on the lifeboats before I do.
This all seems a fair trade. See, that’s the way it used to be. Men were not honored simply because they were men, but because they did something special. In our decadent society, we devalue that which was sacred in all societies before ours: The Soldier. I’m not saying this because I am a soldier, I became a soldier because I believed it sacred. I often comment to my children that one of the most unattractive attributes a person can have is to be ungrateful. No ungrateful species can survive because it can not differentiate between what is important and what is not. Those that cannot appreciate people who protect them are decadent and bound to extinction. Unfortunately, if they outnumber those who respect the sacred, they will take those who are not decadent with them. All cultures before our current one honored the warrior because killing those whom are trying to kill you is better than slavery or extinction. Yes, America is far ahead of modern Europe in this regard. I’ve been overwhelmed by the expressed gratitude walking through airports in uniform. Most soldiers, including myself, don’t want to be patronized or doted over; we consider this to be a departure from the asceticism necessary to fighting wars, un-soldierly. Why I myself want is a worldview that respects that which is respectable.
While it’s tempting–and possible–to connect my worldview to that of the Prussian 2nd Reich, and some aspects of Sparta, (and I would not vigorously argue against you), it’s also possible to connect it with some of our founding fathers and past presidents, most notably, Andrew Jackson. Jackson, undoubtedly, would have been labeled a fascist, had the term been so cliche’ in his time. Yet, he embodies many of my beliefs. Anti-materialist, aristocratic, willing to smack a pie-hole where a pie-hole needs smacking, for small government, understanding the everyone–banks included–is susceptible to corruption. That honor meant something. Jackson said:
Every good citizen makes his country’s honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and its conscious that he gains protection while he gives it. But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.
Passe to the modern liberal and feminist. Arrogant, militaristic in tone–fascist. In other words you’d want Jackson on your side when your cushy circumstances go to hell. Of course, liberals and feminists can not imagine a situation in which they would not have it easy. They really think the world has progressed, that they have made it much better.
The one thing that may worry these people is that, they, in fact, may be becoming passe, unfashionable. Nothing worries the modern more than what is fashionable. An increasing number of people, including women, are becoming disillusioned with the message of feminism, which they’ve tasted and found wanting. They discovered that it’s a lie. What the feminists and progressives must realize, is that their fashion may end up like the Pet Rock. Feminism and the modern progressive movement is an anomaly, an outlier, never before practiced even in ancient democracies such as Athens. The feminists and progressives may well look back in 40-50 years and long for days pasts. They may become the reactionaries.