An American feminist, Hanna Rosin, has given a speech in which she smugly charts the demise of men. She notes, in support of her case, that American women are doing much better than men when it comes to education, employment and wages.
My own response to her speech? First, I think it's going to become much harder for feminists to claim that women are oppressed victims when high profile feminists like Hanna Rosin are triumphantly declaring the "end of men".
Second, Hanna Rosin comes across as insufferable. If she is a representative of triumphant womanhood, then humanity is staring into the abyss.
Third, she's wrong. Yes, young women are doing much better than young men when it comes to education and employment. That does have significant consequences, particularly when it comes to family formation.
But her argument that changes to the economy are the death knell for men is too simplistic. First, it's not true that all blue collar work has been made redundant. In Australia, a hard-working tradesman can make a good living, certainly a better one than my own white collar profession (teaching).
Nor do most women end up wanting to spend their lives working full-time. At my school, there are no married women with children who work full-time. They are all part-timers.
The important thing for young men is to hold their nerve. They might be temporarily outcompeted when in their 20s, but if they commit to a job and keep at it, chances are that they will eventually move ahead when their female peers start to downscale their career commitments.
And it's clear that men are still needed by women. I have yet to see any evidence that modern women find emasculated men romantically attractive. Social dysfunction and poverty are much higher in fatherless families. Middle-class women, in particular, are still reluctant to embark on motherhood without the support of a husband.
What all this means is that the men who refuse to become demoralised are likely to find themselves a much sought after commodity.
Who does she envisage will marry women like her? Does she foresee men becoming house husbands? Does she talk about children? Is her argument simply a we're better than you rant? (Sorry I won't watch her video if that's allright).
ReplyDeleteHey guys, scroll down to the "What holds society together" thread. Someone animated Mark's post.
ReplyDeleteEarlier on this blog you noted the Catch-22 with regards to white competition with non-white immigrants -- if non-white immigrants are doing better than whites, it's because whitey is a lazy, stupid loser, but if whites are doing better than non-white immigrants, it's because of evil white racism.
ReplyDeleteMuch the same applies to women competing with men from the feminist viewpoint. If men are doing better than women: unfair discrimination! If women are doing better than men: women are great, hooray!
If the statistics were reversed, and men were doing better than women in education, employment, and wages, you can bet Hanna would be screaming for government intervention. Since men are getting the short end, she is smugly happy.
"What all this means is that the men who refuse to become demoralised are likely to find themselves a much sought after commodity."
Sought after by women who have spent their 20s and early 30s whoring around, and now need a beta provider to put a child in their well-used bellies? That's great for the women, but what's in it for the man?
If men can't win because the above-mentioned Catch-22 exists, the only rational strategy for men is not to play. Men need to do this until women decide that the game needs fair rules. Hoping for crumbs from the table from desperate cougars is not a viable strategy and will not appeal to young men. If you say to a young man of 18, "Hey, work hard until some woman who has hit the wall at 35 decides she needs a husband" then he will say, sorry, no thanks, I'd rather live in my dad's basement and play XBox.
Women have often done better than men in education. They are good students. But this has a way of not translating into eventual results, because women get interested in family and children; and because their real world performance tends not to match their performance in the relatively sheltered world of education.
ReplyDeleteAlso, men's intelligence matures more slowly than women's, even into their twenties, a fact long noted.
Hanna Rosin's approach is obnoxious, and seems to be motivated by jealousy and resentment. She may ultimately be disappointed in what actually transpires. As I like to say, trends are not destiny.
If you say to a young man of 18, "Hey, work hard until some woman who has hit the wall at 35 decides she needs a husband" then he will say, sorry, no thanks, I'd rather live in my dad's basement and play XBox.
ReplyDeleteAgree with you 100%.
But that's the worst case scenario. There are still some women who are available early 20s (three very high quality women at my workplace who are married/engaged/partnered at this age).
And there's a large cohort, too, who get more serious by their late 20s (not ideal, still a bit late, but better than mid-30s).
I would agree with you, though, that there's an ongoing need to point out to women that the deferral of marriage and family to their 30s is destructive both for women and men.
Who does she envisage will marry women like her? Does she foresee men becoming house husbands? Does she talk about children? Is her argument simply a we're better than you rant? (Sorry I won't watch her video if that's allright).
ReplyDeleteThe closest she gets to answering this is to suggest that men are becoming "omega" (dropouts) or misanthropes and that young women expect to have to carry them along financially as useless househusbands while they (the women) work long hours at their careers.
She seems to see this prospect as a huge victory for women, as proof of female superiority.
She even puts on a clip of her young school-age daughter explaining why girls are so much superior to boys as students, while her husband and young son listen in.
Apparently, she believes the change to the new society she sees emerging can be managed successfully.
Her brain has been thoroughly riddled by feminist ideology. I'm in my early 40s. 80% of my female peers are dedicated mothers who work part-time at most. Most of these women are traditional in the sense that they are supportive of their husbands working and being effective fathers at home.
I just can't see Rosin's future of useless men supported by superwomen becoming the majority trend. Most women don't want it and wouldn't stand for it. It would be destructive of family relationships. Increasing numbers of young men would go feral. And the economy would plunge dramatically.
Mark
ReplyDeleteThe other point is that she is an American woman. A lot of them are, putting it bluntly, kind of nuts. Do you remember Maria Shriver a while back? They are American. They go to extremes. Americans are born salesmen and hucksters. I haven't the patience to watch Hanna Rosin, but from the description, she is a feminist huckster, selling the feminist brand in the marketplace of lifestyle choices.
A sociologist I knew, Professor Sol Encel, once said that you could say anything you like about America, it is all true, partially. America is feminist country, but it is also an anti-feminist country. There are a lot of Americans, so lots of them at the extremes, and Americans tend to express themselves in moral terms and with great conviction. They lack the more reserved and laid-back British and American approach.
Mark, as Australian men, we simply don't "get" feminists like Rosin. Most American men know the type well, and just yawn and move on.
Remember, the America of Hanna Rosin is also the America of Barbie dolls, beauty pageants and Hooters. I notice that American male bloggers are complaining that NOW is targetting Hooters at present. This is America all over: one extreme group battling another extreme group.
My wife tells me there are Hooters restaurants in Australia, but I have never seen one. I gather these are family restaurants in which the waitresses are busty and wear tight shirts. Can you imagine that in Australia? I can't.
Americans tend to express themselves in moral terms
ReplyDeleteYes, it's an interesting national trait. You notice it on US TV shows. There's often a moral message built into the show, a message that is sometimes laid on too heavily for Australian tastes.
Mark
ReplyDeleteThey fought a civil war. They are intensely serious people. The downside is that they always reach for the moral high ground. And everything becomes a moral crusade.
I think it was Abby Hoffman (sp?) who famously said that "Violence is as American as cherry pie". When you read their history, this becomes surprisingly plain. Australia has had its violence, but nothing like the wholesale violence of American history.
They are, as a people, quite overwrought. You see it every time race is mentioned. Or, increasingly, sex or gender.
I also think that America is a society in which some people, historically white men, have done EXTREMELY well. This has engendered great jealousy and resentment, and women and non-whites are demanding their share of the pie. Australians have never done as fabulously well in the past. White men in this country have, traditionally, often been "losers". Another point, and this will always upset some MRAs, is that American men have been very inventive in finding ways to sexualise and abuse women erotically. The French are also erotically inventive, but one gets the feeling that they basically like women. American men, I am not so sure. I am often shocked (and I am not sentimental about women, believe me) by the violence of the language that American men use about women and sex. Some American feminism is no doubt a reaction to that.
As an American, I've noticed that Brits and Australians have no hesitation expressing themselves in moral terms and with great conviction... about America -- especially its foreign policy, but also its domestic policies. Indeed, I might even go so far as to say that a greater fraction of Brits and Australians have strong opinions about American policy than do Americans.
ReplyDeleteSeems to be less of a moral battle in Britain and Australia itself because one side (the Left) has won the battle so decisively that the other extreme, which is still fighting in America, has simply given up in Britain and Australia.
Thus, the reason there's still a fight happening in America is we're still alive. There's no fight in Britain and Australia because you're dead, morally and nationally speaking. That's why Auster correctly calls Britain the Isle of the Dead. All you have left in Britain and Australia are Leftist baboons capering on the grave of once-proud nations, peoples, and cultures.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI think you exaggerate, and I would be interested in where you get your information on Australian politics and culture. I am very socially conservative, and I feel quite comfortable here. Years of conservative national government have been replaces with a shaky, more left wing government, led by a woman who is desperately making conservative gestures.
Australia does not have affirmative action, abortion on demand, a strident feminist movement, gay marriage, and so on.
I really wonder where you have obtained your information, Anonymous.
Mark, my last comment got "eaten". If it was too strong for your tastes, please let me know. Probably just a technical glitch.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteMy comment wasn't intended as a put down. It's just that I noticed many years ago that American TV shows would often end with a little moral homily. I've always looked on that as an aspect of a distinctly American culture.
You're right that if there is resistance anywhere in the Anglosphere right now it's in the US.
My comment magically appears!
ReplyDeleteI should have said we do not have de jure abortion-on-demand in Australia. It is de facto in at least some states.
Americans take everything more seriously than Australians. They earnestly debate the politics of comedy shows, for example.
It was a very smart English shipping lawyer some years ago who pointed out to me the strong Good v Evil ethos in American Law (in this case civil law), and the relative lack of it in English law. As noted above, this is true of many other aspects of US society too. This difference has nothing to do with the US being alive and UK dead, it long predates cultural Marxism and Leftist tyranny in Britain.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't me censoring comments, it was the blogger spam feature once again randomly targeting comments as spam.
David, I don't agree with some of your previous comments. It doesn't seem to be the case to me that white Americans are exceptionally violent. Yes, they experienced a bloody civil war. But we experienced a very bloody WWI.
I don't see either that the position of white men in Australia and America was all that different. Around the year 1900 Australia had the highest living standards in the world. As part of the Australian settlement, a living wage was guaranteed to Australian workers and living standards rose (apart from the years of the Great Depression) right up to the 1970s.
Was there any reason for Australian women to be resentful of this? No, as they benefited directly from men bringing home a higher wage and from the reduction in men's working hours. It's not as if Australian men took the wealth from anyone else: it was a product of their own labours and an economic policy which protected Australians from a "race to the bottom".
As for American men sexually abusing women, that also I believe is largely untrue. Up until the 1920s there was a strict sexual morality in the US. It's true that there was a period of time (1920s to 1960s) in which Australia had a more conservative sexual morality than America. Even the left in Australia was shocked at times by the permissiveness of American culture regarding sexual relations.
But has there really been such a difference since the 1970s? And is it really the case that feminists are motivated by a desire to defend a more conservative sexual morality?
Finally, I don't feel as comfortable as a conservative in Australia as you do. I know we've had this discussion before and you are less concerned by the demographic transformation happening in this country. But if you're a conservative who wants to preserve your own ethny, then the situation in Australia is serious and troubling.
David Collard:
ReplyDelete"I am often shocked (and I am not sentimental about women, believe me) by the violence of the language that American men use about women and sex. Some American feminism is no doubt a reaction to that."
I feel that too. The male-female enmity in much of US society can be shocking to an outsider; the black-white enmity likewise. Neither is a one-way street. The worst thing for me was encountering black female airport employees at Detroit & Chicago airports and being treated like garbage.
Luckily I spend most of my time in the US in the South, where both enmities are much less pronounced - though Louisiana was pretty bad on race I noticed, back in 2000, but other Southern states have mostly reached a black-white accommodation, and male-female relations are VASTLY better down there than up north.
Mr. Collard wrote,
ReplyDelete"Americans take everything more seriously than Australians."
That's because Americans still believe in truth. If you believe, as many of us do, that this life has profound consequences in the life hereafter, then yes, it makes sense to treat this life with the gravity it is due.
I thought these two comments by Mr. Collard was rather telling,
ReplyDelete"They are, as a people, quite overwrought. You see it every time race is mentioned. Or, increasingly, sex or gender.
I also think that America is a society in which some people, historically white men, have done EXTREMELY well."
So, when conservative white American men calmly talk about race, gender and class issues in their own country this somehow shows how "overwrought" and, I'm sure, "obsessed" they are.
When psuedo-conservative Australian men use ALL CAPS TO TALK ABOUT RACE issues in a foreign country, on the other hand, this somehow shows how "reserved" and measured they are.
Is that about right, Mr. Collard?
I have noticed, time and again, that once the topic of race comes up on an Internet discussion group, the discussion degenerates rapidly due to Americans arguing.
ReplyDeleteBartholomew, I believe in truth. As I never tire of remarking, to the extent that people complain, I am a Catholic who attends mass (usually the Extraordinary Form in Latin) every week. I care very much about the afterlife.
ReplyDeleteMark, I am not bothered about Australia's ethnic composition because it is not under foreseeable threat, and I value some things more than ethnicity.
As for using caps, I do this sometimes for emphasis. But I am generally sparing in their use.
I note that some of my remarks are receiving support from various quarters. It is always the way. You can't please everybody.
Finally, Mr. Collard also wrote,
ReplyDelete"They fought a civil war. They are intensely serious people. The downside is that they always reach for the moral high ground. And everything becomes a moral crusade."
I realize Mr. Collard is talking here about Americans, but it never seems occur to him that each of those points could have been made about Britain from the years 1000 to the late 1800's. You know, when Britain
1.) fought a real crusade
2.) fought a very bloody, regicidal (hey, not even we "extreme" Americans killed the king we rebelled against) civil war
3.) abolished slavery in their own colonies and then sent their navy on a "moral crusade" to stop every other European nation from engaging in it as well (interestingly, the Brits didn't bother stopping the Arabs...).
Britain did most of this before America even existed and all of it before our own civil war. And I could instruct you in further instances of "extremism" from the rest of Europe's history (the 30 years war, Russia's "Holy Alliance", the Children's Crusade, etc., etc.).
You see, it's not "extremism" you're observing here in America or in the Europe of old, Mr. Collard. What you see there then and here now is the pulse of a soul still beating for the truth.
Bartholomew
ReplyDeleteYou seem upset.
I have observed an intense moral seriousness in Americans. Compared with Australians especially.
You may disagree. OK.
Simon in London
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't think it is my imagination. The sexes often seem to hate each other in America. I put it down to galloping individualism, and a generally adversarial mindset.
I do not excuse feminists for their own foul opinions. I simply note that American society has made a fetish of sexualising women, and some of it is startling in its depravity.
Mr. Collard wrote,
ReplyDelete"Bartholomew, I believe in truth."
And you continue to make such defiantly unverifiable statements like the following:
"I have noticed, time and again, that once the topic of race comes up on an Internet discussion group, the discussion degenerates rapidly due to Americans arguing."
You blithely remark that all caps are used for emphasis (as opposed to what? Politesse?) apparently not realizing that it was precisely you, and not some white conservative American, who found it necessary to "emphasize" race in the first place. It was you and not some distasteful white American who first caused this thread to degenerate into an international pissing contest.
What gives you the right, sir, to make flagrantly untruthful statement after untruthful statement and then, have the unmitigated audacity to avow a love for the truth?
Mr. Collard wrote,
ReplyDelete"Bartholomew
You seem upset.
I have observed an intense moral seriousness in Americans. Compared with Australians especially.
You may disagree."
How do I make this any clearer to you, Mr. Collard? Of course I don't disagree that we are intensely moral. We are, and you should be! Your ancestors (not that you care much about your ancestors or descendants) certainly did, and they lived. You and your countrymen do not, and you are dying.
You claim to be a Christian. Fine, then you are familiar with Jesus' words in Matthew 16:25
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
We would and have sacrificed everything for what is right, true and good. It is your Christian duty to do no less.
Bartholomew
ReplyDeletePlease calm down. I am actually not very interested in race. If I offended you, I apologise. I was making an observation.
I would prefer to have a pleasant discussion. I don't understand the vehemence of your remarks. If you object to what I write, simply ignore it.
I am not interested in a "pissing contest". I am not anti-American. Moral seriousness is a good thing, but like all virtues it can be overdone.
I tend to agree with Bartholomew. Australians saw themselves for a long time as "larrikins", meaning they tended not to take themselves too seriously. That can work when the state is there to protect your interests and when there is no challenge to traditions of decency.
ReplyDeleteBut it has served us badly in current conditions, when the elite have embarked on a program hostile to our existence.
A light, casual, good-humoured approach to life can work in a protected society when there is someone to look after the larger framework for you, but not when the gates are down and some of the burden of upholding society falls directly on you.
We are faced with serious issues now and need to be a bit more serious ourselves.
Mark, the elite in Australia is small and it has failed to impose its wishes on Australian society. Largely. They had success with abortion, to some degree, but they failed over euthanasia and gay marriage, and I would argue over official feminism. You will notice that Julia Gillard has distanced herself from radical feminism. She knows that Australians won't cop it.
ReplyDeleteBeing an island tends to protect us from mass immigration of the illegal kind, but even here the government has been very cautious in letting in too many people of any kind. I think they know, again, that Australians are happy with our way of life, and fear rapid change in our racial makeup. Maybe we have learned from observing the riven societies overseas.
And part of the reason for this is that the elites cannot use the language of moralising that American liberals routinely employ to great effect. It simply doesn't play.
Mr. Collard wrote,
ReplyDelete"Moral seriousness is a good thing, but like all virtues it can be overdone."
No, it can't. You cannot do anything too correctly; you cannot be too perfect. If you could, it would mean that perfection is in fact wrong, which would mean that perfection is imperfection, which would be a logical absurdity.
"[The Australian] elites cannot use the language of moralising that American liberals routinely employ to great effect."
You're like the proverbial fish in the sea who is ignorant of the existence of water.
Every human society is a moral one; indeed, no other society has ever or could ever exist.
Look, Mr. Collard, I have no desire to make you an enemy. But there isn't any time to indulge foolishness. When you say things like "white American men have done EXTREMELY well" while insinuating that we shouldn't have or say that "moral seriousness can be overdone", you weaken our position and spread untruth. Our position, Mr. Collard, simply can't take any more weakening. And the only way we can strengthen it is with the truth.
ReplyDeleteIf I seem passionate to you, it is because I am surrounded in my own community by the consequences of indifference, and I would spare a fellow Anglo-Saxon nation the same terrible fate.
No, I said "some white people, historically white men, have done EXTREMELY well". Which is true. I did not mean that this was necessarily a bad thing. I mean that it engenders jealousy, rightly or wrongly.
ReplyDeleteMoral seriousness becomes a problem when it produces unwonted vehemence, and self-righteousness.
They fought a civil war. They are intensely serious people. The downside is that they always reach for the moral high ground. And everything becomes a moral crusade.
ReplyDeleteIt takes more than a little audacity to chide Americans about violence when you're own people were responsible for this. Not all civilization and progress, that British Empire. A few of my South African friends consider the trenches filled with British corpses in Flanders to be poetic justice for the 26,000 women and children who died in the camps. Ya'll set an excellent example for the Germans to follow.
I am very socially conservative, and I feel quite comfortable here.
Nonsense. Anti-feminism is not social conservatism. Catholicism uber alles is not social conservatism.
I have noticed, time and again, that once the topic of race comes up on an Internet discussion group, the discussion degenerates rapidly due to Americans arguing.
Wouldn't it be better if those pesky Americans would just accept that their racial concerns are fantastically wrongheaded and keep their mouths shut? I think all you've shown in this and other arguments is that frank discussions of race make you extremely uncomfortable. That's all. Otherwise, Bartholomew has revealed your non-argument for what it is: anti-American sentiment, pure and simple.
You seem upset.
And here's the icing on the cake: the ubiquitous liberal tactic of projecting irrational emotion onto the opponent. If you're a social conservative you have a funny way of showing it.
Van Wijk
ReplyDeletePlease explain how I, an Australian living in 2010, am reponsible for British concentration camps in the Boer War.
David Collard at 11:46 said,
ReplyDelete"Mark, I am not bothered about Australia's ethnic composition because it is not under foreseeable threat ..."
You must be joking.
At 12:37 said,
"the elite in Australia is small and it has failed to impose its wishes on Australian society. Largely. They had success with abortion, to some degree, but they failed over euthanasia and gay marriage, and I would argue over official feminism. You will notice that Julia Gillard has distanced herself from radical feminism. She knows that Australians won't cop it."
Why won't they cop it? Where is the principled opposition? The only argument against it is a general aversion to change. The left knows how to deal with that. You keep raising the issue till it seems inevitable.
Go to any university and tell me the left don't have a strong foothold. Drive past any public school and see the Aboriginal flag flying next to the Australian flag.
You are still sitting around enjoying your barbie in the sunshine and pretending that there's nothing really wrong. Fine enjoy. It reminds me of the complacent pro labour voters on the coast. They don't like immigration or illegal refugees but they like fuzzy social services and sticking it to those "rich guys" more, to actually vote anything but Labor.
Well you might not notice the immigration rates on the coast yet but they're right around the corner. Fire up the barbie.
Mr. Collard wrote,
ReplyDelete"I mean that it engenders jealousy, rightly or wrongly."
There isn't a moral system on God's green earth that would smile on "engendering jealousy" and you know it. Quit your weaseling.
Jesse wrote,
"You are still sitting around enjoying your barbie in the sunshine and pretending that there's nothing really wrong. Fine enjoy."
Thanks, Jesse. I can sense that you and Mr. Richardson have dealt with Mr. Collard in the Australian way, and I'm sure that yours is more likely than mine to help him see the error of his ways.
I wonder, is that sort of see-no-evil complacency common in Australia? I don't think it is here: Most liberal Americans see the evil and simply decide to call it good.
I am not interested in a "pissing contest".
ReplyDeleteOh come now, David, of course you are. Shouldn't you leave that sort of apophasis to the Brits?
Me, I don't see any harm in a round of intra-anglospheric razzing. I'm at a disadvantage re Australia, though, as I don't know the place very well. (Perhaps I could visit a couple more times and get hold of some Australian television, then I could be as expert on Australia as everybody else in the world is on America.) Can't say the Oz expats I have known have left me with any impression of degenerated characteristic virtues that I could haul up for ridicule, alas. I do recall some leftie, feminist Aussie girls from my university days who out-American'd the locals in high-volume verbal obnoxiousness, but as this behavior was not repeated in other female expats I have known, the razz fizzles out. They were of course unimpeachable and confidently hectoring experts on the United States, but it's not as if I can pick on Australians for being uniquely idiotic on that score.
Brits, I could have a go at. Oh, sad sad sad. Their degenerate virtue is the sorry remains of their glory, irony, now but a limp pettish sneering overlaying a bottomless morbid anxiety that they may be caught taking seriously something somebody else finds risible.
Tomorrow, Canadians.
Btw, Hanna Rosin is a horror and "the America of Hanna Rosin" comprises the small cadre of squawking harridans of both sexes and all ages who make up the target demographic of the New York Times. (Sayeth Rohan, Southerner.)
I don't know what "apophasis" means. I shall look it up.
ReplyDeleteOn "jealousy", to explain is not to excuse. I am very much opposed to affirmative action, and believe it creates more injustice, and often punishes the guiltless.
I have not often been called a liberal, but I suppose that is the advantage of forums like this. They help one to work out one's relative political position.
Universities are always the playground of the Left. Perhaps they make natural concentration camps for the disaffected.
Bartholmew at 2:16 said,
ReplyDelete"I wonder, is that sort of see-no-evil complacency common in Australia? I don't think it is here: Most liberal Americans see the evil and simply decide to call it good."
We call ourselves in Australia "The Lucky Country" and I think we really feel it. We've had high working wages and standards of living for a long time. We also have good weather, beaches, not too much strife (fairly homogenous) and lots of space.
Nonetheless we're also generally fairly aware that we're on the other side of the world to Europe and that we don't have too many friends in Asia, or have ever. As a result the US alliance is a big deal here and was cemented in WW2 when the Japanese attacked.
We used to see ourselves as Brinnania in the South Seas. Now there's a stronger emphasis on having a uniquely Australian identity. This emphasizes working class values, friendliness/humor and sport/lifestyle issues.
How we feel about Asia is a changing phenomenon. It used to be that we knew nothing about them, nor wanted to know anything, and we recognised that we were very different. Today more of our trade comes from Asia and there's a growing debate as to how closely we should be engaged there.
I think its fair to say that its a national trait to be fairly relaxed and not to take things like politics too seriously. Historically we’ve been able to do that.
"Americans take everything more seriously than Australians. They earnestly debate the politics of comedy shows, for example."
ReplyDeleteThat's because even those comedy shows are preaching a moral and/or political message (generally, the moral message is "traditional moral understandings are stupid").
D.Collard: "You seem upset."
ReplyDeleteD.Collard: "Please calm down."
These sentences jumped out at me (I haven’t tried to understand the context in which they were made) -- the shear passive-aggressive and condescending nature of them, the “liberal” mindset they evince, is most offensive.
How do people who call themselves conservatives or traditionalists hope ever to triumph over “liberalism” if they will not free their own minds of “liberal” mindsets?
Ilion
ReplyDeleteYes, good point. But it is a vicious cycle. The phrase "it's just a show" would help sometimes.
It becomes absurd when serious magazines talk about the huge effect of The Mary Tyler Moore Show on women's attitudes. One just feels, these people cannot be serious. It is not just the ordinary folk, it is the supposed intellectuals who do it.
I have known a male anthropologist argue, seriously, that Buffy the Vampire Slayer shows that women are now suited to combat. He was an American.
A huge misunderstanding between Americans and Australians is that we Australians just don't react like that to cultural ephemera. Perhaps we are more cynical.
Ilion
ReplyDeleteI said those things because I wanted him to calm down. Getting heated does not help a discussion.
SiL: "... This difference has nothing to do with the US being alive and UK dead, it long predates cultural Marxism and Leftist tyranny in Britain."
ReplyDeleteAnd you're quite sure that it "has nothing to do"? You're quite sure that the pervasive moralism of American society (and law) has nothing to do with the observable fact that Leftism has a harder time in America making its destructive inroads?
"I have noticed, time and again, that once the topic of race comes up on an Internet discussion group, the discussion degenerates rapidly due to Americans arguing."
ReplyDeleteDo you now?
What I'm noticing is a specific foreigner making ill-informed comments about Americans and then trying to mount his "liberal" condescending high-horse after one specific American objected.
You foreigners really do need to get over your inferiority complex. I mean, sure, everyone knows that we are better, but there is no need for you to wallow in an inferiority complex over the matter.
Ilion, it has been my observation. I am not very interested in race, and I have seen it derail discussions on forums devoted to totally unrelated topics.
ReplyDeleteI don't care about inferiority or superiority. I have always been pro-American, so you won't upset me by talking big. Why would I care if America is "better" in some ways? I like being an Australian.
I think your blog looks interesting. I would like to have a sensible discussion, but it seems to be very difficult.
Roissy in DC has a good analysis of Rosin's 'End of Men' article in the Atlantic. Rosin's wrote that "Most important, women earn almost 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees—the minimum requirement, in most cases, for an affluent life."
ReplyDeleteRoissy comments:
Only about 1/5th to a quarter of Americans are genetically capable of succeeding at undergraduate college. So is Rosin here suggesting that 4/5ths of Americans are doomed to a long eternal struggle to make ends meet? And, in light of this, what is her opinion on the importation of millions of peasant class Mexicans?
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/the-end-of-beta-providers/
Actually, Bartholomew, moral seriousness *can* be overdone. An overdone moral seriousness is unable to see or understand that as a social matter, some immoralities ought to be outside the purview of the law -- which is to say, outside the purview of The State. An overdone moral seriousness absolutizes everything -- but, we humans do not live in the Absolute.
ReplyDeleteThe reason we Americans fought that bloody Civil War -- and, incidentally, the ancestors of probably half of us came over after the war -- is precisely because our grandfathers, knowing full-well that slavery was a grave moral evil, decided to compromise on slavery. They "kicked the can down the road" -- a now long-standing American political tradition -- and their grandsons paid for it in blood.
ReplyDeleteD.Collard: "You seem upset."
ReplyDeleteD.Collard: "Please calm down."
Van Wijk: "And here's the icing on the cake: the ubiquitous liberal tactic of projecting irrational emotion onto the opponent. If you're a social conservative you have a funny way of showing it. "
Exactly my point. Such statements are not at all reflective of a conservative mindset, but rather of a condescending “liberal” mindset. It is a “liberal” tactic to “stir the pot” and then try to belittle any passionate response as being merely misplaced emotion.
===
D.Collard: "I said those things because I wanted him to calm down. Getting heated does not help a discussion."
Are you really that ignorant about dealing with human beings? Do you really not realize the meaning of such statements? Do you really not realize that such statements *only* add fuel to the fire one is claiming to want to douse?
===
D.Collard: "I don't care about inferiority or superiority. I have always been pro-American, so you won't upset me by talking big. Why would I care if America is "better" in some ways? I like being an Australian."
If one has to explicitly point out that one is intentionally being over-the-top, it rather ruins the whole point, don’t you think?
I should hope you like being an Australian. I should hope you imagine that being an Australian is the best thing one can be -- it doesn’t diminish me, or my nation, that you’re reduced to working with what you’ve got; I can even sort of feel a touch of pity for you being forced to settle for imagination.
Jesse: "Why won't they cop it? Where is the principled opposition? The only argument against it is a general aversion to change. The left knows how to deal with that. You keep raising the issue till it seems inevitable."
ReplyDeleteAs witness what just happened here in the Congress with respect to blatant homosexuals in the military. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that was just repealed was a “compromise” with the “liberals” … but compromises with “liberals” are like peace treaties with Moslems; they’re merely stalling tactics because they realize they can’t yet get all they want, their purpose is to get the other side to let its guard down a bit more in preparation for the next punch.
Its nibbling tactics till they get what they want.
ReplyDeleteMark, the "worst case scenario" is here and it's commonplace. All adult women under 40 are either sluts or former sluts outside of the Amish. Even a woman who "comes to her senses" in her late 20s (more like becomes desperate for a chump earlier) has been whoring around for over a decade. All women have to offer now is debt, STDs, and/or the bastard spawn of her whoring around. Any young man with a brain will refuse this option of forced involuntary celibacy until a washed up whore wants him and play Xbox instead.
ReplyDeleteWithout going too far off topic, if promiscuity is allright for a man, why isn't it for a woman?
ReplyDeleteAll adult women under 40 are either sluts or former sluts outside of the Amish.
ReplyDeleteWell, there are degrees of corruption. Until we're in a position to influence the culture, the aim surely is to find a woman who is relatively trustworty, committed to family life and pleasingly feminine.
Who said promiscuity was all right for men? There are a lot more promiscuous women than men as there are involuntary celibate men but no involuntary celibate women.
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to find a trustworthy feminine woman committed to family life now (outside of groups like the Amish). Show me a woman who claims to be pure or minimally corrupted and I will show you a lying slut. At least the MRAs have an answer to this.
It's impossible to find a trustworthy feminine woman committed to family life now
ReplyDeleteThat's overstating a real problem. It's difficult, but not impossible. As I wrote earlier there are three very high quality young women at my workplace. That can't just be a fluke, there must be more out there at other workplaces too.
At least the MRAs have an answer to this.
Disagree. Much of what the MRM proposes is futile. I've read MRAs who advocate living alone until the Japanese perfect fembot technology. Or restoring male companionship and affection in place of relationships with women.
Some aspects of game are useful under new conditions, but the full gamist program seems to breed a jaded cynicism.
I prefer the situation I'm in now, of having a loving wife, a happy well-mannered son and a very cute baby daughter. That was my answer to the feminists and I believe it to be a much better one than anything offered by the MRM.
David you claim to be a conservative and an antifeminist but on other blogs you were attacking traditional sex roles.
ReplyDeleteJust because your wife works it doesn't mean that it's wrong to be a full time homemaker.
I'm tired of those constant relentness attacks on traditional housewives first by feminist and then by so-called antifeminists who actually want to have a 1950s sweet submissive wife who cooks breakfast but also brings home an income like an emancipated woman.
With friends like you one doesn't need enemies.
David Collard:
ReplyDelete"Yes, I don't think it is my imagination. The sexes often seem to hate each other in America."
Broadly speaking, I'd say sex relations in Australia were better than in Britain, or at least southern England, and sex relations in both were better than in most of the USA.
Australian women often seem to exibit an easy self-assurance not based on hostility to men. I've seen something similar with Texan women. It may be the legacy of a frontier/open country mentality.
In mainline or Yankee-to-California US culture, women often seem venomously hostile to men, and vice versa.
Mark Richardson:
ReplyDelete"A light, casual, good-humoured approach to life can work in a protected society when there is someone to look after the larger framework for you, but not when the gates are down and some of the burden of upholding society falls directly on you.
We are faced with serious issues now and need to be a bit more serious ourselves."
This may be right. It's very easy for Britain and Australia to slide into annihilation, chuckling good-humouredly all the while. The American tendency to get overwrought about (often apparently minor) stuff can be harmful, but sometimes vital. It's like having a very active immune system; it can have very bad effects but it can be vital to survival.
At this point I think America is the only Anglosphere country that can still be considered in any sense 'free'. There's a reason for that.
I am not very interested in race, and I have seen it derail discussions on forums devoted to totally unrelated topics.
ReplyDelete1) Saying you're not interested in race is like walking down the street at night and saying you're not interested in getting mugged.
2) You can't really complain about others derailing discussions, now can you?
@David Collard.
ReplyDeleteMy, you've cheesed a few people off tonight. Welcome to the club.
I agree that Americans have a certain moral "intensity" that isn't present in the Australian culture but to their credit, they're doing nearly all the heavy lifting of the conservative movement at the moment.
I think the problems with Australia is that we don't take anything too seriously until the gun is at our head, then predictably we turn feral. Still, as I have mentioned to you previously, we don't have an "ideological" culture so the mainstream community is still fairly conservative by default rather than active effort. Anonymous @10:14 has a point, Australia's conservatism is brain dead.
When Bob Santamaria died so did the intellectual conservative movement in Australia. Which is quite a shame as we have some very very bright people.
Even our political debates are based upon imported ideas. Labour gets its idea for British Labour whilst the Libs get their ideas from the U.S. Republicans. Home grown stuff is pretty rare. Yob conservatism and socialism seem to rear their ugly heads from time to time on political landscape but not much else.
Jesse: "Without going too far off topic, if promiscuity is allright for a man, why isn't it for a woman?"
ReplyDeleteExactly. This is one of the morally obscene aspects of the "men's rights movement," and especially the Roissy variant -- they are not morally serious, and they are not intellectually serious about their claimed opposition to feminism.
The truth is, they *love* feminism, they *love* promise of hoards of women of easy virtue, whom they can “hump and dump” without consequence to themselves. What they’re pissed about, all they’re pissed about, really, is that no one thought to reserve a stash of “quality women” (i.e. “lookers”) of a high moral caliber to be made available for them to choose one when they’re finally ready to “settle down.”
Did anyone else notice that when the young daughter was talking in the video and her brother started to interupt he was immediately shushed by his father?
ReplyDeleteI thought this was very symbolic of our school system.
''The Social Pathologist'' is right about Americans doing the heavy lifting on the conservative movement. Americans are starting to say things in public they would have never said a couple of years ago. I've just arrived in the USA and I'm seeing this phenomenon in amazement. People are talking openly about the illegals, minorities outnumbering whites in 2050, Islam being incompatible, affirmative action, liberal concepts (equality, non-discrimination, multiculturalism, progress), etc. Will Australians as well?
ReplyDeleteWe even have people buying guns, getting amno and learning self-defense since they are being branded as racists, bigots, sexists, nativists, regressive and what not by the entire American liberal lobby.
She is interestingly married to a guy who is essentially her boss, David Plotz, the editor over at Slate where she writes. They have 3kids, not sure if any are boys and how this would figure in to her world view if she had a son.
ReplyDeleteAmerican sex relations are, frankly, bizarre. Either the women are perverts/sluts or prudes/frigid, perhaps an effect of Puritanism. There is no sense of healthy sexuality at all, as far as I can discern, and married couples are presumed to be celibate while singles rack up notch counts that would make a prostitute blush.
ReplyDeleteSexuality is hardly ever discussed except in combination with scandal, perversion, or when training elementary school children about anal sex. I think other Western countries are more "normal" in that regard. Most Germans just want a LTR and normal sex on a regular basis, I think.
The American PUA culture is just another offshoot of the national tendency to perversion or repression, I think. They can't just hook up with a HB10 every month, they want to do it every week or even every night. Aside from the fact that such behavior is just bizarre, even for young men, it begs the question: Isn't there anything better to do?
As I wrote earlier there are three very high quality young women at my workplace. That can't just be a fluke, there must be more out there at other workplaces too.
Selection bias. I also know such women, but that is because I've chosen to live in a place where such women are common. That does not imply that such women are common in most other places. Most young men don't live where I live, so they are examining the state of womanhood where they are.
This is one of the morally obscene aspects of the "men's rights movement," and especially the Roissy variant -- they are not morally serious, and they are not intellectually serious about their claimed opposition to feminism.
You are projecting here, I think. They are nihilists who do not consider themselves moral actors; they are amoral. They remark and comment on the depraved state of womanhood, throw their hands up in resignation, and decide to party while it lasts. They know it all sucks the way it is, and sometimes they'll post a missive showing that they're sick of the situation, but they feel that it is helpless to change things so it's best to just "get yours and get off" before the war hits. They do not disagree necessarily on the moral substance of what we are saying, but on the futility of changing it.
They assume that what you guys are proposing is simply impossible, so they feel that you are sending them off to the front lines of a hopeless battle (hence their resentment of traditionalist argument). If your civilization is dying anyway, you might as well bang some sluts and fiddle away while it all burns down.
Alte wrote,
ReplyDelete"If your civilization is dying anyway, you might as well bang some sluts and fiddle away while it all burns down"
Well put, Alte. I'd only add that most young men my age don't think about "civilizations' dying". In their brainwashed minds, "European Civilization" is approximately as real and relevant as, say, the planet Naboo from Star Wars.
They just think their life is pointless, etc., and reason they might as well extract from it every pleasure they can.
Ilion wrote,
"An overdone moral seriousness absolutizes everything"
If you absolutize something that ought not be absolutized, then you've done something wrong. Doing wrong is an example of being too imperfect, not too perfect.
Van Wijk at 11:10 said,
ReplyDelete"1) Saying you're not interested in race is like walking down the street at night and saying you're not interested in getting mugged."
Lol.
I agree with Social Pathologist and Elizabeth Smith. American conservatism is currently the backbone of the West and without it we'd be in trouble.
Alte,
I think I have to disagree with you, though I'm not very familiar with the PUA movement. I think there is more than just disappointment at play here, this is morally justifiable behavior in their minds. Which is, that the strong should have success and the weak should suffer. The strong can take the wives of other men, sleep with whoever they want without consequence and have no regard for women. Why? Because they're strong. If they feel that they need to do this because of societal pressures then that just adds to the sense of legitimacy. The difference with PUA to other ideas is that it says (I suppose) that any man can be this strong man, if you follow these techniques. How the strong should behave is the essence of morality and to say that the strong should be able to do whatever they want is barbarism.
As a man you must resist the call to barbarism. There's also plenty of opportunities for men out there who refuse to be barbarians and this is not weakness.
Also if you want to know about European civilisation then go to a library or read about it online. Having this knowledge can help to reverse the drift.
I'm all for European civilization, but I'm against "Westernization" as that is merely a euphemism for "Americanization". I wrote a post in protest of that phenomenon today, in fact. I'm always getting nagged by Traditional Americans who insist that I am not behaving according to their tradition. They can't seem to understand that our traditions are similar, but different. They think America is the West, and that we should all mimic them, as they are the arbiters of What is Right.
ReplyDeleteFor example:
Traditional Bavarian girls
Traditional American girls
Spot the difference?
I know it's very hard for Americans to understand, but women getting drunk, dancing on tables in skirts, with their tits falling out of the tops of their dresses while shouting along to inane music and waving around a beer krug... is a vital part of my tradition. Really. I mean, no self-respecting traditional Bavarian woman doesn't do that at least once every season.
America's sexual interactions are so extreme because their sexual mores are so extreme. It's all or nothing. You're either with us or against us. You're either a whore or a virgin. Well... I suppose I'm not with them then. I'm doing my own traditional thing that doesn't involve prairie hens.
Alte
ReplyDeleteI agree that Westernization is often a euphemism for Americanization and that many culutres are right to reject it and that American culture has different views with regards to sex that are not ones we ought to seek to export.
However, that picture you posted of traditional American women is kind of funny because guess what language most Amish and traditional Menonites speak in their homes even in Pennsylvania , ohio, Iowa, Michigan etc??? To this day it is a dialect of German known as Pennsylvania Dutch.
Alte,
ReplyDelete"Also if you want to know about European civilisation then go to a library or read about it online."
Of course that wasn't directed at you.
Yeah, I know Jesse.
ReplyDeleteTo this day it is a dialect of German known as Pennsylvania Dutch.
Yeah, but those Anabaptists left Europe because their asceticism and heresy didn't fit in there. America is comprised of the people who left Europe, so they are naturally going to be quite different from those who stayed behind.
Also, most Americans have German roots, so Traditional Americana is certainly Germanic. But they are different Germans than we are, just as the Russlanddeutsche and Afrikaner are different. Americans are like, "So, you're a traditionalist? I know a traditionalist woman. She spends all day attending her 14 kids in a run-down shack with no water, has never made-out with any man other than her husband, and is not allowed to leave the house without a chaperone."
Well, okay. That might be traditional for you guys, but -- luckily for me -- that's not my tradition. Where I come from we call that "being weird". That was even weird 100 years ago. We were never into the whole "women should be seen but not heard" thing, which is why we drove you out of the country in the first place. So... more power to ya, but please understand that not everybody shares your traditions.
Alte wrote,
ReplyDelete"Yeah, but those Anabaptists left Europe because their asceticism and heresy didn't fit in there. America is comprised of the people who left Europe, so they are naturally going to be quite different from those who stayed behind."
Yes and no. Most of the Anabaptists left Germany, but a great many of them did not leave Europe. They simply went to whatever European land allowed them to abstain from war. Asceticism had little to do with it. I'm sure you're aware of the Pietist movement in Germany which produced such theological greats as Karl Heim (from a fellow southern province, actually, Baden-Wuerttemberg). I very much doubt the Pietists would have smiled upon topless table dancing.
Also, your conflation of the Amish with traditional American women is absurd. Have you ever seen Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life"? If not, I can't think of a more appropriate time of the year to see it, and it will give you a much better picture of what traditional Americana was all about.
Also, it's interesting to see how even then Mr. Capra's natural, though, misplaced Italian and therefore resulting universalist sympathies intrude upon the beautiful, traditional American scene he otherwise faithfully reproduces.
With your larger point, though, about the distinction between American culture and European civilization, I readily concur. I would only add that what is currently being pushed on Germany as "American culture" is in reality not much of either. Traditional American culture has marinated for so long in the multicult soup that it has all but dissolved, leading some to think erroneously that the multicult "Westernization" is American culture. It isn't, or at least it wasn't. You can imagine how demoralizing this is for us youngin's, who have had to look high and low for something authentically American to believe in and pass on.
ReplyDeleteOh, we're not topless. The dresses are designed to keep your breasts in a permanent state of "falling out", but they never actually do. You just have to lace the bodice really tight so that everything stays in place. German engineering. Sometimes I get a bit nervous about breathing too hard, but it's worked well enough until now. I have three different ones, and they're very beautiful and feminine.
ReplyDeleteThe first Oktoberfest took place in 1810, and such a Festkultur goes back to the Germanic, Bavarian, and Slavic tribes, and Viking and Roman invaders. One of the biggest festivals is Fastnacht, which marks the beginning of Lent, and features parades and costume parties that often last until breakfast time. Weddings also go all night and are quite lively. We left our wedding at midnight, but the guests (including our parents) partied on until 3 am.
This type of behavior is communal and ancient, and it is "Westernization" that is killing it and replacing it with Komasaufen and Whoring. We were being silly, drinking too much, and acting raunchy, but we were doing it with our friends, relatives, and neighbors. Now it's all about "going to the disco" to pick up strangers for a one-night-stand. Westernization in action, and hardly an improvement.
The Pietists were a bunch of Protestant heretics, who attempted to salve their estrangement from the Eucharist with joyless penitence. But don't let me mince words like that.
You can imagine how demoralizing this is for us youngin's, who have had to look high and low for something authentically American to believe in and pass on.
Yes, but that is what I mean. That is what I see happening in the traditionalist movement. But it's simply no longer possible to be "normal" and also be a "traditionalist". You have to be so extreme that you stick out like a sore thumb everywhere you go. It's like a new pietist cult, or something, and they flood in to criticize anyone not towing the party line and espousing their specific traditions.
Quiverfull is the most extreme version, but it's all going that way now. It's the American either/or dichotomy. Amish or Sluttish. There is no middle way.
I've already had to distance myself from conservatives (because of all the HBD and pedestalization stuff), and now I'm considering dropping the traditionalist label, as well. Otherwise, I always get lumped in with people I don't really have much in common with.
If this repulsive, man-hating shit-bag is typical of American women, God help our American brothers.
ReplyDeleteOkay, that was a long, incoherent rant, but I guess what I'm getting at is this:
ReplyDeleteI see the new American Piety movement as just another form of American cultural imperialism. First, they told us to dump our traditions and act like "free and easy Yanks", now they want us to dump what is still left of our traditions and act like little Puritans.
They are not doing us any favors with this, but are simply trying to destroy what is unique about our way of life. Our behavior may not make sense to them, and they may not approve of it, or think it is merely debauched paganism, but it is a culture stretching back hundreds and even thousands of years. It is coherent and meaningful in and of itself, and adherence to it breeds a sense of community and ties us to Gott und Vaterland.
In other words:
We don't want to become more like you, we want to become more like us.
Mark, you sound like lots of divorced men I know before their wives surprised them with a divorce. You also sound like every old man who believes that his 25 year old daughter is a virgin when in reality she's a whore who has seen dozens of penises and that his 28 year old son refuses to man up and grow up when in reality he can't find a woman to save his life.
ReplyDeleteI'm a member of generation y and the women of my generation are all both entitlement princesses and whores outside of the Amish. People like you have tried to claim they know women who aren't like that but a minimal investigation showed they all had seen more penises than a porn star.
The MRAs provide me a real solution to this. They don't tell me to pretend women my age are virgins. I'm one of those men waiting for a sexbot. You may think this is unfulfilling but that isn't what I'm concerned with. I am concerned with avoiding STDs, paying for a woman's bastard spawn, divorce, insane exes, prison, etc. Fulfillment doesn't matter if I don't have my health, assets, freedom, and life.
I also have no interest in saving Western Civilization. Why should I? Western Civilization has no interest in me except as a slave for women and stabbing me in the back. I will play Xbox instead of doing anything for Western Civilization.
I will play Xbox instead of doing anything for Western Civilization.
ReplyDeleteAs a single male with no chance of ever getting married, I will maintain Western Civilization because it's the only way to ensure my Xbox and everything else that I enjoy will continue to work.
Anonymous said,
ReplyDelete"I will play Xbox instead of doing anything for Western Civilization."
I hope you get the top score.
Jesse, if you want to change my opinion on Western Civilization then deal with the real problem and fix women. You will have to do it by force since women have no interest in fixing themselves.
ReplyDeleteThat was funny, DA.
ReplyDeleteMark, you sound like lots of divorced men I know before their wives surprised them with a divorce. You also sound like every old man who believes that his 25 year old daughter is a virgin when in reality she's a whore ...
ReplyDeleteNo, that's wrong. I was tremendously naive as an 18-year-old as I grew up in an intact middle-class Catholic milieu.
But I saw everything you've seen, and then some, as an arts student at university during a very intense bout of third wave feminism.
What your generation has been put through, so was mine. I expect it was even harder for my generation of men to endure as we were the "transition" generation who knew what a more intact culture looked like.
I'm sorry that you're bowing out. It's another little victory for the feminists. They want you to be demoralised, they want to crush normal family life, they want Western civilisation to give way.
I'm too proud to let them have their way. So far I've beaten them in my personal life and I'm doing my best to help defeat them politically.
Alte wrote,
ReplyDelete"I've already had to distance myself from conservatives (because of all the HBD and pedestalization stuff), and now I'm considering dropping the traditionalist label, as well. Otherwise, I always get lumped in with people I don't really have much in common with."
Well, there's no time like the present. As we "Yanks" say, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
"We don't want to become more like you, we want to become more like us."
Who's "we", I wonder.
Finally, it's the season of brotherly love. A Christmas truce, perhaps?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of women out there who are sick of the dating scene, many of them very attractive, because they don't like the impermenance and implied disrespect built into. What many women want is just a safe pair of hands so to speak, and I've see many very attractive women hook up longer term with average looking guys.
The issue of divorce is a very real issue and we're all in the same boat on that one. All I can suggest is to do your best of walking the line between not taking bull and keeping her happy. You can usually tell fairly quickly if she's the sort of person you can settle with. You have to keep in mind not just looking for attractive characteristics but also a certain permanence of character.
On the issue of virginity, if you marry a virgin she might think after a while, why did I marry him, maybe there was Robert Redford around the corner? A girl who's looked a little will probably have a firmer idea of what will make her happy.
Jesse:
ReplyDelete"On the issue of virginity, if you marry a virgin she might think after a while, why did I marry him, maybe there was Robert Redford around the corner?"
She might *think* that, but all the evidence is that statistically, the fewer sex partners either spouse has had pre-marriage, the better the chance the marriage will last.
I've already had to distance myself from conservatives (because of all the HBD and pedestalization stuff), and now I'm considering dropping the traditionalist label, as well.
ReplyDeleteYou've consistently self-identified as politically libertarian, not traditionalist. The "traditionalist" part comes from your understanding of Catholicism, yes? Removing the "traditional" from your masthead would probably remove you from trad-radar.
Who's "we", I wonder.
As do I. I also wonder what the Bavarians really think of the local exotic.
Without going too far off topic, if promiscuity is allright for a man, why isn't it for a woman?
ReplyDeleteLOL, hello, women are not men. Sperm is cheap and plentiful, eggs are expensive and rare, and all the fembot dogma in the world isn't going to change that basic biological fact.
Ok, so men are biologically programmed to be promiscuous? That makes it allright?
ReplyDeleteAlte -- who clearly pays too much attention to “liberals;” “American sex relations are, frankly, bizarre. Either the women are perverts/sluts or prudes/frigid, perhaps an effect of Puritanism. There is no sense of healthy sexuality at all, as far as I can discern, and married couples are presumed to be celibate while singles rack up notch counts that would make a prostitute blush.”
ReplyDeletePlease! Chastity and celibacy are two very different things; one can have a dozen kids and still be chaste.
Also, lay off the Puritans! Stop repeating “liberal” lies about them.
And, stop trying to project that “liberal” lie about attitudes of perverts/sluts vs prudes/frigidarium onto us. It simply doesn’t apply.
Alte -- who then goes on to agree with what I said: "You are projecting here, I think. ..."
ReplyDelete*sheesh!*
It seems that Alte's anti-Americanism simply *must* find expression. It this thread, it seems (according to her) that our fault is that we recognize the logical truth that human beings may either lead lives of sexual chastity or of non-chastity. It seems Alte wants to assert that humans may be both chaste and non-chaste, simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteAnd, while those Mennonite girls are not "typical American women," I'd much prefer any one of them, even the ugly one, over those tramps Alte says are typical examples of German/Bavarian womanhood.
The WV for this post is "sediment" -- which seems fitting.
"We don't want to become more like you, we want to become more like us."
ReplyDeleteExtinct?
"... but all the evidence is that statistically, the fewer sex partners either spouse has had pre-marriage, the better the chance the marriage will last."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. The modern dating culture (which has of late degenerated into the hook-up culture) is not practice of marriage, or even practice for the wise picking of a mate. Rather, it's merely practice for break-ups and divorces.
I think it is significant that Rosin is Jewish; the New York Jewish Left seems to be the Leitkultur of the American Left, and they have had global influence.
ReplyDeleteSomething I try to explain to Americans is that the American elite Jews are different from most Jews in most other countries, certainly different from Jews in Britain. In Britain they are roughly evenly divided between Left and Right, in the US they are 80% Left, 19% Neocon, and 1% Paul Gottfried. And British elite Jews do not show anything like the level of hostility to British/Anglo culture that American elite Jews (including in some ways the Neocons) do.
From what I can tell, Oz is more like Britain. The result is that Rosin's Jewishness may not seem significant to Mark.
BTW I read recently that a poll of American Jews found that a majority supported Arizona's immigration-enforcement laws, much to the consternation of the ADL, ACLU and other 'elite' Jewish organisations. Hatred of traditional America(ns) seems to be very much an elite Jewish phenomenon.
"Ok, so men are biologically programmed to be promiscuous? That makes it allright?"
ReplyDeleteNo, it means that our Anonymouse is just a whiny little boy. He imagines that he has the right to “hump and dump” scads of “hot” women, sans any commitment, responsibility, or consequences to himself, and he’s pissed that “tradition” says: “No, you don’t.” He’s pissed that “tradition” says: “Men are not dogs.”
"Hatred of traditional America(ns) seems to be very much an elite Jewish phenomenon."
ReplyDeleteThat's because they come from a little sub-culture which hates "religion." They hate the sincere Jewish religion of their (great-)grandparents, and they hate the sincere Christian religion of other Americans.
Their religion is Leftism and politics: they hate man and worship power over mankind.
Well, there's no time like the present. As we "Yanks" say, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
ReplyDeleteYes, but you should also understand that the constant "litmus testing" that goes on in conservative and traditionalist circles (an American habit, by the way, stemming perhaps from the constant splintering of the American Protestant churches) steadily shrinks those groups. More and more people will shun the labels as they realize that it means HBD, Protestantism, Anglo-ism, and now Pietism. This is how the right splinters down into irrelevance, and separates themselves from the majority of the population so dramatically that no one can empathize with their message anymore.
Although, perhaps such a separation is the goal. Traditionalism and conservatism are becoming separatist movements. Americans have a strong isolationist streak, which prevents traditionalism from becoming a universal movement. Their goal is not to add followers, but to eliminate anyone who isn't a True Believer.
So I am a traditionalist, but I'm not a Traditionalist. Just as I am a social conservative, but I'm not a Social Conservative.
The "traditionalist" part comes from your understanding of Catholicism, yes?
Yes, it is the strain of Catholicism that I follow.
But also from our ethnic traditions, which I highly value and maintain. Most "real life" people consider me very traditional, but on the internet Traditional refers to a very specific group of people that I obviously don't belong to. Traditional only refers to one certain set of traditions, as if the rest of the world doesn't even exist. I thought being Traditional was about upholding your own culture, but the fact that I write in English draws in all of the Americans and everything immediately circles around Americana. I suppose that's a problem Mark experiences as well.
Removing the "traditional" from your masthead would probably remove you from trad-radar.
Yes, I'm considering renaming my blog because of that. I don't want to end up attracting people who pray the hours and think rock-n-roll is the music of the devil, or something.
Who's "we", I wonder.
Traditionalists who aren't American or wanna-be Americans. Not every traditionalist on the planet wants to act like Anglos. A Russian traditionalist is very different from a Hungarian traditionalist is very different from a Portuguese traditionalist. But to Americans, we are all just "white", so we should all do what they tell us to do because they define whiteness as themselves.
As do I. I also wonder what the Bavarians really think of the local exotic.
LOL. I'm not really that exotic. Bavarians are generally quite dark. And I think you are wrong to assume that every white traditionalist is as racist as you are, or that they would consider you an ally. The internet is not the whole world, and you are very extreme in your views.
Ilion,
I understand the difference between chastity and celibacy. I am chaste, but not celibate. It is generally assumed that married couples only have sex to procreate, if even that. That is a societal meme here, that is very different from what I am used to. And trust me on this, every European I know who has lived in America for a time has come to the same conclusion.
I'm not even saying that it is bad, but that it is not part of my culture so I do not value it or wish to adopt it. The focus on virginity is also a cultural meme that Americans erroneously think is a universal Western trait.
I'd much prefer any one of them, even the ugly one, over those tramps Alte says are typical examples of German/Bavarian womanhood.
ReplyDeleteBavarian men feel the opposite. That is precisely my point. Americans do not get to define everything for everybody everywhere, even though they would like to.
I wrote a long comment that got deleted.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that got me all riled up in this thread is the way that the Australians are being told by Americans how they are supposed to think. What does an American know about Australian culture and traditions? I constantly hear from Americans who are telling me how to think and act and saying "this is traditional". No, where I come from it is not the tradition to think and behave in that manner. They probably can't even point to Bavaria on a map, but they feel like they have the right to lecture to us about our culture.
It's a pet-peeve of mine. We are different. Even Europeans are a diverse group with distinct cultures. We are not all the same as you, just because we look like you.
I do understand the difference between chastity and celibacy, and I worded my statement accordingly.
Another example, American traditionalists all promote "courting". Well, here's the deal: Bavarians never courted. Ever. It's not part of our traditions. We've always hooked up at parties. That's just how we do it over there. It's worked quite well until now, so why should we drop it now just because you tell us to? What, precisely, is wrong with meeting someone at a party? What is wrong with wearing a dirndl? What is wrong with having a beer with your friends?
What's wrong with not being a virgin when you marry? Our men couldn't care less, even the Opas didn't care. In fact, a man who marries a virgin is considered a fool because he might end up with someone infertile and then be stuck without children (which would make him poor in old age). The traditional saying is, "Why would you want to buy a cat in a bag?" You take it out and check it well before you purchase, so that you don't end up with a dud. The priests were used to women at the altar with a little baby bulge. We call them "7 months children". Get over yourself, with your Victorian purity tests.
Bavarians aren't dying out, by the way. We are one of the few areas of Germany that is still keeping it's head demographically above water, and one reason for that is that we have been maintaining our traditions. Adopting your traditions would only speed our demise.
The "traditionalist" part comes from your understanding of Catholicism, yes?
Yes. But also from my respect for our ethnic traditions. Most people IRL would consider me very conservative and traditional. It is only in Internet World where they insist on litmus tests. That is an American tradition; the same focus on cultural purity that has led to the constant splintering of their churches. They are constantly trying to weed out anyone who isn't a True Believer.
Removing the "traditional" from your masthead would probably remove you from trad-radar.
Yes, but why should they get to decide what "traditional" is? As if people weren't traditional before they thought of it. Like it's their idea, or something. It is they who should come up with a more appropriate word for it. They already ruined liberal and conservative, now they are co-opting traditional. Pietist would be a good choice, as it is obviously a white, Protestant, ascetic, separatist movement.
I also wonder what the Bavarians really think of the local exotic.
LOL. Of course you do. I'm not actually that exotic to a Bavarian or a Bohemian; they're actually quite dark. And I'm a native, it's not like I wandered over there from someplace else.
Not everybody practices the One Drop Rule, you know. I like to use the term "black" on English-language blogs because it gets guys like you all riled up. People who know what I look like are laughing at you. But you can't drop your racial purity obsession because it underscores your political views. I understand.
Alte Americans already have enough anti-Americanism thrown at them in their own home. You talk about distinct European cultures but are they even being preserved? No. Instead of attaking the liberal enemies that are tearing your heritage apart you start attacking Americans. America is in decline. It has conservative thinkers like Lawrence Auster, Laura Wood and others exporting their ideas to renew the West. Yes Europe and America differ but liberalism is the same throughout the West at it's core. It's methods and the results are quite similar.
ReplyDeleteOk, so men are biologically programmed to be promiscuous? That makes it allright?
ReplyDeleteIt means that attempting to apply the same moral standards to men and women is preposterous and doomed to failure.
Alte, well said. Tell them about another Bavarian tradition, "die Probier", and they'll all faint.
ReplyDeleteAlte wrote,
ReplyDelete"Traditionalists who aren't American or wanna-be Americans. Not every traditionalist on the planet wants to act like Anglos."
This hatred is sad, Alte, and unmatched by anything we have ever said. Love of our own never has and never will be hatred of the other.
Ultimately, though, we actually agree with you. Just as our opinion on German nationalism means little to you, so your opinion of European preservation and white American nationalism matters little to us.
I have no idea why the Australians or Britons--who are kindred peoples of ours--would feel any differently, either.
Anonymous at 9:04 said,
ReplyDelete"It means that attempting to apply the same moral standards to men and women is preposterous and doomed to failure."
Ok but applying morality to some but not to others is a perilous game. If women are biologically programmed to be less interested in sex, we know that already. Women will generally want sex, or no strings attached sex, much less than men. Look at the porn or prostitution industries they're almost exclusively directed at men. I mentioned to one woman who was criticising men's "bachelor tours" in Latvia if she would like something similar for women, and she said women would like "Romance tours". I don't know entirely what that would look like but it wouldn't be massively promiscuous sex.
Women are today more sexually active in the sense of having more partners. They also feel encouraged to be that way by the feminist mantra, however, many of them aren't sure if acting like a slut is actually what they want to do. Singling them out as sluts or saying that women should be under the thumb but that there should be no restrictions for men is not the way to go.
Mark, you have a very confused understanding of human psychology when it comes to demoralization. Demoralization is not some positive substance, for lack of a better term. It is simply the absence of confidence.
ReplyDeleteConfidence, though, is not produced by some internal act of willing by the autonomous subject. No, confidence comes from one source, and on source only: success. Men who are not succeeding in externally-measurable ways are incapable of confidence. Thus, they will be demoralized.
Your solution of autonomously willing confidence is an inevitable failure. It is also liberal to its core. Ironically, you are advocating a philosophically liberal solution to the very liberalism you decry.
Try again.
Asher wrote:
ReplyDeleteMen who are not succeeding in externally-measurable ways are incapable of confidence. Thus, they will be demoralized.
There's a part truth there. It's easier to be confident when you're successful.
But confidence can come from self-belief rather than external success.
And we can hold demoralisation at bay, even when we are being defeated, by a sense of moral right or by sheer persevering determination.
Will-power, manliness, stubborn resistance. These are all real aspects of human nature. We draw on them when the chips are down.
When I criticise liberal autonomy theory I don't do so because I think there is no free will or no inner spirit that helps to shape the outcome of our lives.
I criticise something specific: the claim that autonomy is the overriding good; that all predetermined qualities in life are therefore impediments to be liberated from; and that we can self-create as individuals in any direction we have a will to do so.
Asher, that doesn't mean it's impossible for individuals to keep trying in difficult circumstances. It's a fact that individuals do this all the time.
I would say to Elam that the reason for marrying is not to be a caretaker for a woman, it is to fulfill the biological urge to have kids and to have a vague chance of those kids being yours.
ReplyDeleteIf Mr. Elam cannot control a woman to at least this extent, then perhaps a life without women, or with furtive one night stands [that do eventually get boring] is the way for him.
For those of us with personalities strong enough to know from experience that women want a dominant man and the skills in this modern world to make such strength stick, the poor little cry-babies taking their bat and ball and going home are not even an annoyance.
In Game terms this sort of appeal to seperatism seems destined to be the domain of Lesser Betas and Omegas who are sick of being pushed around by women because their dating market value is low.
David said...
ReplyDelete"the government has been very cautious in letting in too many people of any kind."
Which state do you live in? Sure as hell aint VIC or NSW.
While I agree with some of what you say David, try not to make off-hand comments. Anyone Anglo-Celtic hearing your analysis and living in the West of Melbourne or Sydney would either laugh or try to hit you with a chair.
Mark, I agree that human beings can persevere by making the best of a bad situation. This doesn't change the objective facts of a situation. I know many men who just bucked-up and kept on going with their lives.
ReplyDeleteThey are virtual monks.
Confidence is always "confidence to do". It is not some generic act of will self-realization that intrudes into every nook and cranny of life. Plenty of accountants are confident at balancing books and not confident at snowboarding.
Guys can plug away, put their nose to the grindstone, follow the rules of tradition. And they'll have plenty of confidence - confidence for putting their nose to the grindstone, plugging away and following rules. Not much else. Men simply don't go from living a quasi-monastic existence to the context of beginning a family without a bunch of stuff happening in-between. You are simply hand-waving.
I have never even once met any person who has your disembodied, Platonic type of confidence. They simply don't exist.
Try again.
Men simply don't go from living a quasi-monastic existence to the context of beginning a family without a bunch of stuff happening in-between.
ReplyDeleteBut lots can happen inbetween.
A man might use his intellect to change some pattern he has been following. He might get some good advice. He might change the kind of men he socialises with. He might change the kind of women he socialises with. He might develop social skills and social confidence as he ages. He might commit to a career and become more confident. His career status might improve. He might move into an age bracket in which women treat his kind of men better. And so on.
What's not helpful is for people to feed his moment of demoralisation or to build a separatist political programme on it.
I have never even once met any person who has your disembodied, Platonic type of confidence. They simply don't exist.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. There are plenty of capable, self-confident men out there.
Most "real life" people consider me very traditional, but on the internet Traditional refers to a very specific group of people that I obviously don't belong to.
ReplyDeleteMost "real life" people are default liberals who wouldn't know real conservatism from a hole in the ground. They've been conditioned to think and act "correctly" (i.e. like liberals), and if they do not they risk losing their livelihoods. Traditionalism as we define it was once the dominant philosophy of America. It can be so again. Indeed, it must, as libertarians, HBDers, and gamers will never create viable societies.
I suppose that's a problem Mark experiences as well.
So far Mark hasn't contributed to the anti-Americanism shown on this thread. People generally don't appreciate it when you put words into their mouths.
Not every traditionalist on the planet wants to act like Anglos. A Russian traditionalist is very different from a Hungarian traditionalist is very different from a Portuguese traditionalist.
But we are all (with the exception of Russia) of the West. I don't know a single American traditionalist who pushes the "Americanism" that you've projected; that's neocon territory, and the fact that neocons are thought of as "conservatives" shows how hopelessly removed from true conservatism most people are. This ties in with what you misidentify as traditionalist "splintering." For the most part, tradionalists recognize liberalism for what it is and don't want any amount of liberalism influencing the movement. That is, after all, how this whole mess got started.
I want the Germans to keep their local traditions, along with the French, the Spaniards, American Southerners, and American desert rats like myself. But just as all the different American traditions are part of the American nation, so are the nations of Europe and the Anglosphere part of the West.
Bavarians are generally quite dark.
Yes, I'm sure Bavarians all resemble light-skinned Negros. ;)
The internet is not the whole world, and you are very extreme in your views.
I think you'd be surprised, my dear. What I state explicitly is on the tip of many a Caucasian tongue. Several have even told me so. See, "we" speak to each other differently when you leave the room. From the motley assortment of geldings and myth-believers ("we're all in this together" I had a good laugh at that one too) that you surround yourself with, it's not surprising that you would think me extreme. If you knew how reflexively "extreme" many whites are, you'd have trouble sleeping.
Yes, but why should they get to decide what "traditional" is? As if people weren't traditional before they thought of it. Like it's their idea, or something.
ReplyDeleteSorry, traditionalist conservatism is a recognized political movement and has been for some time. Traditionalist is, of course, shorthand for traditionalist conservative, which does have a specific meaning. In equating this "traditonalism" with literally anything having to do with any tradition anywhere and at any time, it seems you are making the same error as those Americans who assumed you were conservative because of the word "traditional" in your masthead.
If we had to apply another term to what we are (and we have no reason to, since it is you who is befuddled here) it would be Burkean conservative. You think "pietist" fitting because of your feverish rejection of the importance of race, not because of what we are or are not. You and your fellow liberals are doing the co-opting.
Btw, I wonder what happens when ethnic traditions are maintained while the actual ethnicity is not. When actual Bavarians refer to their forebears, they aren't talking about your forebears. When you are irredeemably hostile to a tradition's race or ethnic group, embracing their traditions isn't anywhere near good enough.
Not everybody practices the One Drop Rule, you know. I like to use the term "black" on English-language blogs because it gets guys like you all riled up.
In your (many) comments in which you discuss your personal circumstances, you've stated that you're dark enough to be singled out as exotic or a foreigner. You're obviously dark enough that the One Drop rule wouldn't need to be applied. You identify as a black woman because that is how you are identified by others; your own choice doesn't come into it. I'd ask you to stop being disingenuous (or at least a little more aware of your surroundings), but you know no other way. I understand.
No, it means that our Anonymouse is just a whiny little boy. He imagines that he has the right to “hump and dump” scads of “hot” women, sans any commitment, responsibility, or consequences to himself, and he’s pissed that “tradition” says: “No, you don’t.” He’s pissed that “tradition” says: “Men are not dogs.”
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't think so, chief. It is you so-called "traditionalists" who are whining. Why aren't there more traditionalist women, why don't women appreciate my white knighting, why can't I get a wife who isn't a well-used cougar desperate for a beta provider, waah waah waah. I take men, women, and society as I find them, not (like you) as I want them to be.
Your shaming language about commitment, responsibility and tradition leaves me unmoved. In fact, that's exactly the same language feminists use when they're trying to ensnare a beta provider. Marriage, these days, means the man has all the commitment and responsibility, and the woman has none. What's the word for someone who accepts such a one-sided relationship? Sucker, chump, dupe, fall guy, fool, goat, laughingstock, easy mark, patsy, pigeon, sap, setup, sitting duck, victim... those are the words that come to mind. What is the value of "tradition" when it can only shackle you into such a one-sided relationship? None, or negative.
applying morality to some but not to others is a perilous game.
ReplyDeleteSo what! Women do exactly that to men. The whole basis for the domestic violence and divorce industry is the application of different rules that favor women over men, allegedly for moral reasons. The whole basis of feminist ideology is that women are more moral than men and thus should play by different rules.
Do you believe that women and men are biologically different, and that this impacts their behavior? If the answer is yes, then there is no logical flaw in asserting that different rules should apply to each.
So what morality should apply to men?
ReplyDeleteThe two replies by Anonymous above reminds me of the paleoconservatives, White Nationalists and the gamers. They believe themselves to be divorced from the liberal system when in reality they are it's own reaction.
ReplyDeletewww.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005129.html
When you equalize conservatives and traditionalists to liberals then you have a problem. You are a relativist and probably see Islam=Christianity as well just as all liberals. You are a liberal in essence. You cannot discriminate, you believe in equality, multiculturalism, 'progress', hyper-individualism and what not.
You are mistaken to think that conservatives and traditionalists believe women to be more moral than men when in reality both men and women are depraved according to traditional Christianity (humanity as a whole is sinful).
In fact Anonymous you don't have to marry because the institution is basically destroyed and a lot of traditionalists and conservatives have acknowledged that. Instead what traditionalists and conservatives desire is renewal after the system collapses in the West (and it will collapse sooner or later in America as it's nearing bankruptcy).
''So what morality should apply to men?''
ReplyDeleteJesse_7 is correct. What Anonymous doesn't understand is that civilization is a combination of the natural order, the social order and the divine order. Anonymous cannot see that. Liberalism attacks all of those orders. Anonymous is a liberal in essence and just like liberals instead of attaking Islam that causes Muslim terrorists, the mass immigration to replace the native population in America and in Europe and many other things he uses the rule of the ''Majority-Minority'' in attacking the traditionalists and conservatives. It's serious self-projection.
Anonymous then deludes himself into thinking that somehow marriage today is what traditionalists and conservatives love. In fact we believe it to be flawed and a perversion. We are simply waiting until it collapses so we can start anew. What traditionalists and conservatives are advocating is to create their own marital institution divorced from liberalism.
Lastly Anonymous here's a conservative acknowleding the insanity of today's military --- www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018228.html
Elizabeth Smith said,
ReplyDelete"civilization is a combination of the natural order, the social order and the divine order"
Well said.
Marriage, these days, means the man has all the commitment and responsibility, and the woman has none. What's the word for someone who accepts such a one-sided relationship? Sucker, chump, dupe, fall guy, fool, goat, laughingstock
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming this to be the case because it fits your programme of radical separatism.
But I don't know of any traditionalists who propose one-sided relationships. In my own marriage, my wife looks after our children and the house whilst I go out to work. That means that neither of us has to work a double shift.
Mark, outside of emigration, proposing that a man get married under any circumstances in the West is proposing one sided relationships for the benefit of women. Outside of emigration there is no way to avoid feminist law and the average woman is a feminist even if she believes herself not to be.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Smith said,
ReplyDelete"civilization is a combination of the natural order, the social order and the divine order"
I'd just like to second Jesse: Well put.
Her formulation of the tri-partite order of civilization reminds me of the tri-partite order of each individual man: spiritual, mental and physical existence.
It's really satisfying to see a unifying thread in our understanding of things.
Anon wrote,;
ReplyDelete"the average woman is a feminist even if she believes herself not to be."
That's true, but as Alte has pointed out, just about every woman is only one strong man away from becoming a traditional wife. She just needs to know that she is submitting to a man who is greater* than she and therefore deserves her respect and admiration. To submit to anyone less would degrade her.
Speaking of Alte, I wonder if no reconciliation is possible (without compromise, of course).
*Yes, I realize some people might take umbrage at the greater/lesser judgment, but that's too bad: it's biblical. God created woman to be an help meet her man, not the other way around.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteThere does exist a liberal strand in the MRM. It's the strand which wants to "liberate" men from masculinity, which wants a gender neutral society etc.
I'm beginning to believe, though, that what we're dealing with in the MRM is often not so much liberalism as nihilism.
There are people in the MRM who are disconnected from any of the orders of life you mentioned, and who think of life instead in terms of a selfish pursuit of comfort or pleasure. They are insistent that women are entirely depraved, that there is no possibility at all for marriage or for salvaging anything of civilisation or a Western tradition.
They struggle to conceive of anything larger than themselves to be oriented toward and so are committed to a radically individualistic view of life. In fact, they resent the idea that they might act for some external good or institution.
They don't want love or any kind of transcendent good. The goods in life for them are biological or material ones, especially relating to physical pleasure or comfort.
We shouldn't be surprised that this kind of nihilistic outlook exists - the Western political class has been grappling with it for generations.
I'm not sure how we try to counter it. You can always make political arguments against liberalism. But nihilism is more a metaphysical issue. Perhaps the best we can do is to remain a clear alternative for those who haven't slid into such a pessimistic view.
We are likely to be a more attractive proposition for those men who do still want love, who do still want a family life, who do still want to act for their own tradition.
That's true, but as Alte has pointed out, just about every woman is only one strong man away from becoming a traditional wife. She just needs to know that she is submitting to a man who is greater* than she and therefore deserves her respect and admiration. To submit to anyone less would degrade her.
ReplyDeleteBartholomew, well put. I don't think that all men understand this intuitively. I understood it much better after I married.
Women do 'submit' to a man, not in the sense of agreeing to do everything he says, but in the sense of placing her trust in him, making herself vulnerable to him, opening herself to him, accepting his strength and capacity and worthiness as a man.
As you note, it's illogical for a woman to submit to a man she cannot look up to. There has to be something in the man she can respect and admire. She has to see some kind of strength in him.
And you're right that women can be transformed. I've seen that in my own marriage. My wife has gone from being a modern single girl type to a nurturing, family-oriented, loving wife (it helped, I think, that she has had some years at home with our children).
Jesse_7:
ReplyDelete"You can usually tell fairly quickly if she's the sort of person you can settle with."
Yes, and doesn't this seem perfectly natural? It is as if the "men's rights" advocates are unable to grasp this notion. They are very quick to decide that the field for them is hopeless, but how much leg work are they putting into it? Maybe they were born with deficient radar regarding their fellow man, women in particular.
Alte:
"Even Europeans are a diverse group with distinct cultures."
This seems too obvious to mention but the existence of the EU alone tells us that it bears mention often. I would say the same about the United States, which has received almost no mention in this thread as far as geographic diversity. The various difficulties discussed here vary widely, even wildly, depending on the area or locale we are talking about.
Some years ago I was on a domestic flight sitting next to a gentleman, in his 30s it appeared, and we started talking about "the scene" in various parts of the country. He indicated that while some cities are very men-friendly, others are a virtual cauldron of vicious contempt on the same score. My impression was that he was talking about places where men and women *enjoy each other's company* in general social terms. They are the places that big city liberals regard with automatic scorn and derision, like Cincinnati, Kansas City, Asheville. Anonymity and high turnover of metro populations, including robust immigration levels, are especially pernicious in cities like Miami or Los Angeles.
The flowering of leftist destruction continues apace in all our big cities and the populated coastal areas. But the Midwest and rural areas are behind the curve and they are as different as Sydney is from the Kimberley.
I'm happy to see I am not the only one who was moved by Elizabeth Smith's tripartite ordering of things.
"No, confidence comes from one source, and on source only: success"
ReplyDeleteNaw, I've had loads of career success, and still lack confidence! :P
While I've seen students who can't string two words together yet are brimful of confidence in their abilities.
Speaking of Alte, I wonder if no reconciliation is possible (without compromise, of course).
ReplyDeleteThis is what she thinks of traditionalists. You do the math.
Elizabeth said:
ReplyDelete""Anonymous then deludes himself into thinking that somehow marriage today is what traditionalists and conservatives love. In fact we believe it to be flawed and a perversion. We are simply waiting until it collapses so we can start anew. What traditionalists and conservatives are advocating is to create their own marital institution divorced from liberalism.""
Amazing, perfectly well put. should be read by everyone.
I would argue that as the liberal state extends the definition of marriage to homosexuality and beyond traditionalists need to make the case for divorcing the idea of "real" marriage from the lesser "Fake" state sanctioned kind.
Amongst evangelicals and most non-western religious traditions in Melbourne this already seems to be taking hold, helped by their seperation of those groups from the liberal dominated mainstream culture.
Well... In 1998, I was sure that men will overthrow discrimination. Now I understand, that at least in the next 50 years things will only get worse.
ReplyDeleteCan there be a huge genocide of men?
Ugh so all women are whores? How is that any better than saying all men are bastards? MRA's are as bad as feminazis.
ReplyDeleteAs a woman in her late 20s my experience is that many men only want slutty girls. If you don't put out quickly, if you haven't slept with half a dozen men then you're a reject.
Then the same men turn around and complain that the slutty women cheated on them or treated them badly. Well duh.
La
We'll wait for an answer on that LA but its a basic premise that you can't game (pick up whatever) women who won't put out.
ReplyDelete"This is what [Alte] thinks of traditionalists. You do the math."
ReplyDeleteAmong other things, she doesn't seem to grasp the distinction between 'slut' and 'whore.' So, to try to further her education --
* a 'whore' gets paid for engaging in promiscuity;
* a ‘slut’ does not.
Obviously, a ‘whore’ values herself more than a ‘slut’ does. And, probably, men value her more.
... for, what man can value the woman who does not value herself?
ReplyDelete"its a basic premise that you can't game (pick up whatever) women who won't put out."
ReplyDeleteSays the beta with no game.
If she won't put out, then by definition your game isn't good enough. She won't put out FOR YOU... but that doesn't mean she won't put out.
"I don't know of any traditionalists who propose one-sided relationships."
Oy. Don't you get it? In the feminist-dominated legal system, your relationship with a woman is one-sided by definition, as a matter of law. She can pull the plug on you at any time, and abscond with your wealth and children on a whim, and there is nothing you can do about it. Her commitment to you is ZERO, and your commitment to her is huge. Now, she may or may not choose to take advantage of her position, but the fact remains that her position is vastly superior.
"What Anonymous doesn't understand is that civilization is a combination of the natural order, the social order and the divine order. Anonymous cannot see that."
No, I understand perfectly that liberalism has destroyed civilization. It is just that unlike you deluded "traditionalists", I draw the correct conclusion from this fact. You want to play by liberal rules with the fatuous idea that you can beat them at their own game when they have stacked the deck against you. I refuse to play by their rules.
Lol who are you, like a Valmont in Dangerous Liasons trying to pick up the virtuous girls just for the sake of it? Presumably while still playing your xbox.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteWe agree about the injustice of the marriage and divorce laws.
But neither of us is in a position right now to change these laws.
So what do we do? My strategy is to do my best to have a good family life regardless of the obstacles put in my way by a bunch of liberals and feminists and, over time, to work for change. I can't guarantee the success of either endeavour, but so far my family life has gone well.
You haven't stated your alternative strategy except to say that you won't marry.
I do hope, though, that your strategy is not to do your own thing whilst waiting for the West to crash and burn and be replaced by some other tradition.
That strikes me as having avoided liberalism only to adopt in its place some form of nihilism.
Anonymouse: "Says the beta with no game."
ReplyDeleteSays the feminized fan-boy of being a feminized boy.
Anonymouse, "Game" will never make you a man; it will only further feminize you. Its whole point and purpose is to deceive back into complacency young men who have begun to suspect that the current-day liberal/feminist social arrangements and law are designed to crush the spirits of men. “Game” is golden snare designed to trick a caged bird into believing he has freed himself from the cage.
I don't know. I'm immensely enjoying my pout. I'm writing some of my funniest stuff lately, as being angry always brings out my sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteThis is what she thinks of traditionalists.
No, that is what you think of traditionalists. My point is that you keep insisting that -- since I don't pass that litmus test -- I must not be a traditionalist. So... fine. You win. I'm not a traditionalist, I'm just another Negro tramp.
Happy now?
Back to the original post, here are two articles that shed some light on how to interpret Rosen's "End Of Men" spiele:
ReplyDeleteWilliam Tucker's analysis of her article by the same name:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/07/the-end-of-men-the-beginning-o
Oh, and about all those fancy-shmancy college degrees women have been getting?
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-great-college-degree-scam/28067
So like a liberal to equate their universally harmful destruction of society with the "end of men" and feminist victory.
Alte:
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with not being a virgin when you marry? Our men couldn't care less, even the Opas didn't care. In fact, a man who marries a virgin is considered a fool because he might end up with someone infertile and then be stuck without children.... Get over yourself, with your Victorian purity tests.
I think I see the problem. You need to replace the "traditional" in "traditional Catholicism" with "nominal". That focus on virginity until marriage is a Christian moral imperative, not an American cultural artifact.
Says the feminized fan-boy of being a feminized boy.
ReplyDeleteSays the beta mangina.
See how easy and meaningless it is to toss around the "you're a girly man!" shaming language?
Anonymouse, "Game" will never make you a man; it will only further feminize you. Its whole point and purpose is to deceive back into complacency young men who have begun to suspect that the current-day liberal/feminist social arrangements and law are designed to crush the spirits of men. “Game” is golden snare designed to trick a caged bird into believing he has freed himself from the cage.
Well, let's see.
Me: confident, dominant alpha who gets laid a lot.
You: supplicating, white-knighting beta who never gets any.
Who's the feminized one here?
In my world, the guy who gets the most women (in other words, not you) is the most masculine. Naturally you are forced to argue that the guy who never gets any (you) is somehow "less feminized" or your self esteem would suffer a crushing blow. To this I simply smile and observe that results (my success with women, your lack thereof) speak for themselves.
Evidently it has not occurred to you that betas like you are feminized not merely because you don't get women, but also because you are doing exactly what women want. Women not only want alphas to have sex with, they also need a large pool of betas who never get sex but provide the resources to keep going the system that benefits women. In my world, the alphas who "do what women want" but also get laid are much smarter, happier, and more masculine than betas (like you) who also do what women want but never get laid.
Men who game women are the least deceived of all men. Soi disant "traditionalist" men are the most deceived, because they are clinging to an outmoded model of social and sexual relations that has been utterly smashed and will never return.
Soi disant "traditionalist" men are the most deceived, because they are clinging to an outmoded model of social and sexual relations that has been utterly smashed and will never return.
ReplyDeleteSo then, you believe that the current feminist madness is permanent. This sort of illustrates others' point about Game being used to make men complacent in the face of feminist hegemony rather than trying to throw off its yolk, even after they've been awakened to the ugly facts of female nature that feminism tries to hide.
There are worthwhile parts to Game. Being disabused of feminist lies about female moral superiority and female psychology, and knowing what sort of attitude attracts women to you and what marks a woman as being of good or bad character, is invaluable. Whether you use that knowledge to improve yourself in a lasting and worthwhile manner or to sink into the nihilistic mire is what determines the sort of man you are.
Will you look at that! Our Anonymouse is so feminized that he even "argues" in that hysterical mode so popular with the distaff sex.
ReplyDelete"There are worthwhile parts to Game."
ReplyDeleteNot a one.
Anything true about "Game" came from elsewhere, is already known. Anything specific to "Game" is not true.
That focus on virginity until marriage is a Christian moral imperative
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. Chastity until marriage is not the same thing as virginity until marriage. What I am protesting is the obsession with women's intact hymens.
What if she has been raped, is a widow, or was married before? What if she converted to Christianity as an adult, and changed her ways? What if she simply made a mistake, repented, and is trying to be chaste again? Does that mean she is "unfit to marry" because she is not a virgin? That is certainly the vibe I'm getting, and it smacks of a total lack of compassion and understanding. Especially as the same vehemence is never directed at men.
Alte wrote,
ReplyDelete"What I am protesting is the obsession with women's intact hymens."
No one is obsessed with a woman's "hymen". I have never seen or heard the word in a single Christian publication.
But a woman who is unconcerned with her virtue is a fool and headed to the destination of all fools which is death and destruction.
You ask about a woman who has changed her ways. Great. Didn't Jesus forgive the woman with five husbands? In my church we certainly have plenty of women like that, and they are forgiven by Christ and full members of the church.
I just wouldn't marry any of them. You'll remember that Paul advised any woman who has converted to the faith to be reconciled to her husband or to wait in chastity until she could be reunited with him, not simply pick another one.
Christianity is not about your or any other woman's "happiness". It isn't about my or any man's happiness. It's about God's happiness, and it's high time, Alte, that you decide whether you're interested in submitting to God's happiness or not.
Alte I don't know what has caused this change in you but stop it. If you're drifting into liberalism then fine. Just leave traditionalists and conservatives alone.
ReplyDeleteIlÃon:
ReplyDeleteWill you look at that! Our Anonymouse is so feminized that he even "argues" in that hysterical mode so popular with the distaff sex.
I noticed that. His general tone and argumentation is almost exactly like the sex-positive feminists in particular.
Anything true about "Game" came from elsewhere, is already known.
It is known to someone, somewhere, or was in the past - but not necessarily to people that the average guy has access to now.
For instance, the hypergamous nature of women has been known to most people in most cultures across time. Unfortunately, in our feminized culture, a man has it drilled into his head from all sides that women don't want to be dominated, that this was all a myth invented by patriarchal jerks who wanted to suppress women, blah blah blah.
A guy could possibly come to a realization of female hypergamy by a study of history and observations made by past generations, but it's unlikely, and even if he does, the entire culture will scream at him that the stuff he's reading was written by outmoded chauvinists from the misty depths of time before we realized that women were completely equal.
However, when he sees a complete loser of a man explain how he gets women to throw themselves at him just by being a dominant jerk towards them, right here right now even in "enlightened" feminist society, it becomes impossible to explain away.
Furthermore, a wise man will take note of the utterly immoral, harmful, and manipulative behavior that women will indulge in their hypergamous hunt if not held in check by a good moral compass, and will approach his own search for a wife without the rose-colored glasses.
I see learning from Gamers to be sort of analogous to learning from the black box recording after an airplane wreck. There are genuine insights to be learned from the observations, but you wouldn't want to be in it.
Alte:
ReplyDeleteWhat if she has been raped, is a widow, or was married before? What if she converted to Christianity as an adult, and changed her ways? What if she simply made a mistake, repented, and is trying to be chaste again? Does that mean she is "unfit to marry" because she is not a virgin?
No, a woman could become a good wife after any of those things, if she truly repents and has a change of heart (regarding the intentional ones - obviously being raped or having your husband die is not your fault).
However, a woman who "made a mistake" (or more accurately, did something that wasn't a mistake at all, but that she regrets later) and then truly repents wouldn't say "what's the big deal about being a virgin?" Rather, she'd regret that she wasn't one.
Compare your "what about rape/widows/repentance?" bit here with what you said before:
What's wrong with not being a virgin when you marry? Our men couldn't care less, even the Opas didn't care. In fact, a man who marries a virgin is considered a fool because he might end up with someone infertile and then be stuck without children.... Get over yourself, with your Victorian purity tests.
Does that look like what you're saying now? It looks to me like you were insinuating before that repentance isn't even necessary, because fornication is just fine and dandy.
The Deuce wrote,
ReplyDelete"However, a woman who "made a mistake"...and then truly repents wouldn't say "what's the big deal about being a virgin?" Rather, she'd regret that she wasn't one."
Excellent point, Deuce.
I'd also add that a lack of chastity is a blemish on a woman. We all have blemishes, of course: As Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. But we're only fooling ourselves if we think that blemishes don't take away from our attractiveness to the opposite sex.
So, what's a unmarried, nonvirginal woman to do? Same thing an unmarried, low-status man (yours truly) is to do: Work on those things you can improve, while accepting that there are some imperfects that are permanent.
I think the Bible calls this humility.
Obviously, I don't think fornication is "fine and dandy", and I've written against it numerous times. I didn't mention it because I don't care, I mentioned it because it's a good example of differences in tradition.
ReplyDeleteYou guys go on about female virginity even more than Germans rant about stores being open on Sundays, and the French complain about the loss of their cuisine, which is saying a lot. We just don't place fornication at the top of some Pyramid of Sins, like you all do. I am pointing out that your focus on female virginity (or your related aversion to the naked female form) is not a universal "Western" trait. It exists in some countries, in others it doesn't.
No one is obsessed with a woman's "hymen". I have never seen or heard the word in a single Christian publication.
No, they just talk about "virginity", which means the same thing. There's a reason why plastic surgeons here offer hymenoplasty: because traditional American men want their women to bleed on the sheets.
But that's just your own thing. There are plenty of men who don't care, and would be bewildered at your insistence on its vital importance. Really. I know you can't even fathom that, as it's outside of the realm of your understanding, but we can put it in the same box as The One Drop Rule: Things Americans lose sleep over that other people don't care about.
But a woman who is unconcerned with her virtue is a fool and headed to the destination of all fools which is death and destruction.
Same with unchaste men, so are people who work on the Sabbath, or people who have cheated on their taxes, but I don't see you all going on and on about that. Lust is only one of many sins. Could that be because your traditions put a massive premium on female virginity, above and beyond Christian teaching about chastity?
But I've grown bored of talking to a wall, as you are obviously being purposefully obtuse and pretending not to understand what I am saying. Merry Christmas.
Alte said,
ReplyDelete"But I've grown bored of talking to a wall, as you are obviously being purposefully obtuse and pretending not to understand what I am saying."
I would advise everyone to take it easy. There are obvious differences between German and other traditions and sometimes its each to their own.
There are obvious differences between German and other traditions and sometimes its each to their own.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I'm saying.
Sorry to turn the thread into a fight, Jesse, but I think it's an important point. And Merry Christmas to you, too.
Obviously, I don't think fornication is "fine and dandy", and I've written against it numerous times.
ReplyDeleteOkay, fine, but I'm not familiar with your site, and could only take what you said here at face value, which was that the Christian prohibition on fornication is just "an American cultural tradition" that doesn't apply to Bavarians.
There's a reason why plastic surgeons here offer hymenoplasty: because traditional American men want their women to bleed on the sheets.
That's not about haematophilia on the part of American men. It's got more to do with particularly devious slutty girls who decide they want to "settle down" and get their hooks into a guy, and wish to bury the land mine they're about to get him to step on.
If you want to know why guys worry about chastity, here it is: 1) They understand, on some level, that a woman's prior sexual experience is an indication of her future sexual loyalty, and 2) They are viscerally upset by the possibility of spending the rest of their lives living in the shadow of the memory of another man's (or men's) dick(s) in the mind of their wife, even if she is faithful (ie, they don't want to be this guy: http://solomongroup.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/proverb-16-mistakes-and-the-women-who-love-them/).
Same with unchaste men, so are people who work on the Sabbath, or people who have cheated on their taxes, but I don't see you all going on and on about that.
Have you read the responses to Anonymous on this very thread, slapping down his assertion that lack of sexual restraint is just great for men? And he's pretty clearly an atheist and nihilist. I tend to be rougher on people who identify as Christians but try to promote things that conflict with Christianity as being compatible with it, which is what you appeared to be doing.
Anyhow, Merry Christmas
"If you want to know why guys worry about chastity, here it is: 1) They understand, on some level, that a woman's prior sexual experience is an indication of her future sexual loyalty, and 2) They are viscerally upset by the possibility of spending the rest of their lives living in the shadow of the memory of another man's (or men's) dick(s) in the mind of their wife, even if she is faithful (ie, they don't want to be this guy: "
ReplyDeleteInterestingly Deuce, men's sexual
dalliances have been given tacit approval throughout the ages by many.. You know, sowing the wild oats... A rite of passage so to speak.
In reality a decent Christian woman wants from her man the same as what he wants from her.
She wants loyalty, fidelity and not some bloke who has slept with a slew of women.
Some time ago I was floored when I read of one male American blogger who boasted that he had slept with 400 women!!! My stomach churned. This is something to be proud of? What decent woman would want to marry such a man?
How could you trust him to be faithfull?
For some reason there is this nonsense being spread around by some men that women want a man who is experienced..I am sure that the many sluts that put out at the drop of a hat would agree.( And of course like attracts like.)
Well it was never that way for me, nor any of my friends or relatives.
The thought of having a husband who had slept with many women just for the sex turned me right off.
Such an intimate and personal act is all tied up with love for me. It is not something to be shared around. It is a deeply bonding experience when it involves two married people who love one another.
Promiscuity from either men or women cheapens the sex act, and greatly lessens the chance of a good and faithfull marriage later on.
Whilst I married a man who had had a handful of relationships, he was also a good and decent man who had been in monogamous relationships. (and wanted a wife and kids.)
He was a lapsed Catholic back then. Now.. he's more fervent than I am.. :)
Anyhow.. Merry Christmas to you too Deuce, and to every one else here as well.
Jesse wrote,
ReplyDelete"I would advise everyone to take it easy. There are obvious differences between German and other traditions and sometimes its each to their own."
That's not what this discussion is about, Jesse. If you think I have said something false or untoward, then point it out. But please do not attempt to draw a moral equivalence between Alte's words and my own. Alte has caused this breach because she feels excluded by white racial consciousness and the civilization which our ancestors built atop it. She is attempting at the present to drive a wedge between white ethnicities so that she and other non-whites can more easily slide themselves into the gaps.
Her efforts have nothing to do with what is good, right or true, and everything to do with her own hurts and disappointments. While I wish her all the best in her walk with our Lord, I cannot and will not tolerate her lies.
What does the Bible tell us about the end times? That the love of the brethren will grow cold?
Merry Christmas all.
Alte,
ReplyDeletea.) My brothers and I all received token chains, etc. when we promised our parents not to have sex before marriage years ago. I don't have any sisters.
Other than my own extended family, I've never met a single other person who practices this tradition. Not in high school. Not in the inner-city where I live. Not in college. Not in grad school.
If you believe this is a widespread American tradition restricted to girls to ensure bloody wedding sheets, you've been watching too many Nightline specials. I've never even thought about bloody wedding sheets. What the hell?
Let me know when you decide to quit manufacturing "evidence" for your arguments.
No, that is what you think of traditionalists.
ReplyDeleteIncluded in your act of frustration (love the new title, btw) are several points that others have made or that you have projected onto them, so obviously it isn't just myself who objects to your characterizations of traditionalism. Since you've identified as politically libertarian, and since I've dispensed with your notion that "traditionalist" in this context is not the Burkean definition but the literal one, I don't see what your problem is. You're not a traditionalist yourself, and several trads are telling you that your view of their philosophy is in error. You have an opportunity to learn more about where we're coming from, but you prefer to throw tantrums.
This is not surprising, however. The woman who titters approvingly when her commenters project racist pornographic scenarios onto someone she disagrees with is a woman of low character.
Alte has caused this breach because she feels excluded by white racial consciousness and the civilization which our ancestors built atop it. She is attempting at the present to drive a wedge between white ethnicities so that she and other non-whites can more easily slide themselves into the gaps.
Exactly. I could not have said it better myself.
Merry Christmas to Mark and all the Oz regulars. I'd also like to express my gratitude to Mark for providing such an excellent forum.
No, that is what you think of traditionalists.
ReplyDeleteIncluded in your act of frustration (love the new title, btw) are several points that others have made or that you have projected onto them, so obviously it isn't just myself who objects to your characterizations of traditionalism. Since you've identified as politically libertarian, and since I've dispensed with your notion that "traditionalist" in this context is not the Burkean definition but the literal one, I don't see what your problem is. You're not a traditionalist yourself, and several trads are telling you that your view of their philosophy is in error. You have an opportunity to learn more about where we're coming from, but you prefer to throw tantrums.
This is not surprising, however. The woman who titters approvingly when her commenters project racist pornographic scenarios onto someone she disagrees with is a woman of low character.
Alte has caused this breach because she feels excluded by white racial consciousness and the civilization which our ancestors built atop it. She is attempting at the present to drive a wedge between white ethnicities so that she and other non-whites can more easily slide themselves into the gaps.
Exactly. I could not have said it better myself.
Merry Christmas to Mark and all the Oz regulars. I'd also like to express my gratitude to Mark for providing such an excellent forum.
"Alte has caused this breach because she feels excluded by white racial consciousness and the civilization which our ancestors built atop it."
ReplyDeleteIf Alte is indeed an anti-white bigot, then shame on her.
Nevertheless, our civilization is not built upon race, but upon culture, and specifically upon cultures which are thoroughly informed by Christianity. Christianity *made* the Western peoples, and only the sincere return of those peoples to Christianity will save them.
ANYONE, of any race and any ethnicity, who truly adopts one of our Western cultures is a Westerner. ANYONE who tries to make race the most important thing about the human person is an enemy of all the Western peoples.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, anyone, of any race and any ethnicity, who truly is a Christian, is the brother or sister of all Christians. And, ANYONE who hates Christ necessarily hates his people.
How do you people propose to free yourselves (and your nations) from the death-grip of "liberalism" when you insist upon thinking in the terms and modes "liberals" and leftists have have been promoting in all our cultures?
I hope everyone has a happy Christmas :).
ReplyDeleteTime to pause and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Van Wijk, for the compliment and for your own contributions to the site.
Alte has caused this breach because she feels excluded by white racial consciousness and the civilization which our ancestors built atop it.
ReplyDeleteHmm... And why would I feel excluded, all of a sudden? I don't feel excluded in real life, so why should I feel excluded right here, on this blog? Could it be that it's because you guys bring up the fact that I'm black in every single conversation, as if I wore the Mark of Ham, or something? If I said, "The sky is blue," you both would jump in to say that it was "because I was black." You tell non-white people that they are not part of Western civilization, and then you expect them to care about anything else you say? Right.
The woman who titters approvingly when her commenters project racist pornographic scenarios onto someone she disagrees with is a woman of low character.
Low character? This coming from the guy who promotes the idea that black people are a lesser human subspecies of rape-fiends? The same racist pornographic scenario that his favorite go-to-girl espouses. Spare me. Anyone who drones on and on about white women being raped by black men has fairly opened herself (or himself) up to speculation regarding her unnatural and unChristian fixation on the topic. You cannot be both Christian and racist. You have to choose.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Everywhere you guys show up turns into a race war.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteContinue hosting that war; I'm no longer going to show up to take part. Find another Useful Negro.
I've removed your link from my blogroll, and will no longer be bothering you.
There seems a lot of bitterness in the air this Christmas. Radio 4 here in the UK has been running anti-Catholic stuff all day since the Pope's 'Thought for the Day' on the Today Program this morning. I see this thread has gotten kinda nasty too, *sigh*
ReplyDeleteOh well. Let's hope for better days ahead.
Good riddance, farewell, Alte
ReplyDeleteAlte,
ReplyDeleteA break might be best right now. I've enjoyed reading your comments on MRM issues. You're an independent thinker, unbound by PC, married and female. It made for an interesting perspective. You wrote some comments recently on sex within marriage which were refreshingly sympathetic toward husbands and insightful into what matters to us in a long-term marriage.
But I can't deny that the issue of race is a stumbling block. If someone had written racially hostile comments toward you I would have removed them. But what you seem to object to is something else, namely a few commenters linking your attitudes toward race and ethnicity to your own background. I think it's reasonable for them to do so, particularly given some of your posts recently at your own site.
The discussions here seem to be pushing you in a non-traditionalist direction, toward an anti-white grievance politics directed particularly at white women. The sexually explicit remarks you made at your site about Laura Wood were of a low quality and I'd urge you to consider removing them.
Thank you for your contributions over the past year. I've benefited from them and so has the site.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteIt is quite cruel of you to play the gentleman when I am right in the middle of enjoying an embarrassingly public and perfectly inelegant temper tantrum.
I have nothing against white women, but have rather been suffering from a fit of intense -- but completely unwarranted -- petty jealousy. I apologize for making you suffer through it with me, and for allowing it to sharpen and coarsen my arguments. You are right that it has been coloring my writing as of late, and that I clearly need a break from such discussions, as I no longer have the nerve for them.
I do feel that I have been bending over backwards here in attempt to see things from your point of view, or from the point of view of your commentariat. Although I am generally socially conservative, I think you are correct that I am certainly more liberal than the majority of your readership. And that will remain so, for racial, ethnic, and religious reasons. Also perhaps simply due to a difference in temperament.
May you have much continued success with your blog, and I hope that you take my legitimate arguments into consideration in your own future deliberations. As I do believe that some of the arguments I am making in this thread are legitimate, even if I expressed them poorly.
To show good faith, I have removed the offending comments from my blog. God bless, and (this time I mean it truly) a very Merry Christmas to you all.
Again, I apologize for my lack of self-control, and remove myself from the debate.
Well said Alte, once more have a happy Christmas
ReplyDeleteI love Alte. Know why?
ReplyDeleteBecause she is not pretentious..She is down to earth. She doesn't put women (black or white) up on any pedestal.
She presents herself as a normal woman.. warts and all.
Not too many women can do that..They do not present the dark side..Vanity, I guess. Not our Alte.
Take for instance my comment about Laura Wood (on Alte's blog)
"I know this is an uncharitable observation.. but..
and this is just me… She comes across as a sanctimonious know all..
Perhaps you could give her a few tips."
Alte..Editor:" Yes, I could teach her how to be a flaky, lewd, funny, melodramatic, sanctimonious know-it-all. No problem. I agree, she needs to mix it up a bit more."
She certainly put me in my place there. Lol! Though, I am sure that was not her intention.
It made me think.. Well, who am I to make such a comment? I am not without faults, after all.
I really cannot think of any other woman that I have come across on the net who shows both sides.. The good and the bad..
Alte tells it like it is..
She is honest.
Hey, we do not always agree, but, she has my utmost respect.
I took a break over Christmas, but I'd like belatedly to second Jesse's statement:
ReplyDeleteWell said, Mark and Alte. Your final statements have shown us youngins' something about class and poise in the face of emotionally intense conflict. Thank you for your example. And God bless you both. One day in the hereafter, may we look back together on all of this and laugh.
Ilion wrote,
"Nevertheless, our civilization is not built upon race, but upon culture, and specifically upon cultures which are thoroughly informed by Christianity."
By that logic, couldn't you say that manhood is not built upon maleness but upon Christian virtue? Minus Christian virtues, I imagine trannies would agree.
"Christianity *made* the Western peoples, and only the sincere return of those peoples to Christianity will save them.
ANYONE, of any race and any ethnicity, who truly adopts one of our Western cultures is a Westerner."
1.) Christianity also made, say, the Amhara people. Are there no significant differences between the Amhara and Europeans? Are there any two European peoples more different than any one European people and the Amhara? How, but by ancestry, do you account for those differences?
2.) If anyone could be a Westerner, and if Western civilization is superior to all others, then why shouldn't everyone become a Westerner? How do you distinguish your position from Westernized globalization?
3.) As a corollary, if anyone could be a part of X superior civilization, and if X superior civilization exists, then why shouldn't everyone become part of X superior civilization?
Indeed, why shouldn't we simply have one, global superior civilization (let's abbreviate it "NWO" for short) and encourage everyone to become part of it? Why shouldn't we accelerate the demise of all other, inferior civilizations?
Van Wijk said,
ReplyDelete"Alte has removed the comments in question, but many similar comments remain in place along with the original articles. See in particular here, here, and here. I'd encourage you to read those threads in their entirety."
What Alte says on her site is her business. If you have a problem with what she says take it up with her on her site.
On the point about the universalism of the West, to a degree I think that is true. The idea was certainly tried and countries like India still have English style private schools servicing their elite. Obviously this isn't entirely effective, nonetheless, people like Condelezza Rice are closer to us, much much much closer, than Jesse Jackson. Maybe Condi is superior in several respects, eg her academia and piano playing.
White Europeans or Anglo Saxons are not a cohesive body. They have been influenced by many different nations and many different traditions. Even in the UK you have the Irish, Welsh, Scots, Scandanavians, Old english, Germans and French. All of these traditions have come together to make a superior whole. Other traditions can also join on or add to our traditions. They must however do so gradually and with some respect for what has happened before or there will be conflict.
"What Alte says on her site is her business. If you have a problem with what she says take it up with her on her site."
ReplyDeleteJesse is right.
It's hard to fathom why you are so bothered about Alte, particularly what she says on HER OWN blog..
Just don't go there... Problem solved.
Oh dear, I do fear that for you, it my be a case of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab4VD_ll3h0
:D
Sooo, when a white is a "liberal," is that also genetic?
ReplyDeleteGood Lord, do I need to scalp *all* you whities to get rid of the degenerate leftists (and libertarians)?
Van Wijk the two major reasons why I've become an avid defender of the West and would like to participate in it's rebuilding is because of two reasons. One because of Christianity (culture/worldview). Two because of my mother.
ReplyDeleteMy father is of African descent, my mother is Russian and my maternal grandmother was a Russian Jew. I've been tracking the falling Caucasians birthrates in Europe, America and Russia.
I sometimes fall into grievance politics but then I remember ''You wouldn't do this to your father so stop doing this to your mother. You possess African, Jewish and Russian blood.''
I don't want to dissapoint my father and not have no children of African blood but I also do not desire to dissapoint my mother. I feel torn and possibly may marry a person of either African or Caucasian descent and have one child that is not the race of my spouse by assistance (fertility hospital).
I think Van Wijk that if you want a nonwhite to support the West with a combination of race and culture then you should see nonwhites that embody this.
They should be nonwhites that are devout in Christianity + are children of an interracial couple where one parent is white (like my mother).
I'm not saying that somehow all nonwhites that are mixed race with one white parent and devout to Christianity will defend the West versus nonwhites that are not mixed and have an affinity to the West merely by Christianity better but that there is a higher probability of us being open to preserving the white race + Christianity instead of just white race or Christianity.
Ilion wrote,
ReplyDelete"Sooo, when a white is a "liberal," is that also genetic?
Partly.
Good Lord, do I need to scalp *all* you whities to get rid of the degenerate leftists (and libertarians)?"
Maybe ;)
What Alte says on her site is her business. If you have a problem with what she says take it up with her on her site.
ReplyDeleteWhat's good for the goose is good for the gander, Jesse. There were many comments made at her site complaining about this thread, some of them in fairly vile terms. My last comment posed, I think, a reasonable question as to why certain comments were taken down while others remained up.
Oh dear, I do fear that for you, it my be a case of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab4VD_ll3h0
:D
Nice try. Do a search for my name on those two threads and see how often it got dropped. So really, I could easily repost your own link back to you, if I were interested in playing games. Although, "Kathy," I am at a loss as to why you would deign to engage someone you consider a Klansman in conversation.
I will say this, though. If she no longer posts here, I have no further need to discuss her.
I don't want to dissapoint my father and not have no children of African blood but I also do not desire to dissapoint my mother. I feel torn and possibly may marry a person of either African or Caucasian descent and have one child that is not the race of my spouse by assistance (fertility hospital).
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
What you've described is something every person of mixed race struggles with. And very often it tears the person apart. Indeed, how could it do otherwise? You've been put in an impossible situation, thrown into a sort of racial limbo. Most people "solve" this dilemma by actively embracing one side of their heritage while coming to despise the other side. Others simply deny the importance of race entirely. Both of these are problematic for reasons I don't have to get into.
...there is a higher probability of us being open to preserving the white race + Christianity instead of just white race or Christianity.
That remains to be seen. If ever there is a mixed race person who defends what I defend and in the same terms, he or she should be embraced (there is an Indian character in The Camp of the Saints who embodies this). But for the past fifty years, only those grievances that flowed from blacks to whites have been seen as legitimate. The same goes for racism: only white-on-nonwhite racism can be considered legitimate. For a nonwhite person to truly embrace the West, I think they must discard the laundry list of grievances that the vast majority of them hold. They must accept that Caucasians have a right to maintain majorities in the countries we created, and that our culture and achievements are just as legitimate as those of any other people.
"Although, "Kathy," I am at a loss as to why you would deign to engage someone you consider a Klansman in conversation."
ReplyDeleteHmmmm.. Perhaps because I am not a bigot , as well as the fact that I don't take you as seriously as you seem to take yourself. ;)
What? Holier-than-thou? Holier-than-God?
ReplyDeleteIlÃon: "What? Holier-than-thou? Holier-than-God?"
ReplyDeleteNah.. Wouldn't describe Van Wijk in such glowing terms myself. :D
That's surely a good thing, but how about yourself?
ReplyDeleteNo, definitely not me either, mate. Lol..
ReplyDeleteLuke 14:11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
I can be a handful at times, though. Just as hubby.(He hasn't given me the boot yet,so that's a relief)
I'm still a work in progress.. :)