Feminists say that the patriarchy hurts men too, but this is merely reflective of a lack of nuance. Patriarchy does not hurt men. Patriarchy is an admission that for society to work, men must hurt. Patriarchy is a mechanism designed to make men hurt themselves in the way they need to to make life bearable for everyone else.
It’s understandable that a society that fears pain and sacrifice would turn from this path, but those who are made of stronger, better stuff must not shy from carrying this burden. If you are a man, you must walk the path of pain. Do not run from it. Do not despise it. Embrace, for you are man; born of pain and carved by it to bring about a world in which some might find reprieve from it for a time.
What is pain? Pain is our curse. Pain is our burden. Paint is our duty. Patriarchy is our best mechanism for dealing with this pain and making it worth not only our while, but also for everyone else.
I’ve been talking with a few of my good friends (as well as a few family friends) on the other side of the pond in recent days (for my European readers, I refer, of course, to you wankers on the wrong side of the Atlantic). What has surprised me about all of them has been a certain sentiment that they have all shared: London is not an English city anymore.
I heard this from my friends on the right. I heard this from my friends on the left. I heard this from my friends who were young. I heard this from family friends who were old.
To say that it was an unexpected consensus would perhaps be a bit of an understatement.
On a more personal note, that last time I was in London I saw almost as many headscarves as when I was in Morocco, so while I don’t live in that wonderful city, I can attest that my personal experience seems to corroborate with this assessment.
Funny how that works out.
Speaking of England, I was musing on how amusing it was that the English decided to put the universal time zone in England when they were given the chance. Anyone, of course, would have done the same thing (in their own country, mind you), if they’d been given the chance, but England got it in the end, and their universal time (as opposed to previous attempts) won out in the end.
Ruling the world has its perks, and those perks continue until long after you’ve stopped ruling. Not a bad deal, huh?
But really, who ends up ruling the world? For a long time now, it’s been those who could be described as Atlanticists, those seafaring, maritime civilizations who’ve used their immense naval power to drive trade, shipping, and commerce.
On a planet that is almost 70% water, how can those who command the seas not rise to such heights? Water matters on this world of ours, and the more that water matters, the greater the advantage held by the Atlanticists in the eternal game.
A globalized world is one in which trade, shipping, and commerce are absolutely foundational, and our modern world is one defined by global connections. How could the Atlanticists not rise to power in such a world? They were better positioned for it than anyone else.
This, of course, leads us to an interesting question: technology is breaking down the barriers to geographical separation and making it so that people across the world can connect, trade, and interact in various ways. Does this not provide more advantage to the cosmopolitans and internationalists of the world than it does to those who recognize that the most sensible recourse for their thede is a more parochial one?
The western Atlanticists are likely to see a significant decrease in their power over the next few years, tied up as it is with the US-UN-EU axis, but the sons of the sea will always be with us, and it might actually be impossible to eliminate these descendents of adventurers, explorers, and conquerors.
The spawn of the Leviathan and the brood of the Behemoth, locked together sometimes in friendship, sometimes in competition, eternal rivals intertwined by fate, on and on together until the end of time. There’s something very poetic about it.
It’s easy to write this question off by saying that even in a highly-connected age, people will prefer to stick within their small sphere, but we all know that no matter how many people use technology to insulate themselves and pleasure themselves with groupthink, there will still be those who seek to branch out, to spread themselves and their ideas across the world, and who are driven to weave webs that encompass every corner of the globe.
I suppose the argument could be made that such technologies, in reducing our reliance on the sea, thus reduce the power of the Atlanticists, but this is overly literal thinking. The US does not rule because it has a large navy, but the reason it rules and the reason it has a large navy both derive from certain underlying factors.
The power of the Atlanticists will take a hit in the years to come, but is it wise to count them out? I am not so certain. The rise of cities like Hong Kong and Singapore portend an assertion of Atlanticist principles in a less imperialist form that the great progressive empires of the past few centuries have expressed.
The West may be Atlanticist, but Atlanticism is not just the West, and I actually do believe that going forward we’ll be seeing a variant that plays more nicely with others (with the caveat, of course, that the US-UN-EU version will become increasingly nasty, vicious, and contentious).
I look forward to the rise of that strain, for I know my calling when I hear it. Is it my choice, though, or is it a choice thrust upon me by blood or fate or any of the other powers that guide our steps? I do not know.
I only know that flag under which I fly.