Hard Times Create Strong Men... But Where Do They Come From?
We all know the meme, most have gloomily recognised that the West is, at best, towards the end of the third stage. But how many understood the devastating truth behind this seemingly eternal cycle?
We all know the meme. It seems to be a valid maxim, and we either nodded in agreement as we read it or shook our heads sadly, depending on whether the great empires of history sprung to mind first, or our own civilisation of the contemporary West. For most, the meme also speaks of hope, that however dire the bad times get the implied eternal cycle will restart as new strong men emerge from the wreckage. There is a certain naivety in this assumption, to which the great empires of ‘history’ will attest - new strong men are often lacking in the end, if found at all.
But following this naive logic to its inevitable conclusion reveals a much more sinister message: if all that remain are weak men, where do the new strong men emerge from? Are they moulded from the sodden, flaccid corpses of decadence that drape and flounce over the rubble and ruin of former glory? Surely this begets only the slyest and most deviant of the weak who spies an opportunity to obtain power in the absence of strong men.
In recent decades the left’s mainstream war on ‘toxic masculinity’ has epitomised ‘weak men creating hard times’ in a much under-discussed and debated manner. In the absence of either the desire or the opportunity to satisfy their revolutionary zeal in any meaningful outward sense, they directed it inwards and set about dismantling oppressive structures (their words) within their own society - with no coherent and widely accepted plan for a replacement.
Many aspects, side-effects and consequences of this are widely discussed including the breakdown of the traditional family unit, declining birth rates, rising immigration, etc. But although the subject of men and their role in this new world is often raised it never progresses to anything like a serious dialogue. The inexplicable offence taken by a minority of people when the topic arises shames most contributors into silence from thereon, while their vocal opposition to individual awful acts magnifies both their severity and significance.
This societal failure, itself bearing the stench of weakness, has led to the emasculation, deviance, and general misdirection of an increasing proportion of males within our society. In condemning outward displays of aggression and dominance in our men, and in generalising the awful actions of a few, we have suppressed distinctly masculine behavioural traits that evolved for perfectly good survival reasons and which in many cases have adapted to the modern world.
The left believes the so-called patriarchy was protecting itself from their usurpations, as well as external threats - ignoring the obvious implication that in protecting itself it also protected them. Governments need populations and children need mothers, at the very lowest bar of reasoning male power necessitates women, and it necessitates women in some form of partnership with men.
But we do not operate at the standard of the lowest bar. The partnership we have developed, often cited as the most obvious form of gender power imbalance, happens to have worked as a survival mechanism for hundreds of thousands of years. It utilised and honed innate differences between males and females to ensure protection and food supply on the one hand, and a healthy child, burning fire and guarded home on the other.
(I realise the feminists are going to ruin me for this, in my defence I do have much more detailed defences of my positions, I am generalising for speed of read.)
While those roles have evolved over time as we progressed from hunter gatherer societies through various stages of social evolution to our modern setup, the cognitive wiring and chemical makeup of them are still distinct. Until very recently these distinctions were considered effective and necessary, for masculinity and femininity together form a whole, pairing each strength with the others weakness to create a whole.
The male role has developed from hunter and warrior to protector, acting as a deterrent to external threats and using their strength and natural assertiveness to maintain order and discipline. This in no way excuses those weak men who abuse these immutable characteristics to oppress and control others believing that to be strength. But it does acknowledge that women and children generally feel safer with a strong male presence, that their rights are defended, and that our society and culture seemed more secure and permanent when strong leaders championed them.
This also does not ignore that these masculine characteristics can be problematic if the bearers are not competent at wielding them or checked when they abuse them. This is most demonstrable with the myriad data showing the vastly increased propensity to crime, addiction and toxic behaviour in young men with absent, abusive or incompetent fathers. Therein lies the important lesson - if we continue to ignore the rapidly escalating problems of disillusionment, poor mental health and suicide amongst men there is no chance of them becoming competent and just bearers of their male responsibilities.
Returning to the meme, and the central question, where do the new strong men emerge from? In a world where we are so used to outsourcing all of our concerns that wars, national security, institutional reform and social remedies are the preserve of elected officials, career beurocrats, professional soldiers and spies, if it is not for us to dirty our hands with, who are these heroes of recovery if all we have left are weak men? Who exactly are the strong men who drag the people kicking and screaming back to the top of the eternal cycle? Rome survived as long as it did because of a succession of strong men vying for leadership… we have had Boris, Rishi and soon to be Kier… Truss displayed more strong man characteristics than any of them, and she was dismal too.
The answer is that these new strong men that restart the cycle over again are not from the same group. They are outsiders, those made strong by their own hard times, who dominate in the absence of any masculine resistance. They care nothing for your hard won rights, your social contract, your aversion to conflict and aggression. These are merely gaping holes in the armour, and their masculinity is the lance that skewers our exposed underbelly.
This is exactly why we have to define men's roles in the new order, and in doing so learn to accept their masculinity whilst nurturing their ability to control and direct it appropriately. We need to do it now, stage four is imminent if not already upon us, and we are defenceless in the face of the onslaught. I have no doubt that Carla from Grimsby is a ferocious little bastard that could knock me out, that and I am sure Michaela (formerly Michael) still has a little masculinity in reserve, but let us be perfectly honest, it's Dodgy Dave, Big Baz and Terry the Terrier you would choose as your team mates in a life or death game of any sort.
If the West is to survive this test against external forces and begin the meme's cycle again, we need to stop emascualting our men and then chiding them for not being able or willing to defend us. As Jordan Peterson said, “A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control".
That is a message we should be delivering to boys and young men as a matter of urgency.
Peace and love x
Raise the #British Standard
