No child can be trusted with a man, apparently.

Glance at this article from CNBC.

What’s going on here?

On two separate flights, with two separate airlines (Virgin Australia and Quatas) men were moved from their seats away from unattended child passengers and replaced by women.  Each of these two airlines has an actual written policy in place that disallows men from sitting next to children that are traveling without adults.

An airline, of course, ought to be able to make any rules it likes regarding passenger seating.  If they want to keep men away from children, fine.  If they want to keep haberdashers away from people with webbed toes, fine.  If they want to keep Mac users in odd numbered seats and Windows users in the evens, whatever.  If you don’t like it, fly another airline.  If all the airlines are doing it, start a boycott.

It’s discouraging, though, that this attitude is out there, strong enough to actually make it into corporate policies, that men in general are prone to child predation.  Apparently, some people, in serious numbers, fear men.

Are men dangerous?  Well, yes.  Men are evolved to kill, fight, hunt etc.  Men have more upper body strength and testosterone then women.  Men are, by evolution, more directly violent and more sexually assertive.

Should men be feared?  Some men, probably.  But we live in a civilization and much of the danger that men pose is meant to be neutralized by the force of civilization.  This process fails with regularity.  Individual men freak out all the time, shooting strangers, punching strangers in the nose, and sometimes even doing something inappropriate with unattended children on an airplane.

But it’s a big world.  The fact that these things happen is attributable to statistics.  Run any process enough times and the improbable becomes inevitable.  Fluky things happen every day, both good things and bad things, because there’s a tremendous amount of activity on this planet.

But that two separate airlines would get it in their minds to set written policies separating men from children points out of an irrational fear of men in general.  In order to become policy, this fear had to seem reasonable to an actual policy committee–more than one person–within the company at some point in time.  Or, if the policy was written by one person, it at least had to pass the scrutiny of higher ups for the period of time that the policy was in place.

That all men are potential child molesters is a social reality in some pockets of the world.  These pockets of the world include the administrators of corporate businesses.  Administrators–a generally under-recognized scourge of the human race–tend to take on gross black-and-white points of view because they are given so many decisions to make and are largely sheilded from any real consequences of their decisions.

We can make something out of this, though.  Social attitudes are like yeast, and corporate policy making is like grain mash left in the open air.  Here we see an ambient social attitude finding fertile ground and making itself apparent by it’s success.  The fear of men, and the paranoia for the safety of children has shown itself to us.  The attitude is out there.  Whether that attitude is trending upward or downward we can’t know from this particular pair of incidences, but we do know that it is loose in the wild, creeping and ready to take root.

And at the same time, the myth of total male power over society is shown to be untrue.  Men, as men, have their challenges.  The hidden premises of industrial feminism are firmly lodged in the world of ideas.

It’s out there, men.  Beware.

What is still more sad is that the two young boys in the Virgin Australia case might have been deprived of a valuable experience.  And boys in general might be deprived of valuable experiences every day, just because of a quiet attitude in the hearts of the paranoid.  Depriving boys of chances to interact with a variety of men is demasculating.  When boys are given only a few different men to look up to, they develop a distorted understanding of what it means to be a man, if not a total blindness altogether to the concept of manliness.

I’m tempted to think that a purposeful vindictive desire to deprive young boys of manliness lies at the heart of this idea that men and children should be kept separate.  I’m tempted, also, to think that industrial feminism has an aggressive agenda, wanting to eradicate the male point of view entirely, and insulating children from men wherever possible is part of this agenda.  Preventing the masculation of the next generation is a viable front in the ongoing struggle to demasculate the world as a whole.

It takes a village, right?  We are all responsible for the care and socialization of the next generation, but let’s be careful to screen any untoward ideas from that socialization process–untoward ideas such as those any random man might bear.  Because men are the killers, the destroyers, the predators and the warmakers.  Men are aggressive and aggression must be eradicated.

So, it seems, the proverbial village required for good child rearing must not include any men.  If all children are raised by women, and women only, the next generation will be peaceful and gentle, as all women are.

Right?  Of course not.  Aggression is not a learned behavior.  Aggression is biological and can not be engineered out of us.  What can be done, though, is to teach boys how to manage themselves.  How to channel their aggressive energies into constructive endeavors, such as building, creating, protecting the weak.  Well-socialized men who retain their basic manliness are crucial to this process.  Without these men in their lives, boys grow up confused.

A completely demasculated young man remains a man despite his demasculation.  Most often his male impulses become frustrated through self-censorship.  This frustration can motivate all different kinds of behavior, and we are lucky that such behavior is not often an overwhelming tide of accumulated aggression.  But we can never know what is lost because so many men have been raised to believe that their manliness is inappropriate, that they should think like a woman.  And still more we can never know what is lost in men who have no understanding of what manliness is.

 

Advertisements

Hi, remember me?

Hi- it’s been a long time.  Maybe you forgot about me.

blog
blog

Well, I’m still alive.  Been working hard at a thousand projects, including putting money in the bank.  Blogging’s been way down on my priority list, though I’ve been anxious to get back to it because I feel it’s important to inject my personal point of view into the world conversation.  After all, I see the future and I’m generally right about everything.  It would be a terrible and shameful thing for me to deprive you all the benefit of my better understanding.

But you know, it’s hard.  I’m just so busy all the time.  So, I’ve initiated a Tumblr blog, where I can just highlight and right-click.  Boom–post posted.  You can see the RSS stream in the right column over there.

It’s called Dystopic Drift because lately I’ve been kind of fixated on our general slow sinking into a global totalitarian daydream.  It’s currently all robots, police cameras, bankers gone wild and so on.  But, I’ll get over that soon enough and start posting about other things.  You’ll love it.

Some posts will come up with comments from myself, others will just be a snippit or a photo and a click-through link.  That all depends on how much time and energy I have.  Astute readers will see my meaning in the pattern of the posts, even when there is no comment.

In time I will post something more in-depth at this wordpress url.  For best results, I recommend you drop both http://dystopicdrift.tumblr.com/rss and https://zenoizen.wordpress.com/feed/ in your newsreader.

Odd magazine covers

Every Friday I will upload scans and photos of items in my collectibles inventory.  Many of these items will be listed for sale at http://www.bonanza.com/booths/zenoizen

I’ve got lots of oddball magazines in my collection.  Here are the covers of some of them.  (And let’s see how terribly I can lay them out, too.)

The great Harvard Lampoon
Heckler's Tales. Good stories about a guy's adventures as a chronic heckler.
Riverwurst Comics
Inside Joke... get it? Me either.
The Partisan. Newspaper of the ever popular Peace and Freedom Party.
Snuff It, tool of the globalist depopulation agenda

Fourth Wave Feminism is here. Get it while it’s hot.

Hi!
Nice chair.

Whatever the goals of contemporary feminism, there seems to be a lack of awareness that America is the least misogynistic nation in the world. A woman is generally free and legally equal in these United States.  In general an American woman can feel secure against circumcision, being stoned to death for the crime of getting raped, feet binding, requiring a chaperone for all public excursions, being murdered upon birth as a result of not being a boy baby, being murdered during adolescence for being able to read, living as chattel, and so on.

Women in America can play poker and smoke cigars, go out alone day or night dressed as they please, apply for any job and expect to be considered according to their merit, run for any elected office, play any sport (and at this point I expect a woman could play for the NFL, NBA or MLB if she had chops enough to warrant the salary), cuss, fly planes, have a credit card, enter a contract, captain a ship, lead a platoon, negotiate a treaty and choose her sex partners.

These may seem like mundane freedoms to some, but they forget that women have been able to do these things for less than 100 years, and that in some parts of the world a woman still can’t do even one of these things.  Any woman who takes these liberties for granted ought to pause, reflect and appreciate.  The liberty of American women exists within a small and fragile historical bubble, as do the liberties of us all.  The liberated society of the West is the result of tremendous effort and sacrifice, and maintaining this liberty requires just as much determination.

All this is preamble to my pointing out that, while women can do the things necessary to protect Western Civilization from the assault of less egalitarian cultures, they largely don’t.  With some few exceptions, it is men that fight the wars, engage in the diplomacy, and distribute the propaganda that protects the Empire of Enlightenment from barbarous onslaughts.  The reason for this is that men have a massively disproportionate amount of the hormone that fuels the aggression and competitiveness required to protect a culture.

But what if American men were less masculine?  What if they were encouraged to be more like women, less aggressive, less competitive, less paternal?  If such an unlikely trend were to take hold in our civilization, it would weaken men and make our egalitarian way of life easy prey for its main competitors: Shariaism and Confucianism.

So, that is why I am a Fourth Wave Feminist.  My determination to do what I can to make masculinity acceptable again is motivated by my love of womankind and my desire for her to be free.  Because I believe that women can contribute to the vitality of Western civilization in countless ways, I strive to be masculine without apology.  It’s because I want to women to have the choice between the kitchen or the boardroom (or to struggle vainly to inhabit both), that I fight against the tide of coerced epicenity.  When I speak against the excesses of feminism, I speak for women, because I speak for the survival of my culture which is the only one that truly allows women to be free.

Black flag bake sale! Agorism vs. Marxism, place your bets.

We're all living in the Illuminatus! Trilogy now.

Very weird…

I was thinking about writing a post about agorism, when by improbable coincidence a couple of related chunks turned up in my media consumption.

Firstly, the always fun Dave Emory covers seasteading and Patri Friedman in episode #744 of his For The Record radio program.  This chunk of media doesn’t relate directly to agorism, but seasteading is a concept out of what you might call SciFi Libertarianism, which is the same ground as has spawned agorism.  Making the connection more resonant is the fact that Patri Friedman runs a PUA blog.

(PUA, if you don’t know, stands for Pick Up Artist.  The PUA community/industry is an outgrowth of a new, loosely associating Social Tactics movement that claims to have good advice about convincing women to have sex with you.  More often than not, though, things labeled PUA are rackets for breaking cash off of sexually frustrated men.  Recession-proof, that.)

The reason why Patri Friedman’s activity as a Pickup Artist is resonant is complicated.  You may want to break out your Illuminati! deck to follow along.  These PUA guys are the hucksters of the Social Tactics movement, separating out Game–the sexy part–and repackaging it for resale at inflated prices.

(Game, as with Social Tactics in general, is available for free.  All you need to do is figure out the right books to read and get them from the library.  Meanwhile, you get out there and talk to people.  It’s all really no more than a more self-conscious method of Growing the Fuck Up.  You know, put down the controller and get involved in life.)

The thing about Game, though, is that it becomes political because it must consider feminism.  Feminism is a constant specter for players because feminism wants to make bad Game illegal–literally.  Good Game is invisible.  Bad Game is harassment, or so it would be if feminists succeed.  This means that any player’s game must be flawless %100 of the time. Otherwise he’s a harasser.

The place where Game butts up against feminism is quite a busy one.  There you’ll find a rich array of men who question the wisdom of feminism’s mission and premises.  And out of this grows an increasing suspicion of leftism, Marxism, postmodernism, multiculturalism and… governmental social programs.  So then, a minarchist, if not completely anarcho-capitalist sensibility pairs very well with the study of Game, and especially well for the PUAs who have decided to turn Game into a business (as shady as it may be).

While agorism doesn’t require anarcho-capitalism theory–any illiterate thug can become an agorist–anarcho-capitalism does provide a theory to support agorism.  And here is where criticism of Patri Friedman gets weird for me.  To some degree, Friedman and myself are fellow travelers.  I think seasteading is a brilliant idea, and I’ve written mediocre science fiction exploring the topic.  Also, I study Social Tactics.  For a long time I’ve been frustrated on a handful of fronts, not just with women, but in earning a living, excercising my creative impulses, and keeping the Other People from fucking up my day to day.  Being kind of nerdy I’ve turned to reading to see if I can’t find some insight that could help me break through.  After an excruciatingly long time I’ve come to realize that it’s eye contact and conversations that determine our lives, and that social competence is the most important skill.  Meanwhile, the unfolding of history has made me realize that I can rely on neither government welfare nor corporate employment to take me where I want to go.  The only way I’m going to fund my adventures in this life is through my own entrepeneurial spirit.  Hence agorism.  Because agorism is the methodology of the proletariat capitalist in the belly of the corporate plutocracy.

So Friedman and I have similar views on some things.  The difference is that he’s a high roller and associates with people like Peter Theil a major investor in Facebook.  Facebook is of course a data mining operation for the government.  There is no arguing against this fact, because at the very least these two statements are undeniable: 1.  Facebook has lots of data about lots of people.  2.  Facebook will comply with practically any subpoena.

So, we’ve rounded the corner of our ass and our elbow looms on the horizon.  The point is that my interest in agorism, not to mention a few other ideas I carry around, have been linked to fascism.  That is, after all, Emory’s greater premise–that the Third Reich did not collapse after WWII but went underground, and that it is now making a gradual comeback.

Secondly, idle web surfing lead me to this sentence at The Exiled:

“I did a brief check on what sort of “libertarian anarchists” were at Hunter College in the early 1970s, and discovered this: some libertarian hack named J. Neil Schulman waxing nostalgic about his libertarian youth, including some forgettable “libertarian anarchist” lectures at Hunter College in the early 1970s.”

Interesting.  Schulman is the author of the 1979 novel Alongside Night, the preeminent work of literary agorist illustration.  In the tradition of Moore’s Utopia, Skinner’s Walden Two or Ayn Rand’s novels, the book paints a fictional picture of what well-developed agorism looks like.  The book is more than 30 years old, but Schulman is still alive and active publishing a blog at http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/

As part of a longer pastoral that excortiates libertarianism as a faux-radical movement that plays to the needs of the existing hegemonies to the degree that the FBI has consciously passed on infiltrating it, the Exiled article portrays Schulman as an establishment stooge with a–oh no!–pro-gun point of view.  The piece is idealogical but written well enough to give a thoughtful person pause.

Fortunately, though, Schulman actually comments on this Exiled article, resulting in a dialectical clash that spills over to his own blog.  The comments section of Schulman’s blog entry becomes an excellent back and forth addressing differences between Marxist and market anarchisms.

Yeah, it’s a big convoluted mess.  I’m relieved, though, because I’ve been reading about agorism for a few weeks now and finding myself comfortable with the practical aspects of it–counter-economics and so on.  As the agorist story goes, capitalists have consolidated their wealth and power all these years by hamstringing the little guy via governmental regulation.  This seems true enough in the United States.  International corporations can operate the different facets of their businesses anywhere in the world, according to profitability.  Labor costs and taxation are the clearest examples of this.  For years manufacturing has thrived in countries with the weakest labor laws.  Meanwhile, income has been streamed to nations with the lowest tax rates and stashed in the countries with the most discrete banks.  Middle-class Americans, though, can’t usually skirt the law by changing locations.  (And I’ll skip the opportunity to point out how these facts contribute to the lack of productive growth in the United States.)

The agorist solution to this is to ignore the law and operate under the radar.  Agorism in action, called counter-economics, includes black market and grey market business.  A meth lab is counter-economical, but so is a bake sale.  While these are radically different types of operations, they are the same in that they are motivated by a desire for cash income, and not by a desire for political change.  Agorism gives sub-market business a political underpinning and provides points of solidarity for those who want them.

It’s a heartening set of ideas for hustlers of all types, but it’s also viable and relevant.  Claims that agorists collaborate unknowingly with the establishment are launched from confused minds.

Today’s the big day!

Z.E.N.O.
Wisdom dispenser.

Ha… quick note:  I just scheduled three sorta long posts for this blog.  They’ll go up Monday mornings for the next 3 weeks.  Which means the rest of Sept. 2011.

I’m hoping to stick some more posts in between those and then hopefully stack up enough content to keep this blog alive for a while.

Re: the posts I’ve got so far… OMG wordy!  I’ve got a berzerk way of writing which involves backing into my point half the time and meandering around it with a thesaurus the other.  Also, I can’t seem to wind anything up in a satisfying way so I just quit and go have a cigarette.  Then I come back and say “m’eh, print it, whatever.”

Problem is I’m out of practice with the whole putting-one-word-after-the-other thing.  I’ll get better, I promise.

Storytelling

Narrative: it’s a buzzword these days. But not for the first time. At a point in the past the word “narrative” got a lot of use in discussions about the “end/death of the narrative” (which was a popular concept among pomo enthusiasts at the turn of the century, along with discussions about the “end/death of the author.”) Interestingly, even as the death of the narrative was announced, the “death of the narrative” was itself a narrative. But back in those days narratives were part of fiction writing. The narrative’s death was a matter of writers abandoning story in their work. Think William S. Burroughs and a handful of other writers who applied “experimental” methods to making fiction, often ignoring the application of plot, story… narrative, in their work.

That’s all past us now. Writers are telling stories again. As are filmmakers, TV producers and so on. After all those years of experimentation it turns out that you can’t tell a story without telling a story.

And so now story telling is back with a vengeance. “Narrative” is no longer confined with the rarified activities of the fiction author but has become a tool of P.R. hacks, or “message makers” as they are presenting themselves these days. But the more things change, and what’s old is new again. Remember that fascinating story about how women who smoked in public were rebels against male domination? No? Because Edward Bernays’ “Torches of Freedom” campaign occured almost a hundred years ago. (But come to think of it, the very phrase “Torches of Freedom” might have some juice in this era of the ever-creeping smoking ban.)

Every marketing man, P.R. technician, campaign manager, brand developer… anyone who manipulates public opinion for a living, they’re all talking about narrative. As a buzzword, it’s annoying. But let’s not lose sight of the important information: all around you are people consciously working to tell stories that serve their own purposes. They are doing this because it works. The reasons that storytelling works so well in influencing public opinion is complicated. I don’t understand it completely myself, though I suspect it has something to do with creating stereotypes (aka “archetypes” in Jungian psychobabble) and a sort of informational legerdemain that distracts and fascinates with the one hand while secretly tweaking your prejudices with the other.

So, be aware and avoid manipulation. Here’s a story for you: once upon a time an organism came to life for a short time on a small planet in a vast universe. It lived its fleeting life, making the most of it as it could. That organism was you.