I happened to watch a few episodes of A&E’s Duck Dynasty, and the patriarch of the family (Phil Robertson) is a real character. From his conversion story he started off a Roissy style alpha, into “sex drugs and rock and roll” until he was 28. In college he played quarterback for Louisiana Tech with Terry Bradshaw on the bench as his backup.
Aside from his faith and obvious take charge personality, Robertson’s thoughts on men and women stand out for how counter-cultural they are. I couldn’t find the examples I was looking for but in the search found a few which should at least give you a taste for his unique style and world-view. In this first clip he talks about his wife’s need to “chatter”. This clip makes him seem harsher towards his wife than the rest of the show does, because it is clear that he loves her very much. Still, it shows his alpha aloofness:
Here he is advising his grandson on how to choose a wife:
Don’t marry some yuppie girl. Find you a meek, gentle, kind spirited country girl. If she knows how to cook, and she carries her Bible and lives by it, and she loves to eat bullfrogs, now there’s a woman!
(note the video shows him cleaning bullfrogs so if you have an aversion to seeing game processed you probably want to skip this one)
I don’t have a way to start an embedded video at a specific time, but you can skip to 1 min 13 seconds to see his related advice in the following clip:
William Penn would roll over in his grave if he could see what these Pennsylvania girls have turned into. See these Quaker girls way back 200 years ago they picked these boys’ ducks. I guarantee you William Penn had a duck pickin’ woman with him. But these days I said “Do you girls pick ducks up here?” and they said “No we pick pockets up here!”. Hard to find a duck pickin’ woman in Pensylvania anymore. You boys let it get away from you!
Their main problem is they are waiting until they get to be 20 years old before they marry them. In Louisiana we marry them about 15-16. Check with mom and dad before you pull a move like that.
16 year olds they’ll pick your ducks. 20 they’ll pick your pocket.
I mentioned this in a thread last week, but by the time they turn 18 and are old enough to marry, 58% of girls are already sexually active, and by 19 that jumps to 70.1% – with all that this entails in terms of disease transmission, potential alpha-widowhood, accidental pregnancies, and the like. So, even though he sounds extreme to suggest that girls might marry in their late teens, there is some wisdom in his words.
16 year olds they’ll pick your ducks. 20 they’ll pick your pocket.
SSM: I mentioned this in a thread last week, but by the time they turn 18 and are old enough to marry, 58% of girls are already sexually active, and by 19 that jumps to 70.1%
And people think I”m crazy for wanting my sons to marry before age 20??!!!!??!??!?!?!?
“So, even though he sounds extreme to suggest that girls might marry in their late teens, there is some wisdom in his words.”
Extreme? That was the standard for most Western women before 1900 or so. Not all, but most were married by 20. Hell, in many cultures marriage at 13 or 14 was not uncommon. Shakespeare threw a joke in Romeo and Juliet about extraordinarily young marriage for women when he mentioned the nurse losing her maidenhead (virginity) at 12.
Yes, I have learned not to mention that I want to marry my girls off by 20. The shocked looks on people’s faces…
But this really goes with what donalgraeme and I have both written about regarding young women and moral agency (or lack thereof) in the presence of an alpha male.
http://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/moral-agency-in-women-revisted/
…And good advice it was, too. About a million times better than the cr@p you’ll generally hear in the media about finding a mate.
Wow. Whores’R’Us.
Do you mean he sounds extreme to your ears? Surely not? (He no doubt sounds like a comedy act to most modern Americans, but in these circles, folks will likely see he’s a wise old buzzard.)
The idea that they are at some point helpless is simply not Scriptural. (I notice that on the linked page, there’s a lot of evolutionary speculation: evolution’s junk science and leads people astray from what God has plainly said.) This is just a more appealing way of exculpating wicked women. (More appealing since it appeals to fantasies of male sexual power over women.) I don’t buy it.
Off topic but I’ve seen no mention on the Manosphere of this… might be worth a post of its own:
http://gawker.com/5994974/the-most-deranged-sorority-girl-email-you-will-ever-read
Native Pennsylvanian reporting in. The liberal cancerous tumors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have been killing the state along with a few new additions like Reading, Allentown, Wilkes Barre and a few other budding commie collectives.
The girls from the middle of the state are slightly better than their counterparts. They’re rarely seen in sweat pants. They know how to cook. They have better attitudes, and they are generally not overweight even out of college.
The suburbs where I live, on the other hand are home to all manner of foul-mouthed tattooed whores who can’t balance their checkbooks much less assemble a meal. They’re fat, obnoxious, and drunk most nights and weekends and gainfully employed. The last one infuriates me to no end as I’ve struggled to find meaningful employment for about a year now as a suma cum laude college grad with a 2 majors a concentration and a minor. Seems all I needed was female equipment under the hood and I’d have had the corner office by now.
None of these women are marriageable and they seem blissfully unaware of this aside from the occasional keening howl over facebook that there’s no good men left. I don’t know if the rest of the country is any better off.
I married when I was 19 . Now, 11 years later, I am still mocked when someone my age finds out. (Female)
It strikes me odd that my situation was so unusual. I didn’t realize how unusual it was until I was married and spent the last decade explaining myself.
I’m a female – NOT “when a female finds out”
yeah that was good until ‘billy gibbons’ dressed as duck hunter with sunglasses coincidentally bragged about ‘duck pickin women’ being 16 years old and then, in the next breath, detail the fine art of shooting ducks… uh – what? you aren’t implying we shoot the 16 year olds – are you? NO – Duck Hunting and hunting ‘duck pickin women’ are two very different things – both involve two very different ‘guns’… to first spews shot & the second, seed.
@Donald,
Extreme? That was the standard for most Western women before 1900 or so. Not all, but most were married by 20. Hell, in many cultures marriage at 13 or 14 was not uncommon. Shakespeare threw a joke in Romeo and Juliet about extraordinarily young marriage for women when he mentioned the nurse losing her maidenhead (virginity) at 12.
No it was NOT common. The average for marriages was mid twenties for men and late teens early twenties for women. Romeo and Juliet were not considered normal.
@Karamozov,
Went to Pennsylvania once and was horrified by the women there. Didn’t get a chance to go see the Amish but spent some time in Scranton and Mt. Pocono. The NY vacationers were even worse. This despite some really pretty country side.
‘Well, we’ll just live off love.’ Not really. You’ll starve to death.
This single statement could cause a feminist to blow a blood vessel.
The first piece of advice that my Grandmother gave to my Mom was, “Don’t clean his ducks.” I don’t think my Dad ever forgave her for that.
My Grandfather and his sons would come home and drop their game on the porch for my Grandmother to clean. My father had to teach his sons how to clean game ducks, rabbits, fish and yes, bullfrogs. My mom still cooked them most of the time.
So, it’s been hard to find a duck picking women for a long time in Canada.
@ GK
So I looked into the data from as many sources as I could, and it looks like you were right. The mean seems to be 20-22 during the 1800s. I had remembered it as being 18-19 for women. Should have known better than to trust old history lessons.
As for the Romeo and Juliet thing, I should have been clear that Shakespeare was poking fun at the idea of ridiculously young marriages, which weren’t common (at least in England at that time). Other cultures did marry their women off younger though.
@donalgraeme
It certainly happened in Ancient Israel. Mary was married at the 13-15 age range to Joseph.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_was_the_Virgin_Mary_when_she_got_married
But in the modern modern culture of course such a man is considered a pedophile.
I got at a 23 year old girl today with some Red Pill truth.
She is not doing greatly in the world today, somewhat floundering actually, riding SMV power.
I told her she should marry and not mess around doing it. She was girl that would benefit from a husband and she was a girl that at this time in her life and the way she was, her husband would cherish her. Her initial response was something like “Marriage? No way. I’m not interested in that.” But the way I said it, I think was something different to her. I quoted the stats about the growing income divide, how married people tend to the better side of it, whether storms in life better. And also women that wait to marry, cannot, and are often get trapped on the negative side of the divide.
I also pulled out big guns. I showed her two graphs, that pink vs blue Rollo SMV graph and Dalrock’s marriage zone. In explaining the SMV chart and Marriage Zone chart, I withheld any actual downplaying of older women as not attractive, per se. But I was able to make more of a mathematical statement. When she is 23, all those men older than her want her. But with each passing year she looses a year of men that “she would wish to pick”. So I made it seem like it wasn’t so much about the men not wanting her, but an ever shrinking pool of men she would wish to have as a viable husband. I did say that statistics show for white women, most of them eventually do marry. The question though is “to whom?”. Is that person someone she would wish to pick and now was the time that she had optimum options available to her. I explained that women want men for different reasons than men wanted women and women want men in their 30s because they are more “together” in life and work than a 20 year old,
I played the 29-31 song for her with the two female singers alternating verses, with the 29 year old with “options” and the 31 year old wailing “I’M ALL ALONE. THERE”S NO ONE LEFT”.
I explained that despite what feminist said “fecundity” (fertility and surrounding characteristics) were the basis of attraction because after all, sex is about actual reproduction and every thing else is bait to get you do it.
And who knows how it stuck. But I used a computer to explain with graphics and I could see it had an effect. I wanted to get to the “hammer” about men being aware that a women with 15-20 partners has a 17% chance of the marriage lasting more than 10 years.
But if you tell stuff to women and you do it in a “teaching” manner, and not as a “preaching” manner, or a condemning manner, it can have an effect.
@ Infowarrior
My initial comment references “Western” culture, and seems to be wrong. But as I mentioned in my second comment, other cultures did and still do marry earlier. Islamic civilizations tended to marry women young for a long time. At least, that is what I learned.
Now I am curious about this whole age of marriage thing. Because if it was so much later for women than I thought, then I wonder how pregnancy was avoided in an age without birth control. Out of wedlock births were much less common in the past then they are today (and this is an age with birth control and easy access to abortion, no less). Unless the human sex drive was less then, I don’t see how the temptations of the present age weren’t around back then as well. Or maybe the pregnancies did happen, and you had secret abortions or the children were secretly given away for adoption. Probably should leave all of this to a sociologist.
hey dalrockass!!!
a GBFM newslfashsz!!! Single Moms (And Other Strong Women) Need Alpha Males
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-johnson/ingle-moms-and-other-stro_b_3117711.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
lzozozozoozzooz
the headline alone “Single Moms (And Other Strong Women) Need Alpha Males” makes me go
zlzozolzolzololzolzozlozlzol
@sunshinemary
This will sound bad, but…
I’ve always felt that the age-18 limit is actually cruel to girls. Women are ready to be wives at 16. Biologically it’s been this way for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet somehow we’ve let our laws make this illegal. I will hear and grant some agreement to all the arguments about mental maturity levels and ability to make rational decisions about their future and lord knows I clearly understand how stupid I was and most of my friends (male and female) were at 16. All this changes nothing. Biologically, humans are ready to bear children MUCH earlier than the law in the developed world allows them. This is an injustice, imho. If the girls aren’t ready to marry by 16, then parents are failing, not biology. Parents need to be preparing their kids to make these sex decisions much earlier than they are. Parents avoid this because they love their kids and don’t want to see them leave so soon. This is foolish.
@Donalgraeme,
It is a common misconception because young marriages were _allowed_ (especially for dynastic reasons). As to why not as many bastards my guess is a couple of things were going on:
1.) Familial involvement prevented a lot of tumbling
2.) Separate work areas did two things
a.) Reduced opportunity
b.) And reduced pheromone based affections <—- this right here is HUGE
3.) Per the earlier thread bastards only existed where the parents _never_ married. We know for example that the pilgrims (as leftist are wont to tell) had a lot of "shotgun" marriages where the child was born less than nine months after the marriage. But the couple in question _married_ and the offspring was therefore considered legitimate.
@Miserman,
Yeah I laughed out loud at that quote. To me it is the best thing he said in all of the cited videos.
Jeremy, most females are still developing physically at 16. 18 is actually closer to the age most of them reach full physical maturity. I believe it is healthiest to bear children between 18 and 25.
I think ideally higher education can start much earlier than it does now. There’s no reason why college courses cannot be started by most 15 year olds and no reason why teens cannot be taught adult responsibilities like they used to be before extended childhood and extended adolescence became the norm.
With earlier higher education and earlier entering the workforce, along with teens being trained in adult responsibilities, there’s no reason why they cannot be betrothed at 16 and married between 18 and 20, and perfectly able to meet the responsibilities of marriage and family at that time as well.
As it is now I see 40 year olds behaving like silly teenagers by “running game” and trying to be PUAs between their porn and video game sessions. Its completely ridiculous.
@ GKChesteron
Similar thoughts here. I’ve found a couple of interesting things online discussing different angles of the issue. Going to try and get a post out in the next day or two about it.
The age-at-menarche used to higher. It’s been dropping and dropping and dropping. “Why” is controversial. The fact itself, is not.
“It’s been dropping and dropping and dropping. “Why” is controversial. ”
I hear its GMOs and hormones in the dairy and meat products.
@East is Best
This is highly dependent on genetics and childhood nutrition. Still you are saying “most” females. Is it fair to the ones who develop early that the law tells them their biology is wrong? I also believe that reproductively, women are easily capable of bearing healthy children repeatedly at 16, and the further physical development is mostly muscular and skeletal.
At this you will find NO disagreement from me. High School in the U.S. is little more than government babysitting at this point. It’s completely worthless and kids are better off enrolling in junior colleges at age 14 than ever going to high school.
“I also believe that reproductively, women are easily capable of bearing healthy children repeatedly at 16”
Considering the 9 month gestation period, this would be an impossibility, unless you are referring to twins and triplets!
“and the further physical development is mostly muscular and skeletal.”
PELVIC muscles and bones. Need I say more?
Sixteen is young for marriage. Physically, by 16, girls are chomping at the bit to become sexually active, but parents need to teach them self-control until they are just a little bit more mature. Eighteen to twenty are excellent years for a young woman to marry, although my mother married my father at 17, and her best friend got married at 16.
But it’s cruel to expect our young people to remain virgins but marry at 30. This is just madness. I know there are some older virgins and chaste folks here, and you have my utmost respect, but most girls will not manage to hold out. I’m not even sure they can, given the current culture. If you put a 17-year-old girl who is ovulating alone with an alpha-male type…moralize all you want, but I’m just saying the common sense thing to do is find her husband sooner rather than later.
I linked to one of donalgraeme’s posts above, which was a spin off from a post at my old blog. I’m going to link to the archive of it here because it has the comment thread intact. We had a long conversation about whether or not young females left to their own devices can successfully resist dominant males, in case anyone is interested:
On slutty behavior and moral agency.
“But it’s cruel to expect our young people to remain virgins but marry at 30. This is just madness. I know there are some older virgins and chaste folks here, and you have my utmost respect, but most girls will not manage to hold out. ”
I managed to hold out a really, REALLY long time. And I was a very horny young woman. I just masturbated a lot. The reason I held out was a combo of culture and lack of oppurtunity as well as extreme pickiness on my part.
Now that I’ve had it, I’m not horny anymore. Very rarely. I guess it was the hormones never getting release that made me horny. That coupled with youthfulness I guess. And now that all is said and done (literally), the best orgasmic sex I’ve ever had was with myself anyway so I was not really missing out on anything.
For orgasm, masturbation is best. For “bonding”, kissing, and the pleasurable feel of another humans’ skin against your own, obviously sex with a partner is best.
Wow, EIB. What a strange, inappropriate, and off-topic comment. I really didn’t need to hear your disgusting masturbation stories. If you can’t contribute anything better than that to the conversation, then you should exit it.
LOL! Sorry about that. I meant to write “Warning: TMI follows” but forgot. You’re right. It was TMI.
My main vote goes to soy phytoestrogens, but there are probably multiple dietary factors.
As for how girls avoided unwed pregnancy before birth control and abortion, try this thought experiment: you’re a 16-year-old girl in Europe in the year 1500. Like most everyone else, your family are peasants. You live in a few-room cottage with your parents and several siblings. You spend your days helping your mother with the housework and younger children. Your dad doesn’t go to work in an office 50 miles away; he goes to his workshop downstairs or the fields nearby, and comes home for lunch. Thanks to the large families and small farms, there are plenty of boys your age in the neighborhood, but they’re busy all day helping their own dads.
Everyone goes to bed at sundown, because it gets awfully dark without electricity and candles and lantern oil are expensive. You sleep in a room with a few siblings, if not your whole family. When you leave home, it’s usually to go to church or family functions, maybe the occasional town picnic, but you always go as a family. Sundays are spent at church and then at home with the family, not cruising the mall. Fairs and dances and such are chaperoned because everyone realizes they are an opportunity for kids to get in trouble.
When and where are you going to get pregnant in this scenario? Girls today get pregnant at school or school functions; they didn’t have that then. Today they get pregnant at home while mom and dad (if he’s around) are gone to work; they didn’t do that then. Today they get pregnant in the back seats of cars on dates; they didn’t have cars or allow dates back then. The opportunities just weren’t there much then; today they’re all over the place.
Also, while it’s true that abortion and birth control weren’t available to reduce the number of births, they weren’t there to reduce the feeling of risk either, and it’s an open question which effect is stronger. In other words, a girl considering sex then didn’t have a little voice in the back of her mind saying, “Go ahead, it’ll probably be fine, and if the worst happens….you’d never want to get an abortion, of course, but….” It’s just like divorce: even people who get married insisting they would never get divorced are affected by the fact that they know it’s an option. When a girl knew there was no escape from pregnancy, she had to take the risk much more seriously.
Also also, even if everyone’s perfectly fertile and you have no birth control, there’s only about a 1/6 chance that a single fumbling encounter at the spring festival will result in pregnancy. Pregnancy doesn’t become likely until she’s had sex several times over an extended period. So a girl could get away with a couple of slips, if she doesn’t have the opportunity to make it a regular thing.
@East is Best says:
No reason to get overly pedantic, if you disagree with me, have a look at this:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5946a6.htm
It shows the infant mortality for 15-19 year old mothers is little different than a 40 year old woman. Statistics on teen mothers would seem to bear this out, as we don’t have a teen pregnancy problem as much as a teen mother problem. The facts, imo, are very clear, the female body is *easily* capable of bearing healthy children at age 16. MENTAL readiness is something else.
Actually yes, go on.
/only a little snarkiness…
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
Traditional marriage requires young marriage. That is a hard fact.
Ehh, I don’t think girls are really mentally anywhere near the maturity levels needed for marriage at age 16, as nice of a thought as that is. I mean… that’s high school drama years.
And Sunshinemary, lmao. If you thought East is Best was going too far, you should hear normal conversation around University these days.
@donalgraeme
You know that such cultures also have an early coming of age for boys and possibly girls I will use Judaism as a reference. For boys they become an official adult at 13 marked by a ceremony called a bar mitzvah. I had a conversation with a jewish boy who was considered an adult in Israel and allowed to run a business he was about 15-16 years old when I met him. For girls its approximately 12-13 when menarche first happens where in Ancient Jewish culture first permitted to marry:
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm
Such cultures notably don’t have a period they call adolescence. The boy becomes a man and a girl becomes a woman.
Adolescence is adult privilege without responsibility and is a modernist invention that encourages immaturity and recklessness. Boys need to be raised and initiated into manhood by men. So it should be with girls raised by older women also.
Doesn’t the data show that the younger that girls get married, the more likely they are to divorce? I mean, have you guys hung around even college age girls these days, much less high school girls? I did go to one church, a real farmers type “courtship” church where they did this “girls get married as early as possible and have kids” but that doesn’t work in a modern setting.
I realize girls in the old days got married way younger, but by the time you were 16 back then, you had probably seen a spare few dead bodies, and you married not for love, but for “I like this boy and mom says he’ll make a good husband.” Today? That turns into “Yeah, I got married at 18, dumbest mistake ever, divorced at 22.” I mean, I’d like to think I’m a smart guy, but I look back to when I started college, and I was a complete idiot compared to what I know now. And teenage girls? Do they know *anything* aside from how to fall in love every three months and gossip? Try to marry them off without a ton of proper and heavy instruction, and that’s a recipe for disaster.
“It shows the infant mortality for 15-19 year old mothers is little different than a 40 year old woman. ”
But giving birth at 40 is neither ideal nor recommended! And again, there is a big difference in development between a 15 year old and a 19 year old. I firmly assert that anyone below the age of 18 should ideally NOT be giving birth.
“My main vote goes to soy phytoestrogens, but there are probably multiple dietary factors.”
Garlic also has phytoestrogens, but we never hear about that, do we?
Soy being bad for health is overblown. East Asians have been eating it for eons.
Organic, non-gmo soy in moderate amounts is fine. I’ve noticed that MOST packaged foods in America have soy, as well as canola, as well as high fructose corn syrup in them. And soy, canola and corn are the 3 largest GMO’d crops.
Drop the processed, packaged Frankenfood and you can eat moderate amounts of non-gmo soy in the manner that East Asians eat it (often fermented) without issue, if you happen to like soy, that is.
When talking about having daughters marry young, it should be clear, these would not be government school drama queens. It’s amazing how spiritually and emotionally mature a 13 year old girl can be when she’s far removed from shitty parents’ daughters.
@East is Best says:
Who would you more strongly encourage not to procreate? A 40 year old woman or a 16 year old woman? The 40 year old woman will be 55+ by the time she’s dealing with a teenager. The 16 year old will be 30. Think carefully.
“Who would you more strongly encourage not to procreate?”
Since we’re speaking in ideals – neither. If forced to choose – the 16 year old. My own mother had me at 40+ and having older parents was a blessing in many ways.
Why boys need a rite of passage:
http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2012/05/rites-of-passage-boys-to-men.html
@East is Best
As eggs age mutations accumulate and more abnormal genes creep into the genome. Therefore it is common sense for a woman to marry young. For if this old age pregnancy trend continues expect to see many problems arising from faulty genes in future generations. A young and vigorous body provides a much better environment for the growing child in the womb than an older not so vigorous body.
“My own mother had me at 40+ and having older parents was a blessing in many ways.”
This is what grandparents are for.
Infowarrior, you’re late to the convo. My original argument was 18-25 is an ideal pregnancy window.
“This is what grandparents are for.”
My grandparents are even older. And they are great too!
@East is Best
I am openly questioning whether our society is at all preparing young people for adulthood in a timely fashion. My opinion is that we are most decidedly NOT giving them what they need WHEN they need it. Kids spend 6 wasted years in junior and senior high school that they will then nearly 100% repeat in the first two years of college. They wasted their best reproductive years on college with tremendous financial burden building up while they are doing this. By the time they exit college with a (hopefully) worthwhile degree, they’re nearly the age that people were dying of old age only 400 years ago, with no significant other, and tremendous debt. It’s a huge f-u.
Parenting in America is an admitted exercise in restraining kids from learning the basic truths of their own biology and what they should be thinking about in the future. Parents WILLFULLY avoid discussing sex until far too long, and WILLFULLY refuse to expose kids to the important truths and subtleties of human existence. All the movie/tv/video-game rating systems are perfect examples of this. Government regulation of obscenity has all become crutches allowing parents to avoid exposure rather than learning tools and opportunities. If your child came to you one day and asked you what the stock market is, you would use it as a teaching opportunity and explain to them as best you could based on their age level. But somehow this one subject of sex is entirely restrained to the point of imposing dangerous ignorance on the young adults in America.
We’ve gotten away with this because we’ve lengthened lifespans to a certain extent. I would bet my life savings that there’s no way we get away with keeping people in the dark about contraception until age 13-15 if people were only living to 35. If that were still true we’d be showing toddlers how to use condoms.
Again, the stats bear it out. at least a sizeable percentage of the female population is perfectly capable of being a mother at 16. Why should the law tell them otherwise?
@Sarah’s daughter
Marry young. And those teenage girls won’t be riding the carousel. Instead of indulging their sexual desires on cads as it inevitably happens during the 13-18 age range.
Responsible men will take care of them and the women will not be broken.
… “The reason why females mature faster than men is … because once they become fertile after puberty, they must also have the mental capacity to care for the children they might bear. Nowhere in nature is there a female organism that is capable to give birth to offspring that is not also developed enough yet to care for the offspring. This not only manifests itself in hips capable of giving birth and breasts able to produce milk, but also in a mental maturation that enables them to provide basic childcare.”
“You will notice as well, even in our present society, it is when girls reach around the age of twelve that they begin taking up babysitting and it is around puberty when adults begin entrusting young girls to care for infants alone. This merely coincides with female biology, as it is also at that age that girls become physically capable of bearing children, and their mental maturity matches their biological maturity.”
“The difference between men and women in maturity, however, is that while females mature earlier in life, they also stop maturing at around the age of eighteen, as Schopenhauer aptly observes.”
“And while men don’t catch up to women’s maturity until they reach around age twenty-eight, after that the men keep maturing – often throughout their entire lives. … As such, women do mature faster than males, but stop maturing at around the mentality of an eighteen year old, leaving the woman as, literally, the most responsible teenager in the house.”
“It is interesting to note as well how many men claim that it is at around age 27 or 28 that they begin to “figure things out” in regard to women, or at least much more so than they did earlier in life.”
”Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, and foolish, and shortsighted – in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strictest sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best of intentions, could do in her place.” — Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851) …
These quotations are from: http://fedrz.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/woman-the-most-responsible-teenager-in-the-house/
Notice that this also explains why, until about 100 years ago, young women were married to young men who were mature enough to guide them into becoming good wives and mothers, but were not allowed to be alone in the company of boys, who are only capable of turning them into sluts and whores.
Just to be clear:
“Notice that this also explains why, until about 100 years ago, young women were married to young men who were mature enough to guide them into becoming good wives and mothers, but were not allowed to be alone in the company of boys *of their own age*, who are only capable of turning them into sluts and whores.
” All the movie/tv/video-game rating systems are perfect examples of this. Government regulation of obscenity has all become crutches allowing parents to avoid exposure rather than learning tools and opportunities. If your child came to you one day and asked you what the stock market is, you would use it as a teaching opportunity and explain to them as best you could based on their age level. But somehow this one subject of sex is entirely restrained to the point of imposing dangerous ignorance on the young adults in America. ”
I’m in favor of the ratings because it gives mainstream parents who have TVs and video consules in their homes (have neither in mine and never will) to monitor what their children are exposed to. Why are you under the impression that parents who utilize the ratings systems also aren’t having age appropriate conversations about sex with their children. Are you in favor of exposing children to pornography as well?
” I would bet my life savings that there’s no way we get away with keeping people in the dark about contraception until age 13-15 if people were only living to 35. If that were still true we’d be showing toddlers how to use condoms.”
Why on earth would toddlers need to know how to use condoms? It might do you some good to travel to countries where early marriage is still practiced, sometimes right at puberty, and you would find that even there toddlers are not taught to use condoms and the subject of sex is often taboo, certainly more than it is here.
“Again, the stats bear it out. at least a sizeable percentage of the female population is perfectly capable of being a mother at 16. Why should the law tell them otherwise?”
The law doesn’t. Otherwise you’d find all the teen moms in this country being carried off to jail.
Dalrock, do you know about this?
@Jeremy
“Again, the stats bear it out. at least a sizeable percentage of the female population is perfectly capable of being a mother at 16. Why should the law tell them otherwise?”
I think older women don’t like competition.
http://www.counselheal.com/articles/1762/20120504/sexual-competition-causes-jealousy-envy-more-women.htm
I don’t agree with much of what this guy says but his arguments are worth considering:
http://theantifeminist.com/age-of-consent-arguments/
http://theantifeminist.com/tag/age-of-consent-laws/
http://theantifeminist.com/steve-moxon-stupid-hysteria-over-normal-male-sexuality/
http://theantifeminist.com/gannon-the-truth-behind-age-of-consent-laws/
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1908/08/reply-feminists.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1907/essays/22-monstrous.htm
“The first four years of marriage were blissful, and then it started. The cycle was always the same – he would accuse, I would cry, I would reason, we would talk, he would apologize – I’m so sorry. I know you’ve never cheated on me. I don’t know what’s wrong with me – and I would forgive. Over and over for 18 years my husband accused me of having multiple affairs. With every painful accusation, every cutting look, through each hellish argument I told myself, it will be okay because we love each other. I didn’t see that things weren’t even close to being okay.
I soon understood why God had said, “Don’t.”
I still remember the first accusation; I was shocked, blindsided, dumbfounded. I didn’t even know how to react. An affair?! Me?! I had never even had any offers or an inappropriate conversation with another man. I was never unfaithful, but that didn’t matter. My husband was my accuser. He was the source of my pain and my comfort. He was my best friend and my worst enemy. ”
Her husband sounds like a nut.
Holy Hamsters Batman! That link from Fiasco is a frightening glimpse into madness. Looks like we have the next post from SSM.
“The suburbs where I live, on the other hand are home to all manner of foul-mouthed tattooed whores who can’t balance their checkbooks much less assemble a meal. They’re fat, obnoxious, and drunk most nights and weekends and gainfully employed. The last one infuriates me to no end as I’ve struggled to find meaningful employment for about a year now as a suma cum laude college grad with a 2 majors a concentration and a minor. Seems all I needed was female equipment under the hood and I’d have had the corner office by now.
None of these women are marriageable and they seem blissfully unaware of this aside from the occasional keening howl over facebook that there’s no good men left.”
Don’t worry Karamazov, these women will indeed find mates – their exact equals and male counterparts.
Yawn, what a terribly boring site with all the common FI crap.
Check out this article:
On Modesty And Male Privilege
Not sure they even can? Again, I have to call you on that, because that is not what the Bible teaches. Sex isn’t a need in the way that food or water is a need. People can and do live without it. …For years. Decades. You have effectively accepted the feminist/leftist canard that maintaining virginity is absolutely unreasonable.
As for your point about the ovulating 17-year-old girl and the alpha-male type, in saner societies their interactions would be restricted to situations in which parents would oversee them. …But it doesn’t mean that as soon as they’re alone, she has no agency. It’s just a female rationalization which is more palatable to red-pill men, as it portrays women as being helpless before male sexual power (and also will get up the nose of any feminist). But you’ll not find such excuses in God’s Word. Christians simply shouldn’t compromise on this.
…And to point this out isn’t to ‘moralize’. It’s simply to uphold Scriptural principles.
I appreciated this, though. A public service — thank you.
Someone get him a pulpit! Seeing a tough old guy like that speaking about The Lord is a great antidote to feminized churchianity: his brief Gospel presentation alone is worth the preaching of any number of “seeker-friendly” pastors. I like it that he referred to himself as exactly what he was — “a scumbag”. (When do you hear women who claim Christ speak of themselves like that?) And what he said at the end (I wish I could type with a Southern accent) was a great way to finish: “If you’re not a believer and you don’t believe that God exists, then about the only hope you’ve got at all is that He’ll not be there.” Perhaps someone should send Joel Osteen for a week’s duck-hunting…
Pennsylvania!
I was romantically linked with a woman from PA – Elizabethville I think – and a Christian of course. She was 19 or maybe 20 and I was I suppose about fifteen years older than her. Fell head over heals for me she did and I have the letters to prove it, so she asks me – begs me really – will I go and visit her there; meet her parents. So I goes there, on the Amtrak, and guess what? – the Bitch plays hard to get, so I leave early the next morning never to return.
Came across a photo of her on the Internet, and just as I recall – she just oozed it. I just have this regrettable taste for hot but bad women – my Slut-dar just picks them out.
Never did discover whether she could cook.
Full-Fledged Fiasco
I had to comment on that site for that one. here is with I left there.
I couldn’t believe what I was seeing ( not really just being dramatic) Normal christian (churchian) woman stuff.
Considering only %20 of children live with bio-dad,is it good advice to go the marriage route?
Perhaps this advice should be isolated to the upper middle class and wealthy with the provision of a pre-nup.
Frankly-w/o the stability of a Patriarchal leader socially supported,the nuclear family is dead or dying.
Should men marry?
Oh hell no.
Should men have children?
Perhaps cuckholdry is the best answer.
Majority cuckholdry should crater this society right quick.
Correction:
“Majority cuckholdry HAS cratered this society quickly.”
@ Fiasco, donalgraeme,
I wrote about The Good Women Project a number of times on my old blog. It’s a nightmare of a site, isn’t it?
If you are interested, you can find archived versions of those essays here, and here, and here.
Comparing the comments of two women, I am struck by the differences. SunshineMary makes profound contributions that cause me to stop and think. EastBeast talks about self-stimulation, black-worship, etc.
@SSM
Nobodies implying women should remain celibate into their 30’s
Women past the age of 25, are useless as mothers & wives, as a womans biology declines rapidly past the age of 25
Women marrying early is THE only way to create a real family
If women dont want to marry early, then they should remain old maids & spinsters, marriage for companionship & bullshit concepts such as love are an abomination
Marry for the kids & prepare yourself to be a mother, THAT is what you should marry for
Produce kids for your husband, get your priorities right …
Sluts & old maids, are basically useless
A womans ability to bond with a man & her children, is at its peak when she’s 15 & 16, & declines rapidly depending on the number of men she sluts around with
Hormones always peak at their greatest, in their teens
Women who marry in their 30’s, deprive their children of mature grandparents & greatly destroy a family’s survivability
Traditional nuclear families were specifically created & designed to increase a families likelihood of surviving, everything from corrupt governments, to wars & most importantly to prevent destitute families
A family where both men & women have to work, are basically destitute, as they have no nuclear family to support them financially or paternally
It is the prevention of destitution & corruption of the abnormal ebbs & tides of society, a strong nuclear family is necessary for
Marrying late, essentially peels away a massive vital layer of protection for men & women & greatly reduces a families survivability
Traditionalism IS survivability, thats the whole point of a traditional family
WWW, I just watched the old dude’s video, and it’s good stuff. Here’s a real life tough guy vs. a sissy like Joel Osteen or a poser like Mark Driscoll. It did my heart good to listen to him.
I’ve given up on churches and their garbage, but I keep having to tell myself that today’s churches do not represent Christ. I may have given up on churchianity, but I refuse to give up on Jesus, even if it means walking alone and disassociating from most of those who call themselves “Christians”.
The age-at-menarche used to higher. It’s been dropping and dropping and dropping. “Why” is controversial. The fact itself, is not.
The age of menstruation is returning to its historical norm. It has typically been 12-15 years old for girls. It wasn’t usually 18-20 years old (that’s a bit late for the average woman). Unless of course, one is talking about girls who have menarche at 7-8 years old. That’s a huge aberration.
Menarche for girls at 7-8 years old and 18-20 years old are both extremes and outliers. Anything ranging between 12-15 years is normal.
@Robert
“black-worship, etc.”
East is best, is basically regurgitating the tv shows & sitcoms she’s been brainwashed with
Her ridiculous radical feminist programming causes her to spew crap like masturbation & other bullshit idealogies, she’s picked up from so called unmodern culture …
Women who masturbate are basically emulating barren women, with damaged wombs …
Which is the whole point of feminism, to get women to emulate barren women & destroy their ability to bond with their child & husband
Which is WHY feminists talk about masturbation, to destroy womens ability to orgasm with a man …
East is best’s grotesque post, proves my point … east is best’s abiity to orgasm with a man, is literally destroyed from years of masturbation
Her own sexuality’s degraded & eroded to the point, she can no longer orgasm with a man as well as she does alone & on her own …
She might as well be a lesbian … thats how far & damaging feminism destroys a womans sex drive …
mackPUA, thanks for making such good points. I have to admit that someone like EastBeast gets under my skin, with her cultural marxism – “black males are more masculine than White men”, “women don’t need men”, and so on. Their whole purpose, as you indicate, is to destroy our society.
Hey, it’s not “masturbation”: it’s “self love”! (At least when ‘ladies’ — aka feminists — do it.)
Actually, if a girl/woman is trying to stay chaste, it’s no big deal if she fingers herself just in order to bank her fires from time to time — but nowadays it goes so much further than that. Female masturbation is a massive industry, now. Western women have become (as my Australian friends would say) a right bunch of w@nkers.
…Avid w@nkers, with no shame.
When I was growing up, all through school, university, in the work-place, masturbation was seen as a guy-thing, and something which was despised by women. It was one of the most popular put-downs for a woman to tell a guy he couldn’t get laid and thus spent all his time jerking off.
…But hey! Now it’s okay — in fact, it’s better than just “okay”! …As long as you are the owner of a vagina! So c’mon girls! Worship your goddess with Self Love 101, the new book from Dr. Cunny Fondler, PhD (free Hitachi Ladywank Deluxe 2000 for the first 250 customers!).
How on earth did we go from civilization to barbarism in so short a time?
That’s because they’re in high school, not because they’re 16. My grandmother was married at 16, a marriage that lasted 50+ years and produced dozens of grandchildren and great-grandchildren (and now a few great-greats). But that was in a time and place when many kids left school after 8th grade and got on with life, so she wasn’t still spending her days locked away in a room with a bunch of horny boys and other dizzy girls whose most important concern of the day was whether their phone was hip enough. There’s no reason 16-year-olds have to be irresponsible idiots; we make them that way.
Right, I was talking about soy as Americans consume it, processed and added to practically everything (including baby formula, which is basically child abuse), which is a very different thing from using fermented soy such as natto as a side dish. If we ate processed garlic in the same amounts, it might be bad too, but we don’t. All the things you list are bad and should be avoided, but as for what specifically might be pushing girls to develop sooner (and raising effeminancy and infertility in men in the bargain), it makes sense to me to look at the foods with direct hormonal effects. But there’s no question that other modern foods could play a role. After all, high levels of carbs (which can be natural, but are much higher in processed foods than they were in the days of home cooking) push up the levels of insulin and other fight-or-flight hormones, so maybe that pushes the body to try to mature earlier to defend itself. Dunno, there’s still a lot to learn about that stuff.
@Robert
You’re absolutely correct, it’s cultural marxism, basically the worship of corporations & government
Which is what East is best, is expressing
She no longer has thoughts of her own, all of her thoughts are packaged & barcoded by corrupt social engineers, & downloaded everytime she watches a sitcom …
This is what Orwell warns ppl about in his book … your thoughts are not your own
Religion & traditions & families, provide vital protection, to allow you to create your own reality & society
THAT is the freedom religion, tradition & family bring to a country …
That battleground is the freedom to create your own personality, a unique expression of a persons individual sense of self, THAT is the freedom TRUE spirituality brings
You cannot create your own thoughts, unless it is insulated by the protection of religion, traditions & family
You cannot create a unique, powerful, determined, filled with tenacity & grit & drive, if that person doesnt have the centuries of knowledge & cunning, provided by religion, tradition & family
We are privileged by the power of our ancestors, who’s grit & determination we use to fight those who would dare to oppress us …
I don’t think your crazy for wanting your sons to marry before 20
I know your insane for wanting them to marry.
The idea marrying young will keep women off the carousel is laughable. The only thing that will keep them off the carousel is a strong fear of negative results. women’s behavior will not change until they pay horrible prices for for their actions.
@archerwfisher
Yes. I discussed these stats in my post: Are young marriages doomed to divorce?
” Soy being bad for health is overblown. East Asians have been eating it for eons.”
East Asians also suffer from a variety of deformities, directly from eating quantities, of highly dangerous phytoestrogens, fermented or not
Fermentation doesnt magically cause dangerous toxic products to decompose, fermentation inhibits the effects, as the microbacteria simply absorbs most of the toxic compound
BUT … the microbacteria STILL containing the toxic matter remains in the soya … which you then consume …
We also see the same sort of deformities, in africans who eat HIGHLY poisonous levels of arsenic, in cassava, a highly poisonous root, a staple of most africans
Africans also claim their fermenting, removes the arsenic
Fermenting is a great process, but claiming it removes highly toxic levels of arsenic & phytoestrogens, is insane …
@East is Best says:
This is what tells me this:
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/aboutteenpreg.htm
I can’t blame teen pregnancy on the teen as much as the parent for not educating. If all those parents were having age-appropriate conversations, why are something like 50% of hispanic and black teen girls getting pregnant? Seems like those “age-appropriate conversations” are all less-than 5-minute conversations about how they shouldn’t do something, with no useful information. There is something that kids do that parents have long conversations about, and the consequences of it are just as significant. Parents usually have to teach their kids not to steal. Granted, most kids get this right off the bad. Many kids “get it” early with lots of spankings over not sharing with siblings. However there’s plenty of kids, many of them only children, who have to be lectured about what might befall them if they simply take things from others. We don’t have a teenage kleptomania problem, do we? I have to conclude that parents are adequately teaching kids about the wrongs of taking, and they are shying away from CRUCIAL details about sex and protecting themselves.
I have no issue with a parent who deliberately exposes their children to pornography as a teaching tool. Good parents deliberately expose their children to alcohol so that the kids learn how to deal with it IN THE HOME, in a CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. By showing your kids aspects of life in this way there’s no mystery or confusion later when they are alone making decisions and their friends are asking them to try a controlled substance that they know nothing about. The child never feels betrayed that there was something about life their parents kept from them.
And in how many of those countries does the family unit consist of grandparents, parents, and children all in the same household? How many of them treat women like property? Things change dramatically with 3 generations under a roof as opposed to 1 generation.
Now you’re just moving goalposts to be argumentative rather than addressing the question directly. It is currently illegal for a 16 year old to marry in the U.S. without going before a judge to approve the contract, and entirely illegal for any person over 18 to impregnate someone under 18. Why should the law prevent 16 year olds from being adults when their biology says otherwise?
macPUA “That battleground is the freedom to create your own personality, a unique expression of a persons individual sense of self, THAT is the freedom TRUE spirituality brings”
Yes! That is what the cultural marxist state whore fears the most. The man who says “I am who I am. I think for myself. I respect my ancestors and I do not bow to tyrants.” That is the man, whom the state wants to destroy. They seek to destroy him through media, feminism, economic warfare such as affirmative action, black crime, massive non-White immigration. If that doesn’t work, they’ll send out the militarized swat teams against him.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/duck-pickin-women/#comment-80833
Cail,
Spot on. It’s not the age, it’s the environment. Maturity develops as a function of bearing the consequences of one’s actions, and whereas within recent memory that began immediately post-high school and sometimes much sooner, it is now delayed by 6-10 years as people who for eons were capable of bearing up under great responsibility (e.g., defeating the Third Reich) literally waste what should be their most productive years putatively ‘studying’ at alleded insitutions of higher education.
Not to bash academics and teachers, but these adolescents (now extending into their mid 20’s) spend a great chunk of their time in the presence of mentors, the majority of whom have never spent appreciable amounts outside the educational echo chamber they inhabit and who can not be fired for an offense short of diddling one of their young charges.
Persons coming of age successfully today do so in spite of their environment – not because of it.
Such cultures notably don’t have a period they call adolescence. The boy becomes a man and a girl becomes a woman.
Agreed. Modernity created adolescence and killed the adult. The proper stations are babies, children, adults and elders. There’s no “teenagers”. The transition should be from child to adult, not child -> “adolescence” -> adult. People don’t grow up anymore and are stuck in teenagehood. The adolescent construct is useful in differentiating between bodies on a micro scale, but not so much the culture at large.
One thing that is good about Roissy, despite his depravity and cadness, is that he concentrates on language when discussing sex differences and combines that with science. Sure he talks about HBD too, but there’s something about knowing language that just ticks right. It feels empty just talking about either science or language. One should know both.
Dear Ton:
The idea marrying young will keep women off the carousel is laughable. The only thing that will keep them off the carousel is a strong fear of negative results. women’s behavior will not change until they pay horrible prices for for their actions.
That’s correct. A quick read of history will suggest that women (at least western White chicks) have always been carousel riders. Feminism just brought what was hidden out in the open.
No fault divorce liberated men from what had been a tradition of wage slavery to benefit chronic cheaters and hoes and their children (at least some of which were sired by traveling salesmen and landlords). This is one area where I don’t really agree with dalrockian praxis philosophy, though I do admire the ideals.
Best not say too much more, lest I start a huge flame war. (lol) Glad to see someone else gets it though.
Regards, Boxer
Early (or at least much earlier than by today’s standards) marriage is a necessary but probably insufficient condition for improving the prospects for the long-term success. Along with it must come the elimination of the horribly perverse incentives for frivorce, namely no-fault coupled with residual alimony and de facto presumptive maternal custody and confiscatory child support schema.
Theoretically it might lower, and perhaps significantly, the likelhood of alpha widowhood, but I suspect that the culture and vicarious aspects of seeing one’s friends ‘having it all’ would sow seeds of doubt in sufficient quantity so as to remain a serious threat to the young wife, in particular.
Hats off to those who manage to remain chaste into their thirties, but I concur with SSM’s observation that this is a much tougher row to how than what Christianity really intends. While it is true that people married much younger in earlier times because the either could (no need to go to college to obtain higher education to further one’s career) or because one had to (marriage was the path to mutual sustenance and economic viability even in a single-earner houshold), they also did so to quiet concupiscence.
One of the arguments for late(r) marriage, the idea that one learns how to relate to the opposite sex and become a better future mate from all the failed trial attempts, falls under its own weight in that the learning is assumed not necessarily proven, and no allowance is made for the fact that even despite ‘learning’ the participants nonetheless are likely permanently changed from the process in ways that are many times negative. Put simply the serial monogamy approach, or worse yet outright whoring around, is just a really risky way to pick up a lot of negative baggage.
Dear Robert & MackPUA:
Robert: You’re absolutely correct, it’s cultural marxism, basically the worship of corporations & government.
I had to slog through every single bit of what Marx wrote, in the original, multiple times, for my degree. I can indict it for being criminally boring, but otherwise missed the part where he encouraged “worship of corporations”.
Can either of you gents cite your source for this contention?
Regards, Boxer
Regarding early marriage I can’t speak for other countries but at least here in mine (the US of A), the demographic with the longest lasting marriages/lowest divorce rates are those with the more college degrees and they usually marry no earlier than mid-20s for females. In other words, the professional upper middle class.
“That battleground is the freedom to create your own personality, a unique expression of a persons individual sense of self, THAT is the freedom TRUE spirituality brings”
I’m all for individuality, uniqueness and specialsnowflakeness too but let’s face it – these qualities do not make for a family oriented society and the emphasis on the individual is precisely why Americans do so badly at family.
8oxer, cultural marxism refers to the efforts of others to extend marx’s class warfare to social warfare – men vs. women, race vs. race after cultural homogeneity has been destroyed by multi-culturalism. Look up William Lind. He explains it well.
It’s based on the idea that marxism is not primarily an economic system for holding all things in common. Communism is simply a cover for destroying a functioning society. While marx focused on economic warfare and destruction, the cultural marxists have focused on cultural warfare and destruction.
Marxism is merely the creating of an oppressed class in order to destabilise the host, known as the ‘oppressors,’ via long term forced redistribution of whatever wealth they were deemed to have accrued off the backs of the oppressed. Whether they did accrue the wealth via devious means is not the point. It’s playing one group off against another; and in the end, neither win. Only Marx wins, and he’s dead. Think about that for awhile…
In normal English, it’s theft.
Dear Robert:
From your reply, it’s safe to assume you’ve never read Marx. That’s OK, but I think it’s important that men say what they mean, and mean what they say, and are able to back up their arguments with sources.
FYI: Marx didn’t ever encourage the “worship of corporations and government”. His communist, utopian ideal proposed the withering away of such structures organically once the domination of capital had been overcome, and he proposed that the ideologies that made up the construction of such social structures would dissolve as well (like feminism, for example). It’s a nice thought, but it whitewashes human nature to such an extent that it is not likely ever to come to pass in the real world.
No Marxist state ever gave rise to the types of feminist movements which are criticised here, for example. Only in the USA and UK – the most capitalist, conservative states in the history of the world, were feminists allowed to grow and become part of the social structure. In the 1950s, American style feminism was squashed in the USSR, and in the 1980s it was again (google the Leningrad incident). That’s not to say that the USSR was a Marxist state in practice (Ayn Rand, whatever you think of her, expounded on this) but it is an interesting historical artifact that’s worth noting.
If there were such a thing as “cultural Marxism” (which there isn’t, aside from an empty name used by people to invoke Marx whenever they are confronted with anything they don’t like, lol) it’d probably be led by the admin of the dalrock blog. This blog promotes the idea of conflicting classes which produce a social narrative, and constructs critical theories in an attempt to illuminate social shortcomings. The fact that we’re both participating makes us both “cultural Marxists”.
Feminism has nothing to do with Marx, and it’s silly to see a man make such a claim. Women make such claims, but I don’t really expect feminist women to make sense.
Regards, Boxer
Boxer, has there ever been a Marxist State? Serious question. There have been Socialist states and Communist States and both could be called Marxist in belief. Their societies are ordered around taking from one group of people to cater to another.
Personally, I believe it’s merely a cover for brazen theft by governments. It might not be what Marx thought of but it is his template being used…
Boxer, read William Lind. You need to understand that marxism/communism is not serious economic theory, and was never intended to be. The whole purpose was to create conflict and destruction.
Marxism relies on the “useful idiot”. Marx and others saw the so-called peasant classes as their useful idiots. When communism failed to spread as planned, the cultural marxists re-engineered marxism. Their useful idiots were women, so-called aggrieved minorities, homosexuals, and the like, Cultural marxism is no more serious social theory than economic marxism is about capital and money. The economic marxists did not care about the peasants. The cultural marxists do not care about women, blacks, and homosexuals.
The neocons are very similar. Evangelical Christians are their useful idiots, who support zionist wars that are destroying our country.
Whatever brand of marxism is involved, the goal is the destruction of the many, for the supposed benefit of a small few.
Dear Feminist Hater:
Marxism is merely the creating of an oppressed class in order to destabilise the host, known as the ‘oppressors,’ via long term forced redistribution of whatever wealth they were deemed to have accrued off the backs of the oppressed.
Again, do you have a source for this? We both know you don’t, but I’m willing to entertain the possibility that you have a point here.
As an aside: It’s more than a little silly for you to make this claim on a blog which regularly features real stories of fathers and men being fucked over by the divorce industry in an anti-Marxist society. Do you think such men are “Marxists” for naturally identifying themselves as part of an oppressed class, that’s been taken to the cleaners for generations?
Marx didn’t create these situations. He just described them.
Whether they did accrue the wealth via devious means is not the point. It’s playing one group off against another; and in the end, neither win. Only Marx wins, and he’s dead. Think about that for awhile…
So it doesn’t matter that men created the wealth, in Marxist terms (by taking raw materials and adding value to them through their own human labour), you think that they should continue to be fucked over because otherwise “Marx wins”?
You aren’t making any sense here. Please elaborate.
Regards, Boxer
Robert:
Marxism relies on the “useful idiot”. Marx and others saw the so-called peasant classes as their useful idiots.
Again, source please. I have all of Marx’s work in the original. I’ve never seen anything like this. (Marx would be a lot more interesting/entertaining if he actually said such things.
Boxer, did you not see that I stated that the reason for the aggrieved party is not the point? The point is to steal wealth from those that create it. Whether men are abused by women is not the point, whether women were abused in the past is not the point. Those that use Marxist theory to destroy a society have no real interest in fixing past wrongs. The point is to use that grievance to target the other and profit off of them. The aggrieved party never wins, only those who control the thought process do so.
“8oxer, cultural marxism refers to the efforts of others to extend marx’s class warfare to social warfare – men vs. women, race vs. race after cultural homogeneity has been destroyed by multi-culturalism. ”
Interesting concept but don’t buy it. Multiculturalism is about all of us holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
“Not sure they even can? Again, I have to call you on that, because that is not what the Bible teaches. Sex isn’t a need in the way that food or water is a need. People can and do live without it. …For years. Decades.”
I agree. Its possible in societies that make it so. Even in ours there are people who go decades without, though probably not entirely by choice. And you can be sure most of those people are masturbating. Its a natural thing that kids pick up at very young ages and only stop if they are caught and shamed for it. Let’s not get into that conversation since we all know its a personal subject and even people who do it regularly will often deny it. Surely no one believes that adults practicing celibacy or chastity until they marry or who may be in celibate orders are never masturbating at all. If you believe that you are extremely naive.
“Traditional nuclear families were specifically created & designed to increase a families likelihood of surviving, everything from corrupt governments, to wars & most importantly to prevent destitute families
A family where both men & women have to work, are basically destitute, as they have no nuclear family to support them financially or paternally
It is the prevention of destitution & corruption of the abnormal ebbs & tides of society, a strong nuclear family is necessary for”
The nuclear family is already a break down of family. Two parents, a few kids and a dog? Where are the grandparents? Shipped off to an old age home? Its bullshit.
Boxer, did you not see that I stated that the reason for the aggrieved party is not the point?
So, the dalrock blog, which regularly features stories of aggrieved parties, is pointless. Got it.
The point is to steal wealth from those that create it. Whether men are abused by women is not the point, whether women were abused in the past is not the point. Those that use Marxist theory to destroy a society have no real interest in fixing past wrongs. The point is to use that grievance to target the other and profit off of them. The aggrieved party never wins, only those who control the thought process do so.
Again, do you have a source for this in Marx?
Marx did talk about surplus value. When men take raw materials from the environment and make finished products out of them, the value comes from the labour of that man. The surplus value is siphoned off by capital (government, corporations, divorce courts, etc.) Volume II of Capital is all about this. If you agree that this is theft and you agree that this theft is wrong, then what you’re actually saying is that you agree with Karl Marx.
Congratulations, you’re a Marxist.
Boxer, my spending too much time reading marx, you are “failing to see the forest because of the trees.” It would be the same if I were to read a bunch of feminist crap and made the mistake of taking the crap seriously. “It’s all about the patriarchy and the oppression of the wimynz”. No, it’s not about the patriarchy. You have to ask questions, such as who is funding this crap? Why do they want women to hate men and cease bearing children? You have to get to the source.
“The point is to steal wealth from those that create it.”
That is not Marxism. Marxism puts wealth directly into the hands of the people who create stuff.
This country is not a Marxist state because we don’t value manual labor, we outsource it overseas!
Mountain Man, it’s all the same. As I said, communism is a ruse to trick the useful idiot. There are satanists at the top who want to destroy rest of us, and they will use whatever tools they have: economic marxism, cultural marxism, engineered depressions, biological weapons, contrived wars, etc.
“It is currently illegal for a 16 year old to marry in the U.S. without going before a judge to approve the contract”
They can marry with the consent of their parents, which is exactly how it should be. If we were a family oriented society nobody would marry without their parents blessings. Any judge will grant permission with two sets of parents appearing in court and giving their consent to the union. A couple of hormone raging rebels who are going against their family’s wishes should not be granted permission to marry at all.
@Boxer
Communism & marxism, all state the centralisation of government in all aspects of a persons life, which is essentially the same as worship of government
Corporations are government … as governments usually control the vast majority of shares & stakes & serve on the board, of all major corporations
Centralisation of power, is worship of power
Power is best served to those who need it, not those who hoard it
Ultimately the powerful, use power to make those who would be powerful, unpowered
You can only Centralise power, by displacing power from powerful people, ie us
Centralisation of utilities & law by government controlled corporations, is an illegal monopoly
All governments are basically illegal monopolies, as theyre all backed by guns, without consent of the people
Communism & marxism is all about brainwashing ppl into rationalising the illegal occupation of government on an enslaved population
All cities are basically brainwashing, enslavement camps
Where people are forced to beg from shops & stores, instead of growing their own free food & sustenance
If you have to beg for free food with bits of paper, you’re a beggar, nothing more then a common slave
Communism & marxism, is how those with power conquer a land & country, & then convince the slaves to enslave themselves by worshipping corporations & criminals
It’s no coincidence feminism is all about enslaving men
Destroy their families, & men & women biologically start to see corporations & governments as their family
Instead of having a normal father & mother, ppl are brainwashed into bonding with corporations & government
The plague of single women & sluts is no coincidence …
Biological adoption of corporations & government, is the goal
Where people dont see themselves as slaves, they see their slavery as a biological necessity
Men are the obstruction of course
Great slaves, make for great enemies … be the enemy … fight back
an evolving theory of control & enslavement, perfected by the mystery schools in egypt, after receiving it from the irish & caucasians
Brush up on Michael Tsarion
Knowledge was taken from the west to the east
Robert, you may be right that there are people at the top out to destroy everyone else for their own ends, but calling that “Marxism” doesn’t mean it is just because you want it too. Language exists for a reason. Names describes things. First get the language right and call things what they are.
That’s just being nasty. I didn’t mean it like that. I meant that it doesn’t matter to those looking to profit off of your grievance…
Whether you were taken to the cleaners, whether a woman was raped, whether a group were slaves. To them it does not matter. It’s all just a reason to target another group who has wealth that they want.
As to being a Marxist. I think we’re all a bit Marxist really. If you don’t like paying taxes, you’re a Marxist. If you don’t like being short changed for your labour, you’re a Marxist. I don’t want other people’s money though. I want to be independent from them; or dependent on a group of people I trust.
Also, this is just a theory, one I believe to be true. I call it Marxist Theory because that is what is has been termed as. If you want to call it something else, because you cannot find Marx to have said exactly what we mention, go ahead. I’m not going to complain.
Sexual Marxism: From each according her ability, to each according his need.
Heh. Couldn’t resist.
“Also, this is just a theory, one I believe to be true. I call it Marxist Theory because that is what is has been termed as. ”
Termed by whom?
“an evolving theory of control & enslavement, perfected by the mystery schools in egypt, after receiving it from the irish & caucasians”
Sure, go ahead and blame it all on The White Man.
Dear FH:
You’re welcome to make this personal if you’d like. My point remains, though.
I call it Marxist Theory because that is what is has been termed as. If you want to call it something else, because you cannot find Marx to have said exactly what we mention, go ahead. I’m not going to complain.
It’s not that I can not find it, it’s that I’ve read it, and you’re wrong. You’re not just partly wrong. You’re wrong. Period.
I expect this sort of logic from a shrill feminist looney wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt to piss off her daddy; but, you guys are a lot smarter than they are, so I hold you to a different standard.
Regards, Boxer
Dear MackPUA:
Brush up on Michael Tsarion
Why would I read him (whoever he is) to find out what Marx advocated, when I can just read Uncle Karl himself?
Not only is what you’re describing not Marxism, but Marx actually was the original critic of it. That’s what’s so ironic.
There’s plenty to criticise about Marxism (and I’ve been published criticising him), but in order to criticise Marx properly you have to, you know, read Marx. None of you guys who want to lecture about what Marxism is and isn’t seem to have read anything he ever wrote.
Regards, Boxer
@Ozark
“The nuclear family is already a break down of family. Two parents, a few kids and a dog? Where are the grandparents? Shipped off to an old age home? Its bullshit.”
Do you even know what a nuclear family is?
Grandparents shipped off to an old age home, is by definition obviously not a nuclear family
Seriously why are you commenting on my post, with a none-statement … lol
I basically replied to SSM, as she seems to think we want women to be virgins into their 30’s
We want hot young women, a 30 yr old virgin is nobodies idea of a hot wife … unless you’re into aging chicks as she hits the wall, & enjoy porn as her sex drive turns to none-existent …
For all those who think theyre older wife, makes up for a hot young chick …
Men enjoy the biochemistry of a woman, almost as much as the physical part
The chemicals which give men one-itis, go into overdrive when confronted with a young hot chick …
Im not advocating men trade up for hotter models, if older women put in an effort to keep their man …
Mountain Man, the language is right. The early cultural marxists were economic marxists, who realized that their war against humanity had to be expanded to the cultural front. But that doesn’t mean that they ever dropped economic marxism.
MackPUA made some great points about the centralization of power. With marxism, economic or cultural, the state is all powerful. The family is disbanded. The state is the source of all being and sustenance. The state is every woman’s husband. The culture of White society is destroyed. The most dangerous enemy of all, the White man, is killed off.
Cultural marxism is the correct term for feminism, multi-culturalism, the homosexual agenda, radical zionism, hatred of men, hatred of America’s Founding Fathers, etc.
@Boxer
Thats a great takedown boxer … not
Dear Robert:
MackPUA made some great points about the centralization of power. With marxism, economic or cultural, the state is all powerful. The family is disbanded. The state is the source of all being and sustenance. The state is every woman’s husband. The culture of White society is destroyed. The most dangerous enemy of all, the White man, is killed off.
I must have missed MackPUA’s citation of the original. Can you please repost the part where he quotes Marx endorsing such stuff, with a link to the source? Thanks in advance.
Regards, Boxer
Boxer, can keep telling us to read marx to understand marx. But you fail to see the point, marx’s communism is nothing but a ruse. Will I learn more about the true nature of feminism by reading the idiot bella abzug or by determining who has funded the feminist movement?
Boxer,are you a communist?
Boxer, can keep telling us to read marx to understand marx. But you fail to see the point, marx’s communism is nothing but a ruse. Will I learn more about the true nature of feminism by reading the idiot bella abzug or by determining who has funded the feminist movement?
That’s sort of an interesting conspiracy theory, and one which is shared by many. (The revolutions in France and Russia were both supported by several wealthy families, after all). I’m a big fan of Occam’s razor, though. I think Communism was a nice, pie-in-the-sky idea which failed to pan out in the real world, much like every other utopian movement.
Boxer,are you a communist?
Of course, silly. Everyone who reads Marx and can argue about him in an educated fashion must be a communist, especially if he disagrees with you.
We’re communists, and we’re everywhere, hiding under beds, taking names, taking over the world, real soon now…
Regards, Boxer
Boxer, what is Marxism?
@Boxer
I put the tsarion bit in by mistake …
Robert states it perfectly …
Marxism is about centralisation of power, by disguising & calling the centralisation as power to the people
When he talks about giving wealth to the poor, he’s talking about stealing from the rich, ie those who work, & using the funds to enslave the poor
Marx & others like him, used the language of the growing working class movements of his time, to usher in systems of stealing & taking wealth from hard working men
Marxism is essentially the old trick of what about the children & women, politicians use to usher in insane systems of dictatorships & destruction of civil rights
Instead of what about the children, Marxism replaces it with what about the workers …
Boxer if you want to argue the finer points of marxism … then STATE the finer points of marxism
I’ve got better things to do then spell out the basics of marxism
If you want a debate with me, provide a better opponent … or an actual point or statement, to debate in the first place
State Clearly What You dont agree with … & since you’ve read Marx, state where he disproves what we say …
The need for proof swings both ways boxer …
Dear FH:
Boxer, what is Marxism?
Marxism is largely a revision of previous philosophical and economic theories. Feuerbach and Hegel are the people Marx gave credit to, but of course they stood on the shoulders of others, all the way down to the presocratics.
If you asked a political Marxist that question, he’d disagree with me, of course, and that’s fine. He’d say that it’s Historical and/or Dialectical Materialism. Marx wrote a lot more than this, though.
The need for proof swings both ways boxer
Umm, no. The burden of proof is upon he who asserts. That’s been a foundation of western logical theory since the Ancient Romans.
If you say something, then it’s your obligation to support it. It’s not my obligation to prove you wrong (even though I’ve done so here, with no real effort on my part).
Okay, Boxer, let’s go with that.
So, Karl is just a man who wrote about past, present and future economic policy and theory. Economic models and so forth. How some benefited the few and tore down the masses. He had no alternative motive, other than to bring to this to the attention of the worker. He did not hate those people with the wealth. He merely wrote a different form of economic theory that he believed would be more advantageous. Let’s say all of this is true.
Would it still be possible for other people to use his theories for their own purposes? And for those purposes to be the ever increasing need for government intervention, i.e. the creation of the police state?
Note I call that a ‘theory’. Why? Cause I don’t actually have the necessary proof otherwise to prove it to you. I’m honest about that. If you want to correct me, then you have the floor.
Boxer, the explanation has to make sense. Accusations of “conspiracy theory” are pointless. Did feminism occur in a vacuum. Did millions of women suddenly decide for no apparent reason that they no longer believed in our traditions? You may find that to be the simpler explanation. But it is not true.
And you do appear to be awfully defensive about communism.
FYI, its also important to remember, Boxer is using the old trick of saying nothing, or even providing any statements which disprove of anything …
While demanding we provide evidence to disprove his none-statements …
Oldest trolling trick in the book …
FeministHater, you may have a point. Karl Marx, himself, may have been a useful idiot to some extent. He may have actually believed some if his own BS. Many of the prominent jewish feminists have also been useful idiots. CI Scofield may have believed dispensationalism and been a useful idiot for his zionist financiers.
Dear MackPUA:
FYI, its also important to remember, Boxer is using the old trick of saying nothing, or even providing any statements which disprove of anything …While demanding we provide evidence to disprove his none-statements … Oldest trolling trick in the book …
Nice appeal to authority attempt. If you say “Marxism is a, b and c” then you should expect to be questioned, particularly by someone in the audience who has, you know, been forced to read Marx ad nauseum. You have never read him, don’t know anything about him, and now that your cluelessness is on display you’re accusing me of misbehaving.
Masculinity allows for playfulness, but I think it’s important for men to be serious when discussing serious issues. There’s plenty of stuff Marx wrote that is objectively wrong, and you’d be better off reading his work and criticising the actual issues, than keeping up this silly charade.
You think I’m your opponent. In fact, I’m the best friend you’ve got. I don’t want you to continue to look ridiculous whenever you start typing.
Regards, Boxer
Boxer state clearly where Marx benefits the poor without destroying the rich or taking from the wealthy …
Never going to happen …
Basically transfer & confiscation of wealth, is THE hallmark of marxism …
Just like any good tinpot dicator or corporation …
Boxer, you are no friend. Yelling “conspiracy theory” is akin to saying “don’t look at that man behind the curtain.” There were money men behind the rise of Russian communism. Many of the same money men have been behind cultural marxism. But don’t look at that.
Dear FH:
Would it still be possible for other people to use his theories for their own purposes? And for those purposes to be the ever increasing need for government intervention, i.e. the creation of the police state?
Anything is possible. Marxists might not have failed. They may have just pretended to fail in order to lull us to sleep. Gray aliens also might be on their way to invade the earth.
So far you guys have come up with lots of wild theories, wholly unsupported and unsubstantiated by anything Marx wrote, and when confronted you just double down. I’d like to continue this, but I have work to do (hum the internationale with me… lol). It’s also getting sorta boring.
Can you not find one, single Marx quote to back up all these theories you guys have had? The long winded old bastard wrote a whole library of somnolent essays. Surely you can cherry pick *something*.
Regards, Boxer
Boxer, your comments have become increasingly silly and pointless. I ask again, are you a communist? Why would you waste much of your life reading marx?
Dear Robert:
Boxer, your comments have become increasingly silly and pointless. I ask again, are you a communist? Why would you waste much of your life reading marx?
My first degree was in history. It wasn’t necessarily the history of philosophy, but it required me to slog through Marx.
As for being a communist: You might have missed the study of the early 1990s, so here’s the news. There aren’t any communists, any longer. That’s what happens to utopian social movements when they confront reality. All those lofty ideas meet the reality of human history and collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions. (A little Marxist joke there, for those in the know).
While Marx was tremendously influential, I don’t really see him as carrying the bogeyman/satan mantle you guys empower him with, either. He was just one link in a long chain that started in prehistory and is continuously being forged.
Regards, Boxer
There aren’t any communists anymore? You’re either blind or a communist disinfo agent.
There aren’t any communists anymore? You’re either blind or a communist disinfo agent.
Thanks for the conversation, Robert. It’s clear we have no common ground, so I won’t be indulging you any further. I do wish you well, however.
Regards, Boxer
Marry young, marry old.
I think you’ll find nothing works very well in this setting.
Having kids not a great idea either, unless you hate kids.
Hm, not that this is relevant but I like conspiracy theories I cannot back up. They make me tingle…
Marx spoke of surplus value of a product made by a worker and sold by the capitalist. He spoke of the capitalist being able to force the worker to work for long days at a survival wage and nothing more. Basically, the simple ability of economic forces in a capitalist society not allowing one to choose when and why to work, i.e. the worker cannot negotiate an acceptable wage, the market merely gives them the choice to work or starve. I call that ‘economic slavery’.
Exists in the same way that having a loan from the bank, a mortgage let’s say, forces you to work 8 to 9 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 20 to 30 years or else you lose your house and probably your livelihood. That is the primary way society exists today. To own a car, a house, have education and pay taxes and live life, one is required, nay, forced to work. Not that this is a problem, we need to work to remain strong and healthy. However, most of these high expenses are done through bank loans. Very few people have enough cash on hand to buy a nice suburban home. Once you take that loan, for whatever reason, you’re in technical slavery to the bank.
Now, in America a term has existed, called a ‘living wage’ to which American people think they are entitled. Otherwise they have no real point to work, besides food and basic survival. No American dream so to speak. Once corporations learn this they find another way to force the labour price down, hence immigration, moving their factories to a cheaper country with slave wages, working visas for cheap labour from India and China; all in an effort to drive down the labour wage. Marx spoke directly against those issues, perhaps not in the exact form they take today but the similarity is apparent. However, even though these directly affect the ability of American workers to find work that affords them a happy life, the government of America endorses these corporate benefits. Diversity is our strength after all. There is rampant illegal immigration in America, to the tune of ‘officially’ 11 million people. That’s an early 2000 figure, so the number is undoubtedly higher.
What should I call such a theory of mine? Not that it is mine but I base it off of Marx and it seems to continue where he left off.
I call that a part of Marxist Theory, there are many other aspects to daily economic struggles that also fit his work on Capitalism, but I have no real personal feelings towards Marx one way or the other.
What 8oxer is telling you guys, which you are ignoring in favor of trying to prove him wrong (and failing) is that the very term “cultural marxism” is meaningless no matter what the internet tells you.
It’s meaningless because Marx’ arguments were about class identity and exploitation between self-identified classes. This has nothing to do with worship of corporations. This has nothing to do with worshipping government. It has everything to do with classes of those who produce (labor) being exploited by those who loot (capitalists). This is frankly no different that what just happened to us in 2007-2008 where capitalists (who produce nothing but paper income, btw) managed to convince government that the world would end and they needed a bailout for their bad debt, while providing no bailout to people who actually produce for society, but who were also in debt.
Even a cursory search of wikipedia will tell you what Karl Marx’ main arguments were, and they have nothing to do with what you guys described.
This is also off-topic.
Fine Jeremy, all I’m asking from Boxer, and now you, is what I should call the theory. If I’m wrong about it, then you have the floor to correct me. I want and need to learn. Please enlighten me?
@FH
Describe the theory.
Jeremy, you just stated that anyone can find Marx’s main arguments on the internet. Marxist Theory is merely Marx’s points in action in today’s society.
Marx spoke of capitalism taking advantage of workers.
Today, it’s banks, governments, divorce courts and multinational corporations. We have the EU wanting free flow of people from vastly different countries, i.e. multiculturalism, which all combines into national chaos and destruction of the ability of workers to get their pay for a decent days work.
The Theory is based on Marx’s class warfare, his was worker against factory owner’s. Now it’s women against men, black against white, transgendered grannie against straight heterosexual white male who thinks marriage is for a man and woman.
It’s simply creating strife or conflict in order to keep the masses busy while plundering takes place.
It’s taking Marx’s work and branching it out into different spheres for maximum effect.
Haha, love the redundancy, ‘straight heterosexual’…
@WWW
When I was searching for clips I found some where he was speaking at churches. He tells a good story and brings his duck calls. I also found clips of him on Conan and Jimmy Kimmel.
This illustrates his point about talking to women:
video
@Dalrock and WWW
I’d like to play the Deti’s Advocate for a minute…
Baptist (and their ilk) have been letting men like the Duck Commander speak from their pulpits since before we were born and on into the present. Yes, they can say things like this and get applauded by women.
You, however, can’t.
The Phil’s of the world do not transcend the problem. He is the southern-fried version of the hunky-handyman-millionaire. We already KNOW they can call babbling chatter what it is. Here’s the secret recipe:
-Be born into the curious Lousiana cultural milieu; a sort of swamp-ass version of New England societies. Family name and football are the order of the day.
-Be a better quarterback than Terry Bradshaw.
-At 20yo, marry a 16yo.
-Run a bar. (Low on ducks, but good beaver hunting.)
-Cheat until you’re a 28yo, and then decide to “really” settle down.
-Get the 16yo to stick through those 8 years.
-Find Jesus.
-Become a millionaire.
-Preach.
Ta-dah!
As for his advice: Well, his sons didn’t hear it. The preacher son quit preaching to work at the millionaire company/TV show. They mostly married non-country hotties; one of them a famously bad cook.
On Christmas Eve my father and I got in a huge fight over this show. It ended when he called me an asshole, and I agreed. Ha! He is of the Dalrockian school of thought on the Duck Commander’s brood.
@Cane Caldo
Alpha envy much …? lol
Going back to the marry young thread, I think a lot of 16-20 year old girls do not want to marry because they see 16-20 year old boys acting immature (what they think of as immature). The older, married men they know seem to have better heads on their shoulders. So they think “when do boys grow up? Around 30? Okay, I’ll wait til I’m 30.” Just saying what I’ve observed in my small corner of the world. And when the rest of the culture endorses this idea, it reinforces the idea that these girls are making the right decision.
@Cane Caldo
Agreed. I don’t see him as the solution, but I do find him entertaining and I believe that he is sincere.
This is painfully obvious watching the show. His sons are likable characters but lack his frame of headship. My takeaway from this is alpha exceptionalism isn’t the answer (which you already pointed out above). It works for the alpha himself, but it doesn’t translate to the average man. His case is worse because he is a natural alpha. He almost certainly doesn’t know how to teach what came naturally to him.
@Robert & FH
Dont expect a sold answer from skeptics, they never have anything to back their skepticism, which is why they spout their empty statements in the first place … ie Boxer
Theyre also chronically clueless about the subject ,,,
Which is why they continously ask for proof, while never providing proof for their skepticism & ask you to prove statements they never make …
@mackPUA
Bad timing.
I walked out of my event to smoke a cig, and pulled out my phone to see if Dalrock had replied. No, but you had. As I considered various responses I saw a girl from this same event last year. She’s an early 20s academic (rating: 6) who was staying at my hotel. One evening we traded jokes while exhaling fumes for two cigarettes.
I walked over and said, “I remember you.”, as I extended my hand and she shook it.
“Hey! How are you?”
“Good. Yourself?”
“Uhh! Tired.”
“I bet. Slideshows in semi-dark rooms are less than thrilling.”
“True….So where are you staying this year?”
“I’m staying at __________, you?”
“My parents have a loft here.”
“Oh cool. Cheap digs then.
“Yeah. Close, too. Just one block that way.”
“Are those in the old ____________ building?”
“Yep. You should come have a drink with me.”
“I have a client dinner tonight, but thanks for the invitation.”
MackPUA, I said “you can’t. I can.
I can do talk freely about female chatter. I can and have married young. I have preached. In fact all I lack is the millionaire ending, but I have 30 years to catch up to him. My statement was an equal assessing an equal.
MackPUA sez:
Dont expect a sold answer from skeptics, they never have anything to back their skepticism, which is why they spout their empty statements in the first place … ie Boxer. Theyre also chronically clueless about the subject ,,, Which is why they continously ask for proof, while never providing proof for their skepticism & ask you to prove statements they never make …
I honestly think you’re just having some self-deprecating fun, at this point. No one could be so obtuse. Even so, I have seen a response like this, used seriously, one time.
The only true-believer I have ever found who took things this far, prior to yourself, was a follower of David Icke, who feels that there are a race of intelligent subterranean reptiles who are controlling the world behind the scenes. When I asked him to back this up, he accused me of being one of these reptiles myself. “After all, if you doubt my theories, you must be in on the conspiracy, etc.”
Funny memories and good times…
http://www.davidicke.com/articles/reptilian-agenda-mainmenu-43
And now, if y’all will excuse me, I have to head up the local meeting of the lizard communist party (all power to the lizard people!).
Regards, Boxer
@Dalrock
“He almost certainly doesn’t know how to teach what came naturally to him.” .. to be alpha …
The unteachability of a fathers alpha exceptionalism is very rarely the fathers fault …
Most working fathers dont have the time to fully explain the intricacies & traits of alpha exceptionalism
Thats what grandparents have always been traditionally for … a strong nuclear family is far more effective at teaching alpha values
As grandparents have always had the time to teach traditions & rituals, & make sure theyre grandchildren turn into strong masculine men
Grandparents also traditionally taught theyre grandchildren, crafts & skills, everything from carpentry to engineering
Its the crafts & skills & apprenticeships into solid hard labour, introduced to them by their grandparents, which gives young men the confidence to build strong alpha’s
Grandparents won the wild west …
@WWW,
Again, I have to call you on that, because that is not what the Bible teaches. Sex isn’t a need in the way that food or water is a need. People can and do live without it. …For years. Decades. You have effectively accepted the feminist/leftist canard that maintaining virginity is absolutely unreasonable.
The Bible teaches the exact opposite of what you said. It relates sex with your wife in Proverbs to drinking water. It also warns that younger women will be unable to remain pure if their husbands die and that they should remarry. You are, in short, wrong.
@Cane,
As for his advice: Well, his sons didn’t hear it. The preacher son quit preaching to work at the millionaire company/TV show. They mostly married non-country hotties; one of them a famously bad cook.
Huh. I only new about the show through advertisements and the links here. Your counter points though have merit. We should pay attention to the sons and remember he is an alpha of a type.
In fact I’ll go a bit further, raising up pure Alpha’s to preach vs. finding “betas” (I hate that term) and using the discipline of the church to turn them into St. Dominic’s or St. Paul’s is the wrong way about things. We want the men who have _advanced_ and not so much the alpha PUA’s.
@Boxer,
BTW good job calling them out on the nonsense. At various times I consider it but then figure it would be mind numbing. I don’t know if I would go so far as to say, “there are no more communists” though. That seems like a bit of a rhetorical flourish. There are no more communists states may have been better. There are communes, and therefore communists, and plenty of armchair communists (who live a very capitalist lifestyle).
@Dalrock
He is entertaining, and he is sincere. That discourages me.
When I didn’t know whether I wanted to be a Christian anymore my folks and others constantly sent me books, articles, and videos of ex-football players and Christian CEOs with these “amazing conversion stories”. They almost all say “God rewarded me with worldly wealth because I started doing good things, and He will for you, too.” That’s just dead wrong. Jesus was perfect and He was tortured to death. St. Paul was shipwrecked, imprisoned, stoned, and THEN tortured to death. What conclusions, then, must we draw? I leave it for others to imagine what unrecorded horrors could cancel out St. Paul’s faith and works when Phil gets to be a millionaire for merely turning down the NFL and some barflies.
God is good, and God is faithful, but He is not a vendor selling trinkets for favors at a reasonable rate of exchange.
Back to the show: The wives drive me crazy, and the producers edit the show’s onversations to make the wives appear even more “strong and empowered” (read: nagging and domineering) than they already are. The men respond by going overboard childish; which is a luxury of the independently rich. Oh, and they still manage to make the guys look stupid. I’ve only watched a handful of episodes, but I’ve never seen the TV crew make one of the women look stupid.
@Boxer
Seriously give it a rest, you obviously dont want to discuss marxism, as you think anyone mentioning marxism is a conspiracy theorist …
You’re a clueless skeptic, nobodies perfect … get back to your obama mosque & saying morning prayers to obama your saviour … also remember to send a hail mary to oprah’s ass …
Go right ahead & tell us all, how a police state is a necessary evil, & brainwashing women to be male hating feminists is a great concept, like a good little bootlicking conservative …
Bootlicking conservative’s a great career choice for authority, cop worshipping toads … lol
Let us know how your jihad in the name of obama is coming along, I hear obama does a great deal on drone attacks & fake bombings …
Listen, I’m all ears. If someone would take the time to teach instead of mock, that would great.
@GKChesterton
“We want the men who have _advanced_ and not so much the alpha PUA’s.”
And how exactly do you propose to create these advanced alpha men …
PUA’s have a MAJOR advantage, the average christian no longer has …
PUA’s have a system AND a community to support the men entering the PUA & pickup communities
You dont, score 1 to the PUA’s Score ZERO to the christians
Duck Commander, from the pulpit, is a member of the Southern Baptist theological alpha arrogance club.
For those curious and not getting blood clots in their spleen over putting alpha and arrogant in a less than favorable light together, its nothing to do with alpha or arrogance, its to do with spiritual arrogance. Ive seen these guys, from the pulpit or just as hangers on, as they seem to attract a certain subset of charisma cravers. They are the guy at the hardware store that tries to make people feel like an ass when they ask for a dremel by asking if they want the modified drive or straight drive or some such bullshit, the auto mechanic that takes your money, smiles, and communicates that you are an idiot because you need him, yet a subset of people WANT to be around them, seeking approval. Same with the spiritually arrogant simpletons. You will never find an area of agreement with them. Ever. Not because you or he disagrees, but because disagreeing is the schtick. Duck Commander is perfectly one of these guys. Its a useless flavor of alpha, pointless except for entertainment delivered by cable, tedious and offensive in person if you actually listen to whats being said.
Canes description of how to get into the club is pretty close, needn’t be the QB though. Like Paris Hilton is famous for being famous, these guys (the spiritually arrogant southern gravely man) are legendary for being legendary. They also usually die alone.
@FH
Yea Im still waiting on Boxer to teach us what Marxism is about … as nobody in this thread knows what marxism …
We;re all willing to learn Boxer & Jeremy … please teach us all about how marxism is really a form of economics & a discipline of academia … instead of basic communism …
If anyone is interested, I wrote a blog post awhile back that shows I think on how Marxism and Feminism are related. Click on my screen name. The blog post is called “Patriarchy is Not A Dirty Word”. Blog name Freedomandfamily
@mackPUA and FH
You and 8oxer are talking about two different things. 8oxer knows the actual tree (the work) of Marx; what he actually said. You two are speaking of the spirit of Marx; the fruit. The spirit of Marx–whatever he meant to say–was taking from those he didn’t identify or agree with, and giving to those he did.
What’s important to me out of this conversation is that mPUA and FH’s comments could not even exist in a time before Marx; as 8oxer has said (and well). Marx invented the fundamental type of argument that you are making. He asserts (like a good MRA) hat fairness can exist; you know what it looks like; we should make things fair as you see them.
Communism was a pipe dream, but what became critical theory is the default paradigm for interpreting the world around us. Marxism hasn’t won because Marx’s policies are/have/will be enacted, but because we all see from Marx’s perspective now. Bummer.
Ironically, 8oxer denies (demands proof of) the existence of cultural marxism, but then points to FH’s comments as Marxist in spirit…comments about, you know, cultural matters. It’s a lot like the arguments where Dalrock and the latest commenter who considers himself a conservative says: “Those SoCons aren’t *real* SoCons, Dal. Real SoCons are good.”, and Dalrock replies: “Ok then, smartguy: Where are these *real* SoCons?”
It’s a great question. There is a dearth of real SoCons, Marxists, and whatnot. In fact there are a crapload of whatnots calling themselves SoCons and Marxist and all kinds of things…but they’re all really just a penner shy of the authenticity claimed by a college-age buddhist.
F’n commie better dead than red.
Continuing the OT, sorry.
A central bank which finances most industries with cheap, taxpayer provided capital, is not what most people mean when they say “Capitalism”. Capitalism traditionally defined means “Free Market Capitalism”. Bailouts, subsidies, regulations, and tax breaks are the very opposite of a free market, as is welfare, child support, student loans, and affirmative action. They are all Central Government Controls and engineering of society, instead of Self Governance of Free Citizens.
In short, the United States is no longer a “Capitalist” nation.
In a free society, people are free to use their life and labor for their own purposes. In a free society, a life long marriage contract would be enforced by the courts. In a free society, a man who invests in a hammer would see bigger returns on his investment, than the man who invests in a bottle of whisky.
In a free society, i wouldn’t be forced to fund college butthex, make work feminist desk jobs, or FDIC guaranteed loan to so called capitalists.
L,F and M. Okay, once again my theory cap on.
Yes, but many of the problems were brought on by greedy bankers and politicians who dropped the requirements for people to get loans for houses and so on. Then Bush came in, after Bill Clinton, and also dropped the deposit requirements. All of this done under the pretext that minorities were not given a fair deal and thus banks needed to adjust their lending requirements.
In the end, what happened? Yes, more minorities got loans but it was short lived as they did not have the financial backing to pay them back. Now the worst hit by the financial melt down is black and Mexican minorities. And who is to blame, of course, it’s racist people holding them down… not the bankers who screwed them over. Therefore, the entire tax base of America had to come up with the dough in order to save the banking industry so that it can once again give risky loans to minorities, aka Obama…
I don’t pretend to know the mind of Marx. I do, however, know the world is unfair. I know that the only way I can protect myself is to self segregate from those I feel take advantage of me and those that seek to make a quick profit off of me. As for the banks and wall street dealers, they should have succumbed and been written off as what would have happened in a true Capitalistic Nation. They plied their financial trades on risky bets and those bets did not pay off. They should have withered and died.
In a free market economy, there shouldn’t be a Fed at all. There shouldn’t be any government interference. There should be separation of the Judiciary and the Executive so that there is a method for workers to have their rights heard. And I know the USA says they’re independent of each other but I just don’t see that.
The FED just gets my goat though. How can a country pretend they’re free market when they have someone printing 1 trillion or more dollars into the economy every year out of thin air?!
“Duck Commander, from the pulpit, is a member of the Southern Baptist theological alpha arrogance club.”
I believe I read they are Church of Christ. I could be wrong though. (Having grown up in the South, the distinction may seem small to others… but NOT to Baptists and Church of Christ :P)
That should read, aka Obama’s new push for more loans to people with bad credit.
Makes a bit more sense…
Anyway, if others are happy to return to the real topic of this thread instead of our jibber jabber, that’s fine by me.
Off to bed, got an early work day tomorrow.
As a member of the the generation that is just now graduating college, I can completely agree with the notion that our modern education system is both lackadaisical and detrimental to maturity. It’s a system that rewards being told and knowing… not being taught and understanding. Where violence as self-defense is worse than sexual promiscuity. And where you’re not expected to grow up and move on until after you’re done with college… often at the age of 22 or 23 or older.
We live in an age where a guy knowing how to change his own oil is an iffy proposition at best. An age where “boys will be boys” is an excuse for abhorrent immorality rather than immaturity… and where it’s applied to guys who are long past the point of being “boys” but not prepared to be men.
And, as many people have pointed out, we’re a generation of men that has largely been raised by women. Fix those problems and you’ll have made huge strides in fixing the culture. Until boys are expected to become men, they’ll continue being boys who are pushed around by their mothers. Cultural expectations need to change, and quickly.
@F,M, L,
You are looking for “State Capitalism” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism) and is why modern leftists claim that the USSR wasn’t really a socialist state. Things get murky when you are dealing with True Believers of the materialist variety because they have a near infinite ability to just make things up.
@FH,
The anger at the Federal Reserve Bank is somewhat overrated. It is not that they print money, as long as that money enables trade everyone is fine. It is that by the unfettered printing of money they can change your capital value without your consent or, at the minimum, the consent of the sovereign (which in our case is the people). Where the fed has a stable monetary policy it is as harmless as the Bitcoins idea (which I find somewhat ludicrous, but whatever YMMV). Where it attempts to fund a national debt through inflation it acts against its responsibility to the citizens it should be protecting.
@Dalrock
My takeaway from this is alpha exceptionalism isn’t the answer (which you already pointed out above). It works for the alpha himself, but it doesn’t translate to the average man.
The trait of being an Alpha can be overdone. A little bit of Alpha can go a long way if one is willing to use it in moderation.
Ha ha! Is Boxer still running around trying to spread disinformation about Marxism?
Seriously, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would suspect that this is his entire goal, but I’m not one, so I’ll just stick with it that he’s a guy whose spent FOURTEEN years in university and still doesn’t have a Ph D, but he likes to brag about his academic “achievements.” (Or is it 15yrs now?) My sister was the same way. Fourteen years to get a Ph D., but, you woulda thunk she had one all the way back in her first year of college, because she was an expert on everything. Her favourite argument is, “But… but… I have a Ph D.!” (Even when she didn’t yet have one – I’m not joking!)
Dear GKC:
Please see inside text:
BTW good job calling them out on the nonsense. At various times I consider it but then figure it would be mind numbing. I don’t know if I would go so far as to say, “there are no more communists” though. That seems like a bit of a rhetorical flourish. There are no more communists states may have been better.
Admittedly, that was sloppy. I think it goes further than just political states, though. Even into the 1960s there were communists (individuals and small groups) which wielded some degree of political power in North America and Western Europe. Their power grew out of a waning faith in Marx’s overly charitable view of human nature. Today, there really aren’t any of these groups in existence that I know of. If something is tried over and over and never works, no matter the circumstances, normal folks are inclined to move on to better things.
There are communes, and therefore communists, and plenty of armchair communists (who live a very capitalist lifestyle).
The only communes I know of are centered around religious ideals (i.e. voluntary associations of people who are all committed to the ideology of communal living). I suppose the Amish and Hutterites and such could be classified as communists. I don’t think those are the types who read a bunch of Marx, though. (I could be wrong of course).
Good to see my kooky stalker fedrz is here, by the way. Over a year ago he promised to start a web page, outing my real name and address. If he ever gets around to that, I’ll make sure and give him a link on my (neglected) blog. lol
Regards, Boxer
Yes, the communists that exist in religious communes generally aren’t Marxist, at least here, though my guess is a few in Central America may still bend that way. Otherwise I agree.
Hah ha, Boxer, nobody promised you a web-page – you just made that up like so many other of your tales.
One thing you still have never answered me though, is if Trotsky was a Marxist or not.
You see, a year ago, you were all over the Spearhead claiming that the whole problem was that feminism was inspired by Trotskyism, which influenced the Neo-Cons.
And then you screeched at people for talking about Cultural Marxism… remember? Then you went on long rants trying discredit the Marxism angle.
So, I asked you about 50 times, “Was Trotsky a Marxist?”
And you just plain refuse to answer, because once you say that he is, it is quite obvious that you are full of BS. Because if Trotskyism is the cause of feminism, and if some smart Academtard would admit that Trotsky was a Marxist, then we would still be dealing with Marxism, wouldn’t we, Smarty Pants?
I think I also pointed out that you were clearly using the Delphi Technique.
It was the last time I ever heard from or even seen you over there.
What happened?
Get banned?
If it were true that women in the past were largely carousel riders, married or not, why do surnames suggest that cuckold pregnancy was relatively rare? The behavior of women has drastically changed, and while the women’s cheating has always been very dangerous, it wasn’t anything as common and likely as it is today. Today you’re dealing with very bad odds compared to the past.
I shouldn’t have used the word “rare” I should have said, NOT TYPICAL
Cultural Marxism is what yesterday’s Marxists want to do to today’s culture. It’s Leftist, it’s real, and it’s Jewish dominated. Turn on the TV – it’s socially destructive poison. Anyone who doesn’t admit that is willfully blind.
Bankers are government.
By this i mean: 1. The way the FED creates money out of bond debt. Thus a form of indirect taxation on anyone with a savings. 2. The way they are completely regulated makes them an arm of the federal government. 3. FDIC gives them a monopoly on citizens money, as they are the only “risk free” investment.
Private citizens would receive about 20% interest to loan a secured loan with collateral. Closer to 50% for unsecured (i.e. Student loans, ect)
One of the biggest problems I see with our bloated system, is that it drives up the cost of living. We can talk about “workers wages”, but if they have most of their earning taken through hidden taxation methods, then everything costs more. People in third world countries can live off $10 a month, but we can’t because we are taxed to death.
Mortgages and other debt only serve to enrich our feminist overlords. I have aquired 5 rental houses (nice neighborhood/not ghetto) free and clear with no debt, and I’m only working a skilled trade. They want to keep you in debt, that way you have to keep working and producing stuff.
My boss, a “capitalist” borrows from a bank. All our profit goes to the bank to pay them off. Who works for these banks? What gender are your bank tellers? What gender are the pencil pushers? How about the accountants? What about the regulators?
I advocate men be self sufficient. This comes from fathers. My father owns his own business. He works his ass off. He has no debt. His workers get paid well because he has no debt. They learn a trade.
What do we have now? Subsidized colleges “train” people. So the “capitalists”, get free training.
Instead of 1000 mega corporations which take their orders from the FED, how about a million privately held companies. Family companies, which pay men to learn skills, and prepare them to one day have their own companies?
Smaller companies are leaner, productive, and they don’t have to be politically correct. They can hire people who produce, and pay them well because they don’t have the overhead.
I’m done ranting. I state my position: Free Market Capitalism is Just, and it allows men to utilize their God given talents to prosper themselves instead of the feminist state.
“So they think “when do boys grow up? Around 30? Okay, I’ll wait til I’m 30.”
Where do they get the idea they have to marry a man their age? Young teen girls are often romantic enough to believe in love and want life-long commitment. By their mid 20s, they may still want marriage, but it’s about what’s in it for them.
Economic equality was never the point of Marxism. Marxism has always been about a total social revolution. Those who believed in economic determinism saw that the theory didn’t pan out. So they changed their focus from class conflict to racial and sexual conflict.
Guys like Bloomberg think they’re supposed to rule over the rest of the world. Listen to his arrogance about the Constitution. Or how Bob Kerrey suggested he be a Chief Operating Officer to run the government for Obama.
Those guys own operations like MTV. They’re the enemy. And all the pseudo-intellectual cant about “conspiracy theories” won’t enable these leopards to hide their spots. Whether the goal is advanced by pseudo-science like Marxism or other verbose drivel, the goal is really very simple and it has been the same for centuries.
Dear GKC:
Please see inside text:
Yes, the communists that exist in religious communes generally aren’t Marxist, at least here, though my guess is a few in Central America may still bend that way. Otherwise I agree.
Central America is sort of an interesting study in all this, which is strangely related to both communism and Louisiana (tying back into the original post). I don’t know how familiar you are with the expat phenom, but you brought it up, and it brings something to mind.
A woman I was dating casually in the late 2000s, packed up and moved to Costa Rica, after the financial meltdown of 2008. She was not old money, but her family was/is very wealthy. She’s since married and has a baby down there.
She lives in, as far as I can gather through our occasional conversations, a gated community made up almost entirely of wealthy expat North Americans, most of whom are originally from New York and Toronto. A few families came from Louisiana and Mississippi, though, and these people seem to be dominating the community, spreading their folkways to all their neighbours.
Some photos were passed around among mutual acquaintances of their town, and there was a confederate flag hanging up over someone’s hacienda. They’re organized into a sort of communal situation. The kids of this little village all know Spanish at this point, and speak it at school, but the town is English only, and all the wealthy people take turns washing the sidewalk off and doing otherwise menial chores. They also apparently go hunting for bush meat (frogs and the like). Sorta funny.
Regards, Boxer
So you are seriously arguing that sex is a need as essential to life as water? …Based on one quote from Proverbs (5:15)? …Which is clearly just a metaphor and comes in the context of a warning about adulterous women. If — as you assert — sex were indeed as much a need as is water, then one literally would not be able to go two days without it or one would die. Saying that the Bible teaches this implies that the Bible is nonsense. I’m glad I don’t handle Scripture as you do, since it would make it a laughing-stock.
And the teaching of Paul to which you refer (1 Timothy 5) is specifically about young widows — young women who have grown accustomed to the pleasures of wifely sex and who are now suddenly deprived of them. They were not what @sunshinemary was talking about (to which I addressed my reply): she was speaking of those who have never been married. In Corinthians Paul says clearly that it is better for a virgin (i.e. an unmarried woman) to remain unmarried so that she may be concerned about the things of the Lord. If this were simply impossible, he would hardly have said such a thing. Too many trads pedestalize the need to marry in a way which just isn’t Scriptural. …Often to the point where concerns over marriage eclipse God Himself.
Idolaters!
Corrigendum:
“two days” = “two weeks”
No answer, Boxer?
You’re pulling the same stunts here as you did at the Spearhead.
What gives?
Cat got your tongue?
Was Trotsky a Marxist?
The Catholic Church occasionally says Marxist things… in spite of what the apostles said in Acts (something to the effect of, ‘we worked while we were among you, we did not make ourselves a burden’…). That doesn’t make all Catholics Marxists obviously… it just means the Catholic Church’s leadership has strayed from it’s first love.
Pseudo-Christians claiming that Jesus was a Marxist/Socialist are almost as much of a pet peeve of mine as pseudo-Christians who suggest that Jesus was a moral relativist, or believed in moral relativism (i.e. the ‘don’t judge’ folks).
Dear Tom:
The Catholic Church occasionally says Marxist things… in spite of what the apostles said in Acts (something to the effect of, ‘we worked while we were among you, we did not make ourselves a burden’…).
The Catholic Church never made Marx’s mistake of thinking people are intrinsically good. Sunshine Mary or some other Catholic can correct me if I’m wrong on that.
That’s the one thread that runs throughout Marx’s work. Apparently after we shake off capital, we’ll all joyously take our turns as sewer workers and garbagemen out of some sort of innate altruism. The first generation, full of zeal, might make such sacrifices. The reality is that you have to pay people to do such things for any protracted period of time.
Regards, Boxer
Like all such “reality” shows scripted and phony. The lead character has a Masters in Education.
In Louisiana we marry them about 15-16. Total bullshit from a modern Step’n’Fetchit.
LOL Karl Marx NEVER stated he thought ppl were intrinsically good … in fact karl marx specifically calls the common man as herds of sheep
Also Karl Marx specifically talks about USING government, not destroying it … he basically states use the government
Use the governments resources to attack the rich, once the rich bourgoise are destroyed through government, THEN destroy the government
Basic marxist theory, taught in most economic universities, by clueless ignorant academics …
So much for academia bs …
Idiot conservatives like Boxer are clueless about marxism ..
Marxism has nothing to do with turning everyone into sewage workers …
Marxism is specifically about destroying the rich & wealthy through government, destruction of wealth is the foundation of marxism
Use the government to attack the middle class & upper class, steal their wealth & resources … to benefit the poor peasants … THAT IS the foundation of all marxism
Just pick up any Marxist text, thats all Karl Marx states REPEATEDLY throughout his text
Karl Marx as a theory is a broken record of yelling destroy the wealthy upper class, to free the poor peasants
Marxism is basically feminism for conservatives …
Marxism is basically feminism for conservatives …
Marxism is literally a near identical copy of feminism …
Instead of the patriarchy, you have the bourgoise or the state OWNED by the bourgoise …
Instead of oppressed women, by years of male oppression, you have the peasantry oppressed by years of aristocrat oppression
Instead of EDUCATING & WORKING with the poor, the poor should rise up & smash the patriarchy … erm smash the bourgoise state
You could apply the SAME logic to feminism …
Instead of women working & LEARNING about men … women should rise up against men & destroy men …
Marxism i& feminism are TEXTBOOK class division & class warfare
Marxism is basically a HANDBOOK for GOVERNMENT
Marxism is a manual for governments on destroying the poor AND wealthy
It is NOT a revolutionary movement for the common man
Marxism is a textbook on corruption & classwarfare for governments to use on their populations … which is WHY its still taught in most economic universities …
@ Liberty, Family, and Masculinity
“I state my position: Free Market Capitalism is Just, and it allows men to utilize their God given talents to prosper themselves instead of the feminist state.”
Brillaint posts, i’m thoroughly enjoying your blog
The manosphere desperately needs men like yourself, instead of government worshipping conservatives like Boxer …
Free Market Capitalism is Just, it is when just applied to skilled labour & real bartering economies … like family owned businesses
Family owned businesses are probably the closest we have to real bartering economies
Free Market Capitalism is unjust, when applied to the stock market & global trade, as anyone can print pieces of paper & rig & fix the market anytime they want
Want to lower the price of rice … no problem, buy all the pieces of paper with the words rice … & place all the worthless pieces of paper back on the market with a ridiculously higher price …
watch the demand for rice to plummet … buy up your competition at rock bottom prices, as nobody wants to buy from them …
Set the price of REAL rice to whatever you want … the magical inflation of worthless pieces of paper …
Somewhat OT, but this is something related to the theme of the blog:
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/gave_up_modeling_for_god_IDcrhkzPzHgtLCcQmkgHxK/0
Essentially talks about how Victoria’s Secret model Kylie Bisutti (who?) gave up modelling to be a Proverbs 31 wife. Any bets on her actually understanding what it means?
The “marx is this” and “marx is that” argument is pointless. There is individual liberty and there is consolidation of power/ tyrants. If you support one, you oppose the other. america loves their tyrants and build statutes to men like lincoln. the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Lee, Greene etc all died in 1860
The same applies to cultural marxism. You value and desire to protect your cultural, faith, kin,
tribe, language etc above all others and all else, or you think people, faiths, languages, cultures etc are interchangeable.
Things are that simple. Or was that simple. Now these things are destroyed, most americans have no blood kinship to the founders and what people think america is, never was, or was destroyed generations before we were born.
The question now is do you 1) want to live in a nation that turned on its founding people and ideals; 2) fight futility to hold on to the scraps of a nation and people or 3) embrace the creation of the new nation, built on foreign ideals and foreign people.
All the other arguing is pointless
Amidst pages and pages of desperate, pathetic pandering for my attention, MackPUA whines::
LOL Karl Marx NEVER stated he thought ppl were intrinsically good… Just pick up any Marxist text, thats all Karl Marx states REPEATEDLY throughout his text….
I’ll be waiting for you to quote chapter and verse. I’m sure it’ll happen around the time you cite Marx supporting the “worship of corporations and government,” etc.
The rest of your personal insults are rich entertainment; Please join Rob Fedders in the circus tent, and keep dancing for the amusement of the peanut gallery. I have owned his sorry ass for years now (note that he’s still desperately obsessed with my besting him in an argument years ago – lolololol). I live in your head too.
The word to describe you, Mack, is ressentiment. That’s Nietzsche, not Marx. The weak hate the strong, life’s failures hate those who have found success. This is the way things should be.
Regards, Boxer
WWW
Good retort against sex as a need. Too many people justifying their behavior. Christians need to stop acting like animals like the rest and start to be the light of the world like we are called to. I’ve been frivolously divorced and I dislike what is happening around me in things like marriage and the corruption of our goverment just as much as the next guy, but that does not entitle us to shirk our obligations to Him that called us. We are better than that.
A quick nod to Dalrock: I’m a first time commenter but a long time lurker and have learned volumes from your work. Thanks for the effort, man. It has decoded a lot of what I knew was wrong but could not form the language to articulate. Very grateful.
[D: Welcome.]
@ 8oxer
I can’t blame teen pregnancy on the teen as much as the parent for not educating. If all those parents were having age-appropriate conversations, why are something like 50% of hispanic and black teen girls getting pregnant? Seems like those “age-appropriate conversations” are all less-than 5-minute conversations about how they shouldn’t do something, with no useful information. There is something that kids do that parents have long conversations about, and the consequences of it are just as significant.
What are the consequences of young, single black women getting pregnant? Are there children starving in the street throughout the US?
Population geneticist Henry Harpending studied the phenomenon and found that the mothers of young black women actually encouraged their daughters to get pregnant by men who exhibited the characteristics of a cad. They did this because they wanted the experience of motherhood, with their daughter’s child, at an age where they were more posed to enjoy the experience. Multiple generations of black women related by blood raising children without a male present is a feature, not a bug.
oops, that last comment was aimed at Jeremy not 8oxer
Nah, Boxer. The reason I pick on you is because you have an agenda that is quite obvious after a while.
You show up in manosphere sites and you are quite agreeable to everything – in fact you befriend the majority of the readers, while at the same time singling out a few people who don’t agree with your anti-marxist agenda. You try to portray them as lunatics or mentally insane. In other words, you are classically using the Delphi Technique for manipulating a large group.
Your information about Marxism is quite convincing, except that you use it to promote disinformation – not misinformation – disinformation, or black propaganda. (Give out enough information to be credible, then purposefully mislead to a false conclusion).
And you do this everywhere. In fact, it’s about the only thing you will argue about. For the rest, you are all about endearing yourself to the larger group. It is classic Delphi Technique.
Keep in mind that you are trying to write off Marxism as some wild conspiracy theory – like affiliating it with Icke’s Lizard People… yet you yourself believe in conspiracies, because I’ve backed you into a corner before and you come out screeching that I must be a feminist plant… in other words, you DO believe in conspiracies.
You’re a fraud, Boxer, and you have an agenda, which is to make sure that no-one speaks of Marxism and its relationship to feminism.
@ everyone discussing Marx
You guys don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. Marx, in a nutshell:
A) Marx takes Hegel’s idea of history as a story of man moving from the the realm of Necessity in the realm of Freedom
B) His criticism of Hegel is that Hegel attributes this movement as a function of Spirit, i.e. mental activity.
C) What’s also behind this is Hegel’s implied criticism of Kant, who postulated autonomy as the source of morality. Hegel’s point was that a postulated autonomy was no autonomy at all and that true morality required true freedom.
D) The development of freedom (i.e. autonomy) is Hegel’s attempt to establish autonomy as more than a postulate, as a realized, demonstrated thing-in-itself. Presumably, Hegel didn’t consider the autonomy project of history finished and wanted his magnum opus Phenomenology of Spirit to be the fulcrum for completing that project.
E) There’s a pretty famous passage in the Phenomenology where Hegel admits that the philosophers, upon achieving the full metaphysical understanding of everything that exists, become estranged from the rest of humanity and can provide no direction for future progress.
F) Basically, in “E” Hegel is admitting the failure of his entire project and Marx’s solution to the problem is to root the progressive acquisition of autonomy for humanity, collectively, is via material, not mental, development.
G) Marx retains the Hegelian premise of history as a movement from necessity to freedom but identifies the mechanism in the material word contra Hegel’s locating it in the mental/spiritual world.
Marx doesn’t reject nature, per se. Rather, his position is that the nature of humanity is to transcend all nature and attain real freedom in this world. Both Kant and Hegel pay lip service to the idea of God and to historical religions but Marx takes their project to it’s logical conclusion by taking God off his throne and puting man into God’s place.
And the Marxian critique of Kant and Hegel is correct, one cannot start with a premise and deny its logical conclusions. This is why the modern autonomy project is titled “cultural marxism”, as opposed to cultural “kantianism” or “hegelianism”.
Marxism isn’t a conspiracy theory and, in fact, Marx was really just a manifestation of his time and the historical “winner” in the battle for pride of place in carrying the banner for what I called the autonomy project. During his youth epic poetry was all the rage, almost exclusively atheist and opposed to anything that held back man from his destiny, which was to attain Godhood.
What gets called “cultural marxism” is part of a large trend in thought that began well before Marx.
@ 8oxer
Feminism has nothing to do with Marx
This is not quite correct. Yes, there is no simple causal line running “marxism therefore feminism” but they are both rooted in the premise that history and the dignity of humanity, whatever the hell that means, is predicated on the progression of autonomy in history.
This blog promotes the idea of conflicting classes which produce a social narrative, and constructs critical theories in an attempt to illuminate social shortcomings. The fact that we’re both participating makes us both “cultural Marxists”.
This is only somewhat correct. Marx *did* posit that the movement of history is predicated on conflict between different classes of people, and plenty of what we would call non-marxists accept the impact of class warfare in the movement of history. What you might be missing is that Marx held that this class warfare would inevitably lead to full human autonomy, so simply discussing class conflict is, in itself, not part of the Marxist project.
@ robert
You need to understand that marxism/communism is not serious economic theory, and was never intended to be.
Sort of correct. Marx held that all existing thought was the product of the material reality that produced it and that the field of “economics” was an incomplete discipline. I mean, if you view the project of history as one of achieving autonomy in the material world then economics can always be nothing but incomplete. Marrx was actually pretty honest about this and subtitled many of his works with “towards a critique of political economy”. In other words, Marx viewed his work as the birth of an intellectual discipline that transcended economics and was more “complete”, in that it better reflected man’s movement from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.
I believe it was Eric voegelin who noted that for a Marxist the distribution of material goods was no more important in a communist society than it would be for a christian in heaven.
The whole purpose was to create conflict and destruction.
Well, you can’t create the new without destroying the old. I fundamentally disagree with the autonomy project but at least Marx was honest about it.
Marxism relies on the “useful idiot”. Marx and others saw the so-called peasant classes as their useful idiots.
“useless idiot” is a highly misunderstood label. The original Greek term “idiotes” referred to an individual who was not intellectually equipped to involve himself in contributing to the management of the polis (ancient greek city-state). Okay, it’s a bit more complicated than that but it’s the short and dirty. In fact, it’s correct that the peasantry were almost exclusively interested in their immediate concerns and had no competence in managing political affairs. And from a Marxists perspective they were “useful” in that they were the mechanism by which to advance the material means of humanity.
so, “useful idiots” is not so much a slur as it is a description.
One thing which is important about the relationship between feminism and Marxism, is understanding how dialectical manipulation works.
There is no doubt that many of the second wave feminists were Marxists. Catharine MacKinnon says that sex is to feminism as work is to Marxism. She also outright declares that feminism, socialism and communism are one in the same, and socialist/communist government is the goal of feminism. (Indeed, it is the only way feminism can exist). Robin Morgan declares that feminism endorses Marxist-Leninist thought. Marylin French was an avowed Marxist and wanted to deconstruct the family with large rambling bureaucracies. Shulamuth Firestone, an author of the Red Stocking Manifesto, just recently died… her works are still being taught in Women’s Studies programs… her other book? The Dialectic of Sex.
Acknowledging things like this in no way indicates one believes in lizard people nor even some grand conspiracy. It merely means to recognize the nature of feminism as a movement. What is going on is they are thinking three, four or five steps ahead, which is the nature of dialectical manipulation.
“Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.” — Leon Trotsky
So, the biggest thing that one has to realize is that, in many ways, feminists want to alter society, to bring about their goals.
Look at the ways in which fatherhood (ie. Patriarchy) has been undermined over the years. Just think about what sloganeering like “all children are legitimate” and “all families are equal” are about. There are logical conclusions to these kinds of things further down the road.
It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It has to do with recognizing how feminism has, and still is, going about achieving its goals.
btw, I’m pretty sure that Lenin coined the term “useful idiots”.
After the Russian Revolution, Lenin wrote that he would install a Marxist bureaucratic government without the support of dedicated Marxists. Only the inner elite of his circle would understand the political structure he was building, while others would be manipulated to forward his agenda by their natural vanity and ambition to gain favour so as to further their political careers. He called such people “Useful Idiots.”
@ Boxer
When men take raw materials from the environment and make finished products out of them, the value comes from the labour of that man. The surplus value is siphoned off by capital
This, of course, is not what happens. Without that capital that labor would not exist. Consider the phrase “siphon off gas”, which refers to an act that is often criminal. In this case the tank of gas exists independent of the one doing the siphoning. However, in the case of business profits the extant capital is required for the labor that uses it and that labor would not exist without the capital, therefore, the metaphor of siphoning off is a misleading one.
@ robert
The early cultural marxists were economic marxists, who realized that their war against humanity
Sort of. The Romantic Idealism of Marx’s youth held that humanity was not truly human until it has shed the shackles of anything that stood beyond man and his ability to achieve the infinite. Marx was not fond of humanity as it is/was but had a vision for the humanity that could/ought to be.
For a Christian, that is satanic.
@ robert, mackpua, feminist hater
When Boxer says
You think I’m your opponent. In fact, I’m the best friend you’ve got. I don’t want you to continue to look ridiculous whenever you start typing.
I suggest you take him seriously. he has obviously read Marx and you haven’t and he’s clearly not a communist.
Dear Asher:
Thanks for the first intelligent rebuttal to the derailment of this thread. Please see inside text…
You guys don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. Marx, in a nutshell…
Excellent exegesis, which includes things I forgot years ago.
This is only somewhat correct. Marx *did* posit that the movement of history is predicated on conflict between different classes of people, and plenty of what we would call non-marxists accept the impact of class warfare in the movement of history. What you might be missing is that Marx held that this class warfare would inevitably lead to full human autonomy, so simply discussing class conflict is, in itself, not part of the Marxist project.
Well, the Hegelians (both left and right) all posited the conflict theory. Marx held the view that domination (including but not limited to aggression) would force the worker class to unite. The unity of workers would lead to revolutionary violence.
Full human autonomy is sort of a pipe dream, but it’s a nice carrot that leads people into working hard and sacrificing. This is where the early Marx and the late Marx diverge.
Anyway, thanks for your response, which is both concise and expansive. I’m guessing you’re a writer by trade. If not, you should be.
Boxer
““So they think “when do boys grow up? Around 30? Okay, I’ll wait til I’m 30.”
Where do they get the idea they have to marry a man their age? Young teen girls are often romantic enough to believe in love and want life-long commitment. By their mid 20s, they may still want marriage, but it’s about what’s in it for them.”
@Joe
This is true. They don’t have to marry a man their age. The older man who is so cultured and knowledgeable lives in female folklore. And there are those 16 year old girls who think 25 year old men are “eww…grosss…he’s old…”
Both Marx and modern feminists take Hegel’s dictum that none are free until all are free as a starting point.
Take rape, which has continuously been declining for decades while the feminist obsession over “rape culture” has been steadily increasing. If you take the concept of freedom and apply it to rape then all are raped until none are raped.
What Marx and the feminists have in common is a desire to transcend all constraints, and until this state is achieved no tactic is off the table.
So you are seriously arguing that sex is a need as essential to life as water? …Based on one quote from Proverbs (5:15)? …Which is clearly just a metaphor and comes in the context of a warning about adulterous women. If — as you assert — sex were indeed as much a need as is water, then one literally would not be able to go two days without it or one would die. Saying that the Bible teaches this implies that the Bible is nonsense. I’m glad I don’t handle Scripture as you do, since it would make it a laughing-stock.
You are rapidly making yourself one. Metaphors exist because they relate one truth to another. Sex, to most people, is a requirement. Without it they will usually not die but if you are starved for water you don’t die right away either you merely suffer. We were created _for_ sexual procreation. It is the first command as found in Genesis. That you diminish it so is quite telling. No it is not “as essential ” / [the same as], it is, as you used in your first quote, “like”. God expects us to have sex and has placed rather powerful inducements on us to do the same. He has also, much _like_ food and water, placed boundaries on the consumption of sex.
And the teaching of Paul to which you refer (1 Timothy 5) is specifically about young widows — young women who have grown accustomed to the pleasures of wifely sex and who are now suddenly deprived of them. They were not what @sunshinemary was talking about (to which I addressed my reply): she was speaking of those who have never been married. In Corinthians Paul says clearly that it is better for a virgin (i.e. an unmarried woman) to remain unmarried so that she may be concerned about the things of the Lord. If this were simply impossible, he would hardly have said such a thing. Too many trads pedestalize the need to marry in a way which just isn’t Scriptural. …Often to the point where concerns over marriage eclipse God Himself.
You allude to St. Paul and then don’t listen to him. St. Paul correctly points out that there is something _better_ but then _immediately_ makes clear not everyone is _gifted_ in such a way. You are confusing saying “better” for saying “good and not good”. Sex in marriage is a real and _commanded_ good. It just isn’t the _best_.
Idolaters!
I’d hazard a suggestion that you think more clearly about what St. Paul and the canon has to say on the matter. Then seriously consider whether or not you are being Churchian by denying the proper role of sexual relations.
www: that is not what the Bible teaches. Sex isn’t a need in the way that food or water is a need. People can and do live without it. …For years. Decades
Speaking as one who was unwillingly single and technically a virgin, til the extraordinarily frustrating late age of 38 — and who therefore knows something about living without sex for years…..
not all men can accept this saying, but only those to whom it is given
if they cannot be continent, let them marry; it is better to marry than to burn with passion
I assume you know what Book those quotes come from. Both authors were celibates themselves, which gives their words even more weight.
You are right in stating that sex is NOT a physiological “need” like food and water. But it ALMOST is, for a great many of us — going without it for a long time, *feels* like it’s going to kill you, even though (unfortunately) it actually doesn’t.
Which is why I want my boys married before 20.
I have taken him seriously from the start, he seems to think I want the conversation to be personal, which it isn’t. I stated that my thoughts on the matter are a theory, they are not Marx’s works but simply extrapolated from them and used in other spheres of politics and economics. They are not absolute. I’ve asked you, Jeremy, Chesterton and Boxer to correct me. And nothing… but a continued given of accolades to each other, patting one another on the backs. Well done!
His condescending nature makes the discussion a zero sum game instead of a learning experience it’s meant to be. Although it does not need mention, I did not call him a communist. I didn’t call him anything, which is entirely the problem.
“Redistribution of Wealth” is this a Marxian-thingy then ?
*Marxist-thingy*
Heineken
I’ve asked you, Jeremy, Chesterton and Boxer to correct me. And nothing… but a continued given of accolades to each other, patting one another on the backs. Well done!
You’ve gotten a good answer from Asher. What more do you want?
A simple explanation of where I’m wrong would be appropriate.
@ Feminist Hater,
You are describing his MO. He won’t have a conversation about what you are discussing, even though, given his knowledge, he must understand what you are saying. Therefore, since he knows what you are talking about, you have to ask what is going on that he doesn’t want to add to the discussion. He wants your conversations to stop. It’s the only subject he behaves like this on. He pulled the exact same thing on the Spearhead about a year ago, and pretty much squelched any debate on the subject. It doesn’t matter what you bring to him, he will dismiss you as a conspiracy nut and start screeching about lizards, but he will not discuss what you are saying.
I haven’t seen him around for a year. But, it is amazing to see him still doing it, but now over here. That said, there’s no point in me joining any debate with him, I had to make up a post called Boxer has already been responded to. because he will continue on like this until all discussion on the subject is stopped.
Have fun with him. I don’t know how long he has been here, but keep an eye on him over time, and you will begin to see what I am saying.
The reason why sex is mistaken for such a “need” is because we are bombarded by pornography in all it’s forms everywhere we look. It’s not just the xxx material that everybody knows, it’s everywhere. It’s cheerleaders at games, it’s pictures on magazines, it’s in too much advertising, movies, tv shows, facebook, etc. God said He would not allow us to be tempted beyond our means to defeat it. But, we’ve got to meet Him half way. If we want the burden of sex to lighten up, we can take measures to avoid the temptation. Unfortunately, telling even “christians” to back off of their four hours of television per night is met with extreme resistence, much less impeding on facebook or any of the multitudes of other things we participate in that we should be refraining from. The excessive, undefeatable need for sex is only a symptom of a much larger problem.
No one can change with the times like God. He knows what we are up against, even in this day and age. We are called to witness by the way we live. Unfortunately, when I look around, I can’t tell the difference between God’s people and the rest of the world anymore. It is inexcusable for us to justify sin the way we do. It is abominable for us to use His scripture to facilitate sin to salve our consciences.
Having grown up in the Church of Christ, it actually kind of makes sense to me that a member would have these kinds of convictions (about marriage, family, faith, etc). I looked at an article about him on the Christian Chronicle (the unoffial Church of Christ magazine) where he says that he and the entire cast (including the regularly appearing employess of Duck Commander) are all members, and there is WAY more faith content that gets cut out of the show because the producers are so uncomfortable with it. Too bad. I hope he can do some good, since this show is so popular.
This reminded me of something I’ve noticed since about the time of Norah Vincent’s book Self-Made Man half a dozen years back. For those not familiar, she was a very butch lesbian who perfected her fakeup enough to pass as a man and see things from our side of the gender divide.
So off she went in search of “authentic masculinity”, Real Men, etc. She headed straight for the lower-working class hang-outs, men who live in trailer parks, and go to dive bars, strip joints, and biker dens to find it.
Now, I had initially thought Vincent had done this to re-convince herself how icky and disgusting and crude men are, in all their paleo-masculinity, because (duh) it bolstered her lesbian sense of self. But I’ve since seen indications of the same thing in the culture at large: the more paleo the more manly. I don’t have cable so I’ve not seen the teevee series under discussion here now, but I’ve seen enough of these “reality” type shows to point it out. It’s part of the larger narrative about Real Men doing undainty, dirty, and dangerous things — loudly if possible.
Dear Feminist Hater:
His condescending nature makes the discussion a zero sum game instead of a learning experience it’s meant to be. Although it does not need mention, I did not call him a communist. I didn’t call him anything, which is entirely the problem.
Agreed that you didn’t call me anything personal, and apologies if you feel I slighted you. Between being called both a communist, conservative and someone who prays to Barack Obama in the mosque, I’m not really paying too much attention to who says what.
I agree that one should only discuss issues with if he sees the potential to learn something, which is why I quit paying attention to Rob Fedders years ago. I’m still waiting for him to make good on his threats to call my employer, out my real name and address, and other such cookery. You’re welcome to continue discussing me with him if you’d like, though it’ll make you appear as effeminate and passive aggressive as he is. (For the record, I don’t dislike Rob. I feel sorry for him, though it is sorta funny to note that he’s still upset at me years after our last interaction.)
In any event, thanks for your comments.
Boxer
I love that: “Without it they will usually not die” — I don’t know whether the comedy was intentional or not… …But you realise that what you’ve written doesn’t actually contradict my original comment: that sex isn’t a need in the way that food or water is a need, yes?
I remind you that I was responding to @sunshinemary’s comment about virgins, and was pointing out that you were speaking instead about young widows. It’s clear from Scripture that it is not unreasonable to expect the unmarried to abstain from sexual sin (or indeed from any sin) — whoever we are, whatever sex we are, and however old we are. Again, self-control is not an unrealistic expectation, Scripturally speaking (1 Cor 9, Gal 5, 2 Pet 1, etc.). …Yet Paul also acknowledges that some do lack sexual self-control (1 Corinthians 7:9) and that those who do should take this into account — that in their case, marriage is preferable to burning.
What I take issue with is the idea circulating in these parts that a woman will end up fornicating if she doesn’t go out and marry young. I’m not anti-marriage, neither am I against Biblical sex. But women who sin sexually are consistently exculpated by our sick society, on the grounds that waiting until marriage is an unreasonable expectation. It is not an unreasonable expectation, as so many in previous generations demonstrated with their lives (a great many of whom ended up dying as old maids, with their virtue intact). We live in a sex-worshipping culture and unfortunately have absorbed its assertion that sex is a need on a par with food. Modern society is almost totally lacking in self-control, and declares that this is reasonable. The church must not swallow this lie.
Well, I have considered it (and my thoughts are above). Paul clearly says that God holds us accountable for sexual sin, and expects us to exercise self-control. He also makes it clear that for those who lack self-control, it is better for them to marry than to burn. And he says that we have different gifts: clearly some will find celibacy & singleness easier than others — and some will find it unbearable and will burn with lust. And flatly forbidding a single person to marry is wrong (hence, for example, a celibate priesthood is not Scriptural). Perhaps we agree or perhaps we don’t, I’m not really sure, but I’m off to have my dinner now…
The reason why sex is mistaken for such a “need” is because we are bombarded by pornography in all it’s forms everywhere we look. It’s not just the xxx material that everybody knows, it’s everywhere. It’s cheerleaders at games, it’s pictures on magazines, it’s in too much advertising, movies, tv shows, facebook, etc
Well… in the 70s when I hit puberty, it was nowhere near as pervasive as it is now. And it didn’t matter in the least. Hormones are what they have always been.
The excessive, undefeatable need for sex is only a symptom of a much larger problem.
The scriptures plainly state that not all men can accept celibacy, that those who burn should marry, that the married should not deny each other. And the goings-on at the Corinthian church weren’t greatly different from today’s tabloids. INCLUDING Paul’s statement that there was sexual immorality in that church, that would even shame the Pagans!
oops, that last comment was aimed at Jeremy not 8oxer
Harpending’s work is so explanatory as to be frightening. Not just Black women I can see this process working through, either. Look at any dysfunctional single mom, and you’ll often see only the most recent in a generational trend of matriarchal lunacy.
Never did that at all Boxer. I merely pointed out that, like right now, you are using your work terminal to argue on the internet. We know you live in Surrey, and that you are working at a University… so that means you are at Simon Fraser University, as it is the only university with a campus in Surrey. By your own admission, you are way over paid – on the tax payers dime. I am one of those taxpayers. I have a right to be pissed off at you for not working for your money while on my dime. We know you are a TA, because you don’t have a Ph D yet, but always refer to “your students.” All that was pointed out was that one wonders what would happen if the Women’s Studies Department at SFU knew that while being paid to do work, an employee of SFU was spending his day commenting on Anti-feminist websites.
Carry on, Boxer. You still have never addressed any of the things you supposedly kicked my butt on. You simply refuse, and try to shut down the conversation.
There is something going on with you. As in that above link, you showed up around the time of all that SLPC stuff. The Spearhead was getting attacked then, with people showing up and trying to insert hate into the threads… like the guy BrYan mentioned in that thread, trying to make himself seem like an MRA, and then slipping in all kinds of stuff about mass-murdering women. And you showed up at around the same time, didn’t you? Hmmmm.
What I take issue with is the idea circulating in these parts that a woman will end up fornicating if she doesn’t go out and marry young.
As a PRACTICAL reality, that’s largely true. Marrying at 30 instead of 20, is a near-guarantee of sexual sin for almost everyone.
women who sin sexually are consistently exculpated by our sick society, on the grounds that waiting until marriage is an unreasonable expectation
Society at large doesn’t care. The sinful excuse making happens exclusively INSIDE the church — see this vile drivel at:
http://deeperstory.com/news-flash-you-probably-wont-marry-a-virgin/
and they refused to post my response (which I copied here):
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/but-we-were-in-love/#comment-80239
waiting until marriage is an unreasonable expectation
It’s a divine command, not an unreasonable expectation. However, it is VERY hard. We really ought to make it easier to marry younger, and stay married, somehow.
Dalrock, I don’t see a way to email you so I’m posting this comment here.
I think you might be interested to see my analysis on possible rates of frivorce in response to megaman’s numbers there. In one of his estimates he get’s <5% by including the whole male population, 15 y/o and older, and by assuming that 8/13 or more of wife-initiated divorces are due to bad husband behavior. Using his same assumptions but using the rate of 37% rate for ever divorced males from 40-69 y/o then that increases it up to <9%. See my analysis here:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/18/relationshipstrategies/the-lofty-aspirations-of-millennial-women/comment-page-5/#comment-202663
When I found an estimate that <20% of divorces were filed due to women being in "really bad" and "exploitive" marriages then I worked out an upper limit estimate, including the assumption/guess that 25% of the 35% of male-initiated divorces were due to bad/frivolous wife behavior to get an upper bound of about 38% of all divorces being frivorce by the wife or 20% of all ever-married men being frivorced.
You can see my analysis in greater detail here:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/18/relationshipstrategies/the-lofty-aspirations-of-millennial-women/comment-page-7/#comment-203210
So, it would seem that a lower bound on frivorce/bad-wife-behavior-divorce would be some amount of single digit % of all ever-married men and an upper bound would be about 20% of all ever-married men.
Thoughts?
Duck Dynasty AND discourse on Marxism…..Dalrock, I never dreamed that even you could stir a melange like that.
Oh, and something or other about classics is missing.
I went without sex for 5 years in my marriage. The physical pain was unreal, making walking excruciating. And that speaks only to the physical. Dying of thirst would have been kinder. No amount of prayer or fasting did anything to lift the burden.
This is one of those topics were I think folks do a lot of talking without much 1st hand experience
My 38% in the previous comment was an error. That should read 53.75% of divorces due to frivorce or bad wife behavior instead. Of course, those are just based on some assumptions on what would go into an upper limit. The likely value is lower. And some portion will be due to bad husband behavior and some will be due to mutually-bad behavior where both just want out.
@ WWW:
I agree with you that the Bible commands women not to fornicate. God does not tell us to do things that we cannot do, so it must be possible for women to refrain. However, the time for her to refrain is before she is in the situation where temptation occurs.
The problem is, we don’t educate girls about this; we don’t say to them “When you are ovulating, you are going to have a nearly impossible time resisting a dominant man, so stay away from any potentially tempting situations.” I’m pretty sure God did not intend for young women to be spending years and years roaming the world under no man’s authority. But in our modern society, we have allowed young women to have freedom that they have proven themselves unable to handle.
I am talking pragmatically about what is rather than about what should be. If I wanted to talk about what should be, I would say tear our entire current social structure down to the foundation and rebuild it. But I can’t do that, so in the meantime I will continue to advocate that girls marry young.
What is so wrong with marrying young? Both have not had years to form cold hearts. Both have not had years to live alone and can therefore actually allow someone else to share a life with them. Both have not had years to learn to do things ‘their way’ rather than the ‘family’s way’. Both have not had years being taught by an unjust and unholy world on how to live the ‘independent and self serving lifestyle’.
Marrying young means you have the best years in front of you, instead of behind. This is better for both personal fulfillment, happiness and family. SSM, your job and your husband’s job should be to let your daughters choose a proper Christian man, who likewise has the intention of marrying, and then teach her to stick to the vows she made. Picking him might not be an easy thing to do but the least you can do is vet the potential man she has a liking for. It won’t be perfect but it will be a far cry better than the crap they would have to deal with trying to get men their age to marry at 25 to 30.
“If it were true that women in the past were largely carousel riders, married or not, why do surnames suggest that cuckold pregnancy was relatively rare? ”
Cuckold kids take their mother’s husband’s surnames because that is the whole point of cuckoldry from the get go – to have another man’s child but have your husband raise the child as his!
Thank god cuckoldry is rare.
“What is so wrong with marrying young? Both have not had years to form cold hearts. ”
Great point! With every break up the heart becomes just that much more jaded.
Young marriage works only in a culture that supports it. Ours doesn’t. We’d need a revolution.
Marrying young doesn’t keep women from going feral. Ask any platoon sergeant in the army.
What I take issue with is the idea circulating in these parts that a woman will end up fornicating if she doesn’t go out and marry young.
No what you are arguing for doesn’t make sense. We are told that God makes a way out for us. So, you posit that women should be just fine not marrying. When that _is the way out_. You turn God’s escape into a test of God (how far can we go before we err?). A woman not prepping for marriage is actively weakening her best defense (as is a man which is why I don’t buy into MGTOW).
And Ton in this case I agree with you. Just the _engagement_ when my hormones kicked into high gear was a miserable experience. Which is why you should never be engaged for long.
Hey, fedrz, I’m an anti-Marxist too. Proudly. Anyone who has read any history is an anti-Marxist in the end… unless you are a sadist I suppose.
@ Boxer: The leadership of the Catholic Church does ‘talk’ of all people being good. Much like the leaders of the various Protestant sects. Whether either actually believes it, I can only speculate that both groups of leaders are either cynical or foolish. Of those two sides (I don’t know Orthodox theology or their church very well outside of a brief history of Constantinople I once read) I think the Catholic Church is closer to the truth. Their leadership though, well, the latest controversy was the result of just that, thinking that all people are intrinsically good.
But I’ll always remember a tale I read from The Decameron, there’s something to the faith if it can survive in spite of the failings of the church’s leadership.
As to Marxism, it comes down to the fact that people have always bartered. Self preservation is proof of life in any living being, including humans. Two self preserving entities in the same vicinity must in the end barter, or go to war, in order to perpetuate their existences. Marx proposes a false barter system, and that’s why all governments that have been inspired by Marx simply go to war with their people. It’s the people or the government, and a Marxist government isn’t an honest barterer. There has never been a Marxist government in history that was honest in it’s bartering with it’s people.
In other words, by comparison, there’s nothing to Marxism, because it has always failed, no matter the quality of the leadership.
They Call Me Tom sez:
Hey, fedrz, I’m an anti-Marxist too. Proudly. Anyone who has read any history is an anti-Marxist in the end… unless you are a sadist I suppose.
You’re not an anti-Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Rob. The only person who is, on this thread, is Asher, because he’s done the heavy lifting and knows the faults in the text.
If anything, you are the opposite, along with your comrades, as you raise old Karl up into some sort of idol, and you worship him, as though he’s in control of the world from some spot in the afterlife. This is silly.
Kooky Rob Fedders writes:
Never did that at all Boxer. I merely pointed out that, like right now, you are using your work terminal to argue on the internet. We know
There is no “we”, unless you refer to the voices between your ears.
you live in Surrey, and that you are working at a University… so that means you are at Simon Fraser University, as it is the only university with a campus in Surrey. By your own admission, you are way over paid – on the tax payers dime. I am one of those taxpayers.
You do not pay taxes. I do not live in Surrey. I do not work at Simon Fraser.
You repeatedly allude to the fact that you’re here representing the spearhead dot com, in some form or fashion. Bill Price (the admin of that site) does know my name. He knows my address. Hell, he might remember my bank account number. I have sent him cheques from time to time. He’s apparently never shared it with you.
At least four people who post at dalrock know my name and address. Two of these I’ve palled around with in person. They’ve never shared my identity with you either.
I have a right to be pissed off at you for not working for your money while on my dime. We know you are a TA, because you don’t have a Ph D yet, but always refer to “your students.” All that was pointed out was that one wonders what would happen if the Women’s Studies Department at SFU knew that while being paid to do work, an employee of SFU was spending his day commenting on Anti-feminist websites.
You don’t “work” Rob. Not in the traditional sense, anyway. You are a kook, a loon, a ranting, delusional nutcase who has no credibility, and who lives online.
I’ll let you get back to fabricating your fanciful theories that I’m connected to the SPLC, the slutwalkers, the communist league, and the lizard people. Your empty life is stalking you around every corner, and I don’t want to add to your unhappy existence, so this is the last morsel of attention you’re likely to receive from my end.
Regards, Boxer
” So, you posit that women should be just fine not marrying.”
Its perfectly find for some people not to marry, as long as they don’t have sex. Some people just aren’t cut out for marriage and family. Its especially problematic when someone who isn’t cut out for it enters into it. Problematic not just for him or her but for the spouse and kids as well.
“Marrying young doesn’t keep women from going feral. Ask any platoon sergeant in the army.”
Being married to someone who is stationed abroad for long periods of time is problematic. Both the spouse stationed abroad and the one staying back home may be tempted. It takes a strong and particularly diligent couple to not give in at some point. This is something that should be discussed before marriage.
Dear They Call Me Tom:
The leadership of the Catholic Church does ‘talk’ of all people being good. Much like the leaders of the various Protestant sects. Whether either actually believes it, I can only speculate that both groups of leaders are either cynical or foolish. Of those two sides (I don’t know Orthodox theology or their church very well outside of a brief history of Constantinople I once read) I think the Catholic Church is closer to the truth. Their leadership though, well, the latest controversy was the result of just that, thinking that all people are intrinsically good.
I’m not an expert on the Catholic Church, but I believe they hold to the traditional belief of humanity being in a fallen state. Original sin, and all that. You don’t really have to be a true believing Christian to agree with this. I think we do have an innate selfishness that needs critique, and religion does this much better than secular philosophy.
As for what Marx did or didn’t do, the first thing I’d suggest is to purge yourself of the idea that he is more influential than he actually is. The second is to actually read him. Asher wrote a really great synopsis of his work (and did a much better job of it than I could do on my best day). I’d love to see you guys who pretend to disagree with Marx actually write political and philosophical essays that deconstruct the actual text, rather than what you think the text says.
Regards, Boxer
“I’ll let you get back to fabricating your fanciful theories that I’m connected to the SPLC, the slutwalkers, the communist league, and the LIZARD PEOPLE.”
You mean the shape shifters like the Queen of England and the Bilderberg Group?
“I’m not an expert on the Catholic Church, but I believe they hold to the traditional belief of humanity being in a fallen state. Original sin, and all that. You don’t really have to be a true believing Christian to agree with this. ”
I don’t agree with it. Our original existential state is pure. We become contaminated upon being embodied.
Dear Sexual Marxist:
You mean the shape shifters like the Queen of England and the Bilderberg Group?
That’s supposed to be, like, a secret! Shut up! Go back to sleep!
/boxer preens his scales and gets back to work for the communist underground…
Ha! You forgot to call us “sheeple”.
Lol’ ing at the idea women go feral only after their husband has been down range for an extend period of time.
Why are all your rebuttals about people being insane, Boxer?
And further, who, except for you and now sexual marxist, has mentioned lizards on this thread? This is something YOU bring into every thread. Not others.
And, btw, Boxer, you’re right. I don’t work in the traditional sense. Who ever said I did? I even write about it on my blog, ding-a-ling. But YOU do, and you are arguing on the internet while on my f-ing dime.
Was Trotsky a Marxist?
I think I told you I would even accept the U of Wikipedia as a valid source on this one.
Dear Sexual Marxist:
I don’t agree with it. Our original existential state is pure. We become contaminated upon being embodied.
That’s an interesting statement. My people (the Mormons) have an idea about a pre-existence as part of the mythology. I dunno if the Catholics would agree with it, though.
Ever read Thomas Hobbes? As I get older, I find myself more in his camp. He was sort of the anti-Marx, who promoted the idea that human beings in their natural state are jerks, and that we need to be scared into following the rules.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
I can understand why people like the idea that we’re all good at heart. It’s a nice ego boost. I don’t think real-world experience lends much support to it, though. 🙂
Regards, Boxer
“On Modesty And Male Privilege
The basic premise that many of the commenters were defending was that women have a responsibility to dress modestly in order to keep men from sinning (by thinking lustful thoughts). Most commenters were pretty forceful in driving this point home.
But here’s the problem as I see it: If, as many of the commenters suggest, men (even or perhaps especially Christian men) are sexual predators who are incapable of looking at a woman who isn’t covered from head to toe without wanting to rape them (or at least mentally rape them), that is decidedly not a problem that women should feel *obligated* to or even *can* solve. Perhaps that bears repeating, and in simpler terms:
If men are skeezy pervs, that’s decidedly an issue for men to address.”
Well, Saudi Arabia deported three men for being too handsome and tempting to Saudi women.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/omar-borkan-al-gala-deported-photos_n_3163282.html
SSM, I am working on my wife’s genealogy in rural Mexico. This involves reading original images of marriage, Baptism, and death certificates from Salt Lake City servers, for many hours.
My wife’s great-grandma allegedly married at age 14, around 1890. Why?
In those days being an unwed mother was not a choice. So, when parents saw their daughters had “hot pants” they got married, pretty much whether they wanted to or not. Often they married a man in his 20’s. And, I am not talking shotgun marriage for pregnant girls. I am talking marriage before pregnancy as a preventative measure. Of course, many were not ready until much older.
Today, we are more civilized. Which is why we have major ghettos filled with unwed mothers and future convicts. [/sarcasm]
Her uncle’s sister married at 13 in 1958, but that one probably involved the shotgun.
One of my English students is 13, and talk about hot pants! I have told her in 1850 she would already be married.
***
Again, someone has commented (Jeremy says:April 25, 2013 at 12:07 am) on societies with low life expectancy based on a misunderstanding. He implied that 400 years ago, people were dying of old age at the age when people today finish their educations.
This is not true. So many babies died within a few days; or weeks; or even years after birth that the average life expectancy numerically was very low. People who did not die young of infectious diseases often lived well into their 60’s or 70’s.
I have been working on a major genealogy project with my wife’s ancestors in rural Mexico. I am looking for an ancestor born in 1793, and had his last known child in 1866, when he was 73. I looked at a village where he might have died, since he is not recorded in the death records where he lived most of his life. His son was born in 1822 and died in 1898 at age 76.
When I hit the year 1877, I started recording age of death for the entire year. Alas, in the summer they started a major smallpox epidemic which wiped out most kids under 3 or 4 years old. In 1876, they had 106 deaths. In 1877, it jumped to 182. Interestingly, since most deaths were kids, the next year it went way down to 88 or so. A year or two later, they had 270 deaths, but I do not yet know why.
One can tell by the lower number of older kids who died of smallpox, that they must have had other epidemics not too much earlier, and those who survived did not get it again.
But, even in 1877, there were people who died at age 80; 76; 60; and in their 50’s.
Nobody died of old age in their 20’s in ancient times any more than they do now. Because of poor medical care, they mostly died very young, and of diseases.
When and if I get a good program, I will be figuring the average age of death that year, and the Standard Deviation as well. I may do it again measuring only those who died after age 18 to eliminate the skewing caused by the smallpox epidemic.
” the idea that human beings in their natural state are jerks, and that we need to be scared into following the rules.”
Ahhh, but the “natural state of humans” is already after we’ve become embodied, hence “humans”. I’m talking about the pre-human, pre-embodied state. It is pure.
I’m going out on a limb here, but… I don’t really spend too much time in the comments here, so, I don’t know for sure who is who. But… if Sexual Marxist isn’t a regular here, then I would check to see if his IP address comes from Santa Clara, CA.
Cheers, Tom!
If Dalrock doesn’t mind too much, this will get fun!
@ GKChesterton
We were created _for_ sexual procreation. It is the first command as found in Genesis
I have been asking the question “what is the first commandment in the Bible after the fall” to christians for many years and I can’t recall even one getting it correct.
Be fruitful and multiply.
When they miss my response is “if ya ain’t f*cking, ya ain’t multiplyin'” in a slow draw. The response is stunned, silent shock.
“I have been asking the question “what is the first commandment in the Bible after the fall” to christians for many years and I can’t recall even one getting it correct.
Be fruitful and multiply.”
There were only 2 people on the planet at that time.
@ feminist hater
A simple explanation of where I’m wrong would be appropriate.
The term “cultural marxist” was coined as a catch all phrase for the general autonomy project because the most aggressive and vocal proponents were also marxists, proper, at the time.
I gave you the quick and dirty about how Marx fit into the history of philosophy.
Boxer is correct that Marx’s actual writing is far less influential than supposed. The conservative French philosopher Pierre Manent remarked that Rousseau inspires where Marx falls flat and stale (or something close to that, hey, I read that line like ten years ago).
@ boxer
In my experience, being specific can often be charitable – the people you’re engaging aren’t insane but they do not know what they’re talking about. A better label for “cultural marxists” would be “roussseaueans” but no one would know what the hell you were talking about.
Indeed. Asher, and yet, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et. al. each had different interpretations of Marxism… those of which most people refer to as, wait for it, Marxism! Marxism is like Christianity in that it has several different interpretations, while all being under the same tent.
What Boxer does is he take everything back to Marx and says he was just an economist. He refuses to acknowledge that others built on Marx’s ideas and, um, went their own way, while following the general philosophy.
It is totally dishonest for someone who has been studying this for over ten years!
This is very similar to the argument of “Christianity” versus “Churchianity.” It’s like saying nothing is going on in the Church because, look! the Bible doesn’t say that!
Btw, Boxer once called a speech by Lenin a “kooky conspiracy theory.”
heh, warning, there is some nudity in that post. Oops!
“Be fruitful and multiply.”
Not sure if you noticed but multiplying got a lot more expensive lately.
Anonymous Age 71 said:
“I have been working on a major genealogy project with my wife’s ancestors in rural Mexico.”
Don’t bother, it won’t be accurate. The historical rate of cuckoldry, concealed pregnancies, falsified adoptions, mothers taking daughter’s babies as their own, etc., is easily 20% of births (cuckoldry alone up to 30% now in U.S.). Run that for even 4 generations, and any paper genealogy is nearly certain to have a false link, invalidating it as certainly and completely as would a metal chain with one link a rusty breadbag twist-tie.
Asher, this is going to be a problem. You see, I asked Boxer and everyone to provide me with a better term than Marxist Theory. However, all you have done is give a history lesson on Karl Marx, which is not what I was discussing at all. You haven’t given me a reason on why I’m wrong other than saying that the term others have used is wrong. I used the term Marxist Theory, which while related to a ‘Cultural Marxist’ or ‘Cultural Marxism,’ is not the same thing.
I have better things to do with my time than argue the fine point on meanings of words I generally get.
Thank you, now this is something I can learn from.
Why don’t you just ask me to go and ask him – seeing that he (Marx) is buried in Highgate Cemetary. I never felt that he got the credit he deserved – coming on as a Sub, as he did, with only two minutes to go in that memorable World Cup final where Germany lost one-nil to the Greeks. There’s surplus value for you.
@ “Sexual Marxist” – studies linking y chromosomes to surnames.
@Fedrz & Boxer
The knockout blow to Boxers ridiculous bullshit about Karl Marx being an economist, is the fact Karl Marx has never written anything on economics …
No papers, no studies, no thesis … nothing whatsoever to do with economics …
The only evidence linking Marx to economics, is his discredited riddled with holes, thesis, which most economists are forced to read
Even though Marx thesis is next to useless & has nothing to do with economics …
Boxer is an academic, & suffers the effects of being a closed minded academic
Boxer is essentially the typical troll like skeptic, who brands everything as a conspiracy theory …
In short he’s nuts …
Economics as taught today is a bastardised version of feminist sociology with maths … which is why you have a completely unrelated to economics subject… cultural marxism forced down economic students throats …
More proof universities rot your brain turning most of their students into government worshipping conservatives …
Worshipping government & cops gets you obama & oprah
Exercising liberty & self justice, gets you freedom …. lots of it …
I’m sick of Boxer and his fancy book learnin’. Can he pick a duck is the real question.
The thing is, after the revolution, Lenin set up Russia as a feminist utopia. Stalin later removed many of these policies because they were so harmful, but there’s little doubt that feminist goals are completely in-line with what Lenin did.
In truth, even though I often refer to “Cultural Marxism” myself, I sometimes feel it is an inaccurate description – like linking it all to the Frankfurt School. It is quite obvious that social and cultural engineering of the people took place right at the beginning in Russia. Mostly, when people talk about the Frankfurt School, they are referring to the influences that arose in the 1960’s and 70’s, which were first studied in 1920’s and 1930’s in Frankfurt. However, it appears that social engineering was always happening – for example, I’ve once read that what (either Lenin or Stalin) were also doing was forcing multi-culturalism upon the people, to lessen their identity to their own people and to the land, and strengthen their identity to the state. So, they would take millions of people from one part of the country, and move them way over to that part of the country, and so on, to mix them all up. Kinda like moving the Texans to New York, and moving the New Yorkers to Montana. Then everyone thinks they are Americans first, rather than Texans.
So, I’m not sure it is entirely accurate to say that it was entirely the Cultural Marxists at the Frankfurt School who took Marxism and moved it beyond merely identifying economics as the fabric of society (The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles) and into the cultural realm, because obviously, the Soviets were engineering things well outside of class struggles almost right from the beginning.
Still, Cultural Marxism as a word neatly sums up what most people are referring to… and most of us are here to learn something, not write a dissertation.
@Mack: Actually, most economics classes are taught by Libertarians… in point of fact, the vase majority of economists are Libertarians. Assuming you’re an econ major, you’ll get a largely math- and logic-based education at any halfway decent university.
Dear Marcus:
I’m sick of Boxer and his fancy book learnin’. Can he pick a duck is the real question.
Never picked a duck, but I’ve eaten frog and doctored cows… lol
Regards, Boxer
@Asher
Thank you for your post about Marx and other philosophers. Could you recommend an introductory book about this subject?
” I asked Boxer and everyone to provide me with a better term than Marxist Theory.”
Just call it what it is: Mainstream Americanism.
“cuckoldry alone up to 30% now in U.S.”
You are saying that 30% of the husbands in the US are raising kids they think are theirs biologically, that aren’t? How did you reach this conclusion?
Americanism has to do with people who are actually Americans. They do constitute a nation. And what the replacement populations and a minority of leftist whites do not reflect their mainstream, at all.
The thing about the Marxism debate is that it actually has quite a lot to do with Christianity. If you go back to Hegel being one of the large influences upon the general philosophy, you can see where moral relativism comes from, and this is something that goes back to the Garden of Eden. In fact, sometimes what I wonder is if the original sin itself is moral relativism – that of putting the truth we conjure up in our own limited brains, over top of the external truth that exists whether we understand it or not.
What Hegel essentially did was philosophically destroy the concept of God – not that he really did, but philosophically he did, because he leads to the conclusion that all truth is relative. That there is no Absolute Truth (God) that rules over other truths. Up until Hegel, our civilization was based upon the Bible – it was the standard of Truth to which we compared all other truths. If we were still living under this style of Truth – where God’s Truth is considered “higher” than any other truth – we would not be in this whole social mallaise to begin with. Women want to be priests? Hmmm… well, you make some good arguments… let’s see what the Bible (highest Truth) has to say about this… Nope, sorry ladies. There is no need to get into a further arguments about it – God/Highest Truth has spoken. End of discussion. Nope, don’t even need to explain why. (Or know why).
Hegel equalized the truth. So, in Hegel’s (and Marxist) Philosophy, Absolute Truth, such as God and the Bible, cannot exist. Marxism, because it is based in relative truth, cannot co-exist on the same level with Absolute Truth – it is philosophically impossible.
And this is what happens to Adam and Eve in the Garden. They had only one Truth to follow, which was don’t eat from the forbidden tree. And then you see how the serpent deceives Eve and gets her rationalization hamster going: When she saw it was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and useful for gaining knowledge, she took some…
In other words, there were lesser truths that also existed about the fruit, and the rationalization hamster went into action and made the importance of those truths as high as the Absolute Truth (God), and whammo! It cost dearly to do that!
“Americanism has to do with people who are actually Americans. They do constitute a nation. And what the replacement populations and a minority of leftist whites do not reflect their mainstream, at all.”
Round these parts Cultural Marxism is a catch all phrase which includes under its umbrella corporatocracy, unjust wars, the divorce industry and feminism. These are all mainstream Americanisms.
@Mack
Thanks for the enCouragement. I haven’t written in a couple years. Perhaps I’ll write another essay. We are the body of Christ, saved to do the good works he has prepared for us.
“What Hegel essentially did was philosophically destroy the concept of God – not that he really did, but philosophically he did, because he leads to the conclusion that all truth is relative. That there is no Absolute Truth (God) that rules over other truths. Up until Hegel, our civilization was based upon the Bible – it was the standard of Truth to which we compared all other truths. If we were still living under this style of Truth – where God’s Truth is considered “higher” than any other truth – we would not be in this whole social mallaise to begin with. Women want to be priests? Hmmm… well, you make some good arguments… let’s see what the Bible (highest Truth) has to say about this… Nope, sorry ladies. There is no need to get into a further arguments about it – God/Highest Truth has spoken. End of discussion. Nope, don’t even need to explain why. (Or know why). ”
Not a fan of Hegel, haven’t even read him, but there is a lot of presupposition in the above.
A person of at least average intelligence will question whether God exists or not and if so, where is the proof? Where is the proof that the Bible is the word of this God and where is the proof that the Bible, if indeed the word of God, has not been tampered with by man?
We can say “just have faith, son” but why? What is the reason and purpose behind a blind faith? These are the questions that people have been asking long before there was any Hegel.
@S1al
“@Mack: Actually, most economics classes are taught by Libertarians”
Oh really… so why do they teach Marxism in most economic classes, marxism is the epitome of anti-libertarian …
Also in a liberal infested university, how many libertarians do you think it would take to shoot their way into the building, to actually teach economics in the first place …
Bad trolling attem S1al …
It would be pretty hilarious for the economy, most economics classes are taught by Libertarians …
erm correction … It would be pretty hilarious for the economy, if most economics classes were taught by Libertarians …
In a good way …
Most women would loose their jobs … lol
Libertarians having to shoot their way into a building to teach economics classes, would also make for a great movie … or a reality tv series …
The comedy value of seeing libertarians shoot down feminists & liberals & other scurrying rodents, with their newly minted gold back coins in hand …
& seeing millions of feminist women in Human Resources cowering behind their desks, as they get fired for being useless …
Would make more money then the new Iron Man for twats movie …
@Liberty, Family, and Masculinity
Please do. I’d love to read it, just make sure its full of fire & brimstone & punchy…
Nowadays because of feminised entertainment, its not enough to make ppl think, you have to apply jolts of emotions to get ppl to think …
Modern tv is alot like electric shock treatment for retards … minus the fun factor of playing with electricity …
@ Sexual Marxist,
This is where one gets into a tricky debate, because both sides of the religious debate will start screeching at me. One will claim I am pumping things about “the sky-fairy” and the other will damn me to hell. I am not trying to be insulting to either, but simply trying to look religion as it functions in an anthropological sense.
Think about it in this way. There is not really any significant culture that has arisen without being attached to some sort of religion. Now, not all of those religions can be correct, because quite often they counter each-other – you can’t believe in one true God while also believing in another god, like Zeus. However, these religions cause societies and civilizations to rise, whether their gods are real or not. So, beyond the religious aspect, what functions does a religion provide to a civilization that “makes it grow.” Well, one thing it does is it promotes a sort of hegemony – a set of moral values that all of the people generally agree with – and thus, with shared values, they are able to work together on a large scale without the need for totalitarian government. If all the people follow the Bible and do not steal, there is not much need to lock your doors, is there?
So, as far as a civilization builder goes, the function of religion is more about creating a large group of people with similar values, so that they may exist and work together, which leads to a civilization being built. In this aspect, whether “god exists” is not so important as “god unites.”
And, it doesn’t have to be that a religion forces people to believe in it either. It can simply be that it follows a sort of evolutionary survival of the fittest. If 100 people start following the Bible and order their family and social structures upon its directions, and this leads to them having larger families that people following a religion that doesn’t have fathers, has low birth rates and no social structure, then over time, one will come to dominate the other.
In a way, you can indeed call the Bible “the book of life” from this purely non-religious aspect, because it is a book that leads to such success. It develops successful families, it puts sex to work, and it has outlived many other religions and cultures. There’s obviously something to Christianity’s success, whether you believe in God or not.
A book like the Bible acts as a kind of “moral constitution” in a similar way that a political constitution works. It becomes the highest truth, and contains relative truth so it doesn’t get torn down – thus, why the constitutions of free countries attach their rights to the Creator, whereas unfree countries, like the Soviet, get their rights from the State. What God gives, only God can take away. What the government gives, the government can take away. Further, you can see how a constitution works in that it combats relative truth. It doesn’t matter if 75% of the population wants to take your rights away, the democracy of the majority (relative truth) is not supposed to over-rule the absolute truth of one’s rights as bestowed by the Creator.
Humans are filled with relative truth (Jail is full of innocent people) – we have the ability to get higher than that, but we often don’t, Also, while we are humans with free will, we are still of the animal kingdom, and certain of those rules apply to our existence. (Did I choose to be heterosexual? Nope, just am). In all of the animal kingdom, the male serves the female. The only creatures on earth that re-order this is humans. But, as you can see all around us, women desire to dethrone men’s power and take it over themselves, while too many men are willing to behave like irrational manginas and give women whatever they want – just as happens in nature where the male serves the female. So… once you figure out that including males in a significant way in fatherhood, and placing the male principle ahead of the female principle becomes a “civilization builder,” how do you keep that concept (or truth) going for generations, centuries, and millenia into the future, without letting the rationalization hamster tear it down? Well, it works pretty good to have it in a religion based upon Absolute Truth.
Something like the Bible does not change over time. We may interpret it in different ways, or find some parts more meaningful than others, but the book itself does not change. So, no matter what the king rationalizes, and no matter even if he convinces us to go along with his moral relativity, if he goes too far out of bounds the Bible will start to reign him in – or, will signal to the general population that the king is wrong.
@ fedrz
he did, because he leads to the conclusion that all truth is relative. That there is no Absolute Truth (God) that rules over other truths.
I’m a moral relativist. Morality is produced by Man and is only tangentially related to God’s Law. God does not create morality, repeat, God does not create morality. The term comes from the Latin “mores” simply meaning “customs”, so, whatever is customary at a given time and place is moral in that given time and place.
God may be Absolute Truth but that truth is not revealed until the end of time and, in the meantime, we are stuck with human truths, small-t. The only glimpse of Truth we have is from the Bible and that truth is that Man, in himself, is irredeemably wicked and that he can only be reconciled to God and Truth via the sacrifice of Jesus.
where God’s Truth is considered “higher” than any other truth – we would not be in this whole social mallaise to begin with. Women want to be priests?
The command to not have women in leadership over man is not Truth, at al, it is God’s command. Either one accepts it or one does not, but truth has nothing to do with the subject.
Marxism, because it is based in relative truth, cannot co-exist on the same level with Absolute Truth
No offense, but this is gibberish. All human truths, one’s that we know via our minds, is relative. The commands in the bible are not relative, but, then, they are not human truths. Hell, I don’t even see them as truths, at all, but as commands. Calling them truths implies, to me, that God has to justify his reasons to Man.
They had only one Truth to follow, which was don’t eat from the forbidden tree.
No, it was a command. Calling it a truth is a category mistake because Adam and Eve lacked the capacity to comprehend the “why” of not eating of the fruit. If a dog’s owner sees his dog sniffing around a puddle of anti-freeze, apparently it smells tasty, he commands the dog to avoid it. It is true for the owner that eating the anti-freeze will have negative consequences but for the dog it is not true, at all, but merely a command.
there were lesser truths that also existed about the fruit
Those lesser truths only existed after they had eaten of the fruit and prior to that the only thing that was the command to avoid eating.
“Round these parts Cultural Marxism is a catch all phrase which includes under its umbrella corporatocracy, unjust wars, the divorce industry and feminism. These are all mainstream Americanisms.”
Americans don’t very much identify with the Iraq War, or corporations like Monsanto or Microsoft. They don’t identify with the situation in family law, and they don’t identify with feminism. That they are subjected to these things doesn’t mean they identify with them. So it would definitely be wrong to call it “Americanism.” Communism believed in doing away with the family. They thought they could do it economically. However, it’s clear that it requires a cultural war. The very thing Pat Buchanan spoke about in his 1992 Republican Convention speech, warning us of what was coming. Cultural Marxism is a set of beliefs held by people who despise the typical white folks in this country and their way of life, their morals and beliefs. Of course, the anti-Christian influence of the Jews plays a big part in this, as it has in Marxism since the beginning.
Now there is no doubt, that Americans are heavily influenced by cultural marxism which has a dominant position in universities and in popular media. Just as they were heavily influenced by Soviet spies having a huge role in the US government during WWII.
That they identify with this cultural and social servitude is not true.
@ fedrz
Humans are filled with relative truth (Jail is full of innocent people) – we have the ability to get higher than that, but we often don’t,
No, we lack the capacity. In fact, this statement echoes the imperative in Hegel that we *can* transcend. If we can, we can, and if we never do that is because we can’t. According to the bible even are righteous works are as filthy rags in comparison to God’s righteousness and that means we cannot.
When you say we *can* you contradict the Bible and invite the very project embarked upon by Kant, Hegel and Marx.
@ Asher,
“I’m a moral relativist. Morality is produced by Man and is only tangentially related to God’s Law. God does not create morality, repeat, God does not create morality. The term comes from the Latin “mores” simply meaning “customs”, so, whatever is customary at a given time and place is moral in that given time and place.”
it’s kind of irrelevant.
If humans can create the truth themselves, which they can, then when you find an inconvenient truth like hypergamy or Briffault’s Law, how can you send it into the future so that someone else’s morally relative truth doesn’t tear it down? You have to “order” the truth. This is what our civilization used to do:
1 – Absolute Truth (God’s Law)
2 – Objective Truth (Natural Law)
3 – Subjective Truth (Civil Law)
It works like one of those Russian dolls – one must fit inside of the other. If a civil law contradicts a natural law, the civil law is false. And if a natural law contradicts the Absolute Truth, the natural law is false.
In a sense, this actually allows for evolving truth, while not letting our moral relatively run amock. Because at the end of it is Absolute Truth. So… for a while, we humans believed objectively that the earth was flat. The belief in this truth had absolutely no effect on the Absolute Truth that the earth was round, nor did it have any effect on the Absolute Truth of the physics that govern the earth. So… when the Absolute Truth revealed itself (the earth is round), the Objective Truth had to change to accommodate it.
Hegel made the ordering of the truth into this:
1 – Relative Truth
2 – Relative Truth
3 – Relative Truth
Under this system, we basically return to the jungle. Because you and I can argue about this all day long, but ultimately, we can never decide who is right. For, if your truth is relative, and my truth is relative, then who’s to say that your truth is more real than mine? All we are left with is “might is right,” which is hardly the pinnacles we can achieve.
It just doesn’t matter what you personally believe to be the truth, Asher. it does not change such things as when we embrace moral relativity as a society, we must also embrace totalitarianism in order to stay in a civilization, or we return to might is right (which is what totalitarianism actually is).
If you believe that stealing is wrong while I don’t believe it is, how is this gonna work? You are gonna say I’m wrong for stealing your stuff, and I’m gonna say it’s OK to steal your stuff and I’m not going to stop just because you believe something different. You are either going to have to take me to court and have the government impose totalitarianistic principles (which will often change to suit whims), or you are going to have to get a gun and exercise “might is right.”
Pat Buchanan in 1992:
Asher,
Hegel was not correct to pit the thesis against the anti-thesis and say the real truth lies in the synthesis, because as soon as the synthesis appears, it becomes the new thesis, against which the next anti-thesis is pitted – meaning that Hegel’s revealed truth is only relative too, and is again subject to change. I don’t care how many hundreds of thesis vs. anti-thesis are pitted against eachother. To say that you can start with falsehoods at the bottom, and if you keep throwing more falsehoods at it, it will reveal some real higher truths is quite silly.
There is Absolute Truth. If I jump off a cliff, I will die. The truth of physics and gravity will assure that. This may be altered relatively by saying that if I jump off a cliff with a parachute, I won’t die, but it still falls under the laws of the higher truths of physics as exist on earth. Perhaps one day the moon will move closer to the earth and change some of the physics here on earth, but it still would fall under the greater higher truths of how physics work.
The danger is letting the relative truth convince me that I can jump off a cliff and survive by just flapping my arms – because that is in contradiction of “higher” truths.
@Asher
Nihilist much?
Wheres the proof we lack the capacity to be truly objective?
We have a soul for a reason … to overcome relative truth …
Go read some quantum mechanics & then come back & tell us we dont have the capacity to overcome relative truth …
Modern philosophy is literally centuries behind modern science, in everything from concepts to execution …
Man is holistic
That is man exists as whole
He is objective first & relative second
If relative truth was all man was capable of, how would he know the difference between right & wrong?
Quantum mechanics, literally disproved alot of the nihilism & bs most philosophers used to condemn humanity …
Quantum mechanics specifically states a single molecule can exist in all states …
Isnt conciousness & man higher then the state of a single molecule?
Asher, FYI there are different branches of brands & versions of philosophy …
Philosophy is meant to be esoteric, not rigorous & academic …
Hegellian theory, is an interesting concept, but there are far more interesting & closer to the truth philosophies out there …
“This is where one gets into a tricky debate, because both sides of the religious debate will start screeching at me. One will claim I am pumping things about “the sky-fairy” and the other will damn me to hell.”
But this is a false dichotomy between two extremes. Between blind faith in a sky fairy and an eternal hell on one hand and between an atheist absolutism that there is no ultimate higher order behind the workings of the universe is a vast, vast ocean of thought, mystery and possibilities that probably the majority of the world’s human minds engages with.
“I am not trying to be insulting to either, but simply trying to look religion as it functions in an anthropological sense.”
I’m all for it.
“Think about it in this way. There is not really any significant culture that has arisen without being attached to some sort of religion. Now, not all of those religions can be correct, because quite often they counter each-other – you can’t believe in one true God while also believing in another god, like Zeus. However, these religions cause societies and civilizations to rise, whether their gods are real or not. So, beyond the religious aspect, what functions does a religion provide to a civilization that “makes it grow.”
I agree with this. The Great Mystery of Being has inspired art, literature, architecture and like you say, world civilizations, for thousands of years.
There is definitely a well reasoned case for engaging with that Mystery. I don’t see a well reasoned case however for blind faith or interpreting the Bible literally.
The commands in the bible are not relative, but, then, they are not human truths. Hell, I don’t even see them as truths, at all, but as commands. Calling them truths implies, to me, that God has to justify his reasons to Man.
The purpose of the Bible is like the Constitution or Bill of Rights – even though they are man-made, they are attached the Creator, so as to be out of reach of man’s moral relativity. Thus, I sure hope that if we ever take out that our rights are granted by the Creator, I’d hope we say that our rights are granted to us by the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, because I have a lot more faith that Easter Bunny won’t come to take away my rights than you, or the government we both might democratically vote in.
The fact that atheists hate the idea of a God they don’t believe in being part of the documents protecting our rights, does not add to argument of the greater intelligence of atheists.
“No, it was a command. Calling it a truth is a category mistake because Adam and Eve lacked the capacity to comprehend the “why” of not eating of the fruit. If a dog’s owner sees his dog sniffing around a puddle of anti-freeze, apparently it smells tasty, he commands the dog to avoid it. It is true for the owner that eating the anti-freeze will have negative consequences but for the dog it is not true, at all, but merely a command.”
According to the Bible’s philosophy, God’s word is the Truth. This would also cover his commands.
It certainly is True that if the dog eats it he will experience negative consequences. The dog doesn’t have to understand the Truth for the Truth to hurt him. It’s pretty good of the owner to give him a command that the dog regards as Truth in this respect, because it protects him from a higher Truth that can harm him regardless of his understanding.
Maybe, one of the reasons why the Bible commands people not to be sexually promiscuous is because the people that existed eons ago discovered that wild promiscuity led to hosts of sexually transmitted diseases and caused their fertility rates to decline to the point where God (The Absolute Truth) “wiped them from the face of the earth.” Because that’s what happens to a society that can’t maintain a proper fertility level.
Maybe the point of writing that in the Bible is because whoever put it in there realized the Truth that the human sex drive is one of the most difficult things to overcome, and people will always find some way to rationalize their way out of it, so, there was just no point in appealing to the greater population’s rationality on this issue. (Sexual behaviour is mediated in old or reptilian brain, not in our thinking brain – it is instinctual, not rational). (GAK! I mentioned reptiles!)
Those lesser truths only existed after they had eaten of the fruit and prior to that the only thing that was the command to avoid eating.
Are you really trying to argue that truth doesn’t exist until man finds it? Are you telling me that before we discovered the earth was round, that it truly was, up to that point, flat as man believed?
Are you claiming that there is no such thing as external truth?
And, according to the parable, those “truths” did exist before she ate it. It lists those things as the reason she took the fruit and ate it – in other words, it says that part before she ate, rather than saying it later and explaining why she took it. It is listed as her reasons, not as the revealed truth afterwards (which is what the Serpent did).
But this is a false dichotomy between two extremes. Between blind faith in a sky fairy and an eternal hell on one hand and between an atheist absolutism that there is no ultimate higher order behind the workings of the universe is a vast, vast ocean of thought, mystery and possibilities that probably the majority of the world’s human minds engages with.
Yet, it still describes quite truthfully the way most of these arguments devolve. There’s a reason you are never supposed to talk about politics or religion. But, I don’t really see the point of addressing this, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument being made and merely points out that the argument has a tendency to piss off both camps.
There is definitely a well reasoned case for engaging with that Mystery. I don’t see a well reasoned case however for blind faith or interpreting the Bible literally.
I think I’ve already stepped well out of the bounds of interpreting the Bible literally, so…
Boxer, I’m pretty sure you misread the first half of my post.
All relatavists, if you were really relatavists, you wouldn’t care that all the non-relatavists find your point of view absurd. Alas, you aren’t really relatavists, just advocates for a morality that you can’t make rational arguments for.
p.s. Marxism is what it is, no matter how much time is spent ‘examining’ what Marx wrote. It seems a waste of time to discuss Marx vs. Marxism, being that Marx is long dead, and Marxism is what contemporary humanity must contend with. Marxism has been a historical failure to all but those who like to see other humans suffer. For those, Marxism has been a well proven success. Whether Marx intended it, or not.
No, we lack the capacity. In fact, this statement echoes the imperative in Hegel that we *can* transcend. If we can, we can, and if we never do that is because we can’t. According to the bible even are righteous works are as filthy rags in comparison to God’s righteousness and that means we cannot.
When you say we *can* you contradict the Bible and invite the very project embarked upon by Kant, Hegel and Marx.
The Bible commands us to seek Truth (God).
Animals don’t live in any sort of truth. They have the old brain, which controls instincts, and the mammalian brain, which controls emotions. They lack a thinking, rational brain. We have one, therefore, we have the ability to seek and find truth.
Animals do not do this. They live in the moment. On instincts and passions. It is not wrong for animals to kill, because they don’t have the capacity to rise above such things. Humans do, and we are commanded to keep doing so.
What we are told over and over in the Bible, however, is that some Truths we are going to have to accept, rather than try to fix. We are told that Good and Evil is all around us, and while we are supposed to fight against evil and resist it, only God can accomplish this, so we are going to have to accept its existence so long as we live on earth. See the Serenity Prayer for a brief summary of this idea.
The Marxist mode of thinking does not follow this. They believe that man does have the capacity to defeat evil, and can alter his own state of existence, thereby creating Heaven on Earth. In other words, man is God himself… which is kinda what your arguments are based upon here in this thread: The truth (God) does not exist until man creates it himself. Therefore, since man is the creator of truth, man has the power of God, and can do whatever he wishes, including creating heaven on earth.
I suspect that what we are doing is living the Garden of Eden all over again.
“Smack! Ouch, that higher Truth hurts!”
“Animals don’t live in any sort of truth” — meant to be “don’t have capacity to seek any sort of truth”
Is this uneducated Louisiana backwoods redneck swamp trash a good spokesman against feminism? When’s the last time he took a bath? I think the Feminist media is more than happy to broadcast his opinions on gender relations. Just look at him.
Dear Asher,
Please see inside text…
I’m a moral relativist. Morality is produced by Man and is only tangentially related to God’s Law. God does not create morality, repeat, God does not create morality. The term comes from the Latin “mores” simply meaning “customs”, so, whatever is customary at a given time and place is moral in that given time and place.
A minor point: Aside from the hermeneutics, more (as I understand the term, anyway) carries a value-load similar to ethos. I usually see it used in context to mean something much more significant than customs, which are things like saying thank-you after receipt of a gift.
God may be Absolute Truth but that truth is not revealed until the end of time and, in the meantime, we are stuck with human truths, small-t. The only glimpse of Truth we have is from the Bible and that truth is that Man, in himself, is irredeemably wicked and that he can only be reconciled to God and Truth via the sacrifice of Jesus.
Pardon me for saying so, but you sound a lot like Hegel (at least as I remember him) here. He seemed to believe that everything was spirit, and that history is a process without a subject. That’s all fine and dandy, until you consider the moral consequences. When the majority of people think that nothing means anything, and everything is relative, you enter a sort of dangerous psychological era.
*I was just ordered to burn that village down the road and kill all the inhabitants… O well, Hegel says I’m just a product of my epoch… If I don’t do it, history will move through someone else to get the job done… Where’s my machinegun and flamethrower?*
Granted, that’s a little dramatic, but I think it’s valid. One of the quotes I remember (from philosophy of right I think) went something like: “What we call morality is merely the power of the State working through individuals…”
Yikes!
Regards, Boxer
He looks like a man, acts like a man, talk like a man…. Yep he seem to be a good anti feminist spokesman.
Or would you prefer some dainty fella with soft hands, smooth girlish cheeks, a soft voice with effeminate hobbies?
Sexual Marxist says:
April 27, 2013 at 11:37 am
“cuckoldry alone up to 30% now in U.S.”
“You are saying that 30% of the husbands in the US are raising kids they think are theirs biologically, that aren’t? How did you reach this conclusion?”
No, up to 30% of the kids’ fathers aren’t actually their mother’s husbands (though supposedly are). From
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306032730/http://nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml.
From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: “More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled”.
From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.
From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.
From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”
From The Age 2000-03-26: “About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community”.
From The REPORT Newsmagazine 2000-04-24: “The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth”.
From the Independent 2000-05-12: “… biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis … review of paternity studies also suggested frequent infidelity, with extra-pair paternity running between 1.4 per cent and 30 per cent in different communities”.
From The Globe and Mail 2000-05-20: “Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers bear out in Canada as well…. Maxxam Analytics in Guelph, Ont., performs approximately two paternity tests a day. And according to Dr. Wayne Murray, head of the human DNA department, one out of four men who come in pointing a finger at their spouse is not the biological father of the child in question”.
From the Sunday Times 2000-06-11: “More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain…. roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father”.
From the Observer 2000-09-03: “One study followed couples waiting for NHS fertility treatment, where the men were ‘azoospermic’, meaning they produced no sperm and were totally infertile. The researchers found that 25 per cent of the women became pregnant before fertility treatment started”.
From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”.
Still too chicken to argue me directly, Boxer?
S1AL says:
April 27, 2013 at 9:08 am
“@Mack: Actually, most economics classes are taught by Libertarians… in point of fact, the vase majority of economists are Libertarians.”
Incorrect. Nearly all economists are some sort of Keynesians, who are anti-intellectual statist socialists. (Outside the Mises Institute, Constitutionalists, and Objectivists, at least.) Monetarists (Chicago School) are just less blockheaded Keynesians IMO.
Sexual Marxist says:
April 26, 2013 at 10:00 pm
““If it were true that women in the past were largely carousel riders, married or not, why do surnames suggest that cuckold pregnancy was relatively rare? ”
Cuckold kids take their mother’s husband’s surnames because that is the whole point of cuckoldry from the get go – to have another man’s child but have your husband raise the child as his!
Thank god cuckoldry is rare.”
——————————————————————————————-
Grossly incorrect. See my April 27, 2013 at 9:04 pm post.
GBFM, check out this must read list….
http://shopping.yahoo.com/news/10-books-from-the-21st-century-every-man-should-read-213232125.html
Ton, going by the first five (all that were on page 1 of the link), that’s a pretty crappy selection you picked out for CrappyTVforPoufters.
.
I’d pick more like these:
“Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand
“Civil War Two” by Thomas Chittum
“The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus
“Home Economics” by Roger Devlin
“Starship Troopers” by Robert Heinlein
“Man and Society in Calamity” by P.A. Sorokin
“The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
“The Fourth Turning” by Strauss and Howe
“Carnage and Culture” by Victor Davis Hanson
“On War” Sun Tzu
“What Men Know That Women Don’t” by Rich Zubaty
“The Road To Serfdom” by Friedrich Hayek
“Hard Green” by Peter Huber
“The Unheavenly City Revisited” by Edward Banfield
“The Camp of The Saints” by Jean Raspail
“The Bell Curve” by Herrnstein and Murray
“All Quiet on the Western Front” by Remarque
Luke, then there’s no reason for marriage minded men to worry, just as I thought. If legally married husbands are not the ones being cuckolded and “baby daddies” are, this phenomena is relegated to the financially lower class. Solid middle class, college educated people are not collecting baby daddies and baby mamas but are getting legally married before they have children and they are not cuckolding or being cuckolded.
If only men would take the time to read those works, Luke, there would hardly be a need for the manosphere to exist in the first place!
Great list! I think I’ve read about half.
Luke, then there’s no reason for marriage minded men to worry, just as I thought. If legally married husbands are not the ones being cuckolded and “baby daddies” are, this phenomena is relegated to the financially lower class. Solid middle class, college educated people are not collecting baby daddies and baby mamas but are getting legally married before they have children and they are not cuckolding or being cuckolded.
Do you live in Santa Clara County, CA, Sexual Marxist?
Just curious.
Sexual Marxist, are you mentally dull or just dishonest? Cuckolding is epidemic. If you’d read AND UNDERSTOOD the references I posted, you’d have grasped that.
No I don’t fedrz. Why do you ask? What’s so special about Santa Clara, is it the cuckold capital or something?
Luke, I originally asked you if up to 30% of husbands think the kids they are raising are biologically theirs when they are not and you said “no” and then posted stats about unmarried men being cuckolded. Honestly? I don’t consider unmarried relationships anywhere near as important as marriages. I hardly consider them “relationships” or “families” at all. If a bunch of live in boyfriends and supposed “baby daddies” are getting cuckolded, well, I’m almost tempted to say they’re getting what they deserve for not going through the proper channels of marriage and family.
Nah, it’s just a special place for sock-puppets.
Thanks for finally answering. (Cause I asked you earlier too).
you can’t argue the Louisiana man alphaness. and people, he’s NOT Cajun. he’s from Monroe, La, i have family up there, but us Cajun’s are down south. the again, i think he encompasses the typical Southern Man. we love, we care, we fight, and we’re a hearty group of men.
don’t mess with us Southern boys.
@ dannyfrom504
Actually, as your generalizing, please allow me to as well based on my experiences with “southern” boys and east coast attitude: course, crude, uncouth, confrontational, unrefined, dense, undetailed, uneducated, unsophistocated, close minded, zero self awareness to know your an overweight slob.
@ dannyfrom504
Added for clarification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBS4v3Kove0
The only thing bad about southern men is that they are some pussy worshipping saps.
I’ve read 9 on your list Luke.
The folks in upper Louisiana are good Ulster Scot stock, like my hillbilly kin. Danny, never forget the the cultural divide running along the Mason Dixion line. They are a different people then us.
True enough Greyghost, but our women use to be worth it. I’ve seen the shift in my own lifetime, and readily admit I stayed blue pill longer then I should have because it was easy to do with Southron country girls.
Michele I just flirting sense those are the very things that kept us immune to the cultural shift for so long.
SHE!T. Spell error was unintended. Damn you auto correct
Don’t worry Ton, Michele’s a plant. It’s plant season down here and we be huntin’ them all day!
Continuation of OT*
Note that she’s not attacking hedonistic cads like Roissy/Roosh (reasonable, seeing that staying in depravity for too long does mess with one’s mind) nor MRAs (whom have the same egalitarian/individualistic views as feminists, and are liberal in essence, they just argue which part of liberalism they don’t like or don’t feel good about, meaning arguments over tactics). No. She’s attacking MGTOW.
Note: Apologies if my comments have been duplicated. If they have been duplicated/repeated, then deleting the repetition is a better option.
Luke says:
April 27, 2013 at 2:19 am
>>Don’t bother, it won’t be accurate.
You are right in one sense. I had my Y-marker DNA done a few years ago, and y-markers are useless for genealogy. I have hundreds of close matches, and few of them even have my surname.
However, this is not only because of cuckolding as such. When the British invaded (Sir Richard Bingham around 1600) it was still not uncommon for soldiers to rape local women, partly to terrorize the locals, and partly as a perq of being a soldier.
Also, there are foundlings in that era. Babies found with their entire family dead and raised by maternal women.
Then, in that era to be an unwed mother not only ruined the girl, but her whole family. So, it was common for the grandmother to seclude herself, then claim the bastard as her own.
HOWEVER, that 30% figure quoted here for North America is only when the man suspects his wife. The general population runs closer (in the USA) to 3%. However studies do show that less controlled societies do tend historically to run the 30% figure. In the US we not only have excellent contraception but abortion on demand, which takes care of a lot of paternity problems.
A Mormon (Latter Day Saints, technically, do not confuse them with the slimy Fundamentalist group) genealogist told me the church ignores biology and treats the family unit as it viewed itself. So, if a child was adopted, they view that child the same as a biological child for genealogy. That is based on Mormon view of family in the next life.
Also, if you read Sex And, Culture, 1934, by Dr. Unwin, you learn different cultures have different controls on women. In the era involved in my wife’s family history women were watched like hawks. At least in the better families. Her ancestors were super rich at the time. And, there may have been virginity tests at marriage.
In fact, young girls with “hot pants” were often summarily married, with little choice in the matter.
In any case, genealogy essentially runs with what is available. And, that is the church or government documents.
So, while you are correct, most genealogists simply don’t care.
In my case, at least I am RM-269, which means my male ancestor was most likely from Ireland. And, my great-grand-father was born in 1830 in a village near Newry. There is a good chance my great-grandfather, only 4 generations ago, 182 years, was indeed my ancestor. Ten generations ago, probably not correct.
If I can get a sample from a cousin and it is the same, that also increases the odds our family history is correct.
In my wife’s history, we are talking only 5 generations. Because of the family circumstances, there is a chance that 5 generations are correct. Not all families are at equal risk of misconduct before marriage. Wealthy families had servants who may have accompanied girls day and night. Sure, an aggressive girl could find a way, but it was much harder.
“Ton says:
April 27, 2013 at 9:58 pm
GBFM, check out this must read list….
http://shopping.yahoo.com/news/10-books-from-the-21st-century-every-man-should-read-213232125.html”
Hey Ton,
Did you create that list? Like you they also completely rejected the Greeks, Moses, and Jesus. Like you, they also completely rejected the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.
zlozozozooz
Dear Ton:
He looks like a man, acts like a man, talk like a man…. Yep he seem to be a good anti feminist spokesman.
I agree. So does Jack Donovan.
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/07/everyone-a-harlot/
Men judge other men by their competence in the real world. A man who can support himself and his family, carry himself in dangerous situations and negotiate obstacles is a man I want representing me. I don’t care if chicks find him hawt, or if the elite crowd find his honesty distasteful.
Regards, Boxer
Luke sez:
“The Camp of The Saints” by Jean Raspail
That is a fantastic novel, and I’m both pleased and surprised someone else has read it.
I got it about ten years ago as a gift from a very liberal teacher of mine. I’m still puzzled as to how he managed to read, much less recommend it.
Regards, Boxer
8oxer
I’m not talking about what’s on the inside. I’m talking about what’s on the outside.
Michael-
I read that as “we don’t bullshit you. We call it as we see it.” I’d never want to live anywhere but the south. Your stereotypes keep the folks out that we don’t want down here.
Hello Dalrock. I have made another analysis of the marriage-rates, including older U.S. Census data: http://monogamygame.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/catastrophic-decline-of-marriage/
Apologies, Dalrock for my comments and misspellings (all of my comments at April 28th weren’t good). Please delete them. (Including this one too.) Must have been what I ate for today…
My High School it was at least 50% redneck. Across the river from where I grew up was all country cheap land trailer parks. It was common to see road signs in the country that read “LAND FOR SALE $1000 acre”.
Their idea of fun was “muddin” with their jacked up pickup trucks with huge wheels screamin “Yee Haw” or having parties in the middle of the woods on some private country property (to keep the cops away)… drinking cheap canned beer and “gitting drunk and gittiing in a fight” screaming “yee haw” chewing Skoal in their Guy Harvey T-Shirts jeans and cowboy boots or those beige Columbia construction boots. Not sure why but they all wore Guy Harvey T-Shirts. Allot of them had confederate flag stickers and stupid stickers that said “The South Will Rise Again”.
It only took me a few party’s in H.S. to learn not to go over there. Anyone showing up looking different or dressed well, such as myself, was targeted for a fight. They would usually start off “what the fuck u lookin at?” or “hey pussy!”. Something like that. To start a fight. Just based on nothing but the way you look. It was bullshit.
I remember in HS this girl / friend threw a party because her parents were gone. A truck full of them showed up. She told them they were not allowed at the party (because they were rednecks and always started fights). So they left and came back 3 hours later when everyone was drunk/stoned etc with 5 truckloads of “southern boys” raided the house screaming “Yee Haw!” swinging punches eventually throwing everyone out of the house.
I remember another party in the woods ( I did not go) my other friend who was a surfer stuck up for his friend and they both ended up with two black eyes.. a busted up face etc. I told him not to go.
I don’t like rednecks. I’m just glad the river separated beach-side from the country trash on the other side.
Michael-
Ok. Fair enough.
Now do you want to cover other ethnicities stereotypes? Or are you to pussy to say it in the open?
Michael you had a fun childhood.
Dude. I apologize for the pussy comment. That was uncalled for.
But it really annoys me to hear such sweeping generalities. I was born and raised in s. la. by a woman VERY active in the Catholic Church. I’m proud if who and what I am. I’ve lived all over the world and can tell you with 100% certainty there’s no place I’d rather live and raise a family.
And for the record, I’m Cajun, not redneck.
@MackPUA: Not sure when you last took an economics class or read an economics column or picked up a book by an economist, but I have done all 4 in the last year… every time I do, it’s a libertarian mindset that I see. Economists with any math background at all tend to be libertarians for the simple reason that they can’t function in that area otherwise.
I suspect that you are reading “economics” written by people who don’t actually have any formal education in economics.
Er, that should say “all 3.”
Now that story was hilarious an explains everything
Dear Michael:
I’m not talking about what’s on the inside. I’m talking about what’s on the outside.
There are guys who advocate for men who have the polished look. The Warren Farrells and Michael Kimmells do a good job for those who identify with a more normative appearance and appeals to equality. (These guys were both considered feminists at one time, and in my opinion they still are… their main complaint is that the female feminists aren’t being fair feminists, but anyway).
I’m definitely sorry about your experiences in childhood. Thing is, in a healthy patriarchy, the sort of nonsense you describe would never be tolerated. Men ought to be able to fight, but running around picking fights is anything but masculine. It’s more of a peacocking appeal to women (look at me, I’m, a badass) and it’s based in insecurity.
If you look at Robertson’s interaction with his grandson, you can tell that he is clearly not the type to advocate for that sort of hooliganism. If I was his grandson, I’d surely know that granddaddy loved me, but I’d also be certain that he’d beat my ass if I went on a drunken brawling spree and embarrassed him.
Most of the time, when I see young men misbehaving, it’s because they don’t have any fathers or grandfathers to emulate a healthy masculinity. Show me a delinquent teenage boy, and I’ll wager a thousand dollars that there’s a skank-ho single mom someplace close by.
Regards, Boxer
fedrz, “…. I am not trying to be insulting to either, but simply trying to look religion as it functions in an anthropological sense.”
I said I was all for that.
“Think about it in this way. There is not really any significant culture that has arisen without being attached to some sort of religion.
I agreed with that also.
” Now, not all of those religions can be correct”
Says who?
” because quite often they counter each-other”
Cultural differences.
” you can’t believe in one true God while also believing in another god, like Zeus.”
Who or what is a “true god”? How can we know Zeus isn’t?
“However, these religions cause societies and civilizations to rise, whether their gods are real or not.”
Gods, all of them, filled some sort of human psychological, perhaps even evolutionary need, as you later alluded to.
“So, as far as a civilization builder goes, the function of religion is more about creating a large group of people with similar values, so that they may exist and work together, which leads to a civilization being built. In this aspect, whether “god exists” is not so important as “god unites.”
Good point.
“And, it doesn’t have to be that a religion forces people to believe in it either. It can simply be that it follows a sort of evolutionary survival of the fittest. If 100 people start following the Bible and order their family and social structures upon its directions, and this leads to them having larger families that people following a religion that doesn’t have fathers, has low birth rates and no social structure, then over time, one will come to dominate the other.”
As Islam is dominating now. Or at least thinks it is.
“In a way, you can indeed call the Bible “the book of life” from this purely non-religious aspect, because it is a book that leads to such success. It develops successful families, it puts sex to work, and it has outlived many other religions and cultures. There’s obviously something to Christianity’s success, whether you believe in God or not.”
You write as though believing in God and believing in Christianity are the same thing.
There are many religions out there to choose from. One can also believe in God and not belong to any religion.
” In all of the animal kingdom, the male serves the female. The only creatures on earth that re-order this is humans.”
I don’t think we do re-order it. The male serves the female because of our different biological functions. The female gives birth, we males do not. The female needs service during her gestation period as well as for quite some time after giving birth, especially the human female because human offspring take longer than any other species to become self-sufficient. During her child rearing years the human female needs the service of males to assist her in raising their offspring.
“….. So… once you figure out that including males in a significant way in fatherhood”
Including males in a significant way in fatherhood places him in the service position. In service to his children and their mother.
“and placing the male principle ahead of the female principle becomes a “civilization builder,”
Placing the male principle ahead of the female principle is not a civilization builder. The male principle in conjunction with and in service to the offspring-and-their-mother principle is a civilization builder.
…Well, it works pretty good to have it in a religion based upon Absolute Truth.”
What is Absolute Truth? You have not defined this.
Let’s git drunk and git into a fight!
Whatcha lookin at pussy?!
YEE HAW!!
you got your 1st lesson in lions and lambs and yet you choose to be a lamb. Even to this day your butt sore about it instead of choosing to be more and overcome.
Actually, Sexual Marxist, I don’t believe you are arguing in good faith.
You never said any of those things in your earlier rebuttals, which were mainly about just picking at the peripheries, rather than addressing the real argument.
You actually never “said” any of those things you are now claiming to have said.
Your arguments are not done in good faith.
Have the courtesy to address my arguments in more than one line twitter-thoughts.
You sure you’re not from Santa Clara County, CA?
fedrz, “…. I am not trying to be insulting to either, but simply trying to look religion as it functions in an anthropological sense.”
I said I was all for that.
“Think about it in this way. There is not really any significant culture that has arisen without being attached to some sort of religion.
I agreed with that also.
fedrz, “You never said any of those things in your earlier rebuttals, which were mainly about just picking at the peripheries, rather than addressing the real argument.
You actually never “said” any of those things you are now claiming to have said.”
Yes I did. My response post from April 27, 2013 at 3:37 pm recopied here;
“I am not trying to be insulting to either, but simply trying to look religion as it functions in an anthropological sense.”
Sexual Marxist: “I’m all for it.”
“Think about it in this way. There is not really any significant culture that has arisen without being attached to some sort of religion. Now, not all of those religions can be correct, because quite often they counter each-other – you can’t believe in one true God while also believing in another god, like Zeus. However, these religions cause societies and civilizations to rise, whether their gods are real or not. So, beyond the religious aspect, what functions does a religion provide to a civilization that “makes it grow.”
Sexual Marxist: “I agree with this. The Great Mystery of Being has inspired art, literature, architecture and like you say, world civilizations, for thousands of years.”
“Your arguments are not done in good faith.”
I’m not “arguing”. I went back and reread your comments from the other day more closely and found a few points I did not respond to. So now I’m asking you to share your definition of “absolute truth” because you used the term but did not define or elaborate upon it.
I’ve already defined my arguments with Asher and Boxer, you are just running along trying to be a nitpicking little man-girl.
Put up a good argument and I will respond. But as it sits, you are picking peripheral arguments that I’ve already addressed, and I feel no need to play this game with you.
What game? What argument? I’m not arguing for or against anything. I am asking a point blank question:
What is absolute truth?
If you don’t want to answer or don’t have an answer, that’s fine.
Its a vague concept and I would not expect many people to have an answer, but since you brought it up and sparked my interest, I just thought I’d ask. No worries.
Sexual Marxist:
How dare you not answer Fedrz questions in the length befitting his highness! Don’t ask him to define his terms. Answer his questions! Reply promptly! Respect his authority!
We all know you live in Santa Clara, too. You’d better watch out! The lizard people are coming for you if you keep this up!
Regards, Boxer
>How dare you not answer Fedrz questions in the length befitting his highness!
Well, you can go ahead and sock-puppet fedrz, but fedrz is much more respected than you. So it’s your call.
>Don’t ask him to define his terms.
fedrz did a decent job of balancing explicit definitions and tersity. He writes a hell of a lot better than 8oxer, certainly. I’m looking through fedrz’s comments and I’m not spotting anything that I could attack as an undefined term.
>Answer his questions! Reply promptly! Respect his authority!
Or just admit that you’re a sock puppet. Either one would be hunky-dorey.
Incidentally, doesn’t fedrz have his own site? If you want to troll him, shouldn’t you be doing it there?
MUAH! Hiya cute thing:
Or just admit that you’re a sock puppet. Either one would be hunky-dorey.
Rob sees everyone who disagrees with him as a “sock puppet” because that’s his paradigm. He lives online and posts using a variety of handles, and has for years. I don’t have time for such stuff.
Incidentally, doesn’t fedrz have his own site? If you want to troll him, shouldn’t you be doing it there?
Am I trolling the poor guy? If that’s the impression I gave, then I sincerely apologize. I wouldn’t troll Rob, for the same reason I don’t waste my time with the smelly old woman who pushes her shopping cart, filled to the top with dirty stuffed toys and aluminum cans, around the park downtown.
I only argue with intelligent, grounded people. Rob Fedders has nothing to teach me. In fact, I have never seen him discuss anything, with anyone, which didn’t turn into him fabricating looney accusations at whoever disagreed with him… sorta like he did in this thread here.
Regards, Boxer
@Sexual Marxist
What is absolute truth?
I am not an expert and I am struggling to put this in English but it seems to me that an absolute truth is a statement that it is true with independence of any human being considering it as a true. For example, “the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around”. Even if most of the mankind thought this statement was false, it has always been true.
“There are other universes besides ours”. We don’t know if this statement is true or not (and different people have different opinions), but we know that there is an absolute truth behind that. The absolute truth can be: “There are” or “There are not”, but there is an absolute truth.
Of course, everybody agrees that they are absolute truths when it comes to the physical world (WHAT IS). Things get more complicated when it comes to human affairs and society (WHAT SHOULD BE) – see Hume’s ought-is problem. Are there absolute truths when it comes to the behavior of human beings? Different peoples have different opinions and different societies have different rules. Is there an absolute truth regarding monogamy? Regarding how women should relate to men?
Ancient societies agreed that there was an absolute truth although they disagreed about what was this absolute truth. This was because ancient societies thought there was an Absolute (God, gods or something similar) which all truth originated from.
When thinkers of Western civilization (starting from Hegel)discarded the concept of God, they realized that there had nothing to attach the concept of truth. So they concluded that there was no absolute truth and each human could have its own opinion (I don’t want to call it “truth”, because it is misleading) and all opinions are equally valid. That is, it appeared the relativism we have today. There being no truth, the only way to decide is the rule of the majority. As a society, we’ll decide according to the opinion that is shared by most people.
@sunshinemary
Thanks for the clarification. …And I agree with you.
By the way, &oxer and fedrz, is it not possible to have an intellectual debate without resorting to personal attacks? I think both of you have valid points to make. However, this personal animosity is rather silly.
people bickering.
sighhhhhh
come on, you guys. This is supposed to be fun.
The
“”Power Hen™ PH-1 Single Reed Mossy Oak Duck Blind Camo “”
Could be useful as the Hatfields and McCoys side up regarding absolute truth and Marxism, and stuff.
I find it laughable when people talk about how bad society is today to explain our actions. Yes, teenagers have more access to sexual content than ever before, but if television were never invented, we’d still burn for it. It may not be a need on part with water, but nearly every action we take plays some role in interacting with the opposite sex. I don’t see it as this thing we’re supposed to avoid at all costs. In fact, since people got married in their teens in previous eras, I’m sure it was much easier to wait until married. Society might have changed around these terms, but that biological urge is still as great as it’s ever been.
imnobody00, Thank you for sharing your opinion on the matter and taking the time to respond to my question.
@ Sexual Marxist.
Absolute Truth is God. Or, God is Absolute Truth.
I am what I am. I am the beginning and the end. Whether you understand me or not has no affect on my existence for I just AM!
That is pretty simple, and something I have conveyed throughout my posts since the beginning.
Can you explain God? Or are we going to get into debates about defining deism without referring to religion as an example? (ie. Philosophy 101)
You are not arguing in good faith.
And Boxer, you can screech all you like, and even get people like imnobodyoo to beg us to “stop fighting,” but the point is, you have never once defended yourself to me. You just keep screeching on about lizards – the only one to do so. I take it that is your only defense then.
BTW, Sexual Marxist, a little bit of surfing shows that, besides one post on an old thread (your comment date was yesterday, after this thread started), you have not commented at Dalrock’s in at least 2 weeks.
Now in this thread and the next, you have posted ten to fifteen times. Someone else, however, has drastically decreased his amount of posts. Gee! I wonder who that could be?
heay dalrockckz!!!
more GOOD NEZZZWZ NEWZZZZZ!!
it jsust keeeeps coming and coming! (Dats wat she said zlzozozozoozozozozoz)
anywho at rooooooooossh’s forum dey are analyinzing anal-eyesinz anal lyizing anal-eyeziing me analayzing me!!!!! (analyze = anal eyes = staring at someone’s butt ANAL crack so hard and so long with your EYES that eventually you get it lzozozozozozo and you say, “EUREKA IT IS AN ANAL CRAKC ZLzozozozozoz! now!! I ONCE WAS BLIND BUT NOW I SEEZZ!!!”)
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-22766.html?highlight=gbfm
“Nice translation. As DarkTriad said butthexing is girls getting anally sexed. It also works on several leverals since its close in sound to texting, sexting, sexing (obviously) and hexing (as in putting a spell/curse on them).
Also, its cuckold the betas and cuckold the alpha, as in cheat on the betas to fuck the alphas.
. . . . .Like the quad metaphor he got out of that. That’s insane. He does like to rhyme Tucker Max rhymes with Goldman Sachs a lot usually.”
HEA?RTTSIETZ!!! dALOROCKZXZ!!!
SOEMBODY FINALALY GOT MY QUAD METAPHOR in teh word butthexting!!!
butthetxing = butt-sexting =sending text pctures of your butt = sodomy = putting a butthexthual curse on someone = little texty texting gamez because z peoepls are too stooopid to converse in cocomplete senteenced dese dayz zlzlzzo
The world is finalaly starting to aprpeiciate me!!! mayabe i won’t die alone and unkown like vincent van gogh and herman melville and persecueted like soctrates and jesussth! and now STRABUCCKZ will have no excuees to truen me down for employmenztz serving up epspsessorz in da dayz and laoststac cockas at nightzz to da hotty ghott cleientteelelz!!
“da professional womenz ode”
alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz
cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats
zlzlzzozozozo
butetehxtualalzozozozoozo
lzozozzoo
And kingsely writes, “Not a coincidence and because of him i’m rereading the classics with a whole new appreciation lollzz you fiat buthexxes.”
HEARTIZTESZZZ!!! DALROCKZ!!! we might jsust wyet winz!!!! lzozlzlzlzozozzlzozoz
hey more goodd ennnznz!! newz!! dey are emriaking remiankingz da movie breavehearztz!!
GBFM: And if this is your army of PUAs and Churchianz, why does it go?
Churchian: We didn’t come here to fight for them!
Young PUA GAMER: Home! The Buttehxtesrz are too many!
GBFM: Sons of HeartisteDalrockland! I am GBFM.
Young PUA GAMER: GBFM is seven feet tall!
GBFMe: Yes, I’ve heard. buttehxttesz womenz by the hundreds and sectrely tapez it like tucker max rheyems with godldmman sachz l lzozzlzoz. And if HE were here, he’d consume the fiatat sectreieve tpaaerz taperz of buttehxtterz with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.
[PUA ARMY army laughs]
GBFM: I *am* GBFM! And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You’ve come to fight as free men… and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?
Churchian: Fight? Against that? No! We will buttehxt. And we will live.
GBFM: Aye, fight and you may die. Butthext, and you’ll live… at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’ to trade ALL the buttehxting days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our future wive’s buttholzizizozozlzozzl and souls, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM!
[PUA/Churchian army cheers]
GBFM: Alba gu bràth! LOZOZZOLZLZLZ!
[“The GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN forever!”]
Army: ALBA GU BRÀTH LZOOZOLZOLZOLZ! ALBA GU BRÀTH LZOZOZOZOZOZO! ALBA GU BRÀTH LZOZOZOZOOZOZO!
zlzooozozozozozozozzo
The main reason puberty is starting early is the manner of statistics. Since the sixty’s we’ve become a nation of more ethnicity. Blacks and browns start puberty sooner than whites, hence the lower age. Whites start at same age as decades before generally. Take for example education. Whites in Alabama score the same as whites in Vermont with testing, yet the reports include other groups with lower scores such as blacks, and there you have Mississippi appear to lag behind. Same with crime reporting. The white crime rate in Louisiana is on par with Norway yet we are shaped to believe differently. One more, I don’t know about the rest of the country, but in the south historically we’ve married by 16 Average. That’s a fact antebellum.
I think it was Huxley who stated that an intellectual is someone who’s found something more interesting than sex. The obsession with reproduction only demonstrates the low IQ of the manosphere demographic. Doesn’t bother me, though. I will always need people to valet my car and change the sheets in my hotel room when I attend my next cancel research seminar.