Have you ever wondered why society destroys—and is destroyed by—so many effeminate man-children, who would not know manliness even if it were to smack them in the face for acting like a woman (i.e. for acting in ways that society will only ever tolerate from women)?
Or have you ever wondered why society plagues—and is plagued by—so many manic, self-hating, self-worshiping, loud, muted, miserable, penis-envying women—who desperately crave every gender-equality except straight-talk and consequences?
If you wonder either of these, then take a mental seat to read a bit about the realities of psychology, the importance of etiquette, and the natural, inescapable, God-given harmony between the different, inherently complimentary sexes.
Etiquette is simply a set of social rules to help things run smoothly. Etiquette is subjective and always will be. Still, everyone has etiquette.
In these days, and in those that came before and will come after, a pastime of plenty hypocrites, frauds, and other short-sighted fools is to fake mental and social toughness by mocking other’s etiquette—yet while clinging forcefully to their own preferences about social interaction (i.e. clinging to their own etiquette). Everyone, especially hypocrites, recognizes the importance of etiquette. Following is an example of etiquette’s utility.
A popular etiquette among some in the West is the rule of keeping conversation “light” while in “mixed company.” Company can be “mixed” in many ways. A common and useful example is a mix of men and women, or a mix of adults and children. And a common time where both those mixes would traditionally arise—is at dinner table. Thus, a dinner table has traditionally been a place where etiquette demanded that conversation should stay “light.” Traditional Western etiquette even enumerates certain topics to avoid at dinner—namely religion and politics. To be clear: this avoidance need not arise during a dinner between or among believers of the same religion, or people who have a shared political perspective. Rather, the rule is—again—for mixed company. And the reason for this rule was to facilitate, between opponents, the broader goal of peacefully recognizing each other’s humanity.
See, back before the current progress of today’s progressive current, before dueling bigotries had gained such supremacy in popular culture—people used to have these antiquated things called “polite, even happy social-interactions between and among others with whom they did not perfectly agree.” It was a savage and unenlightened time—a time when people thought of themselves and others as more than the sum of their most immediate ideological projections. Some of these savages were even backward enough to suppose that someone could disagree with them without being a bad person. And the absolute dregs even thought they could learn something from their opponents. It was the worst of times: a time filled with the kind of foolish wisdom that lacked credulous belief.
Jokes aside: these days, plenty people are miserable as hell by both a failure to be humble enough to engage their opponents politely, and a failure to set fair, consistent rules—etiquette—for interaction generally. Good and agreed etiquette removes some freedom and creates some duty—like wearing clothes in public or stopping your car for pedestrians. But this is only the means. The end of etiquette—its aim—is a freer walk on firmer ground. Thus, the end of etiquette—its destruction—must always and only cause a society that amounts to moment-to-moment chaos.
Let’s move now from etiquette to psychology, which is the study and observation of the mind, its effect on matter, and how matter affects it.
Psychology describes a certain habit as “transference.” By this habit, a person avoids addressing a true problem by instead transferring their focus onto something unrelated—then applying, to that unrelated thing, all the energy that has pent up about the true problem. Thus, “transference” is simply when the cowardice or sloth of avoidace creates hypocritical overreaction elsewhere.
Transference During Collapsed Etiquette
Everyone wants etiquette. Those who say they don’t are selling something—and that something is their etiquette. We have a word for this: hypocrisy. So to start again: everyone wants etiquette—especially those hypocrites who pretend otherwise.
When etiquette collapses, and chaos ensues, only a desperate fight for etiquette can truly come. Anything else will be only a mire of transference—where hypocrites strive to build the societal house as one floating off the ground, rather than on a foundation of good etiquette.
Bad Etiquette vs the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God
Etiquette is always subjective, yet can be objectively valued by the extent to which the etiquette accords with the law of nature and of nature’s God—which are objective standards. Thence by bad etiquette we see, for example, plutocratic patriarchs socially cannibalizing women into sick and twisted “feminists,” which are simply slave-minded, state-worshiping psychotics. And thence we also see men who are too cowardly or complicit to end and prevent that cannibalizing against women: many a man now fails the women around him, by deputizing—else tolerating the deputization of—each woman into being the small, weak shadow of some man: instead of a powerful wife and mother, these women are doomed to be just some man’s or men’s lowly secretary, or manager, or president. And by this misogyny, those men themselves are only a shadow of what she could be—as they strive to establish the bad etiquette of sacrificing good women to weak men, in the vain and impossible hope of preventing the natural, inescapable, God-given harmony between the different, inherently complimentary sexes.