Since the 1960s, psychology has grown progressively more female-oriented. Today, about 80% of psychologists are female, and about 80% of students who study psychology are female as well- and the majority of both groups are feminist. Although feminist academics hail this as a success, the result has been catastrophic: Mental health in America today is a disaster, with skyrocketing rates of most disorders, not to mention the somehow spontaneous self-formation of many disorders that never existed at all in the past.
Clearly, something has gone wrong.
However, the answer to the question, “What went wrong?” is not so complex as one might believe: We human beings are designed to function optimally in a very specific environment, and one structured in accord with the human condition. This system of psychological structures, which I generally refer to as the classical tradition, presumes at the very least the pursuit of truth; the veneration of the natural family; respect for sex-differentiated behavioral patters; hierarchy; competition; a call to live with virtue, love, and sacrifice; a faith in the natural order of things; some method for contextualizing death; and the spiritualization of reality in religious terms. These have existed in some way, shape, or form in every culture that has ever existed, and every culture that has ever abandoned them has collapsed.
But back to the feminist revolution…
Feminism is Marxism with a vagina, and at the very root of Marxism is vengefulness against the classical tradition, against whatever is strong, fearless, beautiful, lofty, lonely, or noble-spirited. The goal of Marxism is to tear down the old order; the goal of feminism is precisely the same, but by different means: While Marxism is philosophical, feminism is psychological; while Marxism wages war upon the system, feminism wages war upon the spirit. And this is why psychological health and well-being are such a disaster today: Because Marxism has accomplished through feminism the destruction of the classical tradition at the organic level, at the level of the human being.
Psychology has thus poisoned the human being by waging war against all the old notions of how the world ought to be structured. And as a result, we have destroyed the very environment in which we were designed to flourish, which has in turn resulted in the generational sickening of the human being- with all the social ills that come along with it: crime, gang violence, drug and alcohol addiction, and so forth.
But what can be done about it?
A problem cannot be solved via the same means by which it was created. And so there is no going forward without first going back. The path we have been led down for the better part of a century now ends in our mutually-assured self-destruction; our only salvation lies in the resurrection of the old way. We must return to an older, bolder, stronger psychology; we must rebuild our humanity from the ground up.
The old way is the only way, and that is Virilis.
~ Joshua van Asakinda
There are two ways, fundamentally, for manhood to go wrong (incidentally, there are two ways, fundamentally, for womanhood to go wrong as well, which essentially mirror the paths enumerated here):
This is not at all to say that men should, in the first case, "get in touch with their feminine side," which really has nothing to do with this, nor that traditional manhood is, in the second case, in any way "toxic," "poisonous," or "dysfunctional," which is nonsensical gibberish anyhow. What it is saying is that manhood requires not only a full and total expression of self, but also that it requires boundaries. Boys raised without a healthy conception of masculinity can quickly lose themselves in their mother's influence so that their masculinity never develops at all, or they can just as quickly go off the rails without a healthy male figure to emulate, thus becoming violent, and without a sense of belonging to their own community. And so it is the absence of the father in either case that is the source of their troubles, either in the form of total submission to the mother and consequent suffocation of one's masculinity, or in the form of radical rebellion against the grounding influence of the mother in favor of a distorted self-representation of the absent father.
Too often, boys raised without fathers find themselves forced to choose between being non-men and bad men. And that is a choice without a winning outcome, wherein they lose no matter what their decision. Given the choice, the stronger-willed boys will almost always choose being bad men over being non-men while the weaker-willed boys will almost always choose being non-men over being bad men. But their manhood is destroyed in either case, which dooms them all to an unhealthy and self-destructive conception of their own masculinity.
And this is truly "toxic," but it is toxic because of the absence of traditional masculinity rather than its excess. Most of these boys were raised by women; they were taught by women. Virtually all of their role models were female- save in film, music, and so forth, from which they derive a mental image of manhood that is little more than caricature. They were raised with ever knowing a healthy father figure, and so how can their masculinity be at fault? Clearly, those who wish to condemn manhood for their situation have not thought very hard about the subject.
Considering the depth of thought- or rather the lack thereof- prevalent in feminist circles, that is to be expected. But the question really is what can be done about it?
~ Joshua van Asakinda
Writer. Genius. Madman.