The Western Civilization Marriage Committee

upload.jpg

People who claim to care about the fate of western civilization but simply tell the people who make up their civilization to 'have more kids' are fooling themselves. Having more kids won't guarantee that they won't live in a broken home later or that their mom or dad will not be absolute losers, slobs or just emotionally unstable. Increasing a population doesn't do anything in and of itself. It could very well just pad voting blocs, depending on what cities offer cool amenities. For instance, most of Oregon is pretty Republican, spatially, and yet, because the greater Portland region - which basically determines how the whole country is going to do electorally - has a lot of coffee shops, micro-breweries and full-nudity strip clubs, a higher concentration of people from all over the country are going to flock there and get sucked in to all of their provincial social issues and vote Democrat. Your kids might grow up watching Friends like it's some quaint, retro show about metropolitan life the way some of us watched Bewitched on Nick At Night and took for granted that it was the first television show to depict a married couple sleeping in the same bed together.

Meanwhile, they'll go on consuming all kinds of eclectic online media, whether that be exhausted dissidents still trying to be edgy as the last bastion of HBD awareness or intersectional feminists, nihilists and Marxian theoreticians, or some strange mix thereof, along with who knows what kind of independent entertainment will have arisen in the collapse of Hollywood. All of these outlets and vectors will be contributing to the value systems of future generations, giving them market options as to which 'western' values they want to entertain. And somewhere in the space of time before that, it is likely that we'll end up with a super Lefty progressive president as a strong reaction to Trump, who will basically spend eight years trying to reverse everything he did so that there could never be anything resembling the kind of Civic Nationalism his most ardent supporters think him capable of instating. This president will make the borders as open as possible, all on moral pretenses, and soon, all the Right wing dissidents will go further underground or fashing it up in the streets, talking all the while about the ethnic displacement of their Ipad-addicted, Netflix-binging spawn, sincerely wondering why their kids are still stupid, why their country is still falling apart and why no one can quite agree on just what 'western values' are in the first place.

Regardless of how you define 'western values,' you don't really have a vested interest in it if you're not trying to help your friends have sex with decent women.

Civic Nationalists are losers. They're like the political version of people who try to find a soulmate through online dating sites. You go on these sites and tell people you just want a girl who appreciates Robert Graves, when what you really want is a girl who appreciates Robert Graves with a big ass. That's not what you say, however. If you want a decent girl, you can't say that. Likewise, Civic Nationalists will keep voting for Trump and his half-hearted America-first policies, when what they really want is someone who can guarantee them that some charming Trinidadian on his way to a medical degree will not scoop up the white girl they have a crush on at their favorite coffee shop in the interum where they lack the courage needed to talk to her. Nationalism is as much about sex as it is about culture and identity. There's no getting away from this. What is this nationalism that is springing up all around the western world in response to different manifestations of the migrant crisis but a large-scale eugenics program? If this is the case, why depend so much on the state indirectly when you can take matters into your own hands? Just admit that you'd like to control who people have sex with or, at least, that you'd like someone else to do the hard work of finding a lifelong mate  for you (a marketable compromise in interests)?

One should take some advice from Nietzsche, in this regard. Forget paltry affinity groups and vanilla-pudding free association. People interested in 'saving western civilization' or any civilization, for that matter, should form a marriage committee. Arranged marriage is boring when it's simply a conspiracy between the parents, and when their kids don't have much of a choice. 

Rather, form a committee made up of friends, family, religious peers and even an odd psychiatric professional designed for the sole purpose of hooking people up who are more than likely going to create a better future. Of course, it isn't fail-proof, but what are the options? Pursuing 5.5 serious relationships with some wild-oats in between there somewhere after The One gets away in 8th Grade, only to become bitter and jaded by the time you're 31, finally deterred away from having kids due to how annoying most parents are? That or try some polyamory. Everyone's doing it. Everyone's swapping fluids. They're all pro-choice and can't get busted for intentionally giving you AIDS too (if you live in California, which if you do, just leave. It's never too late).

What's great about this idea is that there's room for a multifarious vision of the west. There has never really been a uniform 'west' anyway. People who want a uniform west never agree with one another on just what that should be anyway. One of the most glaring examples is race. Even people who want some kind of ethnic homogeneity have different ideas about how said ethnic homogeneity would work. Some are okay with socialism. Some hate socialism and seem to think a free market mixed with theocratic do-goodery would be best. Furthermore, a lot of them throw this word 'decadent' around, like it's a qualifiable category. One group of people quite like big asses while another group thinks that a love for big asses is a sign of decadence. To each one's own. Find your own committee and do your own thing. Go crazy. One can replace these examples with countless others. My point is, there is not one uniform abstraction which will save everyone from the hard work of association and disassociation. Ultimately, people will brush up against one another, for better or worse. I merely posit that we should have people handle part of that who are good at avoiding mistakes. Marriage is already a contrivance -  a contract, an extraction of something from nature which would have happened accidentally. Why pretend that it is something organic? Do the grad-students and armchair theoreticians one better when they say that marriage is a 'social construct' and reply, 'You're quite right, but we could have constructed it a lot better...'

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to do the work yourself when it comes to finding a good relationship. We often have this prejudice that we can glean a great deal of self-worth from advancing into the needless emotional territory of the turbulent tide that is the dating world, which is muddled, ever shifting and far less libidinous as time moves forward. What we need are people who can combine the pragmatic needs of society with the happiness of the individual. It's foolish to think that people will suddenly become terrific at the family thing just because shariah is moving in next door. Libertarians and anarchists love to talk about voluntary action and intentional communities. Well, there's nothing more intentional than ceding the territory of your romantic life over to a group of people who not only care about you, but who care about the existential destiny of civilization. 'Family values' only sounds nice if your family doesn't suck. That's why so many westerners defect to radical Islam; they don't find much substance in their own home-grown values. Rather than asserting more and more strongly that our values are the best ones in the world, perhaps it is high time we revisit the prospect that our only way forward is, perhaps, to transvaluate all values.

Never has matchmaking been sexier, nor have we ever been in such dire need of it.