tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post3223203894598044314..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Laurie Penny sets out the true goal of feminism: the state must replace the husbandUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-56053515269717345502016-06-16T08:12:26.291+10:002016-06-16T08:12:26.291+10:00Dexter, it's true that politics has the aspect...Dexter, it's true that politics has the aspect you describe. But don't underestimate the need for the intellectual type to have a philosophy to live by. When the high courts of Western countries decide the big issues they do so on the basis of liberal autonomy theory. The politics departments of the universities likewise discuss and debate issues around liberal autonomy theory. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67786065980938323812016-06-16T01:55:29.995+10:002016-06-16T01:55:29.995+10:00"liberals do not think of individual autonomy..."liberals do not think of individual autonomy in this way. For them it has a more philosophical meaning."<br /><br />Nah. "Autonomy" is all about political power.<br /><br />"Stand on your own two feet" = no political power for liberal politicians<br /><br />"Redistribute wealth to provide sham autonomy" = political power for liberal politicians who will bribe creatures like Laurie Penny in exchange for votesDexterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07748293799490877339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63673182102653220372016-06-14T00:36:43.113+10:002016-06-14T00:36:43.113+10:00"So morality comes to mean: the individual mu..."So morality comes to mean: the individual must be free to self-define his own being and his own truth, but must also respect others doing the same. This means that anything that is thought to define the individual, that is not freely chosen, is offensive to the life of the individual (hence - the attempts to deracinate the individual and to make sex something that the individual chooses for himself)."<br /><br />This is a description of liberalism which is advanced to deceive and dupe the naive into going along with it. However the ones who push and control this agenda (and pay for its advancement) are quite clear that there is one Truth. The rejection of Truth is the deposition of God and the replacement of the rule of God with the rule of Satan. <br /><br />That is nothing to do with my mindset or the mindset of anyone else. It is a fact of both Christian and Jewish teaching. There are many liberals who do not understand this and there are many who do but go along with it anyway because they are either paid or blackmailed to do so. However the pretext of "man being free to define his being and his own truth" is just a pretext to deceive the naive and simple minded into accepting certain positions. The euthanasia movement is advanced as a "kind way to allow people to die in dignity" but this is a pretext to get people to accept the real agenda which is mass killing of the elderly and sick.<br /><br />In summary you have the pretext used to advanced the covert, concealed agenda. Liberal "morality" as you describe it is a pretext to advanced satanism. Your own position would fall apart should you try to defend Christian truths publicly when you would find that the "freedom to define your own truth" would rapidly be crushed. It is not about freedom to define ones own truth at all but the imposition of a satanic agenda.<br /><br />Your own position is further undermined by the fact that Truth is based upon reason, a product of logical deduction. Given that reason and truth cannot be in opposition, a man who has an XY genotype and male phenotype cannot believe he is a woman as evidence and reason contradict this. His belief in his female gender is thus deluded, contrary to objective reality and a product of disordered thought and feeling.This is not a truth but a psychosis.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-73010455346799701042016-06-13T08:40:20.519+10:002016-06-13T08:40:20.519+10:00Anon, I agree with much of what you have written, ...Anon, I agree with much of what you have written, but you are framing the mindset of liberals according to your own mindset. To truly understand them we have to step outside of our own mindset and into that of the people who are running society. We then have to trace the inner logic of that mindset. <br /><br />So I agree that liberals deny the truth. They don't deny this. It is the starting point of liberalism. A liberal would say either that there is no truth or that it can't be reliably known. <br /><br />But this doesn't then lead liberals to believe in nothing. They do have a belief system, the one that is shaping our society. Liberals then say, OK, there is no truth that we can know, therefore what matters is a human freedom to define our own truth. There is value, claim the liberals, not in what we define as the truth, but in the freedom of choice that is asserted in the act of self-defining our own subjective truth. This is what gives human life its particular dignity/this is the "sacred" point for liberals that makes the human individual something of inherent value.<br /><br />So morality comes to mean: the individual must be free to self-define his own being and his own truth, but must also respect others doing the same. This means that anything that is thought to define the individual, that is not freely chosen, is offensive to the life of the individual (hence - the attempts to deracinate the individual and to make sex something that the individual chooses for himself).<br /><br />It also means that morality comes to be based on accepting the self-defining lives of others: the focus is on accepting diversity, non-discrimination, inclusiveness and so on.<br /><br />Does this lead logically to tyranny rather than to individual freedom? Yes, because it requires a war on human nature that is policed in ever more intrusive terms by the liberal state. I'm not sure, though, that it is this tyranny that will eventually bring down liberalism. Liberalism, by promising "equal satisfaction of desires" is rapidly breeding a grievance mentality in just about everyone - everyone is convinced that they are being illegitimately treated (discriminated against) on the false grounds of a racial/sexual group they belong to. It is having a splintering effect.<br /><br />As for marriage, I mostly agree with you. Marriage cannot be based primarily on subjective feelings as it is today. You are probably correct too that the term "goods" is an inappropriate one for marriage - I will consider this is future posts.<br /><br />Even so, it seems worthwhile to me to try to understand the differences between men and women in relationships. This is especially true in current conditions, when the traditionally Catholic view of marriage you describe has fallen out of the culture, and people have to contend with "human nature unleashed". Men, understandably, are interested in knowing what they are dealing with.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-11159975622626809552016-06-12T23:59:14.037+10:002016-06-12T23:59:14.037+10:00Liberalism is not simply about the individual will...Liberalism is not simply about the individual will and his choices nor is it about autonomy after all, Liberal societies rapidly descend into oppressive tyranny. It is the denial of the Truth and the replacement of God as ruler with man as ruler. <br /><br /><br />Once Truth is deposed, denied and obscured, human life loses its anchor in Truth and reality and becomes based upon lies, falsehoods and sin. As Chesterton said, humans who reject God do not believe in nothing, they believe in anything.<br /><br />Human behaviour and values become regulated by thoughts and feelings instead of transcendent truth. At the present time, material comfort renders most people immune to Truth. Most people are concerned primarily for the pursuit of their interests and passions and Truth is an obstruction to that.<br /><br />Marriage is not about "goods" or benefits. It is about the fulfilment of God's plan for human procreation. Happiness, sexual and emotional gratification are neither assured nor guaranteed. For many people marriage will always be a burden and impediment to the fulfilment of their desires.<br /><br />Marriage is the primary social institution, the building block of the nation and the goal of the political left is to destroy both institutions family and nation.<br /><br />A Roman Catholic priest in Rome, Italy recently said that the Sacrament of Marriage must be based upon Truth and Reason and not upon thoughts and feelings. The decision to consecrate one's life to another must be based upon the objective Truth of the spouse's suitability as a life partner and not upon subjective feelings. Hence marriage must be accepted as the unconditional plan for human life regardless of individual thought and emotion and conditional incentives of "goods" and "benefits". The latter terms come from the field of economics and not theology.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68373589466234225502016-06-12T21:52:16.796+10:002016-06-12T21:52:16.796+10:00I understand, but I genuinely think a lot of it is...I understand, but I genuinely think a lot of it is driven by malformed social sensitivities and pure selfishness, not by a strict theory of liberal self-interest<br /><br />Check out this thoroughly rationalised approach to gimme dats<br /><br />http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/i-want-all-the-perks-of-maternity-leave-without-having-any-kids/<br /><br />This woman has a poor work/life balance, so obviously it's time for someone else (business, government) to subsidise her "me time" so that she can "find herself". Their lives aren't perfect and they have some kind of personal/emotional deficit that they can't deal with. The more the system obliges this behaviour, the more they will demand.Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449974719371426423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-12828779244339126122016-06-12T14:50:02.688+10:002016-06-12T14:50:02.688+10:00Yes, I get your point. There is a good sense to th...Yes, I get your point. There is a good sense to the word autonomy - something along the lines of "being able to stand on one's own two feet; having responsibility and foresight in ordering one's life to accrue the resources to live from one's own labours" and so on.<br /><br />But liberals do not think of individual autonomy in this way. For them it has a more philosophical meaning. They think that there is nothing outside of the individual which gives meaning to life. Therefore, what matters is that we each determine our own self and values and respect others doing the same. Freedom then comes to mean a freedom to live according to one's own self-design, without external impediment. Laurie Penny is saying: I don't want to marry, I should not be punished for my choice, as all choices are equally valid. Therefore, I should get the same goods from not marrying that other women get from marrying. She is in line with the state ideology in making this claim.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39329839991896816692016-06-12T12:50:27.429+10:002016-06-12T12:50:27.429+10:00Penny has absolutely no real sense of what it mean...Penny has absolutely no real sense of what it means to be autonomous. She has probably never truly struggled a single day in her life. This lack of understanding appears to be widespread amongst liberal women who suggest, without a smidgen of irony, that autonomy is obtained when they have no obligations to anyone but themselves and the government is providing them sufficient financial, health, and educational benefits to offset their own personal deficits.<br /><br />I don't know what's more galling, their massive sense of entitlement or their total lack of self awareness. Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449974719371426423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-20938535412793218362016-06-12T11:43:43.131+10:002016-06-12T11:43:43.131+10:00Yes, it's interesting. She's not even pret...Yes, it's interesting. She's not even pretending to give something back. It is all framed in terms of "you can give me money so I can do whatever I want". As I wrote in the post, she thinks this is possible, because maximising autonomy is a key aspect of the state ideology, so she is challenging the liberal state to live up to its own principles. Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-38293354370151835252016-06-12T01:15:52.892+10:002016-06-12T01:15:52.892+10:00She is a parasite. The very definition of it. Sh...She is a parasite. The very definition of it. She wants to have her cake and eat it too.<br /><br />Have the state use violence to take resources and earnings from men and give it to her. She's fine with the violence, as long as she can look the other way.<br /><br />She gets benefits from men, with no need to be accountable in order to get those benefits.<br /><br />Really evil when you take this attitude apart. The 'state' is other people this woman doesnt want to have to deal with. She just wants them to pay for her 'choices', her failures, her needs.<br /><br />Contemptible.<br /><br /><br />“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”<br /><br /><br />“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” Thomas Sowell.cecilhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06295507329028875050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67939196635167650562016-06-11T22:46:14.136+10:002016-06-11T22:46:14.136+10:00What kind of man would love Laurie Penny?What kind of man would love Laurie Penny?Michael Leahyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15044897013849386271noreply@blogger.com