The Male Crisis Part 3 | The Fatherlessness Epidemic

I recently became a father for the second time a few days ago, which has given me a completely different perspective on the importance of the father within a family. In the mainstream media, we are fed a constant stream of lies that fathers are not needed, that the mother can get along just fine without the father, etc.

And while financially this is true due to the advent of the welfare state, it is a moralistically abhorrent thing to say about any group of people. Replace the sentence ‘fathers are unnecessary’ with ‘old people are unnecessary’ and you instantly feel a gut-wrenching reaction, because we all know an old person who we love, be it our grandma or grandpa but increasingly very few people know a father.

This is represented within the statistics, per one study the rate of fatherlessness within the UK is 48%. (Source 1) This figure, as discussed in my first article on the topic is completely unacceptable. It’s a much higher figure than was reported on back when the first The Male Crisis was published, showing the epidemic has gotten much worse.

But what is the cause of this epidemic? Back in the 60s, a radical set of ideas became popular, ideas of personal empowerment and a revitalisation of old feminist beliefs. Women were finally in positions of power, and decided individually to take up roles of high importance, such as managers and business owners over having a family.

The movement that caused this split from traditional family values can be put down to an academic adoption of Social Justice. Many articles use this word as a throw-away term, but it does mean something specific. Allow me to contextualise this by taking us back in time to the rise of Socialism.

A Brief History of Socialism

In the 1900s, a movement called Socialism won the hearts of men and women across the world. It was the belief that the working man should possess one hundred percent of the means of production and that monetary value should be removed as an incentive to work.

It came in two forms: National Socialism, or Nazism as it was known in the 1940s, and Communism, or State Socialism. While National Socialism placed emphasis on the family unit, Communism placed focus on the state, you and your children were property of the state and it could destroy you if it wanted to.

These two forces are cut from the same cloth: Nazism/National Socialism is the overbearing father and Communism is the overbearing mother. What do I mean by this? Nazism was obsessed with order and the family unit, a fatherly focus on unity, an idea that can be laid out as follows: We are as one, a large family but only so long as you conform and look right.

Communism disregarded this and only cared that you were identified with The Party, and depending on how much you professed you were a part of The Party depended on the extent of your punishment. The result of these two world views was tens to hundreds of millions killed depending on the party in question.

Both are Socialism in their purest forms, it’s just a question of which side of the political coin they fell, Nazism was Far-Right, Communism was Far-Left.

After the collapse of the Iron Curtain, these ideas or notions of National Socialism and State Socialism were completely unpopular, and yet the UK, US and many parts of the public had sympathies towards Karl Marx’s ideas and his socioeconomic doctrine, thus academia adapted and created Social Justice, a system of which still rules the universities today.

Created by the Goethe University of Frankfurt, the Frankfurt School was the underlying idea behind much of the rise of Social Justice. (source 2) It believed fundamentally in the concept of Negative Dialects, which is functionally the blueprint for Identity Politics; an unjustified obsession with identity.

It promoted Critical Theory, a pure and raw attempt to turn Marx’s doctrine into a social theory. All things Social Justice flow from this source, including criticisms of the family unit. The depth to which this social theory reaches and expands Marx’s ideas is extremely expansive, but I must summarise it heavily.

So, through the Frankfurt school, Socialism became academic, and thus what can be fairly called Social Communism was created, though its most popular name is Social Justice.

Through this theory, dependence on the state over the father was placed as a top priority. The destruction of the family unit became a goal, and it wasn’t until the 70s that this ideology began to pick up. The first Feminist courses were created, the first black and ethnic studies courses created and ultimately, that is how we got to this point today.

All men became oppressors, all women became victims per Social Justice. There is a long unbroken thread from the original ideological movement and today. Thus, a key tenant of Social Justice became the degradation of the family unit and the promotion of women above men.

Social Justice is simply the identity-focused version of state-communism, which fundamentally requires the erosion of the state to exist. It requires complete anarchy to become an established entity within the world, only then it will reset and form a new state, a state without borders and without any sense of value or a desire to exist at all.

Call it a Nihilist state if you will. So, what is the consequence of all of this?

The Consequences the Adoption of Social Justice

The Frankfurt School has become the dominant social theory within sociology departments the world over. Even at GCSE level, you are taught to think of the world in terms of victim vs oppressor, and that everyone that disagrees with your brand of social theory is horrific or in some way broken.

You are also taught what to think, which I and my friend who took the course were extremely resistant to. We were also taught that there were only four functional systems of which the world could be viewed: Marxists, Feminists, Functionalists, Traditionalists.

The Traditionalists were demonised and we were taught that you should dislike them because they are essentially ‘old fashioned’ and that their ideas are wrong thus. But if you agreed with them you could write that you agreed with them, at the cost of your grade. What a small world the Sociologists live in, a world of infinite diversity, and yet only four functional systems. One group always thought the same way, another thought another way, and so on. This is the theory being taught to children: a system of oppression and oppressor.

The course made me highly resistant to this dogmatic crap, and therefore I can speak freely about this topic, but what of the others?

They are likely pursuing this Marxist economic doctrine all the while the number of anti-family, pro-Frankfurt School teachers increases. When the children leave school for college, they are greeted by more of the same, and when they enter university, they become social justice activists. These people are the result of generations of self-aggrandization and uncritical acceptance of critical theory.

And should the estimated 30% of the population who accept this harmful Social Communism be brought into power, what then? Well, I have news for you: They are already in power.

Since the 70s, many courts in the UK and US have been taken over by pro-Social Justice members who all oppose the family unit. They insist on ruling in favour of the mother for custodial rights during divorce cases, hence the 48% fatherlessness statistic in the UK.

This statistic doesn’t happen naturally, you must seriously persuade women to divorce men or detach from men in such extreme numbers, and the persuasion comes from bribes: The Welfare state. If you were offered the ability to have children but have no need to tolerate a partner, would you not take it?

Families are hard work, and the idea of creating one is hard, but having children and cutting the father out of the child’s life is extremely easy, and per the most popular social theory in academia, men aren’t needed for the creation of a family anyway.

The persistent degradation of the idea that men are needed is a plot to give all perceived power to perceived victims: women, and then once they are not enough of victims, it will be given to minorities, until it all ends up in the hands of one individual, while the rest are enslaved.

Far-fetched? All other forms of Socialism that haven’t been compartmentalised to one area have led to this conclusion. That or they will lead to radical individualism, an idea that is contrary to the Frankfurt School of ideas.

The damage to fathers and families is evident, and is something I discussed in the first The Male Crisis in statistical terms, but the real-world damage can’t be overstated. (Source 3)

Many studies show that fatherlessness causes an increased chance of dropout rate, an increase in violent crime and an increase in the harm done to the mental state of the child in later life.

Many women now have a pathological distrust and even a hatred of men caused by both the lack of a father figure and by the indoctrination of the Social Sciences which justify this distrust/hatred immensely.

Today, many millions of men will not see their children, and it is these pernicious ideas that are mostly to blame.

The Solution?

The only solution to this problem is to try to destroy the structures of which destroy the lives of men and children and to seek to set precedent by countering the judgements and rulings against your right to see your child.

The other way is to push for family values extremely heavily. If things can slip any further, there will perhaps one day be no such word as ‘father’ only ‘oppressor.’ The overbearing mother must not be allowed to win.

We must revitalise our culture, resurrect our father and see that that revitalisation stops at the revitalisation of culture, too. Seek to destroy all institutes of Social Justice, because they are absolutely opposed to actual justice.

Seek to create within others not empowerment but strength to do what is needed of them by themselves and by the society, and a new, secular iteration of classical traditional values must become adopted. If not, there will come a point where society will die.

The final article in this series will centre around the true causes and horror of male suicide. It is a topic I have a lot of experience with so it will be far less statistically focused, though the statistics themselves are worthy of another article.

Thank you for listening. If you want to support me, please send a minds.com token or two, it really does help.

Sources

Source 1: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/12/fatherless-society-children-in-poverty-iain-duncan-smith--social-justice-thinktank

Source 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Source 3: https://www.minds.com/blog/view/840861423866716160