I find it funny that the only tale of communized motherhood which both traditionalist men and feminist women want to quote is "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. The story tells of the takeover of modern American society by a fascistic Christian fundamentalist cult of men who establish an Old Testament tyranny and round up women to force some of them into marriages and others into sexual and breeding slavery; the name of the book is based upon the handmaidens of the Old Testament who bore children for Jacob in lieu of their wives. The women are not allowed to read or write and basically have no rights at all, they are assigned to their "masters" for childbearing.
Feminists hold this up as a warning against patriarchy and totalitarianism while many traditionalist men resonate with the story and believe this is how society ought to run. The men of the book resemble the alt-right men of today in a certain way, while they would obviously despise all forms of Communism, the assignment of women for breeding has a ring of Socialism to it, the collective ownership of "property" and decisioning on the distribution of resources; while the Nazis hated Communism the ideology they espoused was "National Socialism" which implies Socialism not on an international scale but on a folkish scale.
It is an odd kind of logic that while men have proven themselves to be the inventors and establishers of at least state Socialism, it is women who are often blamed for the socialization of societies. Famous American authoress and right-wing political pundit Ann Coulter is highly educated, fierce and independent, however she seemingly contradictorily does not support women's suffrage. Coulter evidences the fact that in the United States the number of women participating in voting is positively correlated with an increase in government spending on social welfare programs; a woman's instinct to nurture children and expectation that a man will provide for her and the child's needs are usually sighted as the culprit for this parallel. Greek playwright Aristophanes wrote a few plays which boded the negative effects of women being involved in matters of the state. In one play, "The Assemblywomen", women have taken over the state and have installed a form of pro-communism where all are entitled to sexual rights including the old and the ugly.
However, despite feminist tendencies often being blamed for today's creeping Socialism, it was again a man, Plato, who perhaps wrote the first Communist Manifesto. In his treatise "Republic" the philosopher Plato lays out his vision of the ideal state. Private property is abolished, so is marriage, childcare is communal and all citizens are asked to forsake their private lives for the sake of upholding the state. In his ideal statecraft Plato proposes that women, like men be highly educated and equal under the law. Yet Plato's advocating for the equality of women was not based upon modern day feminist theory but the idea that women needed to serve the state not just in the form of childrearing and sexual liaisons with their husbands but also intellectually as if they were kept dumb and narrow they would focus all their energy on the private sphere and thus take the men away with them into the family realm where their talents would less effectively serve the public.
While the above scenario has never been implemented and is believed to be absurdly idealistic by all ideological denominations there is something to be said for the fact that it is men who come up with the ideal of socialized motherhood but it is women who seem to try to implement it in real life in their own vision... of course it is the influence of women which has expanded the welfare state particularly in its support for single mothers. While few modern Nazi's like to discuss this it was well known that both Hitler's supporters and detractors were well aware of his unusually feminine qualities: the way he walked, the way he wrote, and especially his "way of thinking"; many of his soldiers did not appreciate the overly mothering attitude he took toward the men.
It was under Adolph Hitler’s Socialist regime that the world saw perhaps the first ever semi-successful implementation of a state breeding program. Lebensborn which means "life spring" was an initiative to have young desirable fertile females to be fully taken care of by the state in a communal setting where they were free to mate with top SS officers in the hopes of producing superior stocks of Aryan children. While the program had much success, it never reached its full potential. But it should be noted that in supposedly morally traditionalist Nazi Germany the state engaged in the institution of adultery and women having multiple sex partner, something that would be less tolerated in the private sphere of life. I think it is fairly obvious that the greatest opponents of sharing women in common are heterosexual men who want their own wife reserved for them alone, regardless of the fact that they usually expect to have their own affairs outside of marriage.
Going back to Plato's Republic, there was another phenomena in his theory which is palatable to most right wing men today as it resembles the caste system and that was the ideal of every man and woman being placed in a compartmentalized task position based upon their primary psychological and physiological dispositions. The old time commoner's practice of this system can be seen in the Indian Hindu gotra system where occupational castes engage in strict arranged marriages which are based upon a complex system of interfamilial marriage which is designed to allow a certain degree of inbreeding, but not so close as to bring forth recessive mutations, this so as to preserve the generational mentality of the community which is honed for their caste occupation and culture. However, because this is a private and plebeian institution it lacks intensive rigor in producing hyper-specialized breeds and individuals of men for insulate state occupations.
Plato did not advocate the education and equality of women based on enthusiasm but functionality, and it would seem until now that men who desire nothing but conservative monogamy have not been able to tolerate this logic, the mobs seems almost programmed to reject more radical ideas. Science is only now discovering what the occult has known for ages, that the mother's experience in life does in fact pass onto and effects the personality and abilities of her offspring, today the science is known as epigenetics. While the suppression of education for women has been almost universal throughout history it is admitted that pagan women usually fared better in this realm than the Abrahamics, there were even European pagan women who were highly educated and respected advisers. Since the mother's life experiences and training are transmitted to her offspring as a mentality, it is most fitting for the dogmatic and stupid Abrahamic religions that she remain an ignorant, sedative and abused slave as her children are desired to be born with a taste for the society’s megalithic slave religion, while the more intellectual and philosophical religions of the pagans needed men who had a more free and liberal temperament.
The pagan ideal has always been the ever increasing perfection of men into godhood, but how can he achieve this without the perfection of woman? Would it not be best for the biological and spiritual stock of society to be incubated in the wombs of women who have been carefully cultivated over generations using the proved science of epigenetics? As far as intelligent breeding goes it was stupid of the men of the Old Testament to rarely every record the mothers of famous lineages much less their temperaments as these would have been hidden by their social stunting. What if women were observed for their natural propensities, whether these be mathematical, musical, militaristic or otherwise, and the best of them were inducted into training programs which would supplement their natural intelligence and prepare them to become vessels for the production of a new generation which would experience these powers amplified? Could she not then be given options of men with whom to breed which match her mind and body’s complexion so as to beget children who are both stable in their trait balances and honed in their abilities?
The system proposed above does have its counterparts in reality, particularly in the Near East. Babylon was famous for its state-religious breeding temples where the finest women were educated in the ways of the gods and secular subjects and then impregnated by kings so as to produce the ideal line of accession. The Babylonian king Nabonidus was not mothered by a queen but by a moon priestess named Addagoppe of Harran; perhaps it was his mother's psychogenetic influence which caused Nabonidus to break all tradition and replace the patron god Marduk with the moon god Sin as the highest deity of the land, this despite the anger of his subjects. Many such priestesses held state positions and could even inherit land. Would it not be better to have sons born to women who were not only trained in government but whom had practical experience so that she could best guide her son to his likely position in society and also have land which she may inherit to him so as to provide him with a sound base for maintaining his worth in society as well as perhaps breeding his own traditional family?
But now there is the practical issues to deal with and that is the proletariat who seemed to have less to gain from this older system of socialized motherhood. Polygamy has always been the prerogative of kings and not his subjects as the king would of course take the best women for himself and if he had pools of women eventually there would have to go men who have none. The peasant's disdain for polygamy has led to the dysgenic phenomena of universal monogamy where every man, no matter his caliber, is provided a woman with whom to breed, thus increasing the ranks of the lower classes while depriving the best and brightest men from the opportunity of producing as many children as possible through plural marriage. But this could be a problem caused by an individual polygamous male’s ownership of the females rather than the simple supporting of these females by the state.
The king or chieftain would usually horde his concubines for himself and thus leave many of his monogamous subjects sexless, and for many men sex is the primary reason for marriage. However free women who were not owned by any man would be free to engage in sex with whomever, and with the use of advanced birth control methods she could please the "ugly and the old" as in the play Assemblywomen thus satiating their needs and preventing their neglect from becoming the fuel for social revolution against the state and the re-enslavement of women as nothing more than caged breeding machines. In fact, it is very possible that if given access to free prostitution that the lowest men least deserving of fatherhood would have no issue abandoning the institution of marriage all together and simply living a life of sex without any obligations.
Now of course there could be varying categories of these women with whom the men of the state and civilians would breed as many upper-class men would find it distasteful to breed with a free love women, but not all women are so amorous in their nature and the more composed females themselves would obviously usually be attracted to more restrained and austere men. Some believe that it is not altogether natural for men to live constantly in the home and that it is best he live apart and only provide and visit, arrangements could be made where men would have their own families but much of the stress and burden of family life would be lifted from him so that his time spend with his children could be more productive and joyful.
Yet socialized traditional motherhood does not mean monogamy cannot or should not exist on a mass scale as this is usually the preferred choice of both men and women, no matter how hypocritical the institution tends to be. Excess males and females from the state breeding temples would be free to enter mainstream society where they could act as partners for the average citizens, thus increasing the genetic quality of the population overtime. The need for monogamy could even be prepared for by breeding surplus numbers of women with temperaments more suited for this lifestyle. Not every women wants to be overly educated and wants to be attractive to the common man who is usually not attracted to women smarter or more educated than himself, this type of bred woman would easily transition into the life of monogamy. However these programs would obviously breed races of men who are accustomed to the academy of socialized breeding and if the system were sustainable and superior then perhaps after some time this system would become the norm and Plato's ideal Republic could be realized. In the meanwhile, the state would have plenty of Plato's men and women who have no private distractions and can devote their entire lives to the state... even if it is found that a private monogamous underclass is needed to uphold the government.
It is men who dream of socialized motherhood but perhaps it is women who are more eager to implement it. While not all women would be attracted to the vision presented above it is perhaps the best, the brightest, and most independent of our women who would value the opportunity to live in comfort where her gifts would be recognized and nurtured while she is able to bear children at a reasonable pace and still engage in matters of the world. The Babylonians did it, and Hitler got close, but can the men of today seek to establish such an institution? Who knows, it will have to be done on trial and error and needs men who understand the mass psychology of their male followers. However, if he makes this modern day Communist motherhood appealing, I doubt he will find any trouble inducting females into the program whom will likely need little guidance in initiating and maintaining its daily operations. With women given what seems to be an innate desire, the socialization of motherhood, perhaps they would be less likely to agitate for this law in broader society, which could one day be made up of single males, or not, who knows, and thus leave men to their more natural instinct of individualism... the war between the sexes could be ended.
No comments:
Post a Comment