The War on 'Manly Men'

Excellent article, and, in departing from longstanding tradition, I actually read it. The author is spot on!

The emasculation of Western men is a direct, intended result of the cultural Marxism that has been poisoning our youth for decades. The goal is to sap the independence and fighting spirit of masculinity and to undermine resistance to the power of the State. Put women on a men’s football team, put men in dresses, celebrate them both as virtuous milestones and mock those who think otherwise, and the distinctions and definitions of the sexes will gradually blur. Masculinity and femininity will begin to have no meaning. This is already happening. Contrary to the Left’s claims, though, this doesn’t make human beings freer and more evolved; it diminishes both men and women and makes us more confused about our roles and purpose in the world. It leaves us unmoored from our true nature, from God, and from each other – just as the State wants us.

What Secret Agent Man posted, actually added something of value to the discussion relevant to traditional male roles and masculinity.

From a societal point of view, if we are to understand the devaluation of actual positive masculine traits in behavior and comportment, it’s absolutely necessary to define your sample set.

Maleness, and all of the positive characteristics that come along with traditional masculine roles are being attacked by the usual suspects, third-wave feminists, the homosexual agenda, et. al.

If you’re going to attempt to defend against those mindless attacks, you have to be able to account for the abhorrent behavior of the typical urban black male, 15-35 years of age..

Because the propensity for extreme predatory violence, they have a non-linear impact on the aggregate of male behavior.

Throwing shade at “ every last gang banger of every race” dilutes that discussion and does no man, regardless of race, creed, or tribe, any favors.

You can’t solve any problem if you refuse to be truthful about where the problem originates.

I also read this excellent article. It reminded me of what Hannah Arendt observed 50 years ago. She looked at the pre-conditions to totalitarian societies. She saw that community groups were purposely broken apart and that family ties were loosened. All of this was to make people more individualistic and not have others to lean on for strength and resistance to the growing state. After all, there is strength in numbers.

FTA: The Left claims falsely that sex distinctions derive almost exclusively from an oppressively patriarchal nurture, not nature. This is important to their agenda because erasing such distinctions is necessary for the “abolition of the family,” which Karl Marx called for openly. Why? Because the bonds of the nuclear family are the last and most resistant line of defense against collectivism and totalitarian control, and masculinity is the warrior spirit of the nuclear family. If you emasculate men by disparaging their aggressive, competitive, high-achieving drive as “toxic,” and by denying the hard-wired differences between them and women, then men become neutered, the family unit disintegrates, resistance dissolves, the “community” replaces our family, and the State becomes our parental authority.

Candace Owens was not wrong when she claimed that “the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence.” True – it is no coincidence. The emasculation of Western men is a direct, intended result of the cultural Marxism that has been poisoning our youth for decades. The goal is to sap the independence and fighting spirit of masculinity and to undermine resistance to the power of the State.

I don’t need your “congratulations” you horses ass.

From a statistical and societal standpoint you’re dead wrong. Reference my previous statement regarding the outsized impact that one subset has on the characteristics assigned to the overall group... this effect applies equally, even if you choose the overall group as “gang bangers”.

It’s the distance from the mean as much as the size of the subset within the group.

Don’t want to discuss it? Okay. You’re free to go.

No need to waste your time pretending to score points off me. It doesn’t make you look smarter, and I already know what you haven’t learned yet.

Statistics aren’t criminals. They aren’t actual crimes. They make great talking points to those who don’t have to live next to them.

Yes, there are in this country a disproportionate number of black men who are involved in gangs etc, who are habitual criminals. They represent the cultural equivalent of a pot left on a hot stove (race grievance pimping which goes back more than a century so B.T. Washington could comment on it plays into it a lot, likewise when race radicals started burning down their own neighborhoods decades after the last time mobs of angry white Democrats had burned down a black community) till the contents are baked dry and catching fire ... they have no value and only serve to threaten what around them that may still have value.

Habitual criminals are not “cowardly and superstitions” per Batman but lazy and unimaginative ... they go for what they see and that’s gonna be nearby for the most part. For many that means poor dumb smucks stealing from folks who don’t have any more than they do or else selling their own neighbors poison for a pittance. That means, because some people still do classical ethnic neighborhoods, blacks will mainly prey on blacks, whites on whites and so forth. Especially when it comes to violent crime.

The reason black criminals are more likely to victimize whites is not that they as a group target whites but because there are more of us to be within reach to commit random criminal acts on, crimes of opportunity. Likewise white habitual criminals aren’t adverse to preying on blacks but there aren’t as many of them so they are less likely to be on hand. It’s just that simple. It isn’t that black criminals are somehow becoming industrious or imaginative that they do in fact cause more crime on whites percentage wise.

The Mafia, and other rat bastards who eventually develop the sense to not crap all over their own back yards (where they live) and make them into hellholes, are actually the exception to the rule of criminals being lazy and unimaginative. And even then they really were nitwits ... because the really smart criminals all went into banking or politics (lots fewer folks shooting at you for one, lots more to stay for two)!

As for non-black gangs, things like the mafia aside (and not even for its whole history, mind you, Lucky really helped them out on that score) in all that they are no different, once again, from other groups, native or foreign, whose cultural “enrichment” to their neighbors is a blend of fear, crime, predation and violence. Small minded people hustling, harming and thieving their way through life who drag their neighbors through heck, recruit the local kids into shorter lives of violence, and so forth.

Given time they will all explode in numbers. The Aryan Brotherhood has been. They may not be a big percentage but they day isn’t far off that they or the likes of MS13 will outnumber black hoods ... for MS13 that day may be sooner if Biden actually gets in.

I agree that statistics are not the thing that they represent, but they are nevertheless useful in identifying trends, sources of disruption in the normal, and root causes.

My point is not that a disproportionate number of Black men who are involved in gangs, etc., but that the influence that those men have on the perception of those groups is somewhat outsized. That most violent gangs consist primarily of urban Black males 15-35 years of age, does not necessarily point to the “gang-banger culture” as being the larger problem.

What would the result on gang-banger culture be if the effects of the over representation of urban Black males 15-35 years of age were somehow filtered out?

This, by the way, has sod-all to do with Black skin, DNA or “race”. It’s cultural... The fact that it’s fairly isolated to urban Black male culture says a lot about that culture and nothing whatsoever about the humans who inhabit that culture. What is known, is that within that culture, extreme physical violence, tribalism, and drug abuse are very significant markers. Those give rise to the one avenue through which all of them are expressed: (Gang banging).

You state rather boldly and without any evidence that:

“The reason black criminals are more likely to victimize whites is not that they as a group target whites but because there are more of us to be within reach to commit random criminal acts on, crimes of opportunity.”

To that, I will reply that certainly your erse is oot the windae... Were that even remotely accurate, we’d be stating that the reason Blacks are so often victimized by whites is that there are so ridiculously many whites, and that whites victimize blacks because of opportunity and proximity.

Logically, that would result in Blacks segregating themselves from white society for safety and protection, not to create insular communities of victims to feed upon like so many parasites.

Digging no further into that nonce, I do want to comment on your final paragraphs a bit...

The Aryan Brotherhood is primarily a prison gang. Their operations don’t necessarily extend to the streets where mixed communities live. MS13 is a good example though.

If your subset is foot racing, the only way to gain advantage over your competitors is to run faster.
If your subset is gang violence, one sure way to gain advantage over your competition is to exhibit increasing violence.

How much of MS13, or whoever you want to hold up as an example’s level of violence against their communities and competitors a response to the violence of the bloods, crips, and other traditional urban Black male gangs?

There certainly isn’t a case to be made for “None”.

Those lazy and unimaginative criminals you mention, are unlikely to exert the extra effort if there’s no advantage to having done so.

“ To that, I will reply that certainly your erse is oot the windae... Were that even remotely accurate, we’d be stating that the reason Blacks are so often victimized by whites is that there are so ridiculously many whites, and that whites victimize blacks because of opportunity and proximity.”

Why would you imagine white criminals would go out of their way to target black victims?

In a lot of this country there aren’t all that many blacks to even be the victims of what white criminals there are ... or as Chris Rock sarcastically observed about black population density in one skit: “Brothers love the Packers.” (Green Bay)

If I’m saying criminals tend to be lazy and unimaginative that sort of indicates that I believe they, no matter their race, are doing what they do close to home.

And many black people are living in black neighborhoods still. And the gangs that, um, “service” those communities are, no surprise, black gangs.

Gangs are segregated for the most part. Straight along ethnic or race lines. Their territories that they carve out too because perversely enough a fair number of these idiots seem to imagine they’re some sort of defenders of folks they are poisoning with drugs, corrupting their kids, and otherwise crapping all over their own extended back yards.

Now about the Ayran Brotherhood, they are most certainly out there on the streets ... just not the inner city streets where black or Hispanic gangs may predominate. They are selling drugs to whites, recruiting white kids, committing criminal acts against the people they live nearby as well ... probably mostly white. Look for their influence in that, for instance, more than 80% of violent crime against whites being perpetrated by other whites.

To be blunt, even if they any have once been a prison thing what happens in the prisons doesn’t stay in the prisons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.