Something has gone wrong in modern cultural and political life.
Lom3z’s article on the “Longhouse” has both helped shape and popularize the term as well as diffuse it in modern political discourse. Chances are, if you are reading this article, you have heard of this term at least once before. It is a reference to a disequilibrium troubling contemporary society, social psycho-sexual compatibility, and most major Occidental institutions.
What Is the Longhouse?
For the uninitiated, the word “Longhouse” strictly refers to the communal halls serving various primitive agrarian societies – anywhere from the Germanic Linearbandkeramik Linear Pottery longhouses to the Cucuteni–Trypillian longhouses of the Carpathian Mountains – most of these structures were utilized as the tribe’s social focal point throughout the centuries for most sedentary, agricultural cultures.
The most significant component of Longhouse complexes was the ubiquitous rule of the archetypal Den Mother; a matriarchal figure destined to enforce ancestral custom and convention within the tribe. The Longhouse was a communal fixture in which members of the clan would reside, find meaning, converse, and conduct necessary mate-selection rituals. It is by no means solely a toxic element of social organization. It is true that women are generally more inclined towards bettering their immediate communities. Women are more adept at external communication and social connectivity, and will often find themselves intertwined in the activities of fostering functional communities by fulfilling necessary grassroots-mobilization roles as well as having a higher tendency to volunteer. However, the inclusion of the modern Longhouse also cultivates an attitude of societal overcorrection of the last two generations. It is designed to buttress the feminine desire for community control, akin to the motivations of the looming matriarchal figure, the Den Mother, who is both petulant and powerful. Women are also generally more inclined towards moralism and will engage in the collective social ostracization of those deemed otherwise too ‘dangerous’ or even ‘weird’ — potential predators and mercenaries.
From both the Left and Right, this incorrigible presence has only been expanding. Hillary Clinton made it a slogan of her 2016 campaign: “The future is female.” She was prophetic in this.
Lom3z’s articulation of the modern Longhouse in this sense is entirely accurate.
That being said, however, it is also difficult to find real examples of the Den Mother phenomenon performed in primitive cultures as his initial article suggests. While it is apparent that the “future is Female” talking point is repeatedly wielded in the faces of modern young men, it is awkwardly pressing to find manifested examples of this human inclination within the material world as much as it is an intuitive typification of the turbulent Hera archetype, also known as a maladaptive version of the Hera archetype; an overly domineering (and ‘bossy’) woman.
Is the Longhouse Real?
For the sake of argument, it would be in our best interest to consider possible historical examples demonstrating the Den Mother-Hera phenomenon of primitive cultures.
Mother Goddess and ‘Divine Feminine’ worship is not unheard of in historical research, and it is certainly a feature of Paleolithic tribal development. However, the advent of the Neolithic Revolution introduced true civilizational development through the effective utilization of farming implements, such as the plow, ushering in an era of explosive human cultural development, arguably planting seeds of ostentatious phallic psycho-sexual imagery. Following these changes, religious custom and conceptualization of the divine would become more masculine, and civilizational order would become ever more vertical and hierarchical from its horizontal past.
Although subconscious fragments of the Paleothilic Den Mother figure remained in the human psyche, it is rare to find many examples of it being as pertinent as Lom3z, Costin Alamiriu, or others of their scholarly ilk have suggested. Funny enough, the “future is Female” talking point is more likely an aspect of the ever-growing suicidal nature of Apollonian-European enlightened philosophy, so focused on human rights and egalitarianism, as well as the fixation on scientific and philosophical innovation.
The devolution of Western innovation is not news to Right-Wing adherents. The intermingling of ethnicities and dilution of culture due to increased immigration serves as enough of an example of its obvious problems. This is also true of the detrimental effects of progressive feminism. Creating a vague specter of fear, such as the “Longhouse,” and introducing it within circles of precocious, conservative young men is a necessary component of political evolution and ideological development. However, fixating too often on one singular aspect leads individuals to be blind to glaring pitfalls. This is where I want to introduce to concept of the ‘Monghouse’ – something, I believe, Right-Wing discourse lacks.
What is the Monghouse?
Ironically, because the Longhouse is a rather long and phallic image to represent the feminine inclination to maintain communal order; I have decided to utilize the circular yurt to represent the opposing force of that principle.
A yurt is a round tent, fully insulated with animal skins, traditionally used as a dwelling for several distinct nomadic groups in the steppes and mountain areas of Inner Asia, particularly the Krygys Turkik culture and the Mongolians. It is very similar to that of an Igloo in its design; being completely round, insulative, and defensive from hostile external forces. It has been estimated that yurts have been built for thousands of years, and are still being erected to this day with more modern materials, such as plastics and plexiglass.
It is important to understand that the maladaptive (or “turbulent”) articulation of the Hera archetype does very much manifest within the masculine in a similar fashion.
The prevailing image of Jupiter, or Zeus, is a necessary archetype. It is by nature authoritative, and an organizational force for civilization development, albeit very much beneficial and fatherly. However, a turbulent manifestation of this archetype is just as common. Controlling, stern, and wrathful – much like Yahweh of the Old Testament – is the turbulent manifestation of the Jupiter archetype.
Other prevailing masculine archetypes have turbulent manifestations as well; including Ares, Dionysus, and even Apollo (the Dark Apollo/Dark Artemis archetype is especially pertinent, and one aim to write about in the near future) and are all wholly deconstructive in its aims and potent civilizational manifestations.
The reason why I am bringing the mythic encapsulations of human behavior such as these is in the interest of illustrating exactly how the Monghouse functions. Just as the Longhouse is neither a wholly negative nor positive principle of social order, it has regardless become more or less maladaptive in its present manifestation in modern society. This is why Lom3z so appreciates the Den Mother archetype (and, as far as historical examples are concerned, largely remains to be just that – an archetype) similarly, I wish to exude the same kind of analysis in this piece. The Yurt Father archetype, although more rife with historical examples (as most societies are patriarchal post-Neolithic Revolution) is a sufficient embodiment of the Den Mother’s oppositional force.
What are Signs of the Monghouse?
Similar to the Longhouse, the Monghouse is the embodiment of communal control, but from a masculine source of will. It is also turbulent in its performance. Much like how the Longhouse has both positive and negative manifestations of its application, the Monghouse functions in relatively the same way. Yurts were strong dwelling centers for families and neighbors alike and provided an elemental source of power, nutrition, fortification, and resilience. However, the suffocating effects of the circular structure, so often lived in by the patrilinear systems that encourage its continual rectification, also carry with it very negative societal effects.
The Monghouse is slightly more complex in its turbulent nature, in relation to the Longhouse, based on two principles:
First, as I previously stated, the Monghouse can be understood as those maladaptive masculine behaviors demonstrated by those engaging in the encroaching Right-Wing Male Reinassance. Retributory effects of Right-Wing male culture, as it pertains to rectifying the “future is Female” progressive-feminist problem, is a necessary part of maintaining Western cultural order and Jovian superiority. However, the imperious demands of this ever-growing movement have become, at times, much. It is no doubt that the ideological expressions of this movement will become a fladerization of what is once stood for. Performative Trad-Caths, obligatory harems, and repealing the 19th amendment (no matter how you approach it, it is extremely difficult to institute that in today’s society) are just a few examples of its manifestation, even if, at times, some of those ideological positions are the byproduct of professional grifters.
Secondly, the Monghouse can also be understood as the natural negative anima to what is meant to be positively masculine. Artemis, for instance, embodies the “survival of the fittest” principle; in men, we might call her the natural anima. As a principle, this is a healthy relationship between the gendered archetypes. Dionysus is a feminized articulation of the masculine principle in the same way. However, a turbulent rendition of this archetype is generally very dangerous to society, and becomes destructive. Likewise, the modern male progressive-feminist embodies this paradoxical pattern by prostrating himself to his female superiors, the principles of collectivity and inclusion, to the point that he recreates his counterpart’s own demise. Overt inclusivity invites the deleterious effects of excessive immigration, to the point where he eagerly awaits the importation of Eastern ideologies firmly opposed to this personal perspective of what a woman’s role in society should be.
The Monghouse is alive and well in Western culture, and, with the inauguration of the Longhouse narrative, will grow ever more relevant. To resist the turbulent policies of the Longhouse, including weepy safteyism, excessive moralism, and other implements of community control — the Monghouse will equally cease to exist.
"Mong" is British slang for the "r" word.
This is very learned and well researched, Daniella. Related to your post, Western men are suffering from declining testosterone levels, increasing passivity, and decreasing achievement. Fewer men than women are going to college and fewer men than women are completing college. Meanwhile in countries like Iran, we find beautiful women and masculine men. I fear for the future of the West.