The lost boys

It is deeply ironic when media pundits criticize the Utah polygamists because of their “lost boys” — the large proportion of young men who can’t find mates in that society and end up ostracized. The disturbing irony is that with the breakdown of marriage in the West, and the dawn of polygyny (sexual access to multiple women from the alpha male’s point-of-view) and rotating polyandry (serial access to alpha males from the woman’s point of view), most of Western society is rapidly filling up with lost boys. Much of our urban culture is at least as polygynous as the Utah polygamists, and this disease has been spreading to more parts of America since the 1960s. Not content to see a large and increasing number of young men losing access to the civilizing influence of marriage and family, and children deprived of the civilizing influence of fathers, our mass-media society further denigrates our lost boys as “losers”, “evil”, and the like. Our mateless young men are the new subhumans.

Habitual viewers of TV, readers of newspapers, students of university courses, and other absorbers of mass media mythologies, including many beta males who have been duped by these alpha-run institutions, may have a hard time believing this. They should stop watching the alpha males and their actor and feminist stooges on TV long enough to make some observations and do some research about the real world. For example, here are some numbers cited by “whiskey” at Roissy’s blog:

A full 34% of white birth [in the U.S. were] illegitimate last year. In the UK, over 50%. In the Black community, 70% nationwide and 90% in the urban core. As opposed to 4% for whites in 1965, and 24% for blacks that year (numbers from Juan Williams at NPR).

CLEARLY, a lot of men are priced out of the marriage market. Indeed, the level of hostility in the culture directed at women should be a major red flag. Young men who’s major experience with women are rejection after rejection, in favor of men who are “jerks” (i.e. hypermacho guys who act around women in ways that gets people fired in the workplace) get angry.

These numbers have been rising since the 1960s. Our record numbers of men in jail also directly reflect the great increase since the 1960s in the lost boys, although the vast majority of lost boys are not (yet) in jail.

We have a large and rapidly increasing population of men who are increasingly waking up to the fact that the rest of society treats them as subhuman (as “losers”, as “evil”, and considered by the typical modern Western woman as unworthy of a committed and faithful marriage).

At the same time they are being ostracized they are increasingly being depended upon by the alpha males and their female harems to make the weaponry and their tools of control and to fight their battles for them. Millions of lost boys have passed through the military or police academies or have otherwise trained themselves in the arts of war in an attempt to preserve their self-respect. (It is true that marriage rates are slightly higher in the military than in civilian populations, but so are the rates of divorce and domestic violence — the results of losts boys in modern so-called “marriages.” It is not just gay “marriage” that should be put in quotes — under modern marriage and family law, most heterosexual “marriages” also bear little resemblance to traditional marriages that made men psychologically comfortable enough to invest time and effort in their children, rather than being legally coerced into doing so). An increasing proportion of our police and military are lost boys, and the gang population is burgeoning because gangs have always been the first haven for lost boys. Lost boys program and operate the server computers we all depend on. Lost boys will soon control nuclear weapons. Juries increasingly consist of at least one, and on occasion a majority, of lost boys who, because of the fraudulent claims of feminism and the slanders of alphas and pretend-alphas that have hurt them so deeply, and because of the increasing use of legal controls to suppress beta males and throw them in jail, will be increasingly suspicious of prosecutors and the legal claims made against beta male defendants.

With moral ostracism (“losers”, “evil”) as the first step, can the physical ostracism of jail be far behind? Beta males are increasingly viewing the modern legal system as at best an attempt to keep them down by threat of violence, and perhaps even an excuse for the alpha males and feminists to round up those betas who refuse to be subservient and effectively throw them in concentration camps. The alphas increasingly fear the post-mass-media awakening of the betas and, to keep their control, are resorting to ideologies like political correctness in a vain attempt to keep the betas in line. As the alpha vs. beta war heats up betas increasingly become aware of their persecution, although it is also true that beta males are increasingly acting in criminal ways towards the society that has ostracized them, thus justifying coercive tactics in the alphas’ and feminists’ minds. Alpha males and feminists versus beta males — it is a war of growing violence on both sides.

Will an elite minority alpha males and the (admittedly much larger group of) female harem members be able to continue to control this situation? Will the lost boys continue to be manipulated by the mass media into meekly doing the bidding of their alpha masters and their harems? There have been plenty of polygynous societies where betas males have so submitted, so that is certainly a possible outcome. But modern society still has strong democratic traditions and depends too much on a growing and increasingly aware beta male population. Nerd males make up the vast majority of those who actually know how to make and use computers generally and smart weapons in particular. Most of these nerds, and an increasing proportion of them, are lost boys, and are rapidly coming to realize that they are lost boys. By insisting that the savage sexual preferences of women take priority over the many other social considerations, alpha males and feminists are via these preferences turning many of the most technically proficient members of our society into lost boys. Putting the computers we all depend on and the smart weapons we are all vulnerable to in the hands of lost boys, as in the post-sexual revolution era we increasingly must, is creating an extremely unstable state of affairs that could erupt into unprecedented and unimaginable violence. It’s already the case that millions of lost boy nerds in the West have wisely decided, individually and implicitly, (that is for their own personal but highly correlated reasons, and not as a conscious mass effort), to throw a Galt’s Gulch strike against the West and spend their lives doing something more agreeable to the hunter-gatherer instincts and their self-respect than to be technical and bureaucratic servants of the alpha males and their harems. That is why most engineering and science is now done by Asians, although Asians after a generation or two and corruption by Hollywood values and waking up to the new reality will soon take to the same pattern. Western “nerds” and “losers” who have woken up to reality and who have any sense of self-respect left in them are now on strike. They are refusing to contribute any more to the society that has screwed them.

So far it is only a quiet but very widespread strike — the nerds have not yet gone violent. They have not yet cooperated in a major way with their lost boy brothers in the gangs and the militaries, but as more lost boys wake up to reality that will change. As the Internet ends the ability of alpha males to use the mass media to dupe the betas, the outcome may be far from pretty unless the alpha males and their harems wake up and agree to a peaceful return to traditional Western monogamy.

F. Roger Devlin has written the most deeply about the issues of rotating polyandry, which is the feminists’ sexual utopia, based purely on the savage and fickle sexual preferences of women and their alpha male beneficiaries, which ends up being a new form of polygyny.


13 Responses to The lost boys

  1. […] this formulation of an anonymous commenter at Marginal Revolution, summarizing my comments about the lost boys, combines a nice allusion with a naughty alliteration, and instills a greater degree of necessary […]

  2. weichi says:

    Rather than all these rants, I think you’d serve your cause better if you started with some posts quantifying the problem of “lost boys” that you claim exists. How do you define “lost boy”? Can you use your definition to come up with quantitative numbers? How have those numbers been changing over time? Can you correlate your findings with social disfunction? Are there other explanations for any other correlations you find? etc etc

  3. weichi says:

    Regarding the marriage rates in the military thing, this is prime example why you need a definition. If you define “lost boys” as men who can’t find mates, the simple fact of higher marriage rates in the military means that the military *can’t* be full of lost boys – after all, military men are apparently *good* at finding mates.

    Higher divorce rates doesn’t really disprove this; it just means that we’re now talking about a different problem – men who found mates but were unable to “keep them”. Not to mention the fact that there are clearly alternate explanations for the higher divorce rate – stress from overseas military adventures, frequent moves to new places, etc. How do we separate these factors?

    I suspect that if you look, you will actually find a lot of academic research addressing some of these issued (though coming from a perspective that is very different than yours, I’m sure). I recall reading a piece in an Economist christmas issue a number of years ago (perhaps late 90’s?) discussing the fate of men in western society – something along the lines of growing job categories were those in which women were over-represented. I’m sure they referred to academic research, and this is an area that, while not the same as your interests, is related.

  4. fschmidt says:

    Of course everything you say on your blog is true and obvious to anyone with brains, which means an insignificant fraction of the population. Anyway, Devlin writes well, but a far deeper analysis can be found in the book “Sex and Culture” by Unwin published in the 1930s. In this book, Unwin proves that civilization depends on female chastity using anthropological and historical evidence.

  5. cassius says:

    Regarding the marriage rates in the military thing, this is prime example why you need a definition. If you define “lost boys” as men who can’t find mates, the simple fact of higher marriage rates in the military means that the military *can’t* be full of lost boys – after all, military men are apparently *good* at finding mates.

    Let’s try this definition: a lost boy is a heterosexual male who has not found and kept a faithful and life-long female mate (or at least long enough to raise all the resulting children to adulthood). Thus high divorce rates, high adultery rates (probably not measured, but important), and the stresses of travelling for long periods away from the spouse all add to the problem. I’m not criticizing the military, which probably on balance despite the high divorce rates and other marital problems “finds” a large number of lost boys — women tend to be attract to the uniform and the associated status. My point is that lost boys pass through the military, which “finds” many of the lost boys, but ultimately leaves many others still lost.

  6. cassius says:

    fschmidt, having read the online book reviews but not the book, I suspect that Unwin is observing a similar pattern as Devlin and I (that civilization thrives with the practice of premarital chastity and marital fidelity) but ascribing a very different and probably quite mistaken quasi-Freudian cause (sexual repression). Evolutionary psychology is a powerfully explanatory theory while Freud was largely cabalistic superstitution. So I suspect that Devlin and I have far more accurate things to say about the actual cause-and-effect than Unwin, but it’s quite possible that Unwin has interesting things to say about the correlation between chastity, fidelity, and civilization that we could all learn from. I hope Unwin’s book gets put online for us all to read. Amazon doesn’t have it in stock.

    In any case, if this review is correct, Unwin is mistaken on a basic premise: polygamous societies do not on average afford males easier “sexual opportunity.” To think so is to mistake mass-media pro-polygyny propaganda (already becoming common in Unwin’s day) for reality. Rather polygamy, and more generally polygyny, deprives sexual opportunity to beta males and transfers it to alpha males.

    But, these comments of mine being a second-hand comments basd on online reviews, they should not be taken as necessarily a critique of Unwin, just of the theory of Unwin as it is understood by the reviewers.

  7. Burton says:

    Long story short: a friend of mine, a real stand-up guy, conservative, quite intelligent, you know the score: he was treated like a doormat by American women. After 20 years of searching for a wife, he finally tossed in the towel. In part this decision was due to me, as I introduced him to inter-racial dating.

    A couple years ago he started dating Mexican women (he does business in Latin America and speaks Spanish). He finally made the leap and got married to a Mexican. They currently are living happily in the USA with their new kid.

    Now here is my point: this guy used to be a fanatic anti-immigration activist. Minuteman type. Now his opinion of immigration has changed. He says it is time to bring down the borders to allow more American men to marry foreign women.

    He sees the system in this country as keeping down guys like himself. Now he calls for the downfall of that same system. He’s no longer a conservative, more of a — what? — maybe rightwing anarchist.

    He’s not the only one.

    If you define “lost boys” as men who can’t find mates, the simple fact of higher marriage rates in the military means that the military *can’t* be full of lost boys – after all, military men are apparently *good* at finding mates.

    But let us not forget that there is a very high rate of military men marrying foreign women. All part of the pattern.

  8. fschmidt says:

    cassius, I agree that Unwin’s explanation is nonsense. I wrote a review of the book here. And I also use evolutionary psychology to understand the world around me. But the fact is that theories have much less value in the social sciences than in the physical sciences where theories can be validated by experiments. Even though I believed that feminist societies were doomed based on evolutionary psychology, I couldn’t really be sure until I read Unwin’s book which contains the research which proves this to be true. So this is why Unwin’s book has more value than Devlin’s writings, because Unwin proves that civilization depends on female chastity based on facts, not theories. Unwin’s work will hold regardless of the reader’s personal beliefs, whether he believes evolution or creationism. I urge you to read the book. I have scanned the book and you can find it here.

  9. cassius says:

    Burton, the ability of first world men to marry foreign women has probably prevented the social and political destructiveness of polygyny from getting worse more quickly in the first world, but it probably exacerbates the problem in less developed countries. This solution, and even more obviously Roissy’s, and most other solutions I’ve seen proposed, address the problem for individuals or subgroups of men operating within a pathological culture, but they play zero-sum games that pass the problem on to other individuals or groups rather than solving the global problem. The solution that will save us all is a return to monogamy for us all.

    fschmidt, much thanks for scanning the work. The PDF is by far the most readable version. While I agree with your observations with respect to most social science theories, when it comes to evolutionary psychology, it has been (in the form of behavioral ecology, ethology, sociobiology, and a number of other names) very well verified with other animals and I’ve found that it has a profound explanatory power for human behavior that other social science paradigms, except perhaps economics for predicting some macro-scale phenomena, lack. We should always try to verify and re-verify these theories with the widest possible variety of facts, and we should be on the lookout for great studies of the facts like Unwins that can be turned into better theories, but it’s also true that we don’t have the luxury of ample time to collect enough facts to become 100% certain of our theories before we use them. Our society is crumbling around us and the number of men and women living in the hell of disrupted relationships is growing every year. Devlin has made important advances in applying our best, even if hardly perfect, theories to these problems.

  10. jay says:

    The female harem surrounding alpha males tend to be the cream of the crop of women with regard to their beauty. If the men you’re worried about altered their own “savage sexual preferences” for beautiful mates & lowered their standards, they could probably find mates w/o much difficulty. Alphas are not monopolizing average chicks.

  11. mensarefugee says:

    I took the liberty of sharing that book online.

  12. mensarefugee says:

    Jay- If women would stop taxing me to death – id consider it? 😛

  13. mensarefugee says: last post didnt go through.
    fschmidt, I took the liberty of sharing that book online here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: