In the discussion of What is closeness? I pointed out that the Sensitive Elliot clip does an excellent job of showing that what we culturally think of as “sensitive” really isn’t sensitive at all. Elliot is oblivious the entire time, missing very obvious mostly non verbal communication from her from the very beginning. Even the man who kicks sand in his face is communicating very clearly, but Elliot is oblivious and wants to “start a dialog” as if one hasn’t been occurring. The only person Elliot is sensitive to is Elliot. He is sensitive to his feelings about sunsets, dolphins, etc. He is fully inwardly focused, yet he has convinced himself that his inward focus is proof that he is really sensitive to others.
This is an old film/theater technique, where the audience is in on a joke that one or more of the actors on stage aren’t privy to. It works so well in this case because of the underlying truth. Sensitive Elliot represents something very common in our society.
You can see the same thing in a post by Dallas area Christian blogger Steven Nelms. Nelms gained worldwide notoriety with a groveling blog post he wrote about his wife: Fathers, you can’t afford a Stay-At-Home Mom. In many ways this is standard fare for modern Christian culture. It is an excellent example of what Empath has coined “lift chasing”, in the form of a passive-aggressive attempt by Nelms to place himself above other husbands and fathers by publicly out groveling them. It also has a feminist frame* complaining that it isn’t fair that stay at home wives don’t get a paycheck they can point to for the value of their work. None of this is especially noteworthy, as it is the very air that modern Christians breathe. However, Nelms’s post is an excellent example of an attempt at sensitivity which is strikingly insensitive.
Nelms explains why he wrote the post:
My wife sometimes feels patronized when I ask her permission to buy something for myself. She feels like it’s my money and my name on the paycheck so I shouldn’t have to ask permission to get myself something every once in a while.
His wife clearly communicated to him that she doesn’t feel comfortable with him deferring his leadership to her in this way. But Nelms isn’t interested in how this impacts her, because he is focused on his own feelings. His very next words are:
The truth is, I’m ashamed of any time I’ve ever made her feel guilty or humored when she’s purchased something for herself. I’m ashamed that she has ever felt like she doesn’t have just as much right to our income as I do. The fact of the matter is that our income doesn’t even come close to covering what she does for our family. I would have to make over 100K to even begin to be able to cover my living expenses as well as employ my wife as a Stay-At-Home Mom!
She tells him she wants him to lead, or at least to stop deferring to her, and he writes a blog post doing the exact opposite. This is not about her, it is about his feelings of being unworthy as a leader, his discomfort with headship, and his desire for approval from women.
In abdicating his headship in such a public fashion Nelms is placing an unfair burden on his wife. For her part she seems to be responding very graciously. However, even if she did want to assume headship, it would still be wrong of Nelms to abdicate it. It is even worse that he has set out to teach this abdication and feminist viewpoint as being the Christian view of marriage. Nelms may feel unworthy to lead, but this doesn’t change the fact that the Bible teaches us that as the husband he is the head of the family.
Related:
*The very title of the post is crafted to avoid offending feminists. The argument he is really making is that he couldn’t afford a career woman for a wife, but this has the problem of offending feminists.
Pingback: Insensitive | Manosphere.com
Nelms is insulting his wife, not exaulting her. What he is basically saying is that his wife (staying home watching his kids) is nothing more than a domestic “employee” of his that is managing his household for Helms for free. His “employee” is a nanny, a maid, and a wh-re that he doesn’t have to pay. That is why he feels… shame. He should feel shame if he ever thought for one second that she should be financially compensated by him to do what she is doing.
Pingback: Insensitive | Neoreactive
I wonder if he was raised by a dominating mother or grew up without a father. So many men these days are like this. A feminist is a feminist.
Ah, yes. This is one of the related phenomena of self shame that I talked about:
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/the-demonization-of-masculinity/
It’s one thing to appreciate a spouse for fulfilling their role and responsibility. It’s another thing to place them on the pedestal that you’re not worthy to their their leader when the Scriptures say you are.
It’s an excellent example of false humility which is also abhorrent to God. False humility is putting yourself down because you think it pleases God when really you’re assuming you know better than God that you shouldn’t be doing what you’re supposed to because you’re not worthy.
Looks like a serious case of pedestalization coupled with humblebragging. This is the sort of “guy” who makes churches unbearable – he’s forever introducing his wife as “my better half”, perpetually engaged in shaming language.
The comments that I skimmed were as expected: femmes gushing about how harrrrrd their lives are and how awesome and amazing he and his mom..er…wife are.
The truth of the matter is, babies are easy to care for. There’s only a few routine things to do: feed, clean up, do interesting things, sleep. Once humans become mobile things get more interesting, but really once you’ve seen one diaper blowout, you’ve pretty much seen them all and everything washes one way or another.
It’s ironic that on the one hand he self abases “I’m not objectifying!” even as he reduces his mom..er…wife to her economic value, i.e. a monetary carbon-unit within the larger economy. I can’t decide if he’s reduced her sexuality to that of a prostitute or not – he does state that “everything can be hired out” early in the text. Or maybe she throttled that down to a minimal sex-IV-drip after the bay-bee and he’s in the proces of giving up? Too difficult to say.
This is definitely lift chasing, as Empath defines it: the gushing femmes in the comments clearly display it. It’s nothing new, Sensitive New Age Guys (SNAGs) did a different version of that in the 80’s and 90’s. The difference being that SNAGism was optional then, now it’s becoming all but mandatory outside of the androsphere.
If nothing else, a useful negative example: show this to young men and intone “Don’t Be This Guy”.
And yes, I know that I stopped using “guy” a year or more ago in favor of “man”, but…it fits in this case.
What shall we call this? It’s not AMOG’ing because he’s actively rejecting the Alpha role, but there is as Dalrock points out a definite passive-aggressive “I’m better that you knuckle draggers” tone. Most Sensitive Guy In The Room? (MSGTR) Best Groveling Guy? (BGG) Sensitive New Age Other Guy? (SNAGOG)
It’s very common, and possibly getting more so, we need a short acronym.
And doesn’t this explain why many wives lose attraction for their husbands over time?
I once read somewhere that when Amy Grant decided to leave her husband, he went on his knees, begging her to reconsider. Whew! Groveling husband. Gross! What else could he have done to destroy whatever attraction she may have felt for him?
And doesn’t this explain why many wives lose attraction for their husbands over time?
Yeah, betaization is betaization is betaization. And maybe he did it to himself, perhaps after the bay-bee was born, but maybe he was taught this from his boyhood and doesn’t know any other way to relate. Channeling my inner Deti, this kind of mewling “mommy, may I buy something?” betahood is exactly what is taught to hordes of young men in churches all over the country. It’s in the water, in the air, in the youth group, and so forth.
I think Ann is just being… insensitive.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-04-08.html
Here’s a question for all y’all. When you go places with your wife or children or friends, do you go through the door first, or do you hold the door and go through last?
I can argue either side being the more alpha manly man choice.
Here’s a question for all y’all. When you go places with your wife or children or friends, do you go through the door first, or do you hold the door and go through last?
What’s on the other side of the door? What’s on this side of the door?
I would say this is situationally dependent.
Over the past couple of decades, men have stopped talking like men, and begun conversing like women. When I was young, my dad made fun of soap operas, which my mom loved, because the men talked like women:
BIFF: “Well…what do you think about…Shelia?” (eyes open wide)
BUFF: “What about…Sheila?” (raises eyebrows)
Nowadays, nearly every man talks like a woman, or like an effeminate homosexual. I catch *myself* doing this, and wonder, when did I decide, per Idiocracy, that it was a *good* idea to talk like a fag?
@AR, I meant like when going to the coffee shop or restaurant, department store, or church. Lots of other places don’t have doors with handles.
I pray he finds The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine and your blog, @Dalrock, before she divorces him.
However, if he figures it out after the divorce… and if he’s willing to become a man, I would donate some funds to have a person set up radio, TV and other worldwide digital media interviews with him. Again – IF – he becomes a man.
Then, through worldwide media, he can explain how he should have listened to Rollo Tomassi and Dalrock back in 2015 when he had his five minutes of ‘fame’ that he thought was going to finally earn him her love and respect.
Rollo’s new book is a warning, a map and a timeline that he needs RIGHT NOW! It spells out EXACTLY what’s going to happen to him + the tools that are necessary to deal with it. Yet, he’s too ego-invested in dogma to read The Rational Male or Dalrock.
I just left a comment Nelms blog asking him to read this @Dalrock post. I hope you’ll do the same.
Wow! If my voluntary relationships were all business transactions wherein I absolutely refused to even think about my own interests, yeah, I guess I couldn’t “afford” to have friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, etc.
Dalrock, I can’t “afford” having you as a stranger on the internet to occasionally talk to. A policy analyst/comedian/economist/author etc. is easily worth six figures. I’m afraid I just don’t have it. I don’t know why you even let me comment here.
Of course, men would all collectively point and laugh at a man who allowed his wife to write an article detailing the monetary costs of a night shift bodyguard, after hours tradesman, mechanic, painter, sanitation worker, lawn care worker, and everything else that every husband I know does without the least complaint. And women would skewer that woman. And they would do so in a way that did not engage with her points directly, because they’d be afraid we would stop laughing and think about it seriously.
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/08/the-absence-of-masculine-influence.html
That is definitely not a man that I want to have sex with, much less marry.
Pride and self-regard.
If only he knew the gospel he wouldn’t feel compelled to play all those foolish games.
Of course, men would all collectively point and laugh at a man who allowed his wife to write an article detailing the monetary costs of a night shift bodyguard, after hours tradesman, mechanic, painter, sanitation worker, lawn care worker, and everything else that every husband I know does without the least complaint. And women would skewer that woman. And they would do so in a way that did not engage with her points directly, because they’d be afraid we would stop laughing and think about it seriously.
This made me giggle a little out loud. Thank God for my husband.
Funny RobJ, was just thinking similar thoughts today. Go on a yearly men only fishing darby with my mates of over forty years. the best part of the whole weekend is the shit talking.
Have to check with my sons if this is still allowed. I do shit talk them quite often, so hopefully I have had an influence.
Hmmmm…..
sanitation worker
This was my favorite part. We were literally just talking about the absolutely disgusting job of cleaning out the camper septic system Scott does every time we come back from a camping trip.
GROSS! I am so blessed.
A man can give honor to his wife and her role without this kind of groveling, it’s absolutely disgusting. I have men like this in my family that I can’t even stand to be around. Managing 2-3 or more children under the age of 4 is probably quite a handful at times but don’t women want these children of theirs? Doing what a woman wants to do hardly makes any woman a candidate for sainthood.
I know men who’ve spent their lives in drudgery, working horrible jobs they hate, while their goddesses spent the same lifetime in what by comparison was a life of leisure. So once the kids started school and spent most of the day there just exactly how hard is it being a SAHM? I know empty nesters who really need money and yet the slovenly wife hasn’t worked in decades and isn’t about to. If thats traditional marriage as designed by the modern trad-con feminist and their minions it’s little wonder conservative and Christian Men are MGTOW.
What is common in Nelms’ article and Elliot’s song is that both are forms of idolatry. In Elliot’s case, it’s his love interest’s feelings toward the Goddess. In Nelm’s case, it’s Guilt toward the Goddess.
In both cases, the idolatry is condemned in Scripture by the First Commandment
“You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
I often look at children and judge whether they look like their “father.” I’d say the jury’s out on Steven Nelms and his son in the pic at the linked Daily Mail article. Nelms has a narrow face, his son does not. Inconclusive.
Managing 2-3 or more children under the age of 4 is probably quite a handful at times but don’t women want these children of theirs?
I’ve been gut-shot for responding to this question before and have survived, so I’ll tempt fate and do it again.
Despite the fact that they would respond to such a question as if they’ve never been asked anything so offensive in their lives, the attitudes and behavior of massive numbers of North American woman today answers it with a “no, not really.”
These women love the idea of children. They see them as status symbols, an abstraction that represents their successful ability to reproduce (is “genetic narcissism” a recognized term?). The flesh-and-blood reality that are children, from puking, shitting, perpetually crying babies, to screaming and demanding toddlers, to needy tweenies, to rebellious teenagers? Not so much. Many women, particularly SIWs that cursed society with their ability to produce crotchfruit, would love nothing more than to see these creatures raise themselves and just not bother the birth mother AT ALL until they’re done with their teen years and are ready to leave the nest. Day care represents the closest real-world approximation of this fantasy.
And now from the world of crazy:
Mother who gave birth to her own brother and sister: An extraordinary story raising profound questions about surrogacy and the future of the family
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3030966/Mother-gave-birth-brother-sister-extraordinary-story-raising-profound-questions-surrogacy-future-family.html
As I recall, the Promise Keepers movement some years ago was about men taking back headship of their families. Naturally the media, my only source of information at the time, portrayed them as a bunch of kooks. What was the real story, and what become of them?
I believe the Promise Keepers all went back to their Deadbedrooms. It was not about Headship it was always a movement of manginas aimed at getting men to manupand rerererererecooommit to your frigid wife cuz if Jesus was celibate that should be good for you.
Adultery 2
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955202
“Spicing things up” in marriage.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955253
Love (Romance)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955272
@Dave:
A bunch of Christian Leaders saw a problem, couldn’t figure out what was actually going on, and the Spirit of God did all of the heavy lifting. They could barely be bothered to do the work to understand the issue, and it “failed” to do much. Though it produced a lot of PhDs in Rhetoric. (That’s not a joke. It was a huge area of study in that field for years.)
I wouldn’t say the entire movement “failed”. There was more than enough Men that came to Christ as a result of the movement that calling it a failure for the Kingdom is wrong. It failed on its goals and desires, but it’s pretty much the proto-Red Pill movement that’ll eventually happen within the Church. It’s a sign that Men still want God, but the rot of Churchianity was too much to overcome. It was a losing war because the targets were completely wrong. It is one of the most classic Christian failures: “If only I can God! Harder!, it’ll all just go right!”.
I am so sick and tired of Christians groveling for everything. Whether it’s being a man and supporting your wife and family or celebrating a holiday, or taking charge of a situation, when did Christians become such freaking wussies?!
When a man supports his family he shouldn’t feel shame for doing so. Having clearly defined roles in a marriage helps both partners find their place and neither should feel guilty, it’s part of life.
PK may have started from good intentions and had some individual victories, but as a movement, it included way too many Nice Guys who were easy targets for Christian feminists. The kind of guys very easily seduced by the “servant leader” twisting of headship that we know so well. Before long, it was a bunch of guys high-fiving each other about how long their honey-do lists would be when they got home.
many men think that shaming themselves for the sins of other men … is worn as a badge of honor to the sins they don’t commit.
Reminds me of the About Men column.
In the 1980s or 1990s, The New York Times Sunday Magazine created a column called About Men, written by different male columnists every week. Personal reflections about men’s issues in these changing, evolving, post-feminist times.
The tone of most every column was one of “disingenuous self-deprecation.” That was my term for it. Men ruminating over the difficulties of being men, yet usually working around to how much harder it was for women, or how much stronger women were, etc.
An occasional good column, unaffected by feminism. Such as a man’s coping with the death of a father. But most were humblebrags of the “See how sensitive I am! How ashamed I am to be male!” variety.
Women complained nevertheless, because THEY didn’t have a column of their own. So after a few years, The New York Times introduced another column called Hers, which would alternate with About Men.
I don’t know if they still run the About Men and Hers columns. It’s been a while since I’ve been in NY.
I think Phil Donahue set some of the cultural groundwork for the About Men column. Donahue and Alan Alda were the two Giants of Sensitive New Age Manhood in the 1970s and 1980s.
Oh yes, then there was that dreadful 1980s TV series, Hill Street Blues. The one with the sensitive police officers. The police captain who tearfully opened up to his (smarter, stronger) lawyer ex-wife about his feelings. Using his captain’s office as a therapist’s room.
It seemed that cops were always crying on that show. Tough, burly, hairy undercover cops would break into tears. Even gang members would break into tears. At the end of every dramatic arc would come the male tears.
By contrast, Miami Vice was a breath of fresh air. It was cold, hard, and brutally macho, despite some weaker moments, as pointed out of this blog. Miami Vice was the anti-Hill Street Blues.
Modern manginas have their roots in Phil Donahue, Alan Alda, and Hill Street Blues.
‘In abdicating his headship in such a public fashion Nelms is placing an unfair burden on his wife. For her part she seems to be responding very graciously. However, even if she did want to assume headship, it would still be wrong of Nelms to abdicate it. It is even worse that he has set out to teach this abdication and feminist viewpoint as being the Christian view of marriage. Nelms may feel unworthy to lead, but this doesn’t change the fact that the Bible teaches us that as the husband he is the head of the family.’
Quite…it would do men good to read the parts of the Bible that address husbands.
Such as:
Likewise, you husbands should live with your wives in understanding, showing honor to the weaker female sex, since we are joint heirs of the gift of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. 1 Pet 3:7
Seems like a lot of men in this day and age don’t show honor to their wives by understanding they are the weaker sex.
‘These women love the idea of children.’
It’s the same women who love the idea of marriage and children…but don’t like the reality. Much like the women who love the idea of running a company, being successful in a career…but don’t like the reality it takes to do that.
They are in love with their own imagination.
@Dave,
Cail has it about right. I went to a number of PK events with men at my church during my high school years. My recollection is that the parts of it that dealt with marriage were all about trying harder to make your wife feel appreciated, do more choreplay, the “women are like slowcookers” BS, and the like. I remember Gary Smalley speaking at several of the events. Lots of men came back with “I LOVE MY WIFE” bumper stickers for their vehicles.
Yes, PK was linked to the part of the spectrum of Evangelical Christianity that generally believed, in theory, in a Scriptural idea of headship, but I can’t recall ever hearing headship discussed, except in conjunction with the idea of servant leadership.
I took careful (mental) notes, and when I put it all into practice, it had precisely the effect that one would expect, at least if they have paid attention here, at Rollo’s, etc.
“If thats traditional marriage as designed by the modern trad-con feminist and their minions it’s little wonder conservative and Christian Men are MGTOW.”
I may be misunderstanding this quote, but from my understanding, conservative and Christian Men who are either married or single are the antithesis of MGTOW. These types of men are the biggest white knight, manginas enslaved to women via marriage (if married that is), the State and religion (if still single).
Cail,
“PK may have started from good intentions and had some individual victories, but as a movement, it included way too many Nice Guys who were easy targets for Christian feminists. The kind of guys very easily seduced by the “servant leader” twisting of headship that we know so well. Before long, it was a bunch of guys high-fiving each other about how long their honey-do lists would be when they got home.”
Yeah, it’s a lot clearer in retrospect (and with red-pill understanding) than it was at the time. The fact that McCartney’s own daughter got knocked up by the quarterback of his football team (who also knocked up another girl shortly thereafter and was in any case not remotely a good candidate for fatherhood or to be a good husband for his daughter) should have been a big red light to his supporters.
My father was big into it when it first came out, but I think now that it exacerbated the extent to which his (second) wife dominated him and thus kept him out of my life at the time. I too was excited to find a partner with whom a could show what a great “promise-keeper” I could be, and of course was greatly frustrated to find few women excited about that approach. Ironically I’d done reasonably well with women before that and was in my “prime”, so it was really dumbfounding.
Looking back with wisdom gained from Dalrock, etc… hard to believe what an idiot I was. We just made it too complicated. Christian headship was for “fundies,” so we thought we needed something more sophisticated. We were wrong.
I think the earliest version of an audience being in on what the character does not grasp must be Malvolio’s delusion in Twelfth Night that he is sexually desired – although there may be something in some surviving Roman comedy. As with Bedazzled (this remake) the joke is at the expense of a man’s romantic illusions. In the original Bedazzled, Dudley Moore lusts after an ordinary waitress in the Wimpy Bar where, as a chef, he is employed. Jokes are always at the expense of male desire, never female – no, that would be cruel.
Does not the desire to adopt black babies from Africa or to send large sums of money to Ethiopia or Tsunami-land (both very much the province of aging pop-stars – Madonna, St Bob of Geldof) come from the same “sensitivity”. The lower-deck sentimentality (surely there in Dickens) over the death of Lady Di, a member of the aristocracy who would never have given you the time of day, yet who wore her chosen cause, Land-mines, as a badge of honour to demonstrate her “sensitivity” even as posed as the ultimate of victims, having nothing better to do with her time. Now there was a woman who needed Feminism, and surely the same will be true of the latest Mrs Clooney. One task I know I never had was to spend half an hour applying make-up before setting foot in court.
The funny thing is, I’ve never been to one of their events or studied them much except for reading a couple articles when it was a thing. I’ve just been to a couple of one-day Catholic men’s conferences that weren’t about “husbanding” at all. But I can confidently extrapolate based on A) what kind of men are likely to be drawn to something like that, B) what kind of men/women are likely to seek the job of instructing them, and C) what topics they’re likely to embrace and reject. It could really only go one direction.
It’s just much, much easier to get up in front of a group of men — even if there are zero women in the room — and criticize the men and challenge them to different behavior than it is to talk to them about the faults of women. The former they will embrace — as I’ve said before in the Driscoll threads, that’s what they’re there for, to have someone say, “You can do better; here’s how.” Start in on how women are out of control and they need to go home and rope them in, and you’ll see guys squirming, if not outright heckling.
It’s not that the men are masochists or effeminate or anything like that. It’s that they want to be better. They want to be challenged, to have Sgt. Major Basil Plumley calling out the cadence and driving them to be better men. (Especially “conservative” Christian men.) The problem is in who gets up at the podium and how he defines things like “leadership” for this crowd of men who are waiting to soak it up.
but I can’t recall ever hearing headship discussed, except in conjunction with the idea of servant leadership.
Or “leading” nightly Bible studies. This kind of leadership was OK, because its not actually authoritative. Being the facilitator for your family group hug with Bible verses sprinked on top was OK.
Cail-
I went to a 2 1/2 day Catholic marriage encounter and I wanted to blow my brains out at the end.
Every single speaker had at least a few moments of “well, you know we men [fill in the blank deprecation]” or “men need to learn how to [fill in the blank thing men are always doing wrong]”
And every single time, I looked around the room to see the guys looking down at their shoes while the wives nodded approvingly, sneering down at their husbands.
At one point, I made a comment about it. I got exactly what you would expect. But at the end of the three days, several men confided in me, as we walked out to the parking lot that they had never heard anyone lay blame equally like that, but that they will never be able to act on it.
“…
It also has a feminist frame* complaining that it isn’t fair that stay at home wives don’t get a paycheck they can point to for the value of their work.
…”
Using money to value an act of love. Simon Magus did the same thing. Didn’t get him very far.
Cail and Scott, you are absolutely steel on target on PromiseKeepers and the “men’s leadership/ headship” movement.
For most in churchianity, husbandly headship is fine, so long as:
1. He leads her where she wants to go
2. He is “nice” and “kind” and does so “with a humble and contrite heart”
3. He doesn’t actually expect anyone to follow him.
And the “headship” has to be benign and ineffective, like leading Bible studies or devotions. He can lead those, because as Scott said, it doesn’t require any authority from him. And she can double check him on the verses, and correct him in front of the kids. But he can’t make budgets and require her to adhere to them, because that’s mean. And he cannot have expectations for her or the kids, because if he does then he’s domineering and overbearing. And he cannot make plans or be the final authority, because that’s not “equal” and “we’re both equal in the sight of the Lord”.
“It’s just much, much easier to get up in front of a group of men — even if there are zero women in the room — and criticize the men and challenge them to different behavior than it is to talk to them about the faults of women.”
I have spent a lot of time with women in and out of the manosphere, and in and out of churches. I have learned women view any man speaking about women’s faults or confronting them on their faults always results in cries of “sexist!” “Racist!” “Bigot!” “check your privilege!” I have learned that any criticism of women by men is read by women as hatred, seething rage, anger, resentment, and bitterness.
The article was up on our desktop at home… my wife found it as a Facebook post. I read it, then turned to her and said, “I guess I’m going to have to let you go; of course you have a week’s notice.” We both laughed at the stupidity of the conceit that she is somehow my employee. She’s my wife. I trust her with the family purse on day-to-day operations. I don’t ask for permission to spend money on things I need, but I’m not a jackass about it either–I’m not that interested in the “toys for boys” anyway, and I like to make purchases that benefit the whole family. But, you know, I’ve got to get some new suits for work and I won’t be consulting her about that, aside from having her help pick out some new ties! Utter complete stupidity of the culture, the supposedly countercultural Church (btw, I’m a practicing Catholic), and the world of social media (I refuse to tweet, or to be tweeted at).
Right. Sometimes what you’ll see in traditional families is this: the wife decides what prayers the family is going to do, and where and how, because of course she’s more “spiritual”; but she insists that her husband lead the prayers she’s chosen because he’s the “head” of the family. I’m sure the kids don’t see through that sophistry at all.
True, but the more important thing is that it’s also read that way by men. Especially by conservative men at a conference where they’re already in a mood to be noble and tough on themselves — and by extension, on other men. Heck, we even see it on sites like this, where there are always self-appointed ombudsmen ready to jump in and challenge you if you make a negative claim about women without the proper evidence or if you forget to include enough disclaimers about how men sin too.
“Elliot is oblivious the entire time, missing very obvious mostly non verbal communication from her from the very beginning. Even the man who kicks sand in his face is communicating very clearly, but Elliot is oblivious and wants to “start a dialog” as if one hasn’t been occurring.”
His paramour, and the man kicking sand in his face, ARE communicating. They ARE sending messages. Her thinly veiled disgust with Elliot; the man’s kicking sand at Elliot: These are the messages. They’re just not being communicated with words.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/06/the-medium-is-the-message/
I feel sorry for his son.
without the proper evidence or if you forget to include enough disclaimers about how men sin too.
I have actually made great strides in “aphaness” by stopping this cold turkey, especially in real life. I just refuse to start with all the nonsense “I’m no racisist, but” or “of course, men do this too, but..”
I just don’t do it. And when the “but what about men!” stuff starts, I literally ignore it as if it wasn’t said and move on. It is amazing how much more respect you get by not even acknowledging the stupidity.
You have to have the stomach and the stocism for it though. It can be pretty rough the first couple of times you try it.
Well, even if he paid her, she’d only get 70 cents on the dollar anyhow 😉
‘Every single speaker had at least a few moments of “well, you know we men [fill in the blank deprecation]” or “men need to learn how to [fill in the blank thing men are always doing wrong]”
A good quote from a priest in the book I’m currently reading.
‘We shouldn’t focus so much on our weaknesses, but focus on the strength of God.’
We spend too much time pointing out our flaws without mentioning who we should be looking for in order to correct such flaws. A good lecture on husbandry could be summarized by what St. Peter and St. Paul said husbands are supposed to do for their wives. Not point out every sin, flaw, and weakness we can possibly commit to fall short of that.
Earl and Feeriker are right. Modern-day Western women are in love with the concept of the marriage – the white picket fence, the doting father and children, etc. But it seems that their love and respect for the man who provides those things has its limits.
Speaking of which: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-koppelman-hutt/i-want-to-be-wild_b_7022118.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
You could use that same fact pattern as to justify why the only women in the labor force should be
1) childless women
2) women with children over the age of 12
Because the cost to their family for not being at home is more than the value they are likely to receive from paid work.
“what we culturally think of as “sensitive” really isn’t sensitive at all. *** The only person Elliot is sensitive to is Elliot. He is sensitive to his feelings about sunsets, dolphins, etc. He is fully inwardly focused, yet he has convinced himself that his inward focus is proof that he is really sensitive to others.”
It’s a bit beside the point, but Elliot’s personality probably developed this way because he was specifically taught and trained that women are sexually attracted to the traits he exhibits. He’s been taught that women like men who are mirrors of themselves: overly sensitive; narcissistic; “in touch with his emotions”; effusive, overwrought emotional displays; extreme honesty, giving his woman real-time updates of his emotional state, etc. He’s been taught and trained that this is how you interest a woman and keep her interested: by constantly showing emotion and thus “connecting” with her. He’s been taught and trained that this is “nice” and “kind”, and that those traits are sexually attractive. He thinks that because he emotes and is “nice” and does nice things for her, he is sexually attractive to her.
It’s very, very hard for a man who’s been trained for a couple of decades that this is how he should, he MUST, relate to women if he has any hope of reproducing, to shed them and recalibrate himself.
@Looking Glass
These men were willing to do anything, anything, to solve the problem…
Anything except follow the instructions God has provided.
When did the fantasies begin to be rewritten (Hollywood) where the nebbish-y weakling nerd gets the girl in the end. I don’t know how much it effected men that “this” is the way to behave, not like the male, evil jock with testosterone.
When did the fantasies begin to be rewritten (Hollywood) where the nebbish-y weakling nerd gets the girl in the end. I don’t know how much it effected men that “this” is the way to behave, not like the male, evil jock with testosterone.
Revenge of the nerds! I was in junior high and I remember thinking, “funny story, but umm, no.”
But I think MANY men believed the nice guys finish first routine because they really really really wanted it to be true.
(I don’t actually know if that movie is where it started, but it was the first time I evern encoutered it)
Like Cail Corishev I recall the Promise Keepers movement but never got anywhere near it, for various reasons. At the time I was uneasy about it partly for personal reasons; I’m not much of a “joiner”, and also had by then seen some cults & how the operated. PK frankly smacked of a cult, mixed with multi level marketing.
But the real problem I had with PK I can now see was the premise. It was basically 1970’s faminism retreaded: the problem statement looked to me like “Men are abandoning their wives, trading them in for new trophy versions! It’s not Christian!” and if any mention of women divorcing came up, of course that was the man’s fault as well.
That didn’t square with my own observation. By that time I’d seen a couple of marriages of friends fall apart, and those collapses didn’t fit the standard “men bad! women good!” mold. I am thinking speciifically of two friends who married, but when she didn’t get pregnant in the first few years of marriage, she divorced him and remarried a man who did get her knocked up. A 20-something woman divorcing her possibly infertile husband just didn’t fit in with the PK’s premise.
It’s like the first time I was told “All men are rapists…” – well, I’m not. So your statement is false. What else are you saying that’s false?
The other thing about PK was a definite air of cult-of-personality. That’s always a red flag to me. Any man who sets himself up as an infallible leader gets my suspicion aroused, if nothing else I wonder what he’s hiding (See: Driscoll).
tl;dr
Promise Keepers failed because it was founded on a false premise. It was trying to solve a problem that wasn’t really much of a problem, while ignoring very real problems. And in essence, the PK’s had imbibed 70’s 2nd wave feminism with a 20 year lag, the “sea anchor” effect Dalrock wrote about several years back.
False premise -> no meaningful conclusion, and a doomed movement.
Tradcons continue to follow that false premise, and they wonder why more and more men are ignoring them & their bad advice.
Lao Tzu and many other philosophers state clearly: “The first atep to wisdom is to call things by their right names”. That can get pretty sticky when the right name has been effectively banned from polite discourse. Which brings me to Scott…
Scott: You have the right of it. Any of those “yes but” disclaimers just opens up a crack for a full-on red-herring fest, a mighty stampede down the most irrelevent of rabbit trails. There is no “but”, when calling things by their right names, such as “hypergamy” and “gynocentric” and “betrayal”, etc.
I think the feminists and other SJW fags just want to remake the world in the image of their own psyche. They want a return to a sort of primeval social chaos that will mirror the dissonance of their own internal conflicts.
The crazy society they seek will be a perfect potential home for them.
“But I think MANY men believed the nice guys finish first routine because they really really really wanted it to be true. ”
Yes. And because whenever they went to authority figures with their observations, they were pounded over the head with
“NO NO NO!! That’s NOT the way the world IS! You have to be NICE! Those girls you’re seeing who go for the evil jock? Those girls are aberrations, abnormal, not the norm. They’re stupid and immature. Someday they’ll wise up and see how dumb they were to pass up a great nice guy like YOU. You’re special. You just keep on being nice and someday you’ll get a great girl who will appreciate you Just The Way You Are. If you are not nice, then very, very bad things will happen to you. You will get kicked out of school, not get hired for work, get fired from jobs, and no one will EVER marry you. You might even get thrown in jail for sex harassment.”
Promise Keepers failed because it was founded on a false premise
Agreed. The false premise was “there is an epidemic of husbands who are not keeping thier promisses.”
Hey Dalrock,
I’ve been pondering an idea lately and would love to hear your thoughts on it.
One of the things mentioned often here is that feminism has redistributed resources away from males to females. In particular, away from beta males to females. This redistribution, typically administered through the federal government has eroded the signal for beta males to optimize their economic productivity.
While this has intuitive appeal, I am beginning to believe that it only tells half the story. In toal, gendered redistribution polices have the effect of transferring wealth from beta males to alpha males vis a vis women and supported by the government.
Policies that help women join the workforce have the effect of increasing the supply of labor, the declining mens lfpr notwithstanding. Not only does this have the effect of putting downward pressure on wages and increasing competition for jobs with beta males, but it also expands the pool of labor while lowering the cost of said labor thereby leaving more profit for CEOs, alpha males.
Consider another example, policies that redistribute income to women put upward pressure on prices, like the cost of college, making it more difficult for beta males to afford these items, like college, but at the same time CEOs profit more because of women’s penchant for high spending, both in volume and price.
Any thoughts would be welcome…
‘“NO NO NO!! That’s NOT the way the world IS! You have to be NICE! Those girls you’re seeing who go for the evil jock? ‘
I always wondered why men were painted into choosing being the ‘nice guy’ or ‘jock’. Both have their flaws…it’s just that the jocks has less flaws than the wimpy nice guy,
I have no problem being polite to women when they are displaying good behavior…that’s not being nice, that’s being realistic. I have no problem teasing women or displaying my strengths when they are in a playful mood…same thing.
While it is great that this man appreciates his wife’s contributions he is a bit whiny about it. Still better to be appreciated than not. And he should feel badly about making his wife feel guilty for buying herself something.
thedeti sez:” NO NO NO!! That’s NOT the way the world IS! You have to be NICE! Those girls you’re seeing who go for the evil jock? Those girls are aberrations, abnormal, not the norm. They’re stupid and immature. Someday they’ll wise up and see how dumb they were to pass up a great nice guy like YOU. You’re special. You just keep on being nice and someday you’ll get a great girl who will appreciate you Just The Way You Are. If you are not nice, then very, very bad things will happen to you. You will get kicked out of school, not get hired for work, get fired from jobs, and no one will EVER marry you. You might even get thrown in jail for sex harassment.”
This is because women instinctively know who the betas are, and who the alphas are. Anyone who has heard the above is considered a beta. All the alphas hear is the slurping sounds on their caulk.
His wife clearly communicated to him that she doesn’t feel comfortable with him deferring his leadership to her in this way. – Dalrock
Still better to be appreciated than not.
Sadly, you’ve missed the point. It is not better for her. It is not comfortable for her to hear these things. It causes her to feel unprotected and unloved.
@adam
Historically, the beta male’s greatest offering was that of a loyal provider/protector. Since we live in a safe and rich environment the value of the beta male’s greatest “asset” has declined greatly. Whereas your great grandma cared mostly about him being a good man who could make a living and treat her well, now it’s much more about sex appeal and whether she feels infatuated.
You’re right that many of the policies that “benefit” women actually benefit the apex males, be it with easier sex (for top males), an expanded and cheaper labor pool, more customers that are easier to sell to, or more left-leaning voters that can be easily bought off with redistributionist dollars.
I wrote about it here:
http://www.justfourguys.com/hierarchy-of-the-herd/
“Apex alphas want the dollar, work, vote, and p*$$y of the female herd.”
“Due to technology, the main divider between men and women–physical strength–was largely removed. Also, many of the intense domestic labors were replaced with machines. This freed women up to be able to work outside the home, thus providing a larger and cheaper workforce to rich business owners. Here’s one example of where the interests of business apex alphas aligned with feminist women. Also, with women earning more there were more customers than ever. Women voting is one area where political apex alphas (often situational apex alphas) and other politicians have to be more responsive to women and thus aren’t quite as independent of the female herd as other more independent apex alphas are, like top athletes and rock stars that sell much of their product to men and are highly desired by women.”
“Also, apex and regular alphas want lots of sex and so they were happy to see the societal restrictions on women loosen up. Some foolish betas probably thought they’d be swimming in pussy too, only to see that pussy swimming the other way. And since women are now more self-supporting or government-supported then more of them are freed up to service higher-value men.”
“So we see that many apex alpha males, regular alphas, and even greater betas actually benefit from the current society where women are free to [sex] up.”
@ Sarah’s Daughter
Thanks for that, but I haven’t missed anything. Not wanting to be the leader and decide whether or not he buys himself something is not the same as not wanting to be appreciated for her contributions.
Not wanting to be the leader and decide whether or not he buys himself something is not the same as not wanting to be appreciated for her contributions.
Absolutely, what is being pointed out is the manner in which he is showing his appreciation. He mistakenly believes this is the way. The nature of women and their actual response (not words) to this type of supplicating indicates that this is not an effective way of communicating appreciation.
@ Sarah’s Daughter
You seem to talk for the pleasure of hearing yourself speak. My calling him “whiny” pretty much summed that up with a lot fewer words. But again, thanks for sharing.
[D: Your sole contribution to this blog’s discussion has been to stir things up. Enough.]
None of this is especially noteworthy, as it is the very air that modern Christians breathe.
Isn’t that exactly why it’s noteworthy? It’s hard to see the obvious sometimes.
This has been true since I was young and heard FotF on the radio 35 years ago. Seeing books and other pop-culture references, I know it started well before that. It’s so common very few Christian leaders even think of challenging it.
You contend it is better to have appreciation expressed this way than not at all:
Still better to be appreciated than not.
In truth “not at all” would be better for her than this. There are countless examples of men who wake up to this truth after she’s become unhappy and has lost that loving feeling.
Thanks man. Not that I don’t enjoy being made fun of, if its done skillfully; but, this one was too boring to keep my attention.
When did the fantasies begin to be rewritten (Hollywood) where the nebbish-y weakling nerd gets the girl in the end. I don’t know how much it effected men that “this” is the way to behave, not like the male, evil jock with testosterone.
Scott
Revenge of the nerds! I was in junior high and I remember thinking, “funny story, but umm, no.
I think this is a result of the “anti hero” of the late 60’s to early 70’s. Not the brooding, troubled badboy antihero of the 50’s to mid 60’s (“Cool Hand Luke”), but more the troubled, sensitive guy. I caught part of “An Unmarried Woman” on TV one night, it was the standard 2nd stage femiist fear “Man dumps woman for trophy wife” if I recall correctly. The divorced wife finds a SNAG with a beard by the end of the movie. That’s something like 78? 79? Oh, and M*A*S*H, not the movie but the Alan Alda TV series, that’s early to mid 70’s and a mix of Nice Guys and brash neanderthals.
It’s been brewing for 30 to 40 years, IMO.
Definitely was being normed by the late 80’s: “When Harry Met Sally” is 88 or 89, “Sleepless in Seattle” is early 90’s IIRC.
@HansSolo,
“You’re right that many of the policies that “benefit” women actually benefit the apex males, be it with easier sex (for top males),”
Good point.
Matriarchal societies come about when Alpha Males conspire together with females to promote open promiscuity.
IMO women like appreciation, but they have to feel they’ve earned it. There’s a difference between recognition for hard work and significant achievements and patronizing for every little thing she does. In other words don’t make your praise the equivalent of a participation award.
I have two thoughts on the over praising of women. One thought is that if you do it to much it comes across as disingenuous. Essentially the praise isn’t actually a response to anything she’s done, it’s just an expression of you insecurity.
Roughly this response
The other thought, based a bit on of reading Rollo, is that if you give a lot of praise she might figure she’s underleveraged her SMV. I would say it’s the marriage equivalent of buyers remorse and an expression of female hypergamy. If she’s getting high praise from you for what amounts to satisfactory performance on her part, then it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to figure she could have landed an even greater man with little or no added effort.
‘Still better to be appreciated than not.’
I thought it was tacky the way he reduced his wife’s gifts to their monetary value. Many times men feel like the only value they have to women is the money they bring home…and it’s not a good feeling for us to be reduced to our utilities either.
No doubt about it. I just don’t think their utopia will turn out as they planned.
ManlyMan:
“This is because women instinctively know who the betas are, and who the alphas are. Anyone who has heard the above is considered a beta. All the alphas hear is the slurping sounds on their caulk.”
True, but doesn’t really follow from what I said. My statements sets out how betas are created, are formed up. At one point that sort of instruction to boys might have been useful, but it certainly isn’t any longer and hasn’t been for at least 35 years.
What this instruction results in is constant frustration. He’s taught this and reinforced in it in both success and failure. When he fails, he can’t understand it, because he’s done everything he was told. He thinks it’s because of the women he’s choosing. It’s not — it’s because of HIM. And when he has his rare successes, he thinks it’s because he’s attracted her with his kindness and goodness. He honestly believes that it’s finally worked; what he was taught has worked; he’s finally found the woman who appreciates him Just For Who He Is. It didn’t work, and she doesn’t appreciate him. What actually happened was that either he ran some inadvertent Game or has shown confidence and she’s noticed it; or she’s an ex carouseler who’s just found a Beta Bux to consolidate and cash in on.
While I do think each part of a married couple like to know that they’re needed. I also tend to think they want to be needed, a completely different concept to merely being a baby factory or a walking wallet and a handyman.
I get what you’re saying, and I think you’re right (if I’ve understood you).
A society devolves into matriarchy when males of the ruling class appeal to mediocre working class women. There are plenty of underclass alphas in this situation, who will never reach their potential. There are also lots of elite females who lose out on getting a ruling class man all to themselves. They have to share him with attractive skanks and often he chases weird sexual fetishes rather than having a healthy, normal relationship with his wife.
Karl Marx actually wrote about the beginnings of this (ironically, it’s the same verse that the local manosphere kooks quote, when they want to talk about “cultural Marxism,” which is something they appear to have made up lol).
Basically, ruling class men tend to get away with being unfaithful (if not outright decadent hedonists) because their unearned wealth shields them from the consequences of this behavior. They only pay the price when their decadent system collapses, of its own internal contradictions, and regular people finally string them up or run them out of town.
Best, Boxer
This has been true since I was young and heard FotF on the radio 35 years ago. Seeing books and other pop-culture references, I know it started well before that. It’s so common very few Christian leaders even think of challenging it.
This is why I don’t think association with any distinctly American influenced faith tradition or denomination will get you (the royal “you”) anywhere. In Orthodoxy (especially eveything byt OCA) the priests look at stuff like FOtF blow it off. They pat the person talking on the head and say “that’s cute. Our understanding of these things is a couple of millenia old.”
The vast majority of American “conservative” Christians sitting in the pews of the average Baptist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodist, “congregational” churches accross America read the books, listen to the radio programs and start half their conversations with “I heard on FOtF yesterday…”
IMHO, gotta back to the oldest, non-individualistic version.
You’re certainly right.
We can’t hope that the SJW fags will use any forethought or rational planning, really. They live their lives from moment to moment, compelled by their own whims and biases. They imagine that mass desublimation will provide them the “liberty” to finally sate their weird urges. In reality, you can’t turn an entire society into a gay bathhouse and expect people to keep taking out the trash.
The other thing that bugs me is that men are going around separating their emotional needs category from their need of sexual release category and assigning greek letters of importance to them…when they are closer to the same thing. Both entail things about what it is in the complete man.
“The vast majority of American “conservative” Christians sitting in the pews of the average Baptist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodist, “congregational” churches accross America read the books, listen to the radio programs and start half their conversations with “I heard on FOtF yesterday…””
Yes. And they absolutely insist they are the first people ever to have figured it all out. They know the SECRET, the antidote, the panacea.
The vast majority of American “conservative” Christians sitting in the pews of the average Baptist, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodist, “congregational” churches accross America read the books, listen to the radio programs and start half their conversations with “I heard on FOtF yesterday…”
And yet several of those denominations have extensive documents dating to the 1600’s that clearly spell out all sorts of theology. But they are not read, apparently. I once knew a man who got run out of a Baptist church because he started quoting from a Baptist “confession of faith” document that dated to some time around 1650. The sort of foundational document that should be generally accepted, was in the “I’ve never heard such a thing! The idea!” category. He was church shopping when I knew him, before he changed jobs and cities and I lost track, but he was ticked at any church that didn’t have what he called “guardrails” around theology, i.e/ something to keep the whole “Jesus is my BFF” / FOTF / “flavor of the month” style out of favor.
The aptly-named PC-USA seems to have dealt with its documents by dragging more in; they don’t have just one “confession”, they have something like 5 now, each no doubt with variations / contradictions. So I guess anyone can hear anything on the radio or TV or net and find some part of the official church writings that goes along.
Congregational churches seem to have a problem with long term stability. The Congregational churches of the Revolutionary War era in New England were pretty much all converted to Unitarianism in a century, and now I guess they are most likely B&B’s or museums or something like that.
Trends, fads and fashions are present to some degree in any human endeavor, but that doesn’t mean one needs to actively go looking for them.
That’s irked me for a long time, though I don’t usually contend about it. When I do point out that I get sex on demand, despite being the most beta of betas, I always get total strangers on the internet telling me I’m “a natural alpha” or “so beta that women take it as alpha” etc. None of which means anything at all, based on their own definitions, other than a nice ego boost to me if I were to take this nonsense seriously.
I think its a good shorthand for people who are very new to this mode of thought, but once you’ve been around a while, you can’t take it seriously any more.
Phillyastro @ 9:41 am:
“When did the fantasies begin to be rewritten (Hollywood) where the nebbish-y weakling nerd gets the girl in the end. I don’t know how much it effected men that “this” is the way to behave, not like the male, evil jock with testosterone.”
I’d say it’s related to the rapid advance of technology. There was a span of time, maybe 1890-1990, when nerds were almost the magicians of fantasy. Aircraft, electricity, the space program, antibiotics, SCUBA, plastics, there wasn’t anything those pencil-necked geeks couldn’t do. Now that people are used to fast technological progress, the magic is gone.
…
adam @ 10:16 am:
“One of the things mentioned often here is that feminism has redistributed resources away from males to females. In particular, away from beta males to females. This redistribution, typically administered through the federal government has eroded the signal for beta males to optimize their economic productivity.”
It’s more accurate to say that resources have been transferred from men to gov’t, which then guarantees those resources to women through welfare, chilamony and favorable laws. This frees women from the normal consequences of promiscuity and divorce.
…but he was ticked at any church that didn’t have what he called “guardrails” around theology, i.e/ something to keep the whole “Jesus is my BFF” / FOTF / “flavor of the month” style out of favor.
I respectully offer that these guardrails are provided in Orthodoxy by the fact that the last ecumenical council (agreed on by all Orthodox) was held in 787. We have not changed our doctrine or teachings since then.
Luckily we are very small in America so we have so far flown under the “gay marriage ” radar and such, but I think we will have to confront it sooner or later.
The first time I was allowed to be an attendant during liturgy I asked my priest why we don’t have “altar girls.” Rolling his eyes, he found this to be silly question.
“Because only chrismated males are allowed behind the screen.”
It was as plain as day for him. It was like I asked him why is 2 + 2 = 4?
You can agree or disagree about THAT particular issue, but it is unchangable under the ecumenical council system without all the patriarchs voting in unison to change it.
Weird question, but do the Orthodox peeps let people join who are undecided about their beliefs?
If there was a branch of Christianity, like the one you described, that was both patriarchal and open to skeptics, I’d affiliate and donate and participate. It seems like it’s one or the other.
Another weird question, I thought Orthodox christianity was a sort of ethnic thing you’re born into. If you’re Russian or Greek or what not, you go to that church and stay there. How does one acculturate if he wants to convert?
but do the Orthodox peeps let people join who are undecided about their beliefs?
You have to confess and renounce all other doctrine or “schizmatics” as they are called. In some cases you will have to be rebaptized. Chrismation is a requiement. (Under ideal conditions, the Orthodox generally do baptism, first communion and confirmation in one ceremony at about 6 months old, called chrismation).
I thought Orthodox christianity was a sort of ethnic thing you’re born into. If you’re Russian or Greek or what not, you go to that church and stay there. How does one acculturate if he wants to convert?
This is a little bit more complicated, hopefyll Novaseeker can come in and save me if needed. The best way I understand this is that Orthodoxy recognizes that ethnicities, nations and cultures exist and have a right to exist/express their culture within the context of Christianity.
Anyone, from any race/ethnicity can convert to any of them (Russion, Serbian, Greek, etc) and that will be your church. The closests thing to an “American Orthodox Church” is the OCA (Orthodox Church in America). They are (no surprise) the one with the most “progressives” in it, trying to meddle and change things. They are the stupid, individualistic Americans culturally who have no regard for tradition, authority, etc. But they are under either the Greek or Antiochian patriarch, so their change agents will ultimately not be very successful.
Obviously, you do not “become” Russian by doing this. But your brand of Orthodoxy will have all the Russian traditions.
For example, the Serbians have “Slava” which is a way of honoring our family patron saints that is unique to the Serbian Orthodox. We all the same liturgy, but the Serbian churches tend to do it in a blend of English, Slavonic and Srpski (Serbian). We eat Serbian food after church on Sundays. We drink Slivovitz. THATs what makes is Serbian–the cultural differences.
If there were a true American Orthodox Church, I recon it would somehow incoporate hot dogs, apple pie and guns. But it doesnt exist (thank God).
Also, all EO church members (Serbian, Greek, Russian, Antiochian, Syrian, OCA…) are in communion with each other. It is perfectly OK for a Serbian Orthodox to marry a Syrian, for example. No dispensation needed. You are in the same church.
Scott says:
April 9, 2015 at 9:43 am
When did the fantasies begin to be rewritten (Hollywood) where the nebbish-y weakling nerd gets the girl in the end.
Revenge of the nerds! I was in junior high and I remember thinking, “funny story, but umm, no.”
(I don’t actually know if that movie is where it started, but it was the first time I evern encoutered it)
Youtube Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. More than a few of their movies had the nice guy gets the girl ending. I’ve read that it was a source of contention in their partnership.
GunnerQ
I’d say it’s related to the rapid advance of technology. There was a span of time, maybe 1890-1990, when nerds were almost the magicians of fantasy. Aircraft, electricity, the space program, antibiotics, SCUBA, plastics, there wasn’t anything those pencil-necked geeks couldn’t do. Now that people are used to fast technological progress, the magic is gone.
Interesting thought. Also technological change has gotten less visible in the last 20 years. I’m sure the difference between a 4-engine propellor airliner and a Boeing 707 was quite obvious. The difference between, say, a 737-500 airliner and a 737-700 is not at all obvious to most passengers. The same goes for cars and other things. Who works on cars anymore? Only specialists mess around with carburetors, those people who wish to make their car work differently need only tinker with the engine controller – another computerized operation.
The difference between smartphone generations is not so obvious save to the most dedicated user. And much of the work on any modern system is abstract & symbolic, it’s twidding bits rather than forging steel, working titanium, etc. Cranking out an app or reprogramming a control chip is in some ways very different from assembling a computer from component boards or changing out a camshaft.
I see a lot of millennials who think they are “tech savvy” but what they really do is just play around in a walled garden with their phone. They don’t actually know for sure what the difference is between a wifi connection and a cellular one (the difference is getting a bit fuzzy, yeah, but…) to pick one example. Hacking a little app in Python is fun I’m sure, but there’s a lot more to computing than that.
There seems to be a lot of cargo-cult thinking out there, and that ain’t what drove the Apollo or shuttle programs. It’s also, fortunately, not what is driving Elon Musk’s Dragon system either.
Let me just clarify this because reading it over it looks harsh:
“They are the stupid, individualistic Americans culturally who have no regard for tradition, authority, etc. But they are under either the Greek or Antiochian patriarch, so their change agents will ultimately not be very successful.”
I am talking about a very small vocal minority WITHIN the OCA. Most of them very devout, and very reverent of the hierarchical order.
@Boxer, Scott has certainly said it better than I could. The thing you run into with some of the ethnic Orthodox churches is when folks identify with the ethnic nature of their community over the fact that they’re Christian. There is a couple at the church I go to (Antiochian), she was raised in the Greek Orthodox church, and he is a convert. They had to leave the Greek Orthodox church because the women treated his wife horribly for not marrying a Greek man.
Then, you get the folks in the heavily Orthodoxy countries who are not unlike lots of folks here in the US who figure they are Christian because of the culture regardless of whether they ever attend liturgy.
They had to leave the Greek Orthodox church because the women treated his wife horribly for not marrying a Greek man.
This is sad. It shouldn’t be like that. I hope they are getting their needs met the Antiochian parish.
My first Chotki was given to me by an Antiochian Navy chaplain when I was deployed to Guantanamo Bay. I was in the conversion process at that time. I told him “I don’t even have a prayer rope.” SO he pulled it out of his pocket and told me story of the Serbian monk who hand made it and gave it to him. Then he said “take it, it’s yours.” This was a pretty moving moment for me.
He himself was a convert from Presbyterian. I hold that Chotki in my pocket at all times. It is very sentimental.
One of the things I like about Anglicanism is that all beliefs are optional as is attendance: Gay Bishops, Women Bishops, Indian Bishops. “We’ll have that” they seem to say. They have all the best Freehold estates and Grade 2 or even Grade 1 listed buildings – they even possess that even rarer legal category The Ancient Monument – and this despite their razing of the monasteries and of course they also have all the best music, nearly a thousand years of it and still being added to. I was frequently called in by one Diocese as Counsel: I enjoyed that and they pay well. Thank-you Your Grace.
pm
For you “Enjoy the Decline” folks, you might enjoy this….
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-09/social-security-trust-funds-and-promises
Scary sh-t that basic math is…..
The government is functionally incapable of measuring the true “RISK” associated with the Anti-Dowry that your future wife accumulated that you must make good on….
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-09/uncle-sam-is-uneducated-about-loan-risks
….to really measure this loan “RISK” a civil servant needs to ask, “…what is the likelyhood this girl is going to get married to a man with a career and an ability to pay off her loan she took out for her Women’s Studies degree?” That question is not allowed to be asked!
Another weird question, I thought Orthodox christianity was a sort of ethnic thing you’re born into. If you’re Russian or Greek or what not, you go to that church and stay there. How does one acculturate if he wants to convert?
Scott has answered well.
I’ll add that due to the small size of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America, it’s really all about the parish. Some parishes are indeed very ethnicized and more closed towards outsiders, whereas others, even under the same bishop, are very open to outsiders and multiethnic. Generally the latter are more convert oriented than the former are, although the former do also have people who “marry in”, as it were.
OCA, as Scott mentions, sees itself as an American Orthodox Church, but historically it’s a blend of the former Russian Orthodox metropolia of North America and a good number of Eastern Catholic parishes who switched from Rome to Moscow when Rome refused to allow them to ordain married men in North America. There are parishes in the OCA which are quite ethnic, and other ones which are not at all so — it has a lot of converts among the clergy as well, and also has an influential seminary. There are parishes in the Antiochian Archdiocese which have been founded by converts, and have attracted a mix of converts and “cradle” Orthodox, the latter looking to be in a less ethnically homogeneous environment. There are other parishes in the AA which are very ethnically Arab, especially in the Midwest.
So, it really comes down to parish. It’s one of the challenges Orthodoxy faces in North America — there aren’t that many parishes, and they vary greatly, so if the parish an enquirer decides to visit is more of a closed one, they may decide to forget about pursuing Orthodoxy further simply based on that experience and a lack, in many areas, of a dense network of parishes which serve as other options. There are more parishes in areas where larger numbers of emigrants came from Orthodox countries than elsewhere, but there are large swathes of the US where there are not many parishes at all, really.
Dear Fellas:
Opus sez:
When I lived in Canada I went to Christmas and Easter services at the Anglican cathedral a few blocks over. It was a good diversion for me. When I moved to the USA I went to the Episcopal church (which is what the Americanos call their Anglican churches), and sat directly between a couple of flaming homosexuals, and a nazi skinhead decked out in leather jacket with swastika flag, and white power tattoos. (I wondered which one was going to stab me in the throat first, the whole time).
I like the Quakers quite a bit, but like the Episcopal church in the USA, it’s very female-centric and it doesn’t offer much in the way of manly camaraderie. You’re right. The Anglicans don’t care that I’m an agnostic Mormon, and the services are aesthetically nice, but it doesn’t seem to be a serious discipline any longer.
Then Scott sez:
Thanks for answering those questions. It seems quite similar to converting to orthodox Judaism or Islam. You don’t necessarily have to give up being a slacker American, but you’ll end up with lots of new vocabulary words and recipes. Not necessarily bad things.
The story you told about the prayer rope ought to be written down someplace, and I hope it is. You’ll want to give that to one of your sons someday, I think.
Peace,
Boxer
“For you “Enjoy the Decline” folks, you might enjoy this….
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-09/social-security-trust-funds-and-promises
Scary sh-t that basic math is…..”
Actually, there is NO social security funding problem. The federal government is monetarily sovereign and can therefore fund social security without any problem.
See:
http://mythfighter.com/2009/09/12/144/
Boxer,
“A society devolves into matriarchy when males of the ruling class appeal to mediocre working class women. There are plenty of underclass alphas in this situation, who will never reach their potential. There are also lots of elite females who lose out on getting a ruling class man all to themselves. They have to share him with attractive skanks and often he chases weird sexual fetishes rather than having a healthy, normal relationship with his wife.”
Yes. In the best society, the deltas (the common man/average Joe) lives like an alpha in his own household. This is something as beautiful and difficult to create as the Mona Lisa or the Hoover Dam. That has been largely lost to us as a people.
“Karl Marx actually wrote about the beginnings of this (ironically, it’s the same verse that the local manosphere kooks quote, when they want to talk about “cultural Marxism,” which is something they appear to have made up lol).”
Sorry, CM very much exists and its influence is readily traceable through Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality and elsewhere, especially among that ruling class you mention above. It’s principally responsible for why Christian teaching (including headship) feels intuitively wrong to so many, male and female, who should know better. The red pill is a useful detour around it, but the roadblock is very much there.
You don’t necessarily have to give up being a slacker American
This is only true because no one is really checking. But Orthodoxy places ENORMOUS demands liturgically/fasting/praying wise on the life of the Christian (if you do it right).
Orthodoxy is resurgent within Protestantism (the Reformed Church), Roman Catholicism (Tridentine Mass), and of course Eastern Orthodoxy as above.
“The aptly-named PC-USA seems to have dealt with its documents by dragging more in; they don’t have just one “confession”, they have something like 5 now, each no doubt with variations / contradictions.”
In fact we have 11, you can read them here: http://www.pcusa.org/resource/book-of-confessions/
They include the Theological Declaration of Barmen (standing up to the Nazis) perhaps our finest hour and the Confession of 1967, where I believe things got off-track (with the replacement of “salvation” by “reconciliation”, among other things). I knew many of the men who were principally responsible for that confession. There were great men. They were also wrong. It happens.
I now worship with a thriving Reformed congregation based on the Westminster confession which rents out the chapel of an aging PCUSA church. If the PCUSA ever comes to its senses, that Reformed congregation will join it, otherwise it will probably purchase the church property and the beautiful building from the dead, heretical PCUSA congregation.
A couple of years ago, I read that some of the youngest priests in the Episcopal church are quite conservative, and are hoping to more or less “march through the institution” in reverse. Is it even still possible for a theologically conservative man to be accepted to an Episcopal seminary in the US?
Dear Desiderian:
Can you tell me where, in the Marxian corpus, the phrase “cultural Marxism” shows up? I’ll wait.
I have most of Uncle Theodor’s collected works, from Minima Moralia to Aesthetic Theory, 4 feet away from me, right now. Would you like to back up your claims with a bit of text, or am I just to take your word for this nonsense?
(I’ve done this before, mind you, and it never ceases to be funny)
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Scott:
I’d probably get a lot out of that (it’s why I referred to it as a discipline — a form of disciple, above). The Episcopal Church in the USA has great ceremonies, but it isn’t really a discipline if they don’t care what you do.
By being a slacker, I just meant the usual norteamericano, who doesn’t have a rigid set of cultural artifacts to adhere to. I didn’t mean being an active degenerate (not all Americans are degenerates, though we often criticise them for as much).
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer
Are you only opposed to the term “cultural Marxism” or do you believe the concept is made up?
(I think Desiderian refers to this: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism)
Boxer,
“Would you like to back up your claims with a bit of text, or am I just to take your word for this nonsense?”
I had the misfortune to see the curricula first-hand, and that which it has crowded out. Is your claim that it is not Marxist or that it is not influential?
Laura,
“A couple of years ago, I read that some of the youngest priests in the Episcopal church are quite conservative, and are hoping to more or less “march through the institution” in reverse. Is it even still possible for a theologically conservative man to be accepted to an Episcopal seminary in the US?”
Moreso now than ten years ago, as much of the Left that is still in charge of the church is nonetheless exhausted with activism and has sought out their own sort of “back to basics” in worship and church polity. Unfortunately, they’re still pretty determined to defend what they see as the gains made by the Left on things like female ordination and there’s enough desperation for new members that popular fads like gay marriage are still getting pushed through, but there is little of the Prog triumphalism one sees in the secular culture for conservatives to be concerned about.
The advantage the theologically conservative man now has is starting out from the red-pill and a commitment to orthodoxy on its own terms. Those of us who leaned right ten-twenty years ago nonetheless often had a soft blue-pill underbelly that the Left took advantage of, usually to discourage us and drive us out of the ministry/academia. That’s roughly what happened to me.
Thanks, MarcusD, that is a decent overview. I’d need to see Boxer critique that to understand where he is coming from.
Dear Peeps:
There is an ancient Roman principle of logic that reads something like: the burden of proof is upon the accuser. In plain language, if someone asserts that something is true, it’s his responsibility to explain the principles that make it so.
(And just to be extra pedantic, we’re talking about correlationism here, when we talk of truth. If something is so, then it must correlate to phenomena that is readily observable in the physical or social universe.)
This afternoon, Desiderian challenged me with:
So, I asked Desiderian to back up his claims, with:
And rather than do so, he responds:
When you assert something, you are expected to cite your sources and provide a sound argument in support of your contentions. You don’t get to weasel out with fallacies like “well I saw it, so it must be true” or other “muh feelz” appeals.
Regards,
Boxer
I was in Eastern Europe/East Germany for their revolutions in 1989-90. Much of what I saw on the way out there I saw on the way in at the Ivy League 2001-2004.
Boxer-
At a bare minimum, to “do” Orthodoxy right, IMHO, you:
Arise every morning sign yourself, bow and kiss your icons (if you have an altar) and immediately pray.
Pray before and after breakfast.
Pray before work.
Pray every hour, on the hour.
Pray before and after lunch.
Pray before and after dinner.
Pray before bed time.
There are specific prayers from the various prayer books you can use, or just pray your own prayer. I mix it up a bit.
Fast on Thursday and Saturday nights. Saturday night fast lasts until after communion on Sunday, which isn’t until about 1145 in our church.
There are also 4 major fasts during the year.
Confession should be at least once a month.
These are of course spiritual disciplines, as you mentioned. If you just go through the motions you are doing it wrong.
That is the bare minimum, nuts and bolts of it. Not to mention the whole, taking care of sick, elderly, lovng God, loving your neighbor, etc thing.
I am now trying to learn Serbian so I can do some of the rote prayers in my fathers native language. It is more meaningful that way.
Dear Marcus:
I’m a big fan of discussing actual social theories. We all live in the actual world, and it has actual problems. If the concept were legitimate, you guys would have some legitimate sources to explain what it is. So far, I don’t even see a definition, except as a catch-all. i.e. “Cultural Marxism”: stuff I don’t like, and stuff that makes me feel bad.
Metapedia is a white power/racialist site, and it purports itself to contain “far right” and “white nationalist” perspectives. Nothing against that, but it isn’t a legitimate historical source.
Bear in mind that I want to talk about history — as in shit that actually happened in history. People are welcome to their fantastic racial conspiracy theories and such, but that isn’t of much interest to people who are interested in the world as it actually exists.
Best, Boxer
You can call it a fallacy all you want, if I have proven myself untrustworthy then my witness is meaningless. If I haven’t you have one man’s word that this sort of thing is very influential in the curricula I saw not only in the grad school I attended but in other fields where I sought out complimentary courses.
Do you want me to try to reproduce the curricula? I’m sure there are many online you can find yourself if you wish to. I believe I asked you a question. Do you wish to answer it?
“Metapedia is a white power/racialist site, and it purports itself to contain “far right” and “white nationalist” perspectives. Nothing against that, but it isn’t a legitimate historical source.”
A common CM tactic – disqualify rather than engage in good faith. My blue-pill underbelly is no longer there, so I have no interest in wasting good faith on bad. It is interesting that this particular subject rouses you so powerfully from your usual disinterested detachment. Why might that be, Boxer?
Dear Desiderian:
You swear it exists, and earlier you alluded to Adorno being a part of it. Again, I have several works of his on my bookshelf, right here in this room. Can you give me a chapter and page number that discusses “cultural Marxism”?
I’ll make this simple. If you don’t have a source, could you please define “cultural marxism” for me concisely?
Thanks,
Boxer
It’s hardly bad faith to parrot exactly what metapedia says about itself. They describe themselves as a “far right” and “white nationalist” political site. It’s not a historical resource, and the only people who claim it is are here on this blog.
Yes, of course, kooky. Since I doubt the grand conspiracy (that you can’t provide any sources for, or even define) I must be one of the grand conspirators. LOLOLOL!
Thank you for playing.
Boxer
Dear Scott:
I’m assuming the hourly prayers are allowed to be entirely internal. (Few employers would allow for that many breaks).
In any event, this is exactly what Americans need: a bit of order and discipline, which is exactly why it’ll never take off. I think the vast majority like being slouches.
I dunno. I sorta lean toward Aristotle’s idea of hexis (virtue by habit). Even if one goes through the motions to begin with, these things lead to a happier life.
Best,
Boxer
I dunno. I sorta lean toward Aristotle’s idea of hexis (virtue by habit). Even if one goes through the motions to begin with, these things lead to a happier life.
Fair enough. I would assent to this. Sometimes, “the motions” help us focus on the spiritual. Its why “I’m spiritual, not religious” is so easy to dismantle as an argument for a way of life.
“you alluded to Adorno being a part of it”
Yes, he was very influential on western scholarship, especially the Authoritarian Personality. Those scholars trained institutional leaders who established the norms we work with today.
from Metapedia:
“Freudian psychoanalysis was an important influence on critical theory. One example is the influential book The Authoritarian Personality where psychoanalytic ideas are used to pathologize Western love and pride of Christianity, the family, and the nation.
The tendency to pathologize opponents as being irrationally sick has continued with, for example, labels such as homophobia and Islamophobia.”
of from wikipedia, if you prefer:
“In an interview with Casey Blake and Christopher Phelps, historian Christopher Lasch criticized the Frankfurt School’s initial tendencies towards “automatically” rejecting opposing political criticisms on “psychiatric” grounds:
‘The Authoritarian Personality had a tremendous influence on Hofstadter and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds.'”
Again, is your claim that this was not influential, or that it was not Marxist? Why are you afraid to answer that question?
“Yes, of course, kooky. Since I doubt the grand conspiracy”
It is no conspiracy. Just good old fashioned human error and fallenness.
“It’s hardly bad faith to parrot exactly what metapedia says about itself. They describe themselves as a “far right” and “white nationalist” political site. It’s not a historical resource, and the only people who claim it is are here on this blog.”
It makes historical claims. Neither “far right” nor “white nationalist” are adjectives that mean “inaccurate”. You’re welcome to disqualify the claims on other grounds, but calling names is insufficient.
Dear Desiderian:
Was it you who claimed to be a teacher of mathematics earlier? If not, perhaps I’m being a bit hard on you. Anyway, I don’t mean to be so eristic.
If you’re using that as your primary source, you should be able to quote from it to support your contentions. I have a copy, and I’d be very glad to have a reasonable discussion about it.
IIRC one of the Brits is an Adorno fan (though I don’t remember which one). Maybe they can chime in.
Wikipedia isn’t a historical resource either. Legitimate sources are in peer-reviewed journals. JSTOR is a good example.
Peer-review is everything, you know? Otherwise we end up making decisions based upon “four out of five dentists recommend” arguments.
Best,
Boxer
Kind of just watching the cultural Marxist debate from the sidelines here.
I have understood it to be a pejorative/critique to describe Adorno and Horheimers work (and all that flowed from it). I use it occasionally and I am aware I am assigning a label to a philosophy that its proponents would not appreciate.
Its not unlike the way many of us call “pro-life” “pro-abortion.”
Just my $.02
I meant call “pro-choice” “pro-abortion”
The curricula I saw were shot through with Habermas and the sort of distrust and disrespect for truth* that has been my experience with Marxism and its progeny, both in practice and in theory, and certainly in comparison to the sort of orthodox Christian practice I’ve seen in people who happened to have nothing but the strongest contempt for Marxism in all its manifestations. The character of those people put the character of Marxists I’ve known to shame, to put it mildly, not to mention the character of Marx himself.
* – for some I think it was a Gnostic infatuation with the complex/esoteric over the simply tried and true.
If you’re a fan of Adorno, well, I confess to not being able to really make head or tail of him, but I am familiar with the damage done by many who thought they understood him, and at the very least that generation (the New Left) dropped the ball on passing down the sort of basic wisdom and knowledge needed to sustain a civilization and raising up the following generation in it.
Horkheimer wrote an essay on the future of marriage that’s quite relevant to the androsphere. I can’t remember the name. It’s in this collection.
http://www.versobooks.com/books/1138-critique-of-instrumental-reason
My copy is at work. I ought to review it sometime.
Adorno also wrote about divorce in Minima Moralia (how interesting it is that normal people stoop so low when they divorce… respectable professors break into their ex-wives apartments and go through the bureau, etc.). Uncle Ted was born a Roman Catholic, and there’s a lot of little artifacts of that in his later work, despite his claims of not being religious.
Pro choice *is* pro abortion, though. That is an apt choice of words to describe it.
There is no such thing as “cultural Marxism” in contrast. It doesn’t refer to anything in Marx’s work. Metapedia describes it as “a Jewish movement” and leaves it at that (despite the fact that most of the people it lists as Jews never were Jewish). People who claim to know what it is can’t ever point to anything substantive as to its existence, except to label a huge constellation of unrelated things they don’t like as “cultural Marxism”.
As a dude who likes things well defined, so that I know what people are talking about, I find the whole theory to be more holes than cheese.
“Was it you who claimed to be a teacher of mathematics earlier?”
That is the profession to which I have retreated. I had an organ transplant in 2007 and decided teaching would be a better fit. I misjudged that but its worked out.
I don’t have all Habermas’ work, but I have “Truth and Justification”, “Philosophical Discourse of Modernity” and “Postmetaphysical Thinking” here in my bookshelf. Do you want to talk about Habermas? I’d be glad to.
In other words, you’ve never read Habermas or Adorno, or Marx either. Despite this, you know (much better than I, and others who have read their work) what they wrote and even about their personal moral failings, somehow, and while you can’t quote any of them or cite any sources, you just know they were bad, bad people, the source of all the world’s problems, etc.
OK then.
Regards,
Boxer
You know how you have to give your freshman students the precise definition of the limit, right in the first or second week of the first course in the Calculus series? That’s what I want: the precise definition of Cultural Marxism.
It doesn’t need to have quantifiers or greek letters, just something concise, so that I know what you mean when you use the term. Can you oblige me?
Boxer
“except to label a huge constellation of unrelated things they don’t like as ‘cultural Marxism’.”
Fair enough. The folks (the New Left) who were enthusiastic about Marxism at the beginning of their march through the institutions were also very much into cultural critique, and their methods (Alinskyite, etc) have become both widespread and successful in subverting both unwitting non-Marxists and traditionalists, much more via culture than traditional Marxist means (such as nationalizing means of production, say).
Cultural Marxism is more description than label.
@Scott: “If there were a true American Orthodox Church, I recon it would somehow incoporate hot dogs, apple pie and guns. But it doesnt exist (thank God).”
Why the negative? This is a church I could get behind. Are you sure you are not called to serve as the first patriarch of the ARPOC- American Red Pill Orthodox Church? We would have a Southern feast day in the ARPOC, perhaps a feast week to commemorate the southern warrior tradition to say nothing what we could do with the Indy 500, and beer instead of wine.
“You know how you have to give your freshman students the precise definition of the limit, right in the first or second week of the first course in the Calculus series? That’s what I want: the precise definition of Cultural Marxism.”
Actually, I don’t know that. Limits are more for professional mathematicians – there was a lot of calculus done before Cauchy, and I find kids gain a deeper appreciation of and enthusiasm for Calculus by doing it awhile before getting into the deep weeds of limits. The actual delta-epsilon proof is a beautiful thing, don’t get me wrong.
Can you oblige me?
Not until you answer my questions.
“In other words, you’ve never read Habermas or Adorno, or Marx either.”
I’ve read more Habermas and Marx than Adorno. Drop the erudtion amog bullshit, it isn’t doing you any good.
@Boxer
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression you were opposed to the Frankfurt School (and by extension, cultural Marxism.)
Your claim that CM is a conspiracy theory is shared by a number of other people over at Wikipedia who had brought Wikipedia further in line with Rational Wiki (e.g. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism). It caused quite the commotion on Wikipedia, and spilled over into other things:
e.g.
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2occ7m/wikipedias_cultural_marxism_article_now_redirects/
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2t1yh0/ot_is_cultural_marxism_only_a_conspiracy_theory/
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2qzi6g/wikipedia_admin_quits_over_deletion_of_cultural/
“Peer-review is everything, you know?”
As I’ve said, having known the peers, I know no such thing.
You’re not actually a mathematics teacher, either.
FYI: for those who might not know, one can’t begin teaching calculus without first teaching limits.
https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/CalcOneDIRECTORY/preciselimdirectory/PreciseLimit.html
It’s sort of a cruel thing to do to kids. This is probably the most difficult concept in all of mathematics, and we make them struggle up the hill before they get to the good stuff, but it’s what it is.
Again, I’m not the dude that’s positing various unseeable conspiracies exist. You are. You’ve amply proven that you don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Regards,
Boxer
One working definition, at the top of search results:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cultural+marxism
===
It also seems to get enough search results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cultural+Marxism%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1
===
More related off-shoot posts:
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=cultural+marxism&restrict_sr=on
Dear Marcus:
To say that I was “opposed” to the Frankfurt School would imply that there was some uniform stance taken by the Frankfurt School. I’ve read much of the work of the people who were erstwhile members. Some is great, and I love it (Benjamin’s Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility) and some is crap, that I don’t agree with (Adorno’s Jazz Essays).
The problem with the idea that the Frankfurt School somehow took over American culture is the fact that historically, they all died relatively unknown. I’m probably one of a thousand or so people in the USA who actually has read much of this stuff. They had no real influence on the culture, none of them had any money, and they didn’t have a uniform stance on much of anything. One member of the Frankfurt School, Erich Fromm, wrote essays denouncing the Frankfurt School for years, for example. Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer hated each other. Leo Lowenthal worked for Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, in an effort to destabilize the USSR, and Adorno denounced him for it.
If there was a conspiracy, you’d think they’d have agreed on something.
Boxer
Boxer,
“It’s sort of a cruel thing to do to kids. This is probably the most difficult concept in all of mathematics, and we make them struggle up the hill before they get to the good stuff, but it’s what it is.”
If you want to be watertight theoretically, you start with limits. It’s also a good way to make students’ eyes glaze over, as they have no idea why you’re doing what you’re doing. Not coincidentally, they’ll forget it and have to learn it all over again when and if they ever need it (they won’t if they’re only learning calculus for its applications).
I’ve taught it both ways. It works better if you sort of follow the historical flow (Cauchy introduced his rigorous approach to analysis based on limits roughly a century and a half after calculus was discovered/invented).
The more you write, the more I think you’re a conceited, over-educated fool. Again, why the soft spot for Adorno?
You’re the only one who has alleged a conspiracy.
Why so concerned that nobody thinks these guys were influential?
Some other references to it that I’ve seen over the years:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/cultural-marxism-in-the-manosphere/
http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2011/02/pc-rationalisation-hamster-in-religious.html
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2014/10/what-cultural-marxism-is-and-isnt.html
Dude, I doubt there’s another actual mathematics instructor on Dalrock, but I guarantee there are people who have done the Calculus series and remember it. If anyone ever learned derivatives and integrals without knowing what the limit notation was at the beginning of the definition, please raise your hand. (LOL!)
I come here to talk about the actual problems we (men, families, people interested in traditional values) face in actual society. I’m not talking about the fantastic alternate reality, where President Adorno enacted the Cultural Marxist laws in the 1950s. My history book doesn’t talk about that.
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer
“To say that I was “opposed” to the Frankfurt School would imply that there was some uniform stance taken by the Frankfurt School.”
I don’t think it’s necessary that they all agree on everything.
—
“They had no real influence on the culture, none of them had any money, and they didn’t have a uniform stance on much of anything.”
None of their ideas have found there way into the culture? Has critical theory not pervaded academia for some time? Has it not spawned SJWs and any number of other side effects?
—
“The problem with the idea that the Frankfurt School somehow took over American culture”
I don’t think that was the suggestion. That that was their goal is evident, but I don’t think anyone is arguing that they took over the culture. If they had, we likely wouldn’t be talking about, in that Orwellian, down-the-memory-hole way.
Dear Marcus:
Well, urban dictionary, metapedia, and vox day all give incompatible definitions (if you can call these definitions). If something means anything, it should have a working definition that we can use to wall off its meaning.
You realize that the Frankfurt School were, generally, opposed to Lenin and his ideological descendants, right? Marcuse’s idea of Advanced Industrial Society was a critique of the USSR in the 1960s (written after he got out of the OSS/CIA). The one place Adorno did have some influence was in the anticommunist West German government. Lowenthal worked for Voice of America.
They were all Marxists, of a sort, but they weren’t friends with the USSR or China. I’m pretty sure that they would have been jailed had they gone to any state with a Leninist model of government.
Boxer
Oh boy.
Not to get political, but by the time this Chritian nosedive is over, we’ll just back the truck up to Saudi Arabia and say, “Come on in, fellas! Take what you want!”
Did Elliot have a spine at one time, or was it removed in a freak chiropractic accident?
Dude, SJWs are a bunch of sheep, marching in lockstep at the behest of capital. They’re exactly the sorts of brain-dead authoritarians that the FS characters made fun of.
There’s plenty to disagree with in these guys writings, (and we know they were objectively wrong about many things) but I think you should actually read their works, so that your critiques can be effective. You don’t seem to be familiar with their positions at all.
“I guarantee there are people who have done the Calculus series and remember it. If anyone ever learned derivatives and integrals without knowing what the limit notation was at the beginning of the definition, please raise your hand. (LOL!)”
That’s how it was taught to me in 11th grade, and the first time I encountered limits. My dad the math teacher taught me how to do derivatives and integrals when I asked him about them at age 7. Calculus is (among others things) rates of change (like mph, for instance) and the study of infinitesimals and differentials, which Newton and Leibniz did plenty with before limits were ever heard of. Again, you mistake a difference of opinion/experience for a difference in expertise/authority for the purposes of disqualification rather than good faith engagement.
Why is this your preference?
@Boxer
“Well, urban dictionary, metapedia, and vox day all give incompatible definitions (if you can call these definitions).”
Well, I didn’t cite them as definitive, just as a starting point. There’s overlap between them, and I think that overlap is close to the definition.
—
>if you can call these definitions
What, in particular, is wrong with them?
—
“If something means anything, it should have a working definition that we can use to wall off its meaning.”
“Something” can mean a certain thing without someone having defined its meaning. That is, cultural Marxism will exist regardless of whether the term (and its definition) exist.
“The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state.”
Do you take any issue with the above quote? Is it a recognizable concept to you? If so, how do you refer to it?
—
“You realize that the Frankfurt School were, generally, opposed to Lenin and his ideological descendants, right?”
Generally? Why were they opposed and does it relate to the above quote or something else?
“You don’t seem to be familiar with their positions at all.”
Their positions are less in question than their influence (with the New Left) that created the conditions out of which arose the SJWs. I was in grad school in 2001-2004. Habermas was everywhere. My guess is that his appeal was gnostic/esoteric, so it’s little surprise that I don’t remember much of what he actually had to say and didn’t keep his books up here on my shelf. What I did see was that the profs who were enamored with Habermas (and the ideological descendants of Adorno and Marcuse, plus Fanon, Derrida, Foucault, ad nauseum, and of course Marx himself for most) were the furthest thing conceivable from anything orthodox, traditional, or even straightforward and honest. I saw many take the place of retiring professors who represented traditions both liberal and conservative who were.
“Generally? Why were they opposed and does it relate to the above quote or something else?”
Lenin was practice, they were theory. Here’s a funny book about that contrast:
Dear Marcus:
Let me see if I understand your position.
You can’t point to anything that Marx, Lenin, or any member of the Frankfurt School wrote, but they were all somehow in league with each other to subvert the institutions of the USA in the 20th century (despite actually all hating each other’s guts). Not only that, but there is this something, you call “cultural Marxism”, which you admit you don’t know how to define.
Various (non historical, pop culture, weird political axe-grinders, etc.) sources provide fuzzy definitions that all conflict with each other. Nonetheless, I am supposed to “listen and believe” when you say it exists, and I am supposed to join in the two minutes hate against Goldstein and Adorno, who you don’t appear to have ever read yourself.
Am I getting your general position on this matter, or have I missed something?
Boxer
Dear Marcus:
If your claim is that Adorno wrote this, please post chapter and verse. He wrote some whacky stuff about Jazz being the devil’s work, so it’s not out of the question, but I doubt its authenticity and would love to verify it.
Boxer
@Boxer
“If your claim is that Adorno wrote this, please post chapter and verse.”
I did not claim that. That quote was the first part of the top Urban Dictionary definition.
Dear Marcus:
Cool.
The first problem with this definition is that it has little relation to anything Marx actually wrote. Marxist philosophy is pretty Victorian about morality (compared with conventional norms) — with notions of homosexuality and extramarital affairs being a symptom of bourgeois decadence, etc. Marx never had any goofy ideas about erasing notions of gender or the family.
His idea of the state withering away was to be a natural process. The idea being that when we replaced the concept of money with notions of work, there would be no real way that any state could function. Political and social power would devolve to local councils (soviets) and people would have no real need for domination.
The closest political philosophy that’s still active today is probably the collective wing of the American Libertarian movement.
Boxer
@Boxer
“You can’t point to anything that Marx, Lenin, or any member of the Frankfurt School wrote, but they were all somehow in league with each other to subvert the institutions of the USA in the 20th century (despite actually all hating each other’s guts).”
Why is this statement relevant to the discussion, and did I imply or state the latter part?
—
“Not only that, but there is this something, you call “cultural Marxism”, which you admit you don’t know how to define.”
Did I admit that?
—
“Various (non historical, pop culture, weird political axe-grinders, etc.) sources provide fuzzy definitions that all conflict with each other.”
Could you expand on this?
—
“Nonetheless, I am supposed to “listen and believe” when you say it exists”
Where does the phrase “listen and believe” come from?
—
“and I am supposed to join in the two minutes hate against Goldstein and Adorno”
I didn’t think anyone here was enjoining you to do that.
—
“who you don’t appear to have ever read yourself”
What knowledge should I demonstrate to make you think otherwise? For example, I’ve read some Adorno, but I was taken aback by the wordiness and obscurantism of it. (Which, I think, makes it rather difficult to quote from.)
—
It’s my understanding that most of the core figures of the Frankfurt School saw themselves as Marxists. It seems reasonable then that they should be described as such.
—
What is your relationship to the Frankfurt School and Marxism?
Also, could you answer my other questions further up?
@Boxer
“The first problem with this definition is that it has little relation to anything Marx actually wrote.”
It’s my understanding that what qualifies as Marxism has more variability (that is, it’s not based solely on what Marx wrote). Further to that, do you recognize any concepts present in that quote (by name)? Some people would claim that that is an example of Critical Theory, that Critical Theory is Marxism or follows from it, and that Cultural Marxism overlaps with Critical Theory.
They were certainly Marxists, but they were anti-Marxist-Leninists. This makes the claim that they were here at the behest of establishment Marxists in the USSR (as one of your definitions alluded to) quite humorous, for anyone who actually knows who these guys were, and what they wrote about.
This is an Alinskyesque tactic that has been used so many times that it’s old hat. My relationship is that I’m a cultural Marxist, of course, as anyone who doubts these conspiracy theories must be (just ask Desiderian).
I know Marx’s work quite well, and I know the Frankfurt School’s work fairly well (I like continental philosophy). I have a degree in 19th century Am. Hist.. I think a lot of the (being polite) far-out nonsense that appears in these comments (racist stuff, historical revisionism, etc.) turns off regular, educated people who might come to this blog for serious discussion.
I’d be glad to answer any questions about actual historical movements, and I’m always up for a serious discussion of social trends that actually exist, within history. If you want to try and label me some sort of communist (lol) for disagreeing with this conspiracy theory, you’re welcome to do so without me answering personal questions.
Best,
Boxer
Well, my own opinion (along with old-fashioned common sense) suggests that if we’re calling something “Marxism”, it ought not be directly opposed by the work of Uncle Karl.
Critical Theory is usually described as post-Marxist. It’s in some ways an outgrowth or a revision of Marxian theory.
Its also neopragmatic reaction to guys like Derrida and Foucault (and other post-structuralists), who the Frankfurters saw as leading philosophy toward a dead end full of semantic wordgames and “jiggery pokery” (nonsense).
Boxer
“My relationship is that I’m a cultural Marxist, of course, as anyone who doubts these conspiracy theories must be (just ask Desiderian).”
As with most of your accusations, that claim can be found nowhere in anything I’ve written.
“I think a lot of the (being polite) far-out nonsense that appears in these comments (racist stuff, historical revisionism, etc.) turns off regular, educated people who might come to this blog for serious discussion.”
You’re probably right about that.
So does Marxism.
Hey Boxer, you morphed into Groucho, what happened to Uncle Herb?
Herbie is hitting the gym with Jake LaMotta this evening. Incidentally, I hope I’m not the only person who laughed aloud at feminist hero Laura Lifshitz, who described yours truly as:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-lifshitz/what-its-like-to-be-an-evil-jewish-divorcee_b_6916122.html
Apparently she thought that was a selfie. (I hope I look as good at that age as Marcuse did).
Boxer
Yeah, I got the name ‘Uncle Herb’ from dip$hit. Consider me part of the peanut gallery, I don’t say much.
@Boxer
“They were certainly Marxists, but they were anti-Marxist-Leninists. This makes the claim that they were here at the behest of establishment Marxists in the USSR (as one of your definitions alluded to) quite humorous, for anyone who actually knows who these guys were, and what they wrote about.”
Could you expand on this?
—
“This is an Alinskyesque tactic that has been used so many times that it’s old hat. My relationship is that I’m a cultural Marxist, of course, as anyone who doubts these conspiracy theories must be (just ask Desiderian).”
I’m not sure I really appreciate your implication. I was asking out of curiosity, not as a setup for a fallacy.
—
“If you want to try and label me some sort of communist (lol) for disagreeing with this conspiracy theory, you’re welcome to do so without me answering personal questions.”
I’m not sure why you’ve decided to make this personal. I’m just trying to understand your point of view. I also don’t recall labeling you as anything.
—
There are a few more questions that I’ve asked further up that I’d like you to answer. If you don’t want to answer them, that’s fine – we can end our discussion here.
Selective about nothing?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955311
Allowing open marriage…does it become my sin?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955358
—
@Dalrock
And, as if (nearly) on schedule:
Choosing Last
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955410
One commenter says:
There are so many fish in the sea that there will always be a prize catch waiting to be caught.
Dear Marcus:
I wrote:
Then Marcus wrote:
Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man is a good example. In the text he compares the USSR to the USA, and declares them to be operating by identical ideological principles: the ability of the citizen to make authentic choices is subverted, in either case, by the offering of functionally identical options. People in both societies imagine themselves to be “free” while actually being very tightly controlled, and any desire for individuality is channeled into meaningless “ford v chevy” expressions. He labeled this unitary system as “Advanced Industrial Society”.
Incidentally, there are pieces of this book that folks in the manosphere would likely enjoy. Marcuse talks about the subversive power of sex (i.e. to create the ideal society in miniature — a family) being co-opted by the state and subverted for consumption.
Sex is integrated into work and public relations and is thus made more susceptible to (controlled) satisfaction. Technical progress and more comfortable living permit the systematic inclusion of libidinal components into the realm of commodity production and exchange. But no matter how controlled the mobilization of instinctual energy may be (it sometimes amounts to a scientific management of libido), no matter how much it may serve as a prop for the status quo – it is also gratifying to the managed individuals, just as racing the outboard motor, pushing the power lawn mower, and speeding the automobile are fun.
This mobilization and administration of libido may account for much of the voluntary compliance, the absence of terror, the pre-established harmony between individual needs and socially-required desires, goals, and aspirations. The technological and political conquest of the transcending factors in human existence, so characteristic of advanced industrial civilization, here asserts itself in the instinctual sphere: satisfaction in a way which generates submission and weakens the rationality of protest.
I apologize. If I seem defensive, it’s due to GBFM doing that for weeks, Rob Fedders obsessing about me for years, etc. I find this funny, but I also tend to assume that most people aren’t really serious when they go down this road. You’re an exception, clearly.
I’ll criticize the Frankfurt School as much as anybody, but I think that a coherent critique would be aimed at stuff they actually wrote, rather than fantastic stuff that nobody can seem to point to in their corpus.
Best,
Boxer
“I’ll criticize the Frankfurt School as much as anybody, but I think that a coherent critique would be aimed at stuff they actually wrote, rather than fantastic stuff that nobody can seem to point to in their corpus.”
There was no critique, just a claim about their influence that you contested.
“Horkheimer wrote an essay on the future of marriage that’s quite relevant to the androsphere. I can’t remember the name. It’s in this collection.
http://www.versobooks.com/books/1138-critique-of-instrumental-reason”
This actually looks interesting, I think I’ll find it in the library. Looks like they have the O’Connell translation. Is that one you recommend?
You mean, I was insufficiently enthusiastic during the ceremony?
I’m so sorry comrade. You won’t report me, will you?
I may not have read as much Adorno as Boxer, but I have read a vast amount and (unless it has been taken out of contest) I find it very hard to believe that Marcus D’s quote really is from Adorno – it does not sound like him or his usual style of writing at all. Boxer refers to Minima Moralia which is really rather pro-marriage.
I share Adorno’s dislike of Jazz and for the same reasons; Adorno was after all a composer (a Berg pupil) and his books dissecting Wagner, Schoenberg and Stravinsky are surely compulsory reading for those who are interested in those three.
Cultural Marxism is a useful tag for a certain set of attitudes to be found amongst SJWs and amongst the elite.
@Laura
Yes, there are conservative Anglican/Episcopalian ministers. My cousin being one of them. He actually said mass facing the altar and wore vestments that only the Archbishop of Canterbury still wears on high holy days. He was quite the same on his wedding days, 1600 style. I would suggest in the US looking for an Anglican diocese that is paired with a very, very liberal Catholic diocese as they tend to be more conservative. Also, there are a group of churches that are not in communion with the Episcopalians, but rather with the Anglican church in England. They won’t allow active gay ministers, female “priests” etc. There’s also the option of Anglican churches that jumped ship into the Catholic church due to the whole “women priests” issue but still maintain their previous liturgy.
It should also be remembered that there are Eastern rite churches that are in communion with the Latin Rite (i.e. Catholics). They tend to be far more conservative and have lovely masses and rites. I would say the Byzantine or Greek are generally the most friendly to outsiders.
Just had the Nelms post recommended to me by a Christian blogger I follow. I’m a little bit sad right now.
Dear Opus:
This is pretty good apologia re: Adorno’s jazz essays, and worth reading.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/852897?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21106413408183
I get where you guys are coming from, I think. It’s the old Hegelian idea of good art being something that lifts the consciousness/self-consciousness into a higher state. When I read Adorno on music, though, he seems pretty eager to bash anything that’s non-white (or non-white-European), and he’s also especially snobby for anything the hoi polloi seem to like.
The fact that lots of people like something doesn’t necessarily make it “bad”, and that’s the impression I got.
Boxer
@Boxer
I was not aware that there was any non-white music worth mentioning – and if there is, Adorno does not refer to it – not all Jazz was black. What Adorno dislikes is the arbitrariness – the lack of logic, in Jazz – a criticism that he also levels at Stravinsky (Sacre de Printemps). He also is fairly dismissive of the Marches and Waltzes that (then) usually comprised movie scores, and that is certainly not non-white.
I was not expecting to have to defend Adorno against yourself and to do justice to the subject would need a fair amount of time (which is not available) to put together a suitable essay on the subject .
His criticism of Wagner (lack of proper modulation) and his teacher’s teacher Schoenberg (harmonic incoherence, if I recall correctly) is such that it is a bit unfair to portray him as basically a musical racist.
I’d love to have known what he thought of Rock and Roll, Aesthetic Theory is silent on the subject.
Laura @ April 9, 2015 at 6:08 pm:
“A couple of years ago, I read that some of the youngest priests in the Episcopal church are quite conservative, and are hoping to more or less “march through the institution” in reverse. Is it even still possible for a theologically conservative man to be accepted to an Episcopal seminary in the US?”
I wouldn’t expect so. Communists and their related spawn are notorious for demanding ideological purity and we Christians cannot lie about our motivations or betray those in authority over us. Putting a bullet in the heretic’s chest is commendable; putting a knife in his back is not, and that’s basically what the Gramscian march is all about. Treachery.
But stranger things have happened. We do have God on our side and maybe He’s finally growing tired of letting the devil run His Church.
Obviously not something of which Uncle Ted would have approved, but distinctly American, and I think it’s great…
I think it’s fair to describe him as snobby and one dimensional, man. That aside, You’re clearly a better judge of his music critiques than I, (admittedly an uncultured musical illiterate).
There’s a funny (and probably accurate) projective essay, “Theodor Adorno on Heavy Metal,” which has been online for at least ten years (it started on GeoCities, way back in the early days of the internet). Definitely worth reading. Google it if you have a bit of time.
I would have to read the specific context (which I am probably not going to bother to do) but to criticize Wagner for “lack of proper modulation” is to miss the point rather spectacularly. Wagner did all that on purpose. You may not like Wagner. I myself adhere to the (Twain? Shaw?) dictum that the music is “beautiful moments punctuated by intolerable quarter hours.” He is also the composer more desperately in need of a highlights compilation than any other. But the highs are incredibly high.
To take his most influential piece, T&I, the modulation there is nowhere “proper” in the classical or even Romantic sense, but it is genius throughout.
@Boxer,
” Ithink the feminists and other SJW fags just want to remake the world in the image of their own psyche. They want a return to a sort of primeval social chaos that will mirror the dissonance of their own internal conflicts.
The crazy society they seek will be a perfect potential home for them.”
A few days ago I was posting on some random forum and dropping red pill truths without the language when some guy contacted me. He was very excited to hear about my “awakening”. It turns out he has taken his own red pill through an encounter with a woman who he believes is a psychopath. This lead him to this guy Thomas Sheridan on YouTube. Here is one of his many videos:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvk8b4OTQ
I watched a bunch of them. I have had close dealings with two of these dark triad/psychopaths and I will tell you they are like another species.
His theory is that modern civilization has been taken over by psychopaths and that modern democracy is the perfect way for them to succeed. And that these people are steering society towards their optimal strategies. And they do not pair bond as they are not capable of this so having many sluts and studs around are what is going to suit them.
It’s not a very well thought out idea but it is interesting in its seedling form here. I can say I would suggest everyone watch a few of his videos. Especially the ones about how to detect a psychopath.
@Escoffier
You appear to be shooting the messenger? The criticism of Wagner was not mine but Adorno’s. You must appreciate that in his books on Wagner and the two others he is criticising at the highest and hardest possible level composers for whom he has the highest of regard. Wagner, when faced with the suitability of modulating, does tend merely to side-step by a semi-tone (does it too in the Mastersinger’s Overture). The so-called Tristan Chord (F.B. E flat. A flat) is of course justly famous. Wagner, when composing, seemed to need before his eyes, a Valkyrie. Have you ever had the considerable misfortune to sit through his American Centennial Overture.
@Boxer
Much as I enjoy the blues, I have always thought that it owed far more to Protestant Hymn Tunes than it ever did to Africa. If one is going to do serious composition one has no choice but to master the harmonic and contrapuntal syntax and skill in instrumentation that was developed in Europe (Italy, France, Germany, England – and of course America) in the better part of the last millennium. No matter how diverting [Third] World music may be, it is, in Boulez’ memorable phrase. ‘an Hawaiian Grass Skirt in Oxford Street ‘ [Fifth Avenue].
I like to think of Adorno in the 1940s in Hollywood – very Noir – when of a Sunday he and Schoenberg and a couple of other emigres, perhaps Korngold and Steiner, but I forget, adjourning to an address just off the coast in Hollywood (which exact location I also now forget) to play quartets. Adorno was an old fashioned central European, probably devoid of much humour but devoted to German music of the Nineteenth century.
By coincidence I was this lunchtime having a coffee with my Cellist friend. The local orchestra are doing Stravinsky’s Firebird over the weekend – can you believe I have never heard it, which is pretty odd seeing that I have copied out vast chunks of Sacre De Printemps – and he was saying how demanding but well written it is for his instrument. Thomas Mann relied upon Adorno for the background detail for his composer hero Leverhulme, in his novel Doctor Faustus.
The great irony is none of the SJW strategies will work long term. It is an extinction strategy that can only exist in high technology countries with below replacement fertility. They cannot create lasting societies. Many of these so-called equal nations foolishly allow unchecked Islamic immigration.
Escoffier,
Never got that comment you mentioned regarding a possible (mis)reading on my part. Would be curious for your thoughts if you could find it.
Opus says: “What Adorno dislikes is the arbitrariness – the lack of logic, in Jazz….”
From what I have read about it, Adorno disliked what he considered musically unchallenging — i.e., he preferred chaos and dissonance on the grounds that they required careful listening. It’s a common failing of self-proclaimed “serious” musicians, and at the root of the self-ghettoization of classical music from which it is only now beginning to recover. In short, if your theory considers predictability, repetition, and harmonic simplicity as bad things, you have concocted a theory of music that manages to exclude Mozart. A sane man noticing this fact would immediately recognize that it is not Mozart but the theory that is erroneous. It takes an intellectual not to abandon the theory but to double-down on it.
As for jazz, its most common structural form since the 1930s has been statement of a theme followed by subsequent variations, whether improvised or not. Any and all improvisation within the genre, particularly as it gets farther away from the original theme, heavily depends on the players’ and audiences’ sustained memory of the underlying harmonic and melodic patterns. This is central to improvisation’s capacity for creativity, expressiveness, and emotional resonance; it’s what separates soloing from noodling. But, similarly to as stated before, if your theory of music manages to exclude theme-and-variations as a genre, it’s not theme-and-variations that is the problem.
@Boxer and whoever asked for a simple definition of cultural Marxism.
It certainly IS a conspiracy in the same way all these radical Islamic groups who want to destroy the West and anything unislamic. Even though they don’t always directly communicate with each other, they are comrades and brothers (or sisters) in arms. They all read from the same playbook. Get it?
The most succinct description of Marxism is in the Communist Manifesto which excoriated the owners who oppressed the workers. Marxism is a dialectic of Oppressed/Oppressor. Marx saw it in terms of Worker/Owner but later Marxists- like the feminists- identified new dialectics: Female/Male, Black/White etc. Thus “Marxism” became “Cultural Marxism” but it is all the same playbook, they just substitute a different group as the “Oppressed” and a different group as the “Oppressor.” The ideology and the playbook is the same across all flavors. Their methods are the same across all flavors. Instead of Owners Oppressing Workers they bitch and complain about Men Oppressing Women or Whites Oppressing Blacks.
Feminism is just Marxism in panties.
What is the common goal of ALL cultural Marxists? They want to overthrow the existing social institutions because they are notfairtothepoor OR sexist OR racist. There is not a damn bit of difference between their ideas. They ALL want destruction and they ALL don’t give a shit how many millions of people have to die before they reach their Nirvana. For the original Marxists they envisioned true Communism where all people live together equally in perfect harmony and love like a hippy commune and everybody is equal and birth control if free and health care is free and to each according to his needs, from each according to his work and all that.
So a 1 sentence definition of Cultural Marxism? Let me give you mine:
Cultural Marxism: A pernicious ideology that currently dominates most Western academic, educational, and governmental institutions (and which dominates or has made serious inroads into almost all other institutions of Western society) which seeks as it’s main goal the overthrow of those institutions, and the imposition of centralized and coercive government power in order to create Heaven on Earth by punishing the decades removed descendants of the bastards who allegedly oppressed their decades removed antecedents.
Ellen Pao, SJW, she just lost her s-xual harrassment suit (gets not one penny of the $16 mil she sued for) is now trying to prevent beta-bux men from negotiating more money when they get hired in technology.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/04/08/1937227/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-bans-salary-negotiations-to-equalize-pay-for-men-women
Basically, what she is saying is that girls are just….. puss-es. They are, her lawsuit just confirms it. But the fact that they are p-ssies and take whatever deal their employers give them (while a man, even just a beta-bux man, would push back and ask for more… and then get it) somehow, someway, that’s not fair. Ellen Pao wants a law to be created where HR gets just one salary for a job. The salary is X, everyone knows going in that all you can get is X (take it or leave it) and that there can be NO negotiation on the part of the prospective employee wanting the job. That way, girls don’t get less than men for the same job. The job pays X no matter who takes it, no matter what the skills are of the person applying, no matter how good they are or aren’t at negotiating.
I am not completely married to a term for it. However, I am wondering (from the crowd here who obviously reads a lot more philosophy than I do)–if not cultural Marxism, from whence did this come?
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/04/kyriarchy-101/
“Kyriarchy” is now the catch-all phrase that is supposed to systematically solve the inherant problems found when these protected groups occasionally find themselves at odds with each other. For example, why aren’t muslim bakeries being targeted for law suits when they refuse to bake gay wedding cakes?
This website is the perfect example of what I think is meant by cultural Marxism when used by those who say it. It is born from the philosphical presupposition that all cultural institutions are inherantly unjst to “outgroups” and must be destroyed.
So basically (for Ellen Pao at Reddit, since she is CEO) she can dictate this inane no negotiation policy. Fat chance any other company will. Fat chance a law will be made.
@Boxer
“I may not have read as much Adorno as Boxer, but I have read a vast amount and (unless it has been taken out of contest) I find it very hard to believe that Marcus D’s quote really is from Adorno – it does not sound like him or his usual style of writing at all.”
The quoted text was from Urban Dictionary – it was not ascribed to Adorno.
@Boxer
“I apologize. If I seem defensive, it’s due to GBFM doing that for weeks, Rob Fedders obsessing about me for years, etc. I find this funny, but I also tend to assume that most people aren’t really serious when they go down this road. You’re an exception, clearly.”
Apology accepted.
===
Some questions:
When people refer to Cultural Marxism, what do you think they are actually referring to? That is, based on what they ascribe to CM, what do you think they would be more apt to use as an umbrella term?
—
To what overarching concept/school/theory/movement does:
1. … feminism belong to?
2. … the call to “destroy the white race” belong to? (e.g. Noel Ignatiev)
3. … the “march through the institutions” belong to?
4. … the call for the destruction of the family belong to?
5. … the call for the destruction of the Church/churches belong to?
6. … the call for the destruction of marriage belong to?
7. … the ‘progressive stack’ belong to?
8. … the typical SJW viewpoints belong to?
9. … Critical Theory belong to?
—
When Cultural Marxism shows up in the Google Books search (and in book decades ago), what do you think the authors are referring to?
Boxer & Desiderian:
I think you guys are talking past each other.
Boxer: as a repentant academic SWPL turned alt-right/manosphere lurker, I share your irritation with the use of the Frankfurt School as a metonym for “everything that’s wrong with modern academia,” but consider that these distinctions are opaque to people who don’t take an interest in contemporary academic philosophy. While I’m annoyed by the “Frankfurt School conspiracy theory,” I’m not particularly bothered by “cultural Marxism” as a catch-all term. The implicit historiographic point, that identity politics are the academic left’s response to the American (and Western European) working class’s stubborn refusal to behave in the way Marx said they were supposed to, is pretty much true, even if the genealogy of specific ideas and thinkers tends to get hopelessly muddled.
Desiderian: to someone who thinks it’s all bullshit, these distinctions may seem like useless quibbling, but as a Dalrock-appropriate analogy, imagine the proverbial fedora-wearing atheist talking about how the Pope keeps his flock in line by threatening them with the Rapture. Inasmuch as Catholicism and evangelicalism are both part of Christianity, that’s less untrue than saying that the Pope keeps his flock in line by promising them 72 virgins, but it’s still not an accurate account of the subject. To people who know something about the nuances of academic leftism, conservative attacks on the Frankfurt School tend to come across in a similar way, even if we’re conservatives ourselves.
Heh, glad to see you guys cleared it up in the interim between my starting and finishing that last comment.
There’s a funny (and probably accurate) projective essay, “Theodor Adorno on Heavy Metal,” which has been online for at least ten years (it started on GeoCities, way back in the early days of the internet). Definitely worth reading. Google it if you have a bit of time.
The worst/best Frankfurt School conspiracy theory I ever read was an essay on some WN blog claiming that Adorno was secretly in league with his co-ethnic Brian Epstein to create Beatlemania and seduce Western teenagers away from their classical-music heritage. I’d have thought it was a clever satire if it hadn’t been on an apparently serious site.
I’m ashamed of any time I’ve ever made her feel guilty
Ghod, what a pu**y… Pardon my French but women today are useless when it comes to being women – it used to be they were partners, today they are only pu**y. They have no useful skills when it comes to relationships other than spreading their legs – or s**king me off. Heck, I have services that clean my house, do my laundry, iron my clothing, etc… Everything that a woman used to do, so what do women bring? Act like a mini-me? That’s worthless to me… All she does is bring sex – and in a more civilized country I could buy it just like I buy everything else today. But hey – it’s free for me since I stack the deck in my favor and I get young ones, but realistically why is this guy even with a woman? They are a hassle when you’re done..
Better to use them when you want one, then move on to more variety. Not to say anything against women – it’s just that they lack everything that I need – other than sex. So who cares what she feels? Do I care what a utility feels? No.. It’s there for my use – women are the same. Once upon a time, maybe women were more but that was long ago… Today, they are useful only in a very small area – and that area is generally the bed-room – heck they don’t even do a good job at raising their own kids – how useless is that?
And you have to remember the Japanese are working on sex-bots… I suspect when they work out the kinks, women will be a thing of the past – just like machines can do everything better than humans when it comes to specific areas – I fully anticipate that at some point, women will be superfluous and more trouble than they are worth (sex is their only redeeming area now). A machine doesn’t get b*tchy, old, or fat… So if they ever make a machine that gives great head, doesn’t get knocked up, and brings me off – I’ll be first in line to buy one… 🙂
JS,
S-xbots will not happen in our lifetime. That Speilberg movie Ai (with the S-xbots like Jude Law) was just a movie. They are more than a few decades away from having a robot have the actual feel of “flesh and blood.” Won’t happen. Because that is what is required, the “flesh and blood.” Your s-xbot doesn’t have to be a Cherry 2000 in looks nor does it have to look like the s-xbot/android that Spacehunter (Andrea Marcovicci), but in order to sell, they will have to be close. Or you wont buy.
But if they ever do get that then yes… that will pretty much end feminism once and for all. But you and I will never see that point.
As a general rule of thumb, when the word s-xbot appears in a thread, my eyes glaze over and I wait for dalrocks next post.
Sorry Scott. Mea Culpa. I was just… compelled to real JS back in to reality.
🙂
StringsofCoins @ 12:35 pm:
“His theory is that modern civilization has been taken over by psychopaths and that modern democracy is the perfect way for them to succeed.”
I’ve come to his conclusion independently. Direct democracy is basically a popularity contest; therefore, the process naturally selects for the ability to manipulate other people. This explains why cities are much more liberal than rural areas, because fewer people know the candidates personally or are directly affected by who holds the office. No direct awareness -> easily led.
This demonstrates the electoral college’s genius. People in a certain area would elect a representative who would then make a point of casting an informed vote. The rep would be someone known to his group of people or at least be accessible rather than a resume and a commercial jingle. It’s a much better system than expecting every single voter to individually inform himself enough to vote responsibly.
…
Just Saying @ 4:31 pm:
“And you have to remember the Japanese are working on sex-bots… I suspect when they work out the kinks, women will be a thing of the past”
We’re too late. We nerds have been trying to build such virtual reality but women co-opted our early attempt, the Internet. Men need the full, immersive experience; turns out women are happy sitting in an empty room so long as they think the world is paying attention to her.
I see it every time I see a girl hunched over her slutphone. VR sex is already here… for women. The entire Internet is “trashy romance novel 2.0”.
@Gunner Q
Just look for a woman who refuses to own a smartphone. I may be the only one, but I assume others exist 😛 The super-unicorn, N=0, no smartphone and no social media! Talk about impossible…
Adorno’s basic musical idea is that “popular” music was the kind where the next note was what you expected. “Elite” music was the kind where you did not expect the next note.
This is a ridiculous misunderstanding, of course. Bach, for instance, uses very complex patterns in his music, recursive patterns, even. It’s true that many people might not be able to know what note is coming next, but only because they haven’t figured out a pattern that complex yet.
But Adorno just thought, “hey play something that has no discernible pattern to it, that makes your music “elite.” You know, like Mahler.
Much of modern art suffers from this same blindness, see Thomas Wolfe’s “The Painted Word.” You have geniuses like Monet or Picasso that paint things that can be very abstract, but the patterns are there, the image is there.
But then you have the art-equivalent of Adorno – like Mark Rothko. Artists like Rothko observe geniuses like Picasso or Monet and think it’s just random lines and colors. It’s because they can’t discern the very complex and subtle patterns, so just assume it’s random.
The same phenomenon happened in philosophy with people like Freud and Marx. See “Ordeal of Civility” by John Murray Cuddihy.
In case you migrate to a non-English speaking country, you may qualify for disability due to your lack of knowledge of the local language. At least, so says the great America.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/puerto-ricans-who-can%E2%80%99t-speak-english-qualify-as-disabled-for-social-security/ar-AAaGLKG
Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones attributes this to their rejection of Logos (Christ.) To paraphrase, it’s because they reject the “spirit of the law” and instead try to nullify the law through “pipul,” trying to find legalistic exceptions. As Jesus said, they attempt to “make the law of none effect.”
One can think of it as a sort of spiritual blindness; as I mentioned in the comment above, consider these “artistically blind” artists like Rothko and “musically deaf” musicians like Mahler who have “reduced” great art and music to simplistic abstractions. They then build on these simplistic abstractions and don’t understand why their art and music is never as sublime as true art and music.
It’s because they are spiritually, artistically, and morally blind.
Marx did the same thing with European culture. He did not understand the complexities of European culture, so he tried to reduce it to simple economic class categories. After all, why would an English peasant love their Queen? Don’t they realize they should behead their royalty and take power for themselves?
Freud did something similar. He looked at the family relationships of the “gentiles” and just couldn’t understand it. He thought that familiar love must be based on sex; you don’t actually “love” your mother, you just sublimate your sexual desire for her.
Of course, cultural Marxism is real. They wrote books about it. When the Germans rejected Marxism/Communism, they had to regroup and try to understand why. They said the reason the Germans rejected Communism was because they had strong family ties, they respected their fathers and loved their families, and their Christian religion kept them from accepting the crass materialism of Marxism.
So, in order to get Europeans (and Americans) to accept Marxism/Communism, you had to break down the family, sow disrespect for authority, and denigrate their religion. So Marx’s simplistic class analysis – “bourgeois oppressors vs. proletarian oppressed” became social categories. The “class war” was now “male oppressors vs. female oppressed” or “white oppressors vs. colored oppressed” or “heterosexual oppressors vs. homosexual oppressed.” Cultural Marxism is translating economic class warfare into social class warfare.
What’s interesting is if you take feminism for example. You read something like jezebel.com and their very weird hang-ups about men, but notice they are talking about men *in the abstract* – as a “class.” I have known many, many feminists in real life. In theory, they are man-hating shrews. In practice? Most of them have had rather conventional personal lives. They are only against men “in theory” – the minute they found a “real man” – in real life – they quite often become very conventional and even submissive wives.
Sure, as Dalrock constantly points out, they are often second-guessing themselves, and the “hive mind” is always trying to “problematize” their natures, but nature usually wins out in the end.
@boxer
>A 60-something-year-old man who has never met me and for the love of God, I hope never does.
>Apparently she thought that was a selfie.
so did I! 🙂 Cultural ignoramus I guess.
@Isa
>The super-unicorn, N=0, no smartphone and no social media! Talk about impossible…
Really? There is a unicorn on the blog? Do you live in Alberta? 🙂
@Dale
I’m not the Super!!!unicorn, as unfortunately there is a Mr. Isa, and I do have a some rather unused social media. Actually, I’m not friends with Mr. Isa on anything either. As he says, why should we be friends online? We’re not friends 😛
@innocentbystanderboston is right, the Japanese won’t be inventing sex-bots; more likely are medication and butt-wipe bots for their growing aging population. the Japanese have terrible fertility; they are at 1.4 children per woman which is below the 2 children per woman replacement. They will face economic contraction, increased elderly care costs, and less innovation. They need to worry more about how their civilization will survive than how to make a realistic sex bot.
Dear String of Coins:
That was pretty interesting. I had the time and I listened to the whole thing.
I am very careful about labeling anyone a “psychopath”. In the first instance, it’s not my place (only an MD can diagnose a psychopath — it’s a class of diseases). More importantly, I think calling unscrupulous assholes “psychopath” opens the door to sympathy for them. Unscrupulous assholes know this, and will play this card immediately. (Oh! It’s not my fault! I’m, like, mentally ill and such! I’m a poor victim, etc.) In reality these people are just destructive.
I do know the type he’s talking about. His notions of people as “empty shells” is something I’ve read in (of all places) Jewish mysticism. There are these types of people. I think the correlation to SJW types is relevant too. The outragists get off on conflict because they feel alive that way.
It’s important to get these idiots away from you, by any means necessary. Inevitably, if you hang out with this phenotype, you end up paying their bills and they drain you of all your time and energy.
Best,
Boxer
Dear Subforum:
I understand and sympathize. I think in the age of google, where it takes about one second to look up “The Frankfurt School”, people ought not jabber aimlessly about things they are totally ignorant of. I think that’s especially important in our corner of the internet, where we’re trying to welcome all and sundry to discuss important things.
A fatigued husband and father logs in here, and sees a bunch of people talking about this stuff. If he’s at all educated, he’s going to interpret us all as lunatics babbling nonsensically about bizarre conspiracies and dismiss us immediately.
The problem is that Marx wasn’t a feminist, and there are plenty of early Marxists who towed (toed) the “party” line (lol) in that regard. Belfort Bax is one of the most notable.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1886/04/idols.htm
Marx’s notion (explored in that particular article) was that feminism was/is a bourgeois creation that served to divide the working class, and allowed capital to continue to operate unchecked.
In any event, none of the people here who insist on the existence of “cultural Marxism” can even define it, much less offer support for its existence, so it’s a vacuous point, except that if we’re going to be effective, we should say what we mean, and mean what we say.
Best,
Boxer
subforum,
Thanks for the attempt at reconciliation. Obviously Boxer’s had similar conversations before and attempted to fit in what I was saying with the arguments of his previous interlocutors that I wasn’t actually arguing myself. I never mentioned the Frankfurt School in general and only brought up Adorno in the context of the widely acknowledged influence of the Authoritarian Personality.
Again, the crux of that influence:
“The Authoritarian Personality had a tremendous influence on Hofstadter and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds.”
– Christopher Lasch
And this is in fact what one sees with the SJW, and, I might add, in Boxer himself as he attempted to disqualify me personally rather than engage what I had to say, and crucially, to ask, as I attempted to narrow the inquiry, a common tool for reaching good faith agreement.
As far as cultural Marxism as a whole, I’m not claiming a grand conspiracy called Cultural Marxism™. I’m saying there were a lot of Marxist dogs in the elite grad school manger, who were obsessed with culture rather than doing the jobs they were sent there to do, and which had been done extraordinarily well there for generations.
It is my understanding that this sort of cultural Marxism was what one found discussed on the cultural Marxism wiki page before it was mysteriously deleted recently, along with discussion of the deletion and an attempt to save the content of the page on an admin’s userspace, leading that admin to resign. You’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical of Marxists who now show up claiming that Eurasia was never at war with Eastasia.
HR,
“It’s because they are spiritually, artistically, and morally blind.”
Haidt corroborates this in his findings.
“A fatigued husband and father logs in here, and sees a bunch of people talking about this stuff. If he’s at all educated, he’s going to interpret us all as lunatics babbling nonsensically about bizarre conspiracies and dismiss us immediately.”
Eddie, you don’t have to repeat yourself; I’m sure Ward heard you the first time.
HA! That’s the thing. I can’t tell if this one is satire or serious either. (I’m anything but a musicologist).
And while some of Ozzy’s lyrics invoke a pagan magic, as in “The Wizard” (BlkS) or a more undifferentiated “cosmic” mythos, as in “Supernaut” (Vol4) (“I wanna reach out and touch the sky– / I wanna touch the sun but I don’t need to die),” Black Sabbath’s lyrics in general, despite the band’s reputation, are seldom anything to boil a goat over. On the contrary, “Ozzy Osbourne’s lyrics tend to be quite moralistic” (Walser 147).{27} My Adorno-esque point (which I’ve ignored too long, obviously) is that all of Metal’s religious gestures, be they pagan or Christian, are yet implicated in a “mythologization”: that some of the genre’s characteristic images and symbols at least seem to rebel against the “Father” of the elder generation’s religion simply makes them all the more appealing to a mass youth looking “to be carried away by anything at all,” by anything that “compensates for their impoverished and barren existence” (Adorno, “PFJ” 206).
http://incolor.inebraska.com/tgannon/hm.html
Ancient internet classic, and I’m glad it’s still online…
Boxer
@Boxer
“I think in the age of google […]”
Why is Google important? The ability to search out new information is dramatically outpaced by the creation of new information. Besides that, what should determine authority? Google only indexes information.
—
“In any event, none of the people here who insist on the existence of “cultural Marxism” can even define it, much less offer support for its existence”
What do you consider adequate evidence? Have there not been definitions presented?
—
Please answer the questions I addressed to you: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/insensitive/#comment-174645
—
What is the “Cultural Marxism” being referred to here: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/259957?uid=3739408&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21105959592311
Gilbert, James. “Literature and Revolution in the United States: The Partisan Review.” Journal of Contemporary History 2.2 (1967): 161-176.
—
What do you make of this video:
@Boxer
“HA! That’s the thing. I can’t tell if this one is satire or serious either.”
If you were to write a reply to it, what would it be?
What is the gist of it?
If you don’t want to write a reply to it, why not?
If you can’t write a reply to it, why not?
“Elliot’s personality probably developed this way because he was specifically taught and trained that women are sexually attracted to the traits he exhibits”
Yes.
Dear MarcusD:
That’s postmarxist literary criticism, and it seems to be yet another definition of “Cultural Marxism” that is completely incompatible with the other six (or so) that I’ve read, though this one is more meaningful than the others.
If you’re interested in this sort of thing, Terry Eagleton is a good contemporary author. György Lukács wrote a book called “Theory of the Novel” which is an old classic.
Do you have an opinion on the article? If so, what is it?
Boxer
@Boxer
“Do you have an opinion on the article? If so, what is it?”
Could you answer my questions, please: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/insensitive/#comment-174670
And the admin who did it is a self-identified ‘Cultural Marxist’. https://archive.today/0L5wt#selection-3597.0-3597.52
==
http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-there-is-a-cultural-marxism
Dear Marcus:
I believe in give and take. If you want to shotgun me with questions, I’ll answer one (which I did) and we can have a conversation, or not (up to you). My time is valuable, and I can’t sit here answering question after question.
I don’t learn anything from being interrogated, and I’m fairly sure most readers find that sort of shite annoying and boring.
Best,
Boxer
Dear Scott:
I’m presently ignorant of this theory. It almost seems to stem from the word for Jesus (as in kyrie eleison?).
I’m not ignorant of the praxis it describes, apparently. The funniest development is watching the SJW fags collapse into screaming matches, vainly trying to figure out who should be on top of the “oppression” pyramid.
Incidentally, do you ever read twitter? This entertainment stemming from this phenomenon is endless, and priceless, and free.
Best,
Boxer
subforum
Desiderian: to someone who thinks it’s all bullshit, these distinctions may seem like useless quibbling,
As someone who once spent a couple of years studying just the various subgroups within Russia circa 1900 – 1925 I get that. SR’s vs. SD’s vs. KD’s vs. Greens, once upon a time like Boxer I would have jumped down the throat of anyone who failed to notice every nuance of the difference between the Bolshvikii and Minshivekii. However there came a time when I moved on from such minutae to a world of other things where results – real, duplicatable, testable results – mattered more than being able to name all the attendees of the Nth Party Congress.
And with that change in worldview came a different perspective on the Left. Boxer once jumped my case for daring to suggest that North Korean People’s Juiche was in any way similar to Stalin’s Socialism in One Country. The point I tried to make that frankly I don’t think ever got, was simple:
The difference between any two flavors of collectivist leftism is essentially zero. It’s a death cult sooner or later.
For example:
To the average zek in the Kolyma death camps of the 1930’s and the average North Korean in a modern death camp, the effects of the system are the same. It doesn’t matter if you are being starved and worked to death for Juiche or Scientific Socialism, what matters is that the collectivist, leftist, system iteelf demands that someone be worked and starved to death, on a regular basis. In other words, the testable, visible, measurable effects of all manner of flavors of leftism has been death and suffering on a huge, even indiustrial scale. In the end, to the average poor sucker getting beaten to death, it does not matter if he’s dying for Scientific Socialism or Maoism or Year Zero Red Khmerism or Catroism or Juiche or Honnekerism or to further Robspierre’s political ambitions.
The effects of being beaten to death are the same. And all the noble slogans in the world don’t mean spit to the poor bastard being shoved into a trench and buried while still bleeding out.
Playing No True Scotsman with philosophies that have a couple of centuries of horror, destruction and death just doesn’t impress me any more. It just doesn’t. The upstate returns are in. None of you lefties can stack the ballot box nearly enough anymore, there’s just too many bodies out there buried in the name of The People or The Party or whatever.
I’ll leave the hothouse argument over the purity of the correct terminology to refer to the early vs. late Frankfurt school to those who find such arid arguments to be of academic interest. The real world effects on the country I live in, the systems that make up that country, the ability of people get a genuine education vs. an indoctrination, the future of free speech, the future of freedom of religion, the future of the right to self defense – these real, tangible, measurable factors I care about quite a lot. And only an ideologue with his head stuck up into the really rarified clouds would be more concerned with the purity of the dialog thean the effects on real people, including those around him.
To put it another way, in Darkenss at Noon the oh-so-smart and dedicated Rubishov is still surprised at the end as he’s executed in the celler. Only an ideologue divorced from reality would be….
@Boxer:
Sure — if they were alive today, Marx and his late-Victorian cohort would be baffled and appalled by some of the movements claiming their legacy. But there was a lot of water under the bridge between 1886 and 1968, and whatever Marx himself might have thought, a non-negligible portion of the student radicals responsible for the present mess understood themselves as working within the Marxist tradition. Their characteristic intellectual move was to find a substitute revolutionary class (students, women, minorities) to replace the hardhats who persistently refused to line up behind their vanguard.
One of the annoying things about the “cultural Marxism” meme is that it elides the non-Marxist influences on modern academic leftism, many of which are more pernicious and influential than Marx (French deconstructionism, Said’s Orientalism, Foucault.) An intellectual genealogy that makes Horkheimer and Adorno the necessary-and-sufficient condition for modern SJWs is wrong, and theories that tie them to a Soviet subversion campaign are conspiracy theory nonsense. But denying that (certain interpretations of) Marxism are an important part of this genealogy seems to me like an attempt to save the baby by ignoring the bathwater.
I don’t necessarily disagree that in practice many self-professed Marxist-feminists end up as useful idiots for the liberal globalist bourgeiosie, but you have to at least acknowledge their emic understanding of what they’re doing.
@Anonymous Reader:
At the macro-level of practical politics, I agree. (From what you say here about your intellectual trajectory, I suspect it’s not dissimilar to my own.) But you still have to know your Bolsheviks from your Mensheviks if you want to discuss the history of the Russian Revolution with someone who knows something about the subject.
I have (in the indexes to The Culture Industry and Aesthetic Theory) tried to find what Adorno had to say about Jazz, but – will you believe – the word is missing and so whatever it is that Adorno (that is to say T.W.Adorno and not myself – we are not the same person) thinks about Jazz, I am unable to assist beyond my vague recollection of his dislike.
For myself, I find Jazz to be the most god-awful noise – so awful that even attempting to define exactly what is going on is pointless. Root-canal treatment would be preferable and were I your Potus, I would ban it much the way one might ban as socially undesirable hare-coursing, bear-baiting or cock-fighting.
Dear Opus:
That’s not difficult to envision. By all accounts he was horrified by what he found in North America.
Totally irrelevant, but I have the twelve-tone release by Deutsche Grammophon: “Schönberg, Berg, Webern” and I can’t make heads nor tails of it. The smart peeps tell me that I’m a philistine, and I suppose they’re right. It’s very abstract, and I can abstractly envision people liking it, but it doesn’t do much for me.
Aesthetic Theory is (in my understanding) just a collection of unfinished notes, compiled by his widow, Gretel, and originally filed away in some West German university someplace. My copy is published by U. Minnesota Press.
This is one of his (in)famous pieces on Jazz.
“One cannot free oneself of the suspicion that the crude and easily transparent sexual secretiveness of jazz conceals a secondary, deeper, and more dangerous secret.”
https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/75699729/Adorno-On+Jazz.pdf
😀
Uncle Ted would have done well in the manosphere, and would generally have agreed with most of us on the vacuous, banal, and detrimental effects of mainstream cinema and tee-vee. Though I still think he goes pretty hard on a lot of competent musicians.
Best,
Boxer
Dear Subforum:
I’m sure it’s a personal problem rooted in some undiagnosed autism. These arguments about “Cultural Marxism” follow a precisely similar pattern to the ones I am known for about “α/β” males.
Our job is to reach out to other men who imagine themselves alone. I think we’re most effective when we speak clearly, even if we’re outwardly a bit crude. We can’t be concise if we adopt lots of jargon that we can’t even define ourselves, just to make ourselves appear to be intellectual, or to soften the hurt feelings of outsiders.
The latter is what I assume to partially drive the adherence to the meaningless term “cultural Marxism”. Many of us don’t want to call these people by their right names.
SJW fags is what I recently started using. Admittedly, a lot of heterosexuals will imagine themselves unaffected by it, but it’s more accurate than linking some long forgotten intellectual tradition that had little to do with the people I’m talking about, and with which almost nobody is really familiar these days.
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer
The Second Viennese School is now a bit old-hat – especially now that (post the Boulez-Xenakis-Stockhausen generation) we have moved into female-only shortlists from commissioning bodies. Berg is the most conventionally approachable of the school, especially his Violin Concerto (which I loathe) and Schoenberg is easily divided into three periods – late romantic (stuff like Verklarte Nacht), atonal (the excellent Sech Kleine Klavierstucke or the Five Pieces for Orchestra) and the serial period (Moses and Aaron). That leaves Webern (shot-dead in 1945 by an American soldier) who at least has the commendable quality of conciseness. I like Webern though I note that these days his early orchestral piece in late-romantic style Im Sommerwind seems to get more performance than his mature works.
“The latter is what I assume to partially drive the adherence to the meaningless term “cultural Marxism”. Many of us don’t want to call these people by their right names.
SJW fags is what I recently started using. Admittedly, a lot of heterosexuals will imagine themselves unaffected by it, but it’s more accurate than linking some long forgotten intellectual tradition that had little to do with the people I’m talking about, and with which almost nobody is really familiar these days.”
The Lord of Lies, Ladies and Gentleman, in his full glory, er, pathetic bullheadedness.
Whatever. Subforum nails it.
To tie back to the subject of the original post:
Cultural Marxism is Marxism whose praxis focuses on culture and the means of cultural production (mores, ideas, norms, taboos, trends) rather than economics and the means of material production. Marxists are now to be found widely among those who prepare our ministers and lead our churches, likewise with teachers and schools, art and various media, and government in the various cultural functions it has taken on for itself encouraged by said Marxism (among social workers, for instance). Aside from taking the place of other men better suited to those duties, their Marxism itself saps trust and truth, and their focus on Marxist activism takes away time and energy from their legitimate duties, precluding the healthy cultural formation with which they are charged.
Hence one sees legions of young men ill-prepared to skillfully handle the the difficult balance between a Christian humility and humane sensitivity top others on the one hand, and the call to Christian headship and manly leadership on the other. They spent what should have been their upbringing either buying into Marxian nonsense and worse, or tuning it out and thus missing the opportunity to learn of the best that came before him that previous generations widely enjoyed.
Dear Opus:
I was actually wondering if you listened to any contemporary composers. The (controversial) John Adams is still writing stuff. You’re right though. Female composers, like female philosophers, seem to be admitted to the common corpus for political reasons, rather than for their insights. I can’t think of one that’s really exceptional.
Boxer
That’s a pretty good description. I was going to say something like: the use of methods developed by Marxists to effect economic change, expanded to other aspects of culture, by many (but not all) of the same people and groups, in pursuit of much the same goal — tearing down the current hierarchies in order that new, theoretically fairer and better ones can replace them.
Now Boxer may be yelling at this point that I’ve misconstrued Marxism and that I don’t know spit about it, and he might be right, and that might matter if we were in a high-level college course about it. But we’re not, so the common man’s understanding of the concept is that one that matters. And if some Marxists don’t/didn’t want to tear everything down, that’s too bad, because they aren’t the ones who wound up steering the movement.
CM is hard to define concisely because it’s not a definition, it’s an analogy. It says, “You have an idea what Marxism is, right? Well, imagine the same tactics and goals applied to marriage, sex, religion, and so on.” It’s not perfect because analogies never are, but it works because it’s easy to understand and the similarities are clear.
Maybe there are more accurate terms we could use (I usually just call them leftists myself), but I haven’t heard a better term for the purpose of getting the point across. And “SJW Fags” suffers from much the same problem: there are certainly both homosexuals and people who consider themselves fighters for social justice who are not CMs. It just insults different groups instead of insulting those who think Marx has gotten a bad rap.
Dear Cail:
Thanks for an interesting riposte.
It’s actually not a good description at all. Marxism is definable, and it specifically excludes that possibility.
There are people right here, on this forum, who delight in tearing stuff down. Desiderian is a good example. He describes me as:
The Lord of Lies, Ladies and Gentleman, in his full glory, er, pathetic bullheadedness.
Not to think that his alluding that I’m Satan incarnate is meaningful. It’s not, except as an example of exactly the SJW fag type of “debate” common to followers of Alinsky. He’s endlessly vying for attention, trying to derail conversations, demonizing people who he disagrees with, etc.
There are several of those types floating around here, and while they’re entertaining, they aren’t likely to do anything constructive for the manosphere.
Now, by your definition, above, Desiderian is a “Marxist”. I quite confident he’s not smart enough to be a Marxist. I don’t think the average feminist (even the ones who use the term) are, either. None of them seem able to quote their hero, who they feel is endorsing their weird “struggle”, and who tend to use Desiderian’s tactics in arguments, despite adopting his name. If you want to lend them credibility, you’re welcome to, but I’ll continue to point out the obvious.
If you can’t define something, then you ought to be ready to have people make fun of you for it. Call that “Boxer’s Law” if you want. It’s a general and interdisciplinary tendency in these sorts of debates.
Best,
Boxer
I’m presently ignorant of this theory. It almost seems to stem from the word for Jesus (as in kyrie eleison?).
Impressive! But not exactly. Kyrie Eleison literally translated is more like “Lord (or master) have mercy” (Not “Jesus have mercy”)
But ultimately, you are correct. That is exactly the root word they used. By Kyriarchy, they mean “Lording over using hierarchy of all kinds” (Not just male privilege, but, white, husband, heterosexual, financial, etc)
Boxer, I wouldn’t dream of trying to debate Marxism with you; you’d tie me in knots. But I don’t need to, because I’m not saying “This is Marxism as defined by Marx and this stack of books”; I’m saying, “This is a lot like what you think of as Marxism.” For that, I don’t need to know all the ins and outs. I don’t even have to be correct about what it is. I just have to know what people think it is. If I know that, I can gauge what they’ll think when I put “cultural” in front of it, and that happens to match up pretty well with what the left has been doing in my lifetime.
Now, I can understand what that would annoy someone who’s studied Marxism and thinks it deserves better than that kind of dismissive coopting of the term. I get annoyed when people use “Catholic” to refer to a watered-down sort of cultural knock-off that was invented in the 1960s/70s and which St. Francis would never recognize. And yes, sometimes I ridicule them and sometimes I’m tempted to break out scripture verses and the Council of Nicea and educate them. But mostly I just realize that’s hopeless. I might make progress with an individual here and there, but for the masses, St. Francis of Assisi is now an animal rights activist and anti-war demonstrator, and that’s just how it is. They’re wrong, but if I’m going to engage in conversation with them, I have to use their vocabulary.
But as I said, I’m certainly open to better terms. CM seems like a pretty good one to me because, technically accurate or not, it gets the basic idea across. I usually just say “leftist,” but that suffers from sounding political when this issue goes far beyond politics. “SJW” is pretty good, except that many people still aren’t familiar with it, plus it won’t go over so well with the middle-American folks who don’t like sarcasm in their Serious Business. But better terms may be out there.
I always very much enjoy your posts, by the way. If I ever do any real study of Marx et al. and gain more than a caricature-level understanding, it’ll be thanks to you.
@Boxer
You ask whether I listen to any contemporary composers (I smiled) and mentioned John Adams whom you describe as controversial – I presume you are referring to Death of Klinghofer (rather than Short Ride on a Fast Machine which for differing reasons has twice had to be cancelled at The Proms). In either case it is not the music that is controversial. At his best (the 1st Chamber Symphony) he is pretty good, but that is not always the case and things like El Dorado or City Noir do rather go on a bit – which is always a regrettable problem with what is called Minimalism.
This is how I would describe the present state of composition (imagine a cross): on one side we have the Minimalists including the Holy Minimalists (so in addition to Steve Reich, Terry Riley and John Adams – all American – you have Arvo Part, Sofia Gubaidulina, Gavin Briars and John Tavener) on the other side you have the Maximialists, otherwise known as New Complexity. People such as Brian Fernyhough, James Dillon and Michael Finnisey.
The other axis veers between more tonal composers – frequently female – but at their best people like George Benjamin or Marc-Anthony Turnage or James MacMillan and I suppose what is known as the Third Viennese school (H.K.Gruber) and at the other end the more experimental – the German are strong here – so I think of people like Lachenmann and Rihm. Quite where I am to place the French spectralists I am not sure (and we would have to lump the Japanese such as Takemitsu in with the French).
Elliot Carter (who knew Charles Ives) just got better and better.
It takes little more than a perusal of the reading lists on offer for the courses taught at our most esteemed institutions of higher learning. There is no name one will find more frequently there than Uncle Karl himself.
The difference between any two flavors of collectivist leftism is essentially zero. It’s a death cult sooner or later.
Subforum
At the macro-level of practical politics, I agree. (From what you say here about your intellectual trajectory, I suspect it’s not dissimilar to my own.)
Never mind babbling about “macro level” this or that. The totalitarian, “one size will fit all because the Party says so” impulse is often just one layer of paint below the surface. I’ve seen it on uni campuses but also in Fortune 500 company meetings. As for my “trajectory”, assumptions on scant data can be incorrect.
But you still have to know your Bolsheviks from your Mensheviks if you want to discuss the history of the Russian Revolution with someone who knows something about the subject.
Only if the object of the game is to see who can trump whom in a game of No True Leftist. It’s like discussing marriage 2.0 or Title IX or AA with feminists – it’s often the same game, “Oh, that’s not MY feminism, I’m an equity feminist but I accept some gender reality…” which is just a red herring argument. Because feminists as a rule don’t want to talk about the concrete, measurable, clear results of their revo – the fatherless families with social pathologies galore, the elimination of men’s only zones and the plethora of women’s -only spaces, the ratchet effect of AA, and so forth. No, they’d rather descend into a morass of 2nd state feminist history that centers on the relationships of the founding mothers, or some other irrrelevancy. Anything but look at concrete, real world numbers of divorced men killing themselves, or college aged men falsely accused of rape.
And since feminism is just a branch of leftism, it’s no surprise that the same red herring, squid inking, subject changing goes on any time the issue of “leftist influence on US society since 1945” comes up. Because it’s much more fun for insiders to play “gotcha” than admit that their schemes have not worked out as they said they would.
Somewhat tangentially, nowadays I look at Adorno’s book The Authoritarian Personality as a rather large example of projection. And that’s one of the books that varying shades of lefties have been very fond of for years.
Dear Cail:
You don’t have to read Marx’s entire corpus to realize that the local kooks don’t know what they’re talking about. The whole phenomenon is identifiable with small minds, who think that grafting whatever damaging trend onto a broad social movement will help them refute the specific trend they don’t like. In reality, it just illustrates their own inability to draw up a coherent critique of the trend.
Mencius Moldbug’s looney claim that Richard Dawkins is a religious zealot, directly descended from Evangelical Protestantism is another perfect example.
http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/7699-revenge-of-the-dark-enlightenment/
There’s plenty to poke fun at and criticise in (Marx, Dawkins, The Frankfurt School, 19th Century Evangelical revivalists, Feminists, Furry Fandom, etc.) without having to pretend they’re all in league with one another, in some grand conspiracy, of one mind on everything.
I think people around here imagine it gets the idea across, because (for better and for worse) we are in a sort of echo chamber. From the outside, it sounds like some sort of goony shorthand that a bunch of spergs are using to pretend to be intellectual.
Your points about the “SJW Fag” term are sound. It’s absolutely true that not all dudes who like dudes are SJW fags (Jack Donovan, etc.). It’s also true that lots of heterosexual SJW fags will think it doesn’t apply to them.
Part of the reason I use it is because, at least in my part of the world, it is in use outside of these cloistered internet circles. I overheard it in the real world, in use by some younger dudes to describe their polychromatic lesbian feminist colleagues. I thought it described something meaningful. Anyway, good argument. We’ll do it again soon, fo’ sho.
Boxer
Fay Weldon, “The Spa Decameron” (p.154-5):
‘ . . . Gramsci smuggled his writings out of prison, where he died in 1937. Now his name is seldom spoken, but his thinking is there in every decision taken by the political and cultural elites of the West.’
‘That’s rather romantic,’ said someone.
‘It is,’ said the Conspiracy Theorist grimly. ‘A narrative always helps; a prison sentence too. Think of St. Paul and the spread of Christianity. Gramsci’s ideas were spread by the Frankfurt School, communism’s version of St. Paul.’
Now I am well up on the Frankfurt School because my great-great-uncle, Sigmund Lowenstein, had been one of them. Few were listening. They were drinking their coffee, or wandering off to find champagne. The story had lost its hold, other than for the few semi-converts who remained. I’d kept quiet so far. Let the Conspiracy Theorist take the flack of boring everyone.
But my distant relative Sigmund was a German Jew, philosopher, sociologist, man of letters, who was a member of the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. I knew something of the subject. Perhaps I should speak up? This grouping of very bourgeois and well-heeled neo-Marxist intellectuals, assimilated Jews, had flourished in Frankfurt in the early thirties. ‘Neo’– because it had become apparent that the original Marxist model no longer held water. The predicted working-class world revolution hadn’t happened: Nazism was on the rise. In the Soviet Union Stalin had taken to slaughtering millions of his own people just to keep the show on the road. Some revision of the theory was required. The revolution had been delayed, but must be made to happen. The destruction of the current order was still required. How to hurry it up? The new discoveries of psychoanalysis were roped In. Freud and his ‘pleasure principle’ suddenly became very relevant: the growing child– and society can be seen in terms of an individual, can it not?–normally grows out of a destructive all-pervading eroticism into an adult state. But supposing you kept that society in its indulged pleasure-seeking state: surely then it would destroy itself pretty quickly?
I thought everyone knew that Richard Dawkins (who believes in Jesus – now, – public confession of faith to John Lennox – even though he still does not believe in his Dad – a late convert it seems) is a religious zealot. As – I suppose – with most things, whether you are pro or anti, if you go on too much about your pet like or dislike, you sound like a zealot, at least that is certainly true with religion.
In Boxer’s case he understandably dislikes the use of Marx’ name in relation to ideas which Marx did not have (I will take his word for that), and I have some sympathy, for, before I de-twittered myself I tweeted that Prime Minister Cameron was a CM. Even then I realised that true though it might be it is not immediately convincing that an Eton and Oxford educated member of the aristocracy was in bed with the Marxists for he is poles away from what one thinks of (people of the Dave Spart type) as the beardie leftist ready to way-lay you with his pamphlets and waiting for the revolution. I thus just sounded like a kook.
It appear that I am a Cultural Hegelian.
That’s part of it. I can’t deny that mostly, I enjoy talking to kooks.
People who have a well-developed conspiracy theory, for which they have no historical or literary support, and who threaten and demonize anyone who questions their beliefs, are fun people to play with. I poke Desiderian and Anonymous Reader with a stick, and they’ll bellow in the arena, spewing pages and pages of text, about how Gramsci was actually a member of the Frankfurt School, and how Marx, Lenin and Adorno are not actually thoroughly discredited and largely unknown today, but are actually running the entire show behind the scenes.
So, sue me. I find the whole thing sorta entertaining.
Thanks for the rich list of composers, by the way. I haven’t heard of any of them, and I enjoyed Arvo Part on youtube last night.
Best,
Boxer
@Opus re: Dawkins, That’s some news, if unequivocally true. Could you quote his supposed ‘confession of faith’ verbatim or provide a link to such? One can believe that a historical figure named Siddhartha Gautama was living at some point in history without being a believer of Buddhism.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html – does this look like Marx being “thoroughly discredited and largely unknown today”, in certain circles at least?
@Exfernal
Certainly: I do not mean to imply that Dawkins now acknowledges he is a Christian in either the sense that you or he would understand, but this is the man who apart from waxing lyrical about Anglican liturgy wrote an essay under the title Atheists for Jesus.
His confession was made in a debate with Lennox (which you can surely find on Youtube) where (at the beginning) he more or less apologises for ever doubting the historicity of Jesus – a bit groveling I would say. Now, I say, that all of that may not make him a ten out of ten Christian but it is surely higher than zero – say two or three.
He is surely little different now form many an Anglican Vicar or Bishop (none of whom believe in the OT God) and all of whom have no trouble with Darwinian Evolution.
Biology (and evolution) bores the pants off me and most animals and insects are not very nice to each other but how he got from biology to there is no God strikes me as a non-sequitor. I, of course, am with Leucipus and Democritus and Epicurus and Lucretius.
There’s plenty to poke fun at and criticise in (Marx, Dawkins, The Frankfurt School, 19th Century Evangelical revivalists, Feminists, Furry Fandom, etc.) without having to pretend they’re all in league with one another, in some grand conspiracy, of one mind on everything.
Why would anyone want to poke fun at 19th Century Evangelical revivalists?
His confession was made in a debate with Lennox (which you can surely find on Youtube) where (at the beginning) he more or less apologises for ever doubting the historicity of Jesus – a bit groveling I would say. Now, I say, that all of that may not make him a ten out of ten Christian but it is surely higher than zero – say two or three.
Sorry, but I must disagree. If the Bible has anything to say on the subject, it is still zero. Believing Jesus once existed doesn’t make anyone a Christian at all. His executioners believed he existed, yet were not counted as Christians (unless later they took Him as Savior and Lord). According to the Bible a Christian is one who follows Christ. This means Jesus becomes the Lord and Savior of the one taking His name.
Dawkins was embarrassed because he (like so many atheists before him) had foolishly proclaimed in public that Jesus never existed. He was just owning up to the fact that there is strong historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and this is probably only because most historians (even secular) do not deny the existence of Jesus. They do however deny His power, authority and divinity. That is not Christian according to the Bible.
Dear fellas:
Exfernal sez, pointing to a link by Brian Caplan (for fun, google that dork’s graphic novel…)
Yes, in fact, it does. From the link:
Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. The share rises to 5% in the humanities. The shocker, though, is that as recently as 2006, about 18% of social scientists self-identified as Marxists.
I know one guy who calls himself a Marxist. He’s a nice older dude who lives in a large house and he drives a Mercedes Benz S-class to work every day. Maybe he had dreams of fixing all the world’s problems at one point, and kept the label despite not becoming the Che Guevara of the Pacific Northwest.
Cormac McCarthy did it and made millions…
https://books.google.com/books?id=s-QzccStux4C&pg=PA7&dq=man+holding+this+revival+is+an+imposter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lgUrVZGYN4rzoATFpoDACw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=man%20holding%20this%20revival%20is%20an%20imposter&f=false
Best,
Boxer
Cormac McCarthy did it and made millions…
I know why most unbelievers would want to, especially feminists and atheists. I guess I should have worded it differently. I meant why would anyone here want to. There is that whole “feminization of Christianity” thing that started around then, but I don’t think anyone was deliberately trying to feminize anything. Few if any of those women were trying to usurp men’s positions, and I’m fairly certain most of them were chaste.
Dear JDG:
I don’t think McCarthy could really be called an unbeliever. I’ve talked to people who think that feminism originated at this point too, though.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704576204574529703577274572
You know what I suspect? Feminism has a lot of its intellectual origins in the lake poets, and people like Mary Shelley and Charles Lamb. The romantics were a sort of counter-industrial or neo-luddite movement, who were reacting to encroaching technology. They had a lot of ideas about “truthiness” versus truth, which are echoed by feminist writers now. They also idealized women as being more emotional, and thus closer to some sort of primal truth about things.
That’s my own little conspiracy theory, and I’m sticking to it. The modern feminists and the romantics are just too eerily similar in word and deed to be ignored.
Best,
Boxer
I don’t think McCarthy could really be called an unbeliever.
I would consider him an unbeliever (in the biblical sense) based on this comment he made during that interview:
CM: “It may be. I have a great sympathy for the spiritual view of life, and I think that it’s meaningful. But am I a spiritual person? I would like to be. Not that I am thinking about some afterlife that I want to go to, but just in terms of being a better person.”
You know what I suspect? Feminism has a lot of its intellectual origins in the lake poets, and people like Mary Shelley and Charles Lamb.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all. I’m of the mind that feminism in this country started as a movement around the mid 1800s.
Unfortunately, Boxer is downplaying a connection that is obvious. The relationship between cultural Marxists (or neo-Marxists) and Marx and Marxism is similar to the relationship between the neo-Platonists and Plato and the Platonists. Claiming that since they are not orthodox Marxists they cannot be called Marxists or have no relationship with Marxism is absurd.
The Frankfurt school were orthodox Marxists that, because of the failure of orthodox Marxism, reformed Marxism. They were conscious heirs of Marxism. This happens in all intellectual movements. There was a conscious, open attempt to merge Marx with other intellectuals like Freud; the “neo-Marxists” (cultural Marxists) like the Frankfurt school and the Freudians (like Wilhelm Reich) birthed what we now know as “cultural Marxism.” Cultural Marxism is the grandfather of the “Social Justice Warriors” of today.
Saying that the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt school had nothing to do with the orthodox Marxists is absurd. No one would say that the neo-Platonists had nothing to do with Plato or the original Platonists.
It’s hilarious, though. Trying to erase the influence of Marx and Freud – atheist, secular Jews – and instead label their movement “fags” – let’s just say it reminds me of the people saying, “no, Communism was not a secular Jewish movement – that’s a ‘conspiracy theory’ – it was really the celibate (read: fag) Jesuits!”
Of course, the typical Social Justice feminists on Tumblr have no clue that their ideas originated with the neo-Marxist Frankfurt school and Freud, by way of the Authoritarian Personality. They got their ideas from their professors, who got their ideas from their professors, who got their ideas from the Authoritarian personality, which got its ideas from the Frankfurt school and Freud.
Beeker said,
“I may be misunderstanding this quote**, but from my understanding, conservative and Christian Men who are either married or single are the antithesis of MGTOW. These types of men are the biggest white knight, manginas enslaved to women via marriage (if married that is), the State and religion (if still single).”
**“If thats traditional marriage as designed by the modern trad-con feminist and their minions it’s little wonder conservative and Christian Men are MGTOW.”
And I accepted it as a given around these parts that this crowd just understood many single Christian young men were generally going their own way just by the simple fact that they weren’t perusing women for marriage or much of anything else. No, most of them probably haven’t heard the acronym or officially taken the red-pill but have grasped the concept simply because they have eyes to see and ears to hear. I know because it happened to me as a single Christian young man 20 years ago. I concocted my own red pill based on reality, it was bitter as hell but very healthy in the long run. I’m talking primarily about the young set, some 40’s and under but especially the 20 somethings.
The excruciating FOtF website spinoff “Boundless” is famous for it’s rants about young men not marrying. Same with Driscoll, Mohler etc. The screeching to high heaven from conservative and Churchian women is also ample. Google Christian book title “Where Have all the Good Men Gone – book”, a stellar example of which I have a copy. If men not marrying isn’t at the core of MGTOW I don’t know what is. Again, a man doesn’t have to make an official declaration to go his own way. An honest evaluation of the average churchian single woman as a slutty, manipulative, controlling ball buster destined to morbid obesity was all I needed to determine most of them completely unsuitable material for wives. And again that happened for me 20 freakin years ago.
Dear Hipster Racist:
If the connection were obvious, it would have been cited by now, don’t you think? Rather than following the tactics of your master, Alinsky, and trying to make this personal, why don’t you simply provide a reference?
I assume that by “the Authoritarian Personality” you refer to this book, which appears to be totally available online.
http://www.ajcarchives.org/main.php?GroupingId=6490
Why don’t you link the precise parts of the book that proves the connection you appear to be asserting, rather than just blathering on ad infinitum? I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong, and that Adorno is master and leader of all SJW fags, but you’ll have to provide evidence. That’s how adult men argue.
Regards,
Boxer
@embracing reality
>a man doesn’t have to make an official declaration to go his own way. An honest evaluation of the average churchian single woman as a slutty, manipulative, controlling ball buster destined to morbid obesity was all I needed to determine most of them completely unsuitable material for wives
I don’t know about the manipulative part. Not saying it is untrue; I simply choose to not interact with most of them, so I can’t say.
Your observation re (many of) them being destined for morbid obesity is a significant part of why I choose not to interact with them. If the leaders’ wives, and the female “leaders” themselves are overweight, what message is sent about a lack of self-control being acceptable behaviour? And I find a woman who is overweight to be drastically unappealing, so…
Also, cross-dressing (Deut 22:5).
Also, having a man’s hair length instead of hair long enough that it “is her glory” (1 Cor 11:14-16)
So, sorry to say Embracing Reality, things have not improved since your analysis 20 years ago.
Is Love Blind? Appearantly so…
….because there are a lot of men out here wifing up baby mamas who have at last one kid, often more, by bad boys and cleaning up after the bad boys’ messes by step-fathering their kids. And its not just totally desperate aspie guys either. I’m talking good, solid, career men who probably have at least one other option or two. Why are men so flakey? Why are they wifing up baby mamas?
I’m sorry Boxer, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I didn’t think this was actually the place to start throwing around these well-known references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Ok, there’s the link between the Frankfurt School, Marx and Freud. As you can see, this isn’t some sort of fringe theory – it’s the very basics of the Frankfurt School.
You will note that Theodor Adorno is listed under “Notable theorists” of the Frankfort School. In fact, in the wiki page for Authoritarian Personality, we see this quote: “The Authoritarian Personality was based in part on earlier Frankfurt School analyses undertaken in Germany.”
OK? Now, is there a connection to the Social Justice Warriors of today? Let’s see.
http://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/phil-157-fall2008/2007/10/08/pedagogy-of-the-oppressed/
Again, I didn’t think it was necessary to post a bunch of references, because these connections are well known and not usually denied by either their proponents nor their opponents.
As you can see, there is no “conspiracy theory” involved.
@JDG
Well, it is a curious thing. I have a friend who tells me he is an agnostic (can’t make up his mind about politics either). I tell him that he should stop wavering and make up his mind, (get baptised and also join the UKIPs – as he obviously secretly wants to) yet when I suggest to him that the UKIPs could not run a piss-up in a brewery or that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the historical notion of Jesus, he becomes most offended (as you would too – but I do not mean to offend). Now, I say that that man is both a UKIPer and a Christian. Were I to tell him that I thought there was no evidence for Julius Caesar and that the books were later impostures and the coins with his head a plot by the Jews or the Jesuits to change history he would laugh and say I was for some reason that he could not divine, crazy, but he would not become offended; nor would I later have to get on my knees and metaphorically beg forgiveness for my heresy.
As I said, Dawkins is not Christian in the sense in which you or he would understand and yet that is the sense that most people where I live regard themselves as Christians. What I have noticed is that to say that one does not believe in (any) God has little impact on even the most devoted of believers – they shrug their shoulders and pity you, but if one says that one does not believe that their man Jesus is other than a myth, everyone, believer and non-believer alike become mortally offended.
What is amusing about Dawkins (who sounds like an Anglican Vicar or Bishop, indeed says that most of his friends are men-of-the-cloth) is that despite his posturing as a scoffer, he reserves (as would any good Christian) his real ire not for Christians but for Muslims; and further, although he is a paid up member of the liberal SJW brigade, he failed to grasp that in the liberal (Cultural Marxist) pecking order, Women rank higher than Musselmen (Rotherham is a nice example of that) and thus he was hauled over the coals by the ghastly prune-faced Rebecca Watson and her mangina supporters such as Professor Myers for failing to bow-down and worship the V.
I was schooled amongst people like Dawkins, indeed an old school-friend of mine – not as distinguished as Dawkins – is the author of the standards AS and A level guide to Biology. No way would I treat his views on religion as having any validity – so I am at a loss as to why American Universities allow Dawkins to get onto his hobby-horse and allow him the time and publicity of lecturing to their students on his pet subject.
@Boxer
The most pressing questions (for me), are the ones found here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/insensitive/#comment-174645
I suspect the answers will clear up a lot of confusion. Short answers will likely be sufficient.
I will note that I have no particular attachment to the term “Cultural Marxism” – I think the existence of the things ascribed to it are more important. Please keep that in mind.
—
“I believe in give and take.”
Alright. But, how does that look to you? Is it based on word count? Question count? Understanding the other person’s position? Something else?
—
Now:
Your claim regarding Cultural Marxism seems to be that it doesn’t exist. I’m trying to figure out why that is. More specifically, whether it’s just a matter of word choice, garbling of terminology, or a more fundamental issue of areas/concepts/movements/etc that are commonly ascribed to it (e.g. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/insensitive/#comment-174645). Those questions are asked in light of your criticism of the use of the term “Cultural Marxism.”
You claim that (at least some of) the provided definitions are incompatible (without stating why that’s important).
You claim that we (others participating in this discussion) can’t define Cultural Marxism, but that is only based on your assessment (the provision of multiple definitions is due to your rejections). As far as I can tell, we have not agreed on what constitutes a valid definition nor who is the arbiter.
You have set yourself up as the arbiter of what is and is not a legitimate source (the restriction to peer-review journals is quite narrow – why (seemingly) insist on that?). It should be apparent to anyone that peer-review has no effect on the truth of statements – if something is true, it is true regardless of who thinks it’s true. (And, you are likely well aware of what the National Association of Scholars (etc) has written about the failings of peer-reviewed research (e.g. bias, collusion, exclusion, etc).)
Beyond all that, on a few occasions, you’ve simply replied to a strawman, not to what I’ve actually written. On still other occasions, you’ve ascribed a number of views to me that I don’t hold, nor have stated, quoted, or linked to here. You’ve also made jumps in logic that were not justified by what has been discussed between us to that point. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that you’re transferring things over from other discussions that you’ve had on this topic.
—
Moving along:
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia that stood for almost seven years:
[1] Merquior, J.G. (1986). Western Marxism, University of California Press/Paladin Books, ISBN 0586084541
I am curious about your thoughts on it – but, if you are going to spend time on anything I’ve written, I’d prefer that you answer the questions linked at the top.
—
“If you want to shotgun me with questions”
I think the time investment for many of the questions is quite low, particularly the questions linked above.
“I’ll answer one (which I did) and we can have a conversation, or not (up to you).”
I think some questions can be asked in parallel (and probably should be).
“I don’t learn anything from being interrogated”
Is “interrogated” the word you really want to use? I’m simply trying to understand where you’re coming from. If you don’t want to let others understand, or simply wish to reject what others have said, then I don’t really see a direction for this discussion.
“and I’m fairly sure most readers find that sort of shite annoying and boring.”
I don’t appreciate that appraisal of my questions made in good faith.
You’ve done this a few times already – resorting to petty insults when a straightforward reply is all that’s desired. I hope you don’t think that that is productive behaviour. If this is brought over from other discussions, I can understand, but I’d appreciate it if you recognized that you haven’t discussed this with me before.
—
Out of curiosity, to whom are you referring?:
“You don’t have to read Marx’s entire corpus to realize that the local kooks don’t know what they’re talking about.”
so I am at a loss as to why American Universities allow Dawkins to get onto his hobby-horse and allow him the time and publicity of lecturing to their students on his pet subject.
He has PC credentials and sings the song they want to hear.
Missed a marker. The last line at 4:16 am isn’t supposed to be in italics.
I wonder if Boxer (or any of those battling him) have ever seen the film (I’d like to call it a quota quickie but as Vanessa Redgrave gained an Oscar nomination, I surely shouldn’t) Morgan:A Suitable Case for Treatment. As I recall, David Warner and his screen mum, Irene Handl spend considerable periods of the movie on visits to Highgate Cemetery where they sit beside Marx’ grave. What they talked about I long forget but it was certainly about the forthcoming revolution – this at the time when England’s socialist party were in power. Now that is true Cultural Marxism.
As an impressionable youngster this was surely my earliest awareness of any Marx (Karl, Groucho, or Harpo) – so I had no idea what was going on.
embracing reality
The excruciating FOtF website spinoff “Boundless” is famous for it’s rants about young men not marrying. Same with Driscoll, Mohler etc. The screeching to high heaven from conservative and Churchian women is also ample. Google Christian book title “Where Have all the Good Men Gone – book”, a stellar example of which I have a copy. If men not marrying isn’t at the core of MGTOW I don’t know what is. Again, a man doesn’t have to make an official declaration to go his own way. An honest evaluation of the average churchian single woman as a slutty, manipulative, controlling ball buster destined to morbid obesity was all I needed to determine most of them completely unsuitable material for wives. And again that happened for me 20 freakin years ago.
How do Christian men deal with the physical aspect of MGTOW? Do they have sex outside of marriage and sin, or is sex just not a priority for them any more than marriage is? For that matter, how does any man, Christian or non-Christian deal with the very distinct possibilities of having no legacy and dying alone and uncared for by loved ones? I know Paul managed to live a single life and still have a legacy, and that’s great if one is actually called to that, but I just don’t think most men are. I think most men are built to be sexual and strongly so and for good reason.
Dale
If the leaders’ wives, and the female “leaders” themselves are overweight, what message is sent about a lack of self-control being acceptable behaviour?
This brings up an interesting point that I do not recall getting much attention outside of the androsphere – what being fat says about mindset, and therefore to some extent a person’s larger state of mind. Let me state up front that I’m carrying too many pounds, and need to lose about 20 myself (that’s about 10 kilos for the rest of the world). Metabolic changes over a life time are real, and I do not think that Dale is pointing to the woman who needs to lose some fat but rather those who are carrying way too much – the porkers, to be blunt. Some pretty nice people I know are also seriously overweight. And it’s basically due to “energy in vs. energy out” in most cases – not enough pushups or even pushbacks.
There is a definite “do as I say, not as I do” aspect to the spectacle of obese church women, whether as wife of a leader or worse yet leader herself. If one learns anything out of the book of Proverbs it should be self control, and 23:21 equates gluttony with being a habitual drunk.
Nobody would tolerate Pastor Bob showing up to preach obviously drunk, and one assumes that even lady pastors wouldn’t get a bye on that. But toting 100 extra pounds around? No problem.
So the message is simple, some bad behavior is bad, and some is acceptable, and it appears once again that this has to do with which sex is more likely to engage in that bad behavior – “men’s bad behavior Really Bad, women’s bad behavior All Men’s Fault” in short.
Bonus: there’s some words here and there in the Bible about gossip, too. When was the last time anyone heard a sermon on that topic, eh?
Jonathan Culler, Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (p. 139):
“The term poststructuralism is used for a broad range of theoretical discourses in which there is a critique of notions of objective knowledge and of a subject able to know him- or herself. Thus, contemporary feminisms, psychoanalytic theories, Marxisms, and historicisms all partake in poststructuralism.”
–‘Marxisms’? Boxer better warn Karl to lawyer up. ‘Marxism’ was supposed to be dead and buried with Marx, right? Who, btw, was a perfectly innocent contemplative who merely pondered in a polite sort of way the workings of everything in society, against which he had no sort of intemperate animus at all.
“In Britain, unlike the United States, poststructuralism arrived not through Derrida and then Lacan and Foucault but through the work of the Marxist theorist Louis Althusser. Read within the Marxist culture of the British left, Althusser led his readers to Lacanian theory and provoked a gradual transformation by which, as Antony Easthope puts it, ‘poststructuralism came to occupy much the same space as that of its host culture, Marxism’.” (p 143)
–A Post-Marx Marxist leading to Lacan? But Boxer didn’t read this in his Penguin Classics Das Kapital Volume Three! Look at all the pages covered in pink highlighter! Anyhoo, as long as they’re all dead, it’s perfectly harmless and innocent, right? It can’t be a “conspiracy” and so nobody here has any right to complain against any Leftist or Leftisms at all. Syncretic Marxist and Marxismsist solutions never did nobody no wrong. Your 14 yr-old daughter will be fine at Electric Daisy Carnival– hey look, don’t argue with me. I’ve got eight volumes of Trotsky sealed in ziploc bags I keep in the toilet tank– saves water every time I flush!
“Many introductions to literary theory describe a series of ‘schools’ of criticism. Theory is treated as a series of competing ‘approaches’, each with its theoretical positions and commitments. But the theoretical movements that introductions identify – such as structuralism, deconstruction, feminism, psychoanalysis, Marxism, and new historicism – have a lot in common.”
–Yes, we have competing approaches called radical leftism, radical leftism, radical leftism, radical leftism, radical leftism, and radical leftism; and in media, academe, and behind the theatrical deliberations of ‘democracy’, these approaches harmonize into something called “Cultural Marxism”. A ‘lot in common’, indeed!
@ Confused in Cleveland:
“Is Love Blind? Appearantly so…
“….because there are a lot of men out here wifing up baby mamas who have at last one kid, often more, by bad boys and cleaning up after the bad boys’ messes by step-fathering their kids. And its not just totally desperate aspie guys either. I’m talking good, solid, career men who probably have at least one other option or two. Why are men so flakey? Why are they wifing up baby mamas?”
Assuming you’re not a troll:
Short answer: Because The Thirst Is Real.
Longer answer: The current sexual and marriage marketplaces exalt and overvalue women; and denigrate and undervalue men. Your average “good solid career man” has almost no appeal for most any woman, because he’s not “sexy” or “hot”. His only value is as a paycheck, a wallet, an income stream to support a baby mama. Women would much, much rather have sex with and spend time with and get impregnated by a bad boy than do any of those things with a “good solid career man”, despite what many folks will say and have you believe. Those “bad boys” are much more sexually attractive and arousing to most women than are “good solid career men”.
The men are flakey and wifing up baby mamas because, those “good solid career men” are still men. Men want sex, and they will do whatever it takes to get it — including marrying a used up, banged out baby mama who treats him like shit and uses him for all he’s worth. So if a man has to marry to get sex, he’ll do it. If he has to marry a woman and support her and her thugspawn to get a little bit of sex, he’ll do it. Women know this — women are keenly aware of their sexual power. Women know they can use their bodies to get men to do what they want and give them what they want. (Funny: those selfsame women complain that men “just want them for sex” and “view them as sex objects” and that the attractive men are “commitment-phobic”.)
That’s why, Confused. Men want sex, and will do whatever it takes to get it.
The Frankfurt school were orthodox Marxists that, because of the failure of orthodox Marxism, reformed Marxism. They were conscious heirs of Marxism. This happens in all intellectual movements. There was a conscious, open attempt to merge Marx with other intellectuals like Freud; the “neo-Marxists” (cultural Marxists) like the Frankfurt school and the Freudians (like Wilhelm Reich) birthed what we now know as “cultural Marxism.” Cultural Marxism is the grandfather of the “Social Justice Warriors” of today.
Saying that the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt school had nothing to do with the orthodox Marxists is absurd. No one would say that the neo-Platonists had nothing to do with Plato or the original Platonists.
It’s hilarious, though. Trying to erase the influence of Marx and Freud – atheist, secular Jews – and instead label their movement “fags” – let’s just say it reminds me of the people saying, “no, Communism was not a secular Jewish movement – that’s a ‘conspiracy theory’ – it was really the celibate (read: fag) Jesuits!”
Of course, the typical Social Justice feminists on Tumblr have no clue that their ideas originated with the neo-Marxist Frankfurt school and Freud, by way of the Authoritarian Personality. They got their ideas from their professors, who got their ideas from their professors, who got their ideas from the Authoritarian personality, which got its ideas from the Frankfurt school and Freud.
This is probably about as close to my thoughts on the matter as I have seen in this thread so far.
The presbyterian church are the heirs to Calvinism. (Even though most of the rank and file members of say the PCUSA have no idea this is true). The fact that John Calvin would absolutely not recognize them as his progeny is not relevant to the the way his biblical worldview developed long after he died. A pretty clear line can be drawn back to him, regardless.
Damn the bad luck for Apple Watch sales to the legacy people from these groups .
So if a man has to marry to get sex, he’ll do it. If he has to marry a woman and support her and her thugspawn to get a little bit of sex, he’ll do it. Women know this — women are keenly aware of their sexual power. Women know they can use their bodies to get men to do what they want and give them what they want.
This is what cause Lift Chasing. Lift Chasing is these men seeking positive feedback from women, any woman or group of women, online, in person, second hand, vicarious, whatever. They get no affirmation from their sex fount, so they augment the need for respect by Lift Chasing other women
Hank Flanders @ 8:24 am:
“How do Christian men deal with the physical aspect of MGTOW?”
By choking back the sex drive. That isn’t fun or realistic but what is realistic is that God-sanctioned sex is not an option for most of us anyway. I get married and have sex whenever *she* wants it, which is likely as often as a politician taking responsibility, or I keep control over my life at the price of the frustration I would have anyway.
“I think most men are built to be sexual and strongly so and for good reason.”
We are but the world doesn’t care. Better yet, the world wants to use our sexuality as a weapon against us and God let them do it. If you’re strong enough to flip that script then great, if not then the only winning move is not to play.
“For that matter, how does any man, Christian or non-Christian deal with the very distinct possibilities of having no legacy and dying alone and uncared for by loved ones?”
For the Christian, this is easy. God is real and much more important than family so the MGTOW just prioritizes the important stuff… which is what Paul was talking about anyway. I’ve found a worthy young man or two to invest in without the need for a genetic relationship. As for dying alone, hah. The stories I hear about men who are surrounded by their morbidly obese or estranged “loved ones” led me to coin the saying “Zero Isn’t Negative”.
Cleveland,
Just looks. The slutted out tatooed baby mamas are typically thinner than women their own age with much longer hair. They have to be or else no man would pay them any attention. The good, solid, career men who probably have at least one other option or two are opting to marry the younger woman in most cases. But although she is 5 to 7 years younger than he is, she already bred some thug-spawn that he must now step-father. But that is okay, because the social unpinnings have already been set up very carefully in society to make sure that the slutted out baby mama continues to get whatever child support she can get from the alphamcharleybadboyrockbanddrummer that sired them. Marriage negates alimony in almost all cases, never child support. So the good, solid, career men think they are covered. And in reality, they aren’t. This is a foolish mistake but they are thinking with their dix.
Think about it. If you are a 37 year old beta-bux nerd, on the short side, maybe just a little bit fat, getting bald, (just like any good, solid, career man) and throughout your entire life, women your own age have never even looked at you. You were rejected, particularly by the really pretty girls. You have a N-count of 3 or 2 (maybe even lower.) But you have a decent job in technology, why would you bother giving these women your own age a second chance now that they have all frivorced their first (and in some cases second) husbands, and now they begin to look at you as something other than beta orbiter? That is just it, you don’t. Obviously, the 20 and 21 year old virginal girls at church are grossed out by you and you know the church will boot you out if you even look at them funny, but you are horny. So, you start to make a move on the 29 year old baby-mama bar-fly who you meet at the Chinese restaurant, or the night club, or you meet online (Facebook or social media) or whatever, just because she is pretty and she makes you feel younger and now you feel like you didn’t miss your window.
Of course this baby mama wants to get married, not only has she has never been married, she has never even been asked! You are her dream come true. You are the dork who will provide the constant flow of steady income and allow her and her thug spawn to live in the house you already bought long before you met her for the once a month s-x if you behave yourself, and because you work so much and your office hours are steady, she will easily be able to schedule the twice weekly noontime rendezvous with the alphamcharleybadboyrockbanddrummer father of her children whom she is still attracted to fulfill her ‘gina tingle. She gets it all! And the beta-bux husband isn’t any wiser.
Jerking off. Doesn’t have to be to pron and thus, sinful.
Think about it. If you are a 37 year old beta-bux nerd, on the short side, maybe just a little bit fat, getting bald, (just like any good, solid, career man) and throughout your entire life, women your own age have never even looked at you. You were rejected, particularly by the really pretty girls. You have a N-count of 3 or 2 (maybe even lower.) But you have a decent job in technology, why would you bother giving these women your own age a second chance now that they have all frivorced their first (and in some cases second) husbands, and now they begin to look at you as something other than beta orbiter? That is just it, you don’t. Obviously, the 20 and 21 year old virginal girls at church are grossed out by you and you know the church will boot you out if you even look at them funny, but you are horny. So, you start to make a move on the 29 year old baby-mama bar-fly who you meet at the Chinese restaurant, or the night club, or you meet online (Facebook or social media) or whatever, just because she is pretty and she makes you feel younger and now you feel like you didn’t miss your window.
Of course this baby mama wants to get married, not only has she has never been married, she has never even been asked! You are her dream come true. You are the dork who will provide the constant flow of steady income and allow her and her thug spawn to live in the house you already bought long before you met her for the once a month s-x if you behave yourself, and because you work so much and your office hours are steady, she will easily be able to schedule the twice weekly noontime rendezvous with the alphamcharleybadboyrockbanddrummer father of her children whom she is still attracted to fulfill her ‘gina tingle. She gets it all! And the beta-bux husband isn’t any wiser.
I like this one. Because I can name 10 guys who are in this situation (or further along and have been ejected from their homes).
Me too.
Thanks for that response, Gunner Q. Personally, I hate being single, so I’m not pursuing a MGTOW lifestyle (at least voluntarily), but I guess I understand why some men do. Anyway, is there a viable alternative to MGTOW that a Christian American man can undertake while still not having to settle for substantially less than what he desires?
Specifically, are foreign women a good way to go? I’ve heard some people around the manosphere mention women from the Philippines or other Asian countries, but as far as non-white women go, I’m typically much more attracted to the types of women who are from places like South America than Asian countries. I’m also attracted to white women of course, so places like Norway, Iceland, Russia, or Sweden would be fine, too, but I don’t know much about those cultures and how feminism has affected them. I’m just using those as examples. While I am attracted to dark hair, skin, and eyes, like women from Mexico have, I’m not fond of Mexican culture, and obesity seems to be a problem in Mexico just like it is in the US.
I’ve never seriously considered looking abroad for a wife, but the older I get, the more I’m actually starting to consider it, but I also want her to be a Protestant Christian who’s well-established in her faith. Does anyone know of any good countries to find what I’m searching for? It would also help if she came from a culture where men over 30 aren’t considered gross to younger women.
Dear Fellas:
In other words, none of you can support your arguments. You just go all Alinsky when someone asks for some evidence.
Hipster Racist sez:
In other words, you’ve never read the book you claim offers proof of your contentions, and you’re not smart enough simply to pick a piece out of it, despite the fact that it’s all online and public domain, to discuss.
Your nonsense above is called an appeal to popularity, by the way.
Marcus D sez:
OK.
You’ve already proven that “Cultural Marxism” is a meaningless term, right here in this thread. Within the span of hours, you’ve posited that it means postmarxist literary criticism, that it is a “Jewish conspiracy” (fuck’n lol) and that it’s whatever SJW fags and shitlibs believe, among about six other lengthy, meaningless diatribes.
By your own hand, “Cultural Marxism” is just a sort of neurotic catch-all, for people who spend most of their time failing in life, to excuse their personal inadequacies.
There is, among smart folks, a notion that arguments need a measure of falsifiability before reasonable men ought to consider them. If your point is that all these disparate examples of contemporary kookiness are aspects of one holistic conspiracy, then you need to offer up something more than opinion to support the contention.
To answer your question directly, I personally believe that all these different you’ve listed are a conspiracy, by extraterrestrial space aliens, who are conspiring with Bigfoot and the tooth fairy, to destroy civilization.
Sure, my theory might be true, same as your “Adorno and Lenin are behind this stuff”, but how does one test it? There’s certainly no historical evidence for either one.
Lucius Somesuch (who I’m sure is half trolling, with “proof” from pulp novels) sez:
GBFM used to conflate Foucault with the Frankfurt School too (fuck’n lol).
I’ve been enjoying your contributions here. As an aside, I had to read Althusser a couple of years ago, and still have “Lenin and Philosophy”, “Philosophy of the Encounter” and his bio “The Future Lasts Forever” in my permanent collection. It’s pretty far out. Anyone interested in the inevitability of alienation would do well to read his later work.
Troll on…
Boxer
Dear Scott:
I don’t like to be a negative nelly, but the guys who are in this situation are largely products of their generation.
I spend a lot of time talking with young men as part of my profession (late teens to early twenties). Brother, their opinion of women is so far out, even compared to my generation’s, that it’s a little bit frightening. If you think that marriage rates are down now, wait until these young brothers hit their thirties. These men don’t give a shit about women, and they know all women are whores, because they learned that lesson watching their mothers.
We live in interesting times.
Boxer
I don’t actually know any guys who have married women with bastard children. I have a bunch of extended family male and female who have spawned bastards.
I do know a couple of guys who have married divorced women with kids that fit the bill.
My brother married a woman with four kids from three previous husbands. They have a son together, and I have no idea at all what he was thinking, but frankly, most of the men on my mother’s side of the family seem to me to be stereotypical henpecked betas.
Guy at my last job is a short, fat, balding computer guy in his 50s that’s married to a semi-attractive divorced woman with kids. It could be that he was a real player in his 20s, but I find that a laughable idea. It’s more probable that he was incel until he met her in his 40s.
Got to say it, but any man who marries a baby mommy or recycled virgin whore or whatever, has it coming to them. Marriage must die a vile death before anything can be achieved to replace it.
@Boxer, that’s my experience when talking to my friends in their 20s. Bottom line, if you’re not religious, what’s the motivation for getting married?
I learned this lesson simply by seeing the same women I was studying with at nightclubs. They’re whores once the night time curtain comes down.
The system doesn’t work anymore. And its like, no one even cares. We borrow $500 billion a year to spend on things we want right now leaving this massive collective anti-dowry for all our children and grandchildren and no one even cares. We are about to elect that b-tch Hillary to be the leader of the free world and no one cares. We are truly in the end of days and (perhaps) we have been there (officially) since Sept 11th, 2001. Inertia is really setting in now….
@Boxer, that’s my experience when talking to my friends in their 20s. Bottom line, if you’re not religious, what’s the motivation for getting married?
This kind of brings things back full circle (sort of), and the related/concurrent threads at Donal Graeme and Deep Strength about guiding young (Christian) men through the red-pill.
I JUST had a very long conversation with my son last night about this. Many here already know the story–he is headed off to a small Catholic school in Montana for a STEM degree. He reads here, ROK, and Rollo mostly. His biggest concern:
“I think the best I can focus on right now is my career. I need to make money and be out of your house on my own. I figure based on the career and field I want, I will need to finish college and graduate school for that. I am afraid that I will be seen as creepy if I am 24 years old snooping around 18 year olds trying to court them.”
We discussed it at length, and not matter how much I offer to help (even telling him to consider marrying while still in college and we will help financially) it seems he would rather chew his own arm off then depend of us that way. I told him “when the time comes, as ANYTHING. If we can do it, we will. In this new world, the only support you will have is from a strong family.”
“ask” anything.
Perfect line from ‘Lord of War’ for that..
“The ones who know, don’t care anymore and the ones who care, don’t know..”
For most Christian men, it’s door one, two or three to choose from; and each option includes living as a celibate.
Go forth, young man, and choose….
Scott, your son is right. He WILL be seen as creepy at age 24 or 25 (with a Master’s Degree) snooping around 18 year old high school seniors in an effort to “court” them. They will be creeped out by it, their dad’s will yell at him, and most likely YOU will be confronted by their fathers. Besides, where is he going to meet these girls, what just hang out at the high school and wait for them to get out of class and head home and hit them up in the parking lot? Any kind of contact (on his part, as a 24 year old man) WOULD be “creepy.” There is no getting around that.
Yes, so his problem is that the typical girl who has been college right along with him will be, um “experienced” beyond that which he is willing to tolerate.
If there is one thing the manosphere has taught him, its what college does to most girls.
Your son is screwed. If he (at 24) wants a virginal girl, then he’ll have to marry a 15 year old. Most of the girls I knew by the time they were 16 already popped their cherries.
Somehow I get the sense that most women think “good solid career man” is Don Draper from Mad Men, or the lawyers from Boston Legal or Suits, or Gibbs from NCIS, or the male physicians on Grey’s Anatomy (particularly the character portrayed by Patrick Dempsey, commonly known as “Dr. McDreamy”).
That’s not “good solid career man”. That’s Hollywood caricature/dreamland, and exists only in the fervent imaginations of the men who create those shows and want to be like; and the women who watch those shows who want sex with those caricatures.
Nope. More accurate depictions of “good solid career man” are Dwight Schrute and Michael from “The Office”, or Dilbert from the comic strip, or Captain Cragen from Law and Order: SVU. Ordinary looking guys doing boring, mundane jobs and with an odd personality tic or two.
Oh gosh, Law and Order SVU, guess what the next episode will be??? OH, more deviant white men taking advantage of poor widdle women. That show hasn’t had a decent or original episode, ever!
I have just googled Cultural Marxism and Google has returned One Million Four Hundred and Sixty results; and that in a Usain Bolt beating time of just 0.35 seconds. For something that is either wrong or mistaken or does not exist that is a lot of people writing about it.
The term maybe wrong much as the term Cultural Christian might also be an oxymoron. I would say (if asked) that Dawkins is a cultural Christian but I know people here would say that he comes nowhere close to clearing the bar for being Christian – not even on the nursery slopes – and further that Cultural Christianity does not exist: Churchianity not being Christianity.
I think we are arguing about labels and Boxer is on the side of the purity of Marxism uncontaminated by Leninism, Feminism, Deconstructivism and so on ad infinitum.
Scott, I think its worse though. Lets say your son expresses his desire to most men (who nowadays are white knights) that he only wants to marry a virgin girl. The response he’ll get from most men (particularly those with daughters) is a raising of the eyebrows and a question “…why that restriction?” And then if your son is truly honest and tells that man that he only wants to marry a virgin because she will have no knowledge of another man’s penis (and thus no capicity to understand what she might be missing that he isn’t giving her) which is perfectly logical from a pair bonding perspective (girls only pair bond with the man who breaks the hymen) the most common reaction your now 24 year old virgin son will get from most men today (upon hearing his desires) will be that of disgust. They will probably think your son is a pervert. Or worse. They might want your son locked up until someone can confirm he isn’t a danger to society. At best? They might respond by smirking at him and saying something along the lines of “….and you think you are entitled to a virgin? What makes you so special? Tell you what little boy, you just take whatever you can get and you be thankful that any woman is willing to marry you.” And then they would saunter off laughing at him. And that would be it.
That is the world you son has coming to him for his desires of a wife with an N of 0.
“How do Christian men deal with the physical aspect of MGTOW?”
Jerking off. Doesn’t have to be to pron and thus, sinful.
And how does jerking off bring glory to God? Afterall we are to obey this passage:
“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. ” 1 Corinthians 10:31
“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Colossians 3:17
And how does jerking off square with this:
“But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” 1 Corinthians 7:9
While it is true that it is harder to find an appropriate spouse to marry these days, good women are still in existence all over the world. Abraham imported a wife for Isaac. An excuse that you cannot find one anywhere in the world is bogus, and won’t stand God’s scrutiny.
Jerking off is not of “good report” among Christians and should ne be indulged in by followers of Christ.
Having lived through what IBB has posted above, all I can do is but laugh, there is no solution to the above, not for a Christian man. The secular solution would be for Scott’s son to score as much pussy as he can, all the time, never committing to any of those girls; and then elope with a 15 year old virgin when he decides to settle down.
Dear Opus:
Right. The term “Cultural Marxism” is not unlike the term “Defending Democracy”. It’s used to dishonestly evoke emotion and to silence critics, rather than to communicate useful ideas. For more on this general process, you can read the first chapter of Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent.
As proven here and in your google search, the term doesn’t actually mean anything. That the people who are most fervent in its use can’t seem to come up with a definition for it, yet still can’t communicate their ideas any other way, is a humorous illustration of its scope.
I’ve always liked to talk about ideas, but I think it’d be hard to define “Marxism” too. The man wrote a lot, his writing is suicidally boring, and he later reversed himself on some things.
“Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.” -Karl Marx, in an 1881 letter to a dude named Bernstein.
Best,
Boxer
Talking about red pill and women.
I had a friend tell me how grateful he was that he only met his wife after she turned 32. He was grateful because she had quite blatantly told him she would have never given him a second thought at the age of 22.
I laughed and laughed. The irony of this was kind of lost on them though. And yes, I did try to convince him not to get married but he went ahead anyway and now is heavily in debt, working all the time, tired, no sex and has to do half the house work. Their son now goes to daycare every week day as both parents work full time to afford a 30 year mortgage on a house that needs several years worth of debt to repair.
I laugh!
Scott,
“I am afraid that I will be seen”
Get this fixed. Both ends.
Scott says:
April 13, 2015 at 12:58 pm
Yes, so his problem is that the typical girl who has been college right along with him will be, um “experienced” beyond that which he is willing to tolerate.
Why not ask him to consider non-Americans, and help shop for a spouse with him? There are lots of attractive, intelligent and chaste women from the Philippines and Vietnam.
O, I forgot; you prefer only white Americans. Never mind.
Hank Flanders @ 12:23 pm:
“Personally, I hate being single, so I’m not pursuing a MGTOW lifestyle (at least voluntarily), but I guess I understand why some men do.”
It isn’t really voluntary for me, either. A Godly wife could have done me a lot of good but life is what it is.
“Specifically, are foreign women a good way to go?”
There’s no magic bullet. If you have ties to another culture or are a frequent traveler then they’re certainly an option but otherwise, foreign wives give as many problems as solutions. The central problem of Marriage 2.0 is the laws so the wife you find is less important, in my estimation, than the society you live in.
…
IBB @ 1:26 pm:
“Scott, I think its worse … They will probably think your son is a pervert. Or worse. They might want your son locked up until someone can confirm he isn’t a danger to society. ”
Very unlikely. The girl’s father would be either red-pill or else sufficiently opposed that pursuing her wouldn’t be an option anyway. What is likely is that Scott’s son will be one of the very few men even talking about getting married. Marriage-minded young women will seek him out.
And Scott isn’t the only father who wants better for his kids than what his generation had.
@Boxer
You may be right.
I have thus just googled the term Cultural Hegelianism (which I think I must have invented) and in a somewhat lacklustre time of 0.40 seconds Google has returned five hundred and sixty thousand entries.
@Opus
I have used the term Cultural Christian to mean someone who doesn’t actually attempt to follow the teachings of Christ, but who may consider himself a Christian because he was raised in a Christian social milieu. People who have been baptized, or regularly attended church at some point in their lives, and have never actually renounced Christianity, would fall into my Cultural Christian category.
I wouldn’t call Dawkins a Cultural Christian because he appears to be hostile to Christianity despite being able to appreciate Evensong, church music, etc. However, your agnostic friend would fall into the Cultural Christian category for me, though, as from your description it seems he is inclined toward Christianity, and is likely to convert and join the church at some point. The Anglican vicars who don’t actually believe in the Resurrection, etc., would also fall into the Cultural Christianity category, although they are nothing more than professional do-gooders if they have lost their faith.
Yeah, Scott would have to find like minded families to introduce his son to. At least having a father and mother actually take an active interest in helping their children find spouses should help immensely as trying to navigate this minefield as a lonely Christian bachelor has become a journey not worth taking.
Get this fixed. Both ends.
I think by this you mean “who gives a f*** how you will be seen?”
I am working on it.
Dave,
By not fornicating or committing adultery. And actually, that is going to happen anyway. He can’t stop it. If you abstain (all the time) then God will give a man (young or old, makes no difference) a nocturnal emission. He will ejaculate in his sleep (that has happened to me many times in my young virginal childhood.) There is no shame there Dave.
The Glory to God is in not committing sin. That brings glory. There is nothing sinful about masturbation.
Marriage-minded young women will seek him out
Related: He has already started to develop his own version of “signs she is not really marriage material” and it is quite good. Very red pill.
Its like he has been reading Deti alot or something.
Not bad for an 18 year old.
Gunner,
Uuuhhh, try very likely. See what happens when a 24 man explains to an older man with a 15 year old daughter that he is “courting her” because she is virgin (pretty much the only one he knows) and what kind of reaction that will get. Scott’s son is likely to get a visit from the local law enforcement with a restraining order.
It wont be an option.
This happened to me all the time, especially when I was NOT marriage minded. The women (all in their mid to late 20s, some early 30s) were trying to lock me down and their father’s were supportive of this. One of them even offered me dowry (half ownership in his business if I releaved him of his financial burden by marrying his good for nothing daughter.) Problem is, every single one of these women had been buttuxed-desouled-bernakified-annutted or whatever GBFM calls it when they ride the cock carrosel to an N-count of 150 OR they were divorced once, twice, or even three times. There would have been no pair bonding. So yeah, sure, they’ll marry Scott’s son. Not sure these are the kind of women he wants though.
They all do but most people with kids have absolutely ZERO IDEA what that really means.
Dave-
Since you cannot help yourself but tacitly accuse me of “racism” all the time, here is some more ammo for you:
http://westernphilosophyeasternfaith.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-dialogue-about-race.html
@Boxer: Well, I’m glad Foucault had nothing to do with the great Marx and Adorno. Oh wait:
“The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, the writings of Georges Bataille, of Maurice Blanchot, and Martin Heidegger, and in his later period the thought of Theodor Adorno are all of importance to Foucault in various ways. . . . Nevertheless, it should be noted that Foucault numbers Marx, alongside Nietzsche and Freud, as one of the ‘masters of suspicion’. Such thinkers, Foucault claims, sowed seeds of doubt about the validity of forms of humanistic discourses prevalent within modern European culture, especially the ideal of a value-free objective methodology of scientific investigation and its accompanying faith in the emancipatory possibilities of reason in the political and moral spheres.” — Cultural Theory: The Key Thinkers (Routledge Key Guides) p71
–Are you a ‘master of suspicion’ too, Boxer? Something about it sounds almost– sinister . . . .
The thirst is definitely real. This past weekend I was at a friend’s house for a party, and noted his wife’s ‘circle’ of female friends….all are mid40s, grossly overweight, multiple-children-from-multiple-failed-relationships types…and yet, every time I see them at these galas over the years, they have a new bf every time….not Alpha studs, but not total losers either. Its simply amazing. The carousel just spins on and on….
I’m looking for more information on Orthodoxy. Can I PM someone in-th-know from here offline with some questions? Thanks.
Sure. The comment section or the “Contact” page of the courtship pledge.
http://courtshippledge.com/about/takethepledge/contact/
Blue Pill Professor, I just was reading back through and saw this–
Why the negative? This is a church I could get behind. Are you sure you are not called to serve as the first patriarch of the ARPOC- American Red Pill Orthodox Church? We would have a Southern feast day in the ARPOC, perhaps a feast week to commemorate the southern warrior tradition to say nothing what we could do with the Indy 500, and beer instead of wine.
Made me laugh out loud and my next door office neighbor had to come see. Very well then, let us approach his holiness the patriarch of Constantinople and see if we might be able to get a charter.
@Scott/@IBB,
The likelihood of finding a virgin girl drops very quickly with age. According to a CDC 2006-2010 report (can you trust a government agency to tell the truth?), 27.0% of never-married U.S. have had intercourse before 18, and it goes up to 42.6% before age 20. So, only slightly more than half have not had intercourse by the time they leave their teens. Of course, what percentage have pushed the sexual limit otherwise? Unfortunately, a 15-year-old girl is about the oldest you can reasonably hope will be a virgin.
@Opus
Did you make the search for “cultural Hegelianism” including quotes? It returns measly eight results. 🙂
I have thus just googled the term Cultural Hegelianism (which I think I must have invented) and in a somewhat lacklustre time of 0.40 seconds Google has returned five hundred and sixty thousand entries.
I just googled “feminism sucks”. About 539,000 results (0.46 seconds).
Then I googled “feminism is great”. About 35,200,000 results (0.43 seconds).
We really are swimming in it if Google is anything to measure by.
There’s no magic bullet. If you have ties to another culture or are a frequent traveler then they’re certainly an option but otherwise, foreign wives give as many problems as solutions. The central problem of Marriage 2.0 is the laws so the wife you find is less important, in my estimation, than the society you live in.
I agree there is no Magic bullet and the central problem is this sham that is being passed off as marriage, but I disagree that foreign wives give as many problems as solutions.
Women are women and will always be troublesome, but the difference between a woman brought up right (likes/respects men, sees divorce/remarriage as a negative) and one brought up in the US is like night and day. IMO the problems associated with immigration and understanding a different culture are minute when compared to the problems with a woman who not only doesn’t respect you, but has the power of a corrupt state at her disposal if she decides to push the button.
I have a friend whose Asian mother divorced his American father after she became westernized and self sufficient (though I have never met her or her husband). However, I also personally know a lot of couples (they network with each other, it’s a large number) where the wife is Asian, and the only one I know out of that group that was divorced waited until her divorced husband died to get involved with another man. All of the others are still married to their first husbands as far as I know.
Moving abroad is probably the best bet for getting into a real marriage and staying married, but if moving abroad is not an option, then I recommend finding a woman from a culture that still has strong Christian/traditional family values in conjunction with vetting her very, very prayerfully and carefully. It’s not a guarantee though. As Gunner pointed out there are no guarantees, but prayer is powerful and there is wisdom in having many wise councilors.
Has someone mentioned this to Dalrock yet:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/opinions/costello-marriage-millennials/index.html
A more thorough missing of the point of marriage I have never seen in my life. I’ve never been married, likely won’t, and even I can’t help but be disgusted at the solipsism on display. And, also, they didn’t talk to a single man in the article.
IBB @ 2:32 pm:
“‘Marriage-minded young women will seek him out.’
This happened to me all the time, especially when I was NOT marriage minded. The women (all in their mid to late 20s, some early 30s) were trying to lock me down and their father’s were supportive of this.”
That’s marriage-minded YOUNG women, not careerist sluts running out of options. There are still 18-20ish women who want to get their families going, not many but if even fewer bachelors will entertain the notion of marriage then success will be possible.
Especially as we true Christians become a bona-fide subculture. Persecution tends to be a unifying force.
Made me laugh out loud and my next door office neighbor had to come see. Very well then, let us approach his holiness the patriarch of Constantinople and see if we might be able to get a charter.
If this gets of the ground can us non-denominational types come and visit?
@JDG –
Though Google doesn’t measure sarcasm, so at least some of those 35 million results may have been along the lines of “My wife frivorced me so she can feel empowered. Tell me again how feminism is great.”
Also, you should be aware that Google search result numbers are HUGE guesstimates. I’ve seen a search return “200,000 results” and when I clicked through to the final results page (I was curious how far I could get), it was actually on the order or 237 results or so. So don’t rely on them for anything.
But with those two caveats, yeah, I agree that we’re pretty much swimming in it.
Dave,
And how does jerking off bring glory to God?
By not fornicating or committing adultery. And actually, that is going to happen anyway. He can’t stop it. If you abstain (all the time) then God will give a man (young or old, makes no difference) a nocturnal emission. He will ejaculate in his sleep (that has happened to me many times in my young virginal childhood.) There is no shame there Dave.
The Glory to God is in not committing sin. That brings glory. There is nothing sinful about masturbation.
1. Jerking off does not bring glory to God in any way. If anything, it shows that the person jerking off has yet to have mastery over his own will and emotions.
2. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and God supplies our needs according to His riches. The solution to a strong sexual urge is to get married, and to do it like rabbits.
3. Nocturnal emission is as similar to jerking off as natural death is to murder, or as miscarriage is to induced abortion. Same acts; totally different scenarios. One acceptable, the other not.
4. It is expected that Christians should “buffet” their bodies and bring them under subjection. A runaway sexual drive with resultant jerking off demonstrates lack of self control.
5. A life of regular prayerfulness and fasting will subjugate all uncontrollable sexual urges until they can be legitimately released in marriage.
Where? I have met… none. I have never met any of these in any church I have attended, never met one through a friend or friend of a friend, I know none of them. If you say they are out there, then great, but I have never seen them. I have met parents of these girls who want them married (maybe) but the 19 year old girls themselves? Nah. Too busy having fun.
Especially as we true Christians become a bona-fide subculture. Persecution tends to be a unifying force.
And a separator of the fake from the genuine.
And, how many people in Scripture jerked up “to bring glory to God”? If they did not, and there is “no new temptations that we face which they did not face” (paraphrase), it only means we need to rediscover how those people of old handled similar issues that face us today.
Dave,
I am growing tired of your needless reframing of the issue. Masturbation has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical aspects of bringing Glory to God. Don’t link it. The only thing that you or I should concern ourselves with (concerning masturbation) is whether or not it is SIN. Clearly, it is not. God did not speak to it. Christ did not speak to it. It is not mentioned in the Bible and is not sinful. Your reframing of that issue does not change anything.
If your wife gives you a handjob or a BJ (she can and should) does that bring any Glory to God? Probably not. If not, why is it okay for her to do that? If so, what is so glorious about what she is doing that differs from your own masturbation? Does a nocturnal emission bring Glory to God? No. But it doesn’t have to bring Glory to God for it NOT to be sin, right? That is why I mentioned it.
Do not compare a miscarriage to an abortion. What is the matter with you?
IBB @ 5:59 pm:
“Where? I have met… none. I have never met any of these in any church I have attended, never met one through a friend or friend of a friend, I know none of them. If you say they are out there, then great, but I have never seen them.”
I see them most often while they’re waiting for their kids to finish up at the gym before we adults get our classes going. Long hair, healthy skin, pleasant attitudes, shapely, nowhere close to the Wall, happy kids running underfoot. And the gym’s clientele is only middle-class.
They’re all taken, of course, but I’m happy for their husbands. They’re set to beat the odds. Then I sigh and do my own class, with “liberated” women sporting tattoos and bad haircuts. I’m happy to ignore them so recently after seeing an herd of unicorns pass.
Jeremy
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/opinions/costello-marriage-millennials/index.html
I guess Norway and Sweden are out.
JDG
Moving abroad is probably the best bet for getting into a real marriage and staying married, but if moving abroad is not an option, then I recommend finding a woman from a culture that still has strong Christian/traditional family values in conjunction with vetting her very, very prayerfully and carefully. It’s not a guarantee though. As Gunner pointed out there are no guarantees, but prayer is powerful and there is wisdom in having many wise councilors.
Yeah, of course, and I’m not looking for guarantees or magic bullets, just a way to increase my odds. It seems that increasing my odds here is years away, and I’m not getting any younger. I was just wondering if anyone had any specific suggestions that met the criteria I put forth earlier.
“The only thing that you or I should concern ourselves with (concerning masturbation) is whether or not it is SIN. Clearly, it is not.”
Dave has it right, IBB. Sex within marriage or not at all, that’s the Biblical standard (Ephesians 5, for example). It’s totally unfair to us who don’t have the option to marry but this is God’s plainly stated will.
Dave has it wrong. He is linking issues that are not linked. Masturbation is not s-x. It is as much s-x as nocturnal emissions are s-x, (that is, not at all.)
“I think by this you mean “who gives a f*** how you will be seen?”
I am working on it.”
That’s the second half. The first is fearing the Lord instead of whatever else.
I didn’t get there until 40ish, but it beats the hell out of the alternative.
I was just wondering if anyone had any specific suggestions that met the criteria I put forth earlier.
You could try Christianfilipina dot com or Big Church dot com or something similar. Be very careful. A lot of folks aren’t what they claim to be. Meet with or at the very least speak with her parents, pastor, and friends before anything serious. You may need someone to translate for her parents.
If you do find someone you think worth spending some time on, learn as much about her culture as you can. It will save you a lot of misunderstandings.
Some things I would watch for:
Is she:
– a bible believing Christian?
– submissive to her parents?
– of a mind that a wife should submit to her husband?
– in a good relationship with her dad?
– a virgin or of a super low N count?
– not a divorcee?
– not a single mother?
– the product of a culture/environment that truly looks down on divorce and out of wedlock births?
– able to accept responsibility and apologize when she is wrong?
– able and willing to cook, clean, AND make sammiches for her man.
– not looking for a “soul mate” but for a husband (implies that she knows the difference).
– debt free or close to it?
And at some point you’ll want to see her when she is very angry with you. Watch how she treats you. This will reveal a lot. If she is foreign this may be difficult. Sooner or later though you will probably disagree about something.
I have read the Authoritarian Personality, but no – I’m not going to go proof-texting obscure cultural Marxist works in order to argue with you on Darlrock’s blog.
Because I’m not giving you *my opinion* – I’m simply stating the common, received wisdom of people who *have* “pick[ed] out pieces of it” – ad nauseam.
It’s you that is making a unique claim, it’s you that has the outlier opinion, so it’s actually you – not me – that has the responsibility to pick out this stuff piece by piece.
But simply slandering people as “conspiracy theorists” for noticing the well known, exhaustively documented connections between the Frankfurt School, Adorno, and the Social Justice Warrior isn’t much of a case, now is it?
Nor is just calling people “fags.”
You haven’t done much proof-texting either. So, you’re allowed to just make a case about “conspiracy theorists” and “fags” but those who don’t agree with you are responsible to disprove you?
Virtually all scholars – both pro and con – acknowledge these connections. You deny them. So it’s you against the majority of scholars. Of course, just because they are a majority doesn’t make them right.
But just because you call people “conspiracy theorists” and “fags” doesn’t make you right, either.
Scott:
Tell your son that, at 24, with a bright promising career in STEM, he won’t have to be snooping around 18 year olds – they will come to him.
As for those thinking he is “creepy” – sure, maybe aging divorcees, but really, who cares about what they think?
This whole idea that it is “creepy” for a young man of 24 dating a young woman of 18 – really, no one but the fringes thinks that. A ten year age gap is nothing these days, in fact, it has never, ever been a problem.
If she were to call him a “creep” – he should just see that as a “shit test.” Just hum a few lines of the classic Radiohead song “Creep” and she’ll be eating out of his hands.
P.S. – IBB is just utterly, completely wrong. I have dated women more than ten years younger than me – hell, I had a Christian mother introduce me to her daughter than was more than ten years younger than me. IBB has, on more than one occasion, freaked out about an irrelevant age gap. It’s that frankly creepy thing that some fathers have about actually giving their daughters away to a Real Man. They don’t seem to mind her slutting it up with boys, but actually marrying her off to a Man – they feel competition, apparently. Now THAT is creepy.
An age gap of close to ten years fixes quite a few of the “alpha/beta” issues in modern relationships.
IBB is talking crazy. An 18 year old woman is a legal adult, and as mentioned, many if not most 18 year olds aren’t even virgins.
It’s HIM – not other people – that call people “perverts” for the completely and utterly reasonble age gap of 7 years.
Just steer your son away from the daughters of men like IBB and their won’t be a problem.
That is rich. I’ve read Manufacturing Consent, as well as at least 75% of everything Chomsky has written, and Boxer’s characterization of it is absurd – absolutely wrong.
Chomsky is generally NOT considered a “cultural Marxist” by the way. He has, in fact, been criticized by cultural Marxists for not being sensitive enough to “sexism” and “patriarchy.”
It’s Boxer againt the vast, vast, vast majority of scholars – both cultural Marxists and their opponents. You’ll notice that Boxer can’t prove his contention and doesn’t even try to.
This is just obviously wrong, as plenty of people have pointed to exactly what cultural Marxism is, but Boxer just keeps saying “nuh-uh!”
If the fellow in the original article is going to reduce the role of a wife and mother to little more than domestic help, he should also factor in how much she would earn for her bedroom services. His math is off.
Unrelated: I like to call SJW’s The Outrage Brigade.
Oh, and as far as “racism” goes …
“White women are a bunch of slutty whores. You should marry an Asian woman, they are chaste and feminine.”
Yeah, totally not “racist” eh?
Dear “Hipster Racist”
I realize you don’t understand any of this, but the first chapter of that book is called “A Propaganda Model”. It specifically goes over the use of meaningless, emotionally loaded phrases (like, for example, “Cultural Marxism”) to manipulate easily controlled sheep (like yourself) and (as the title suggests) “manufacture consent”.
That book is, surprise, surprise, up on the internet also. (LOL!)
http://www.socialismonline.net/sites/default/files/Manufacturing%20Consent%20-%202002%20-%20by%20Chomsky%20and%20Herman.pdf
I’ll let you get your mediocre self back to blaming “da jooz” for all your personal failures and fuckups, now, kookboy. Incidentally, the last time you were sneered at for this, you pretended your kook-lit site was “comedy”.
For once, you are making someone laugh.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Tom C:
I’ve used that “outragists” recently, also. It’s not quite accurate, because people on this side of the fence are equally irrational and prone to scapegoating (watch “hipster racist”, “desiderian” et. al. in this thread for a perfect example). Even so, it fits.
If you have the fortitude to wade through social media aggregators like Twitter and Tumblr, you’ll be endlessly amused to see these people turn on one another, when they don’t have one of us at hand.
Best,
Boxer
@ Dale
“Your observation re (many of) them being destined for morbid obesity is a significant part of why I choose not to interact with them. If the leaders’ wives, and the female “leaders” themselves are overweight, what message is sent about a lack of self-control being acceptable behaviour? And I find a woman who is overweight to be drastically unappealing, so…”
Do a search sometime online, [ obesity by country ] and you’ll find that the US has the fattest women by percentage in the entire industrialized world., yes men are fat too. You may be shocked to find the obesity rate of a nation like Italy is in the single digits, 8%! Numerous friends of mine who have traveled abroad have been amazed how nearly all the women, young and old, are by amerika standards attractive. Obese men haven’t much room to complain but the rest of us have been putting up with lazy, slovenly heifers for decades in the US and it’s absolutely disgusting. Worst of all is their fat acceptance and justification of abnormal as “average”. Most of them are quite hopeless. NONE of these women could make me happy as my wife. The poor shlubs who get stuck with them don’t look very happy to me either.
Boxer,
It’s really too bad you cannot have a discussion without resorting to this sort of posturing. Manufacturing Consent is about the mass media, the corporate media, and how the corporate media, far from being the “watchdogs” of the state, generally speaking acts as propaganda of the state. It is not, generally speaking, about propagdana in general.
You are trying to say that “cultural Marxism” is some sort of meaningless slur, but as has been posted here many, many times, it’s a well known phrase to describe a well-known intellectual trend by people who were, in fact, influenced by Marxism and saw themselves as reforming Marxism along cultural lines … hence the term “cultural Marxism.”
But as we see, “Cultural Marxism” is neither meaningless, nor is it particularly emotionally loaded.
It’s astonsishing to me that you read Manufacturing Consent and missed the main point – about the profit driven media corporations and their cozy relationship to the state and other power structures – and instead see it as some treatsie on rhetoric in general … well, if I were like you, I would start calling you names like “easily controlled sheep.”
Oh, I see what this is about. Please notice that I have – not one time – blamed any Jewish people for my “personal failures and fuckups” – in fact, I have not even blamed cultural Marxists in general for any of my “personal failures and fuckups.”
So, that’s just a lie. I guess since you have been shown to be completely wrong about cultural Marxism, over and over again, in this thread you have to resort to personal insults and smears. I’m surprised you haven’t called me a “fag” yet!
@Boxer: Your denials that cultural Marxism doesn’t even exist reminded me of this:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!
You may get lucky like Baghdad Bob and not even be arrested when you turn yourself in, but what most people don’t realize is the degree of failure when the cultural Marxists seize military power. There is a reason government agencies have bought billions of rounds of hollow point bullets. They are for the back of our heads as we kneel by the ditch. Us and all you useful idiots.
Pingback: Donkey Talk | Things that We have Heard and Known
Hank Flanders asks
“How do Christian men deal with the physical aspect of MGTOW? Do they have sex outside of marriage and sin, or is sex just not a priority for them any more than marriage is? For that matter, how does any man, Christian or non-Christian deal with the very distinct possibilities of having no legacy and dying alone and uncared for by loved ones? I know Paul managed to live a single life and still have a legacy, and that’s great if one is actually called to that, but I just don’t think most men are. I think most men are built to be sexual and strongly so and for good reason.”
The way this question is posed, it seems odd for a man to asks.. Setting suspicion aside I’ll answer it anyway.
Sex.
Hank, when you were 12-16 how did you deal with little hank? Any man, any honest married man can tell you that doesn’t stop until a man just doesn’t care anymore. Sexual sin, sin outside of marriage etc? Isn’t that a huge problem in our society *for married people*? I think it’s “MarriedManSexLife” that has the survey showing the epidemic of Christian men engaging in masturbation and pornography. Their wives are doing them a hell of a lot of good eh’? I expect most of it can be explained by wives withholding sex or FAT.
This society is hyper-sexualized in the extreme. Media, advertisers, pornographers have harnessed female sexuality to manipulate men for $$$. Many women profit immensely in each genre and it teaches regular women widely, including churchian women, that female sexuality is power, power to manipulate men. Churchian wives reputedly use sex, in marriage, as a weapon to punish, a tool to manipulate a husband. I’ve never been with a whore, I’m certainly not going to marry one. For me a church full of single, manipulative sluts is one hell of an icy cold pale of water right down the front of me.
no legacy.
I have no idea since I’ve never cared the least about that or even understood the concept. Legacy? In this fallen world? In this socialist, communist, wicked nation? God help the children of the rest of you, I mean that sincerely. I on the other hand am delighted not to have a stake in the future of this vile, wreaking society.
dying alone.
Hank, visit a nursing home. There are 16,000 nursing homes in the US filled to the brim with elderly people (mostly women).
Most of those people have children!
Dear Blue Pill Professor:
For the umpteenth time, I’m pointing out the lack of a coherent definition of Cultural Marxism. Do you have one?
In order to establish something, it’s customary to define it precisely.
The people who use the term “Cultural Marxism” tend to do so from a position of personal insecurity. Your passive-aggressive insults support this thesis, and I appreciate them.
Regards,
Boxer
GunnerQ said
>I get married and have sex whenever *she* wants it, which is likely as often as a politician taking responsibility, or I keep control over my life at the price of the frustration I would have anyway.
This is a really important point, that many others choose to not understand. If the woman will not fulfill the role of wife, what is the point of taking her as wife?
Hank flanders:
>I’ve never seriously considered looking abroad for a wife, but the older I get, the more I’m actually starting to consider it, but I also want her to be a Protestant Christian who’s well-established in her faith.
In my very limited experience, this is difficult, although vastly better odds than trying to find a worthy woman from here. It was difficult for me, as I only had the few weeks I was over there, to try to start a relationship. If things are going well after 7 to 10 dates together, then you have a good chance. If you could somehow take a leave from work and your debts (if you were unwise enough to become a slave to the bank), then you could go live there for 3 months, and actually have plenty of chances to meet people.
Calling or writing to someone you have not met is not only a massive waste of time, but it is almost guaranteed to get you scammed. Vastly better to start with a real relationship.
In my experience, girls from that other culture were much more open, and willing to talk bluntly about where things are going and what life priorities we will have.
But still, anyone who says this is easy, is trying to sell you something. And is trying to rip you off.
If you really want to talk about this, leave an e-mail or something and I’ll call you.
Dave’s comment “An excuse that you cannot find one anywhere in the world is bogus, and won’t stand God’s scrutiny” is of disputed intelligence. I have things to do with my life. Spending a whole year doing nothing but trying to seek a worthy woman might be great, but some of us are still slaves to debt. (Yes, sell the house.) And some may question spending so much time or money on seeking a wife, especially given Paul’s comments about serving God better as a single (1 Cor 7).
>Jerking off is not of “good report” among Christians and should ne be indulged in by followers of Christ.
Unless you can clearly give Scriptural support for this, you are trying to state what is moral on your own authority. And in so doing, I see you committing the sin of blasphemy. Only God can say what is moral. I am not God.
Dave also said:
>1. Jerking off does not bring glory to God in any way. If anything, it shows that the person jerking off has yet to have mastery over his own will and emotions.
This is very unwise. Will you accuse me of being “unholy” because I choose to urinate? Urination empties the bladder. If you need to do so, your body sends you increasingly strong signals to get this task accomplished. And if you refuse too long, then it is going to happen anyway, whether you want it to happen or not.
Same with the vas deferens. That fills with semen. When it gets full enough, the body generates more hormones, making the desire for release more and more intense. (At least in my case.)
If you really think masturbation is wrong, then why did God not choose to give clear instruction on that point? Do you think this in a modern invention? Lev 15 shows that there is no penalty required for this, and it has the same treatment as a woman having menstruated. And no, that is not a sin either.
Scott
>I am afraid that I will be seen as creepy if I am 24 years old snooping around 18 year olds trying to court them.
… and IBB’s comments about how to defend a man wanting a virgin
The way to defend the desire for a virgin is to refer to Deut 22:13-21, and point out that not only is it “ideal” for a woman to approach marriage as a virgin, but failing to do so was cause for the REQUIREMENT that the woman be put to death. Yes, I am sure that a man who married his brother’s widow (levirate law) would know not to expect a virgin, but in general, virginity was the requirement. Now, some religious leaders will ignore Scripture in favour of their own views, but you can use the passage above to correct their false teaching and shut them up.
And when I was 30, I had a 19 year old interested in me. I really wish I had been able to accept that
a) my impression was correct; I found it difficult to believe she could want a man “so” older than herself, and
b) she could have been ready for marriage at that age.
She was respectful and (at least a little?) submissive to her father, and was very attractive, in body, personality and priorities. One of my regrets in life.
@embracing reality
>You may be shocked to find the obesity rate of a nation like Italy is in the single digits, 8%!
Nope, no surprise… I have done my own travelling 🙂 🙂 🙂 I estimated the obesity rate in my personal experiences at about 1%. To be fair, that was me walking down the street, eating in cafes or restaurants, on the bus or subway, and in church. I cannot comment about other parts of their population. Oh, and yes that “1%” is in reference to the foreign culture, not North America hah hah
It’s pretty difficult to separate the media from “proagdana” [sic]. That’s actually the entire thesis of the book. Had you actually read it, you’d know as much.
in the special and misleading sense that they kept-and keep–dosely to the perspective of official Washington and the closely related corpo- rate elite, in conformity to the general “journalistic-literary-political culture” from which “the left” (meaning dissident opinion that ques- tions jingoist assumptions) is virtually excluded. The propaganda model predicts that this should be generally true not only of the choice of topics covered and the way they are covered, but also, and far more crucially, of the general background of presuppositions within which the issues are framed and the news presented.
This is from p. 171. I simply scrolled to a random spot and started reading. I only had to get through a few lines before I found some “propagdana” [sic] for you.
Yes, yes. It’s just a comedy site.
You haven’t shown me to be wrong about anything. You claim to have read books, and you don’t know what they’re about, not even reading them when they’re readily available on the internet. You don’t have a definition for your favorite phrase, but will emotionally squawk at anyone who scoffs at it.
Regards,
Boxer
BOXER: There is no doubt a connection between Marxism and the kind of anti-authoritarian attitude we find today in the left, particularly in relation to the family and paternalism. Have you not seen a film by Pier Paolo Pasolini? Those ideas came out of 50’s and 60’s leftism and had a devastating effect on not just culture, but education too. They are not right wing ideas. I guess you are going to tell us next that there is no left? Cultural Marxism is just a shorthand referring to a particular network of ideas. Whether all the academics in that category agreed with each other on every single detail is really beside the point.
Whether Cultural Marxism is solely responsible or not is also not really the point. The point is that these ideas came from the left, and some of them came from ‘Cultural Marxists’, but nowadays I think Derrida and Foucault are more responsible, since the ‘Cultural Marxists’ were not relativists, at least not in any destructive sense.
I am bothered by the tendency in the Manosphere to throw Marxists and postmodernists in the same basket though because they really don’t have that much in common.
For the umpteenth time, it has been defined, quite coherently, many, many times. You simply choose to ignore that, and start randomly insulting people.
Cultural Marxism is an intellectual movement that translated Marx’s theory of economic class struggle into cultural terms.
Orthodox Marxism saw society in terms of economic classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, engaged in an economic struggle. Cultural Marxism sees society in terms of social classes engaged is a cultural struggle – hence, “male oppressors” vs. “female oppressed,” “white oppressors” vs. the “oppressed peoples of color,” and the “heterosexual oppressors” vs. the “oppressed homosexuals.”
Virtually everyone – including people who agree with cultural Marxism as well as those who don’t agree with cultural Marxism – understand this definition.
It’s you pretending you don’t understand it, or that this is some obscure thing that people don’t know, or that no one knows how to “define” it.
It’s Boxer vs. everyone else.
It is possible that maybe it is simply not coherent to YOU – maybe it is simply YOU – not other people – that have a problem understanding this clear and simple explanation of a well known intellectual trend.
But I have a feeling you do, in fact, understand it, but you are simply pretending not to.
It is ironic that Boxer seems to believe that when people disagree with his assertions, they are insulting him personally – when so far, it has been the exact opposite. It is him that is using personal attacks as a cover for his own lack of good arguments.
In fact, he is doing armchair psycho-analysis on his opponents. His opponents are “blaming do jooz for their personal fuckups,” they are “passive-aggressive” and showing “personal insecurity.”
Ironic, yes, that this is the exact strategy of the cultural Marxist classic, The Authoritarian Personality. Boxer – whose avatar is a play on Cultural Marxism – is engaged in classic cultural Marxist attacks.
…
I have read Manufacturing Consent, many times, and your characterization of it is utterly facile and shallow. It was not about propaganda in general, it was about the mass media in the US and its relationship to power. In fact, I even attended a lecture by Noam Chomsky where he spelled out his ideas in person. I’m a big fan of Chomsky, and I have read most of his work. I’d debate you any day on Chomsky’s theories, I have not the slightest doubt I’d win by any objective measure.
But thanks for correcting my typo. It doesn’t add anything to your argument, such as it is, but there isn’t much substance to your argument anyway, so pointing out people’s typos is probably the best you’ll do.
Wait – you randomly picked out a passage in Manufacturing Consent that uses the term “propaganda” and you are using this to bolster your non-argument? The passage you quote actually supports MY argument – not yours.
That quote supports exactly what I said – Chomsky’s “Propaganda Model” is not about rhetoric in general, it’s about the corporate media and their function as propaganda for powerful factions – the state, big business, etc.
Sure you understand this?
You are wrong, I have defined it, it’s defined by the many, many links that have been posted here, by others as well as myself, yet you simply close your eyes and chant “nun-uh!”
I think the exchange here speaks for itself. Thanks for playing, Boxer.
A friend had sent me that article. I agree that it is a silliness on his part Darlock but I was warmed a bit by the picture. She is at the least turned into him in the article I read. She is attracted to her man he’s just doing a terrible job of dealing with it.
Hipster Racist:
My advantage is that I don’t need to argue anything. I’m not asserting something exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
When you calm down, you might figure out some of these basic logical principles.
I’ve actually been pretty reserved this go-round, given that kooky desiderian called me “Father of Lies” etc.
It’s hilarious, though. Trying to erase the influence of Marx and Freud – atheist, secular Jews…
blah blah blah. Jewish conspiracy… etc. You are truly a one-trick kook.
If you’d have read it, you’d know that the thesis treats the construction of meaningless phrases (like, say “Cultural Marxism” with which to pacify or inflame the sheep (you and a few others here are good examples).
Yup. Guess it’s time to agree to disagree.
Boxer
Dear bios:
To answer your question: I honestly don’t know if there’s any left or right left in the North America. I know the left used to stand for things like closed national borders (to protect wages and trade unions). Tariffs and duties (for the same reason). Progressive income taxes. Limitations on corporate power. If you read Jack London from the turn of the 20th century, you’ll get the idea. I don’t see any mainstream politicians stumping for those today.
I don’t really think that the problems we talk about here on Dalrock are traceable directly to them either.
Ever read Fukuyama’s Origins of Political Order? He talks a bit about scale, which is interesting. Scaling up local resources to a national level (as in the USA and Canada) increases complexity. You end up with layers of ineffective bureaucracy, leading to a low-trust society. Technology increases instability and individual narcissism. Family breakdown is perhaps inevitable once a certain threshold is reached. What works in the small town doesn’t necessarily work when the federal government attempts it.
Most of the guys here don’t know the difference, which is fine. It’s humorous to see them conflate the two, though.
Best, Boxer
I think you actually misunderstood the subject of Chomsky’s sentence here. When he talks about “the choice of the topics covered” and “the general background of presuppositions within which the issues are framed” – who is doing the choosing of the topics? Who is making the presuppositions within which the issues are framed?
He is talking about the corporate media – the subject of Manufacturing Consent. That was the point I made.
While the “construction of meaningless phrases” is surely used as an example of the types of propaganda used by the mass media to defend state and corporate power in Manufacturing Consent, the main thesis is explained, quite coherently, in the passage you chose to quote. You have obviously completely misunderstood it.
In fact, if you would have used a phrase like “support our troops” to illustrate a “meaningless phrase” of the type used in the mass media, I might have believed you are actually familiar with Chomsky’s thesis.
But instead you are claiming that “cultural Marxism” is one of those meaningless phrases – which, as far as I remember, isn’t anywhere close to the type of propaganda Chomsky discusses in Manufacturing Consent. In fact, the term “cultural Marxism” is virtually never used in the mainstream media – so it is not at all the type of propaganda that Chomsky is discussing here.
Are you sure you have actually read the book?
Who, aside from you, said anything about a “Jewish conspiracy?”
You really just can’t help yourself, can you? Resorting to name-calling isn’t helping your case, at all. It’s making you look petty.
Really, I’d suggest you quit now and save whatever face you have left. It’s getting embarrassing at this point.
Dear Hipster Racist:
Embarrassing for whom? You’ve made a statement and failed to support it. Every riposte you make is riddled with logical fallacies. A few minutes ago you told me “thanks for playing”, and now here you are, begging for my attention again.
We’re not going to agree on anything — be it “the Jews” (secular or otherwise) or “Cultural Marxism”.
You’re welcome to keep babbling. I don’t waste time on people who can’t teach me anything.
Best,
Boxer
That is false. You claim that cultural Marxism doesn’t exist, and numerous people have provided links to the definition of cultural Marxism, various authors considered cultural Marxists, authors opposing cultural Marxists, and links not only from orthodox Marxists to cultural Marxists, but also from the cultural Marxists to the “Social Justice Warriors” of today.
You are simply ignoring all of evidence that has been presented to you, by numerous posters, and engaging in various name-calling, armchair psychoanalysis, and changing the subject.
Boxer, it’s clear you are not interested in the substance of cultural Marxism, nor Chomsky’s Propaganda Model thesis. I’m simply pointing out your absurdities for the benefit of the audience.
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
BOXER :”I don’t really think that the problems we talk about here on Dalrock are traceable directly to them either.”
Not even ideas about white male power and privilege? Were they also a response to ‘scale’ and the increasing technologization of society?
Moreover, the idea that ‘cultural Marxism’ is a right wing crackpot term traceable to Lind is incorrect. Check out the links on this site: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4
There is even a book called Jameson On Jameson: Conversations On Cultural Marxism(Post-Contemporary Interventions). Again, it’s not a book written by a right wing crackpot.
@Opus
The term maybe wrong much as the term Cultural Christian might also be an oxymoron. I would say (if asked) that Dawkins is a cultural Christian but I know people here would say that he comes nowhere close to clearing the bar for being Christian – not even on the nursery slopes – and further that Cultural Christianity does not exist: Churchianity not being Christianity.
This is an interesting point. Where I am, the term “Cultural Christian” is used quite frequently – it refers to lukewarm Christians (generally not orthodox) who participate in religious services and activities but only for the sake of participation (e.g. go to Mass because that’s where their friends are, it’s “just what people do,” etc). Now, it can also refer to people who believe that the ordinances/commandments/rules/guidelines of a faith are good, and that the observance of such is a benefit to society, but while thinking that belief in God or dogma is unnecessary (and usually not believing in it themselves).
Guy married five months is terribly worried that men don’t trust women
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/18/guy-married-5-months-is-terribly-worried-that-men-dont-trust-women/
—
“Problematic.”
Moral obligation to tell husband of wife’s attempted adultery?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955882
Is it just me
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=955949
Dale: If … masturbation is wrong, then why did God not choose to give clear instruction on that point?
Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that masturbation is “a serious disorder.”
And I heard a “non-denominational Christian” on the radio say that masturbation is adultery, because when men do so, they fantasize about women they are not married to. So according to him, masturbation is only permitted if one fantasizes about one’s wife while doing it.
OT
Hello back and happy Easter from European Union (or what’s left of it). Sorry for being MIA, had stuff to do. Here’s a little bouquet of nice ladies for our local feminists, so they can familiarize themselves with their future overlordesses and commanderettes. Perhaps your american feminists will like them too.
Dear Bios:
Sorta inclined to blame Delgado’s Critical Race Theory for kicking that nonsense off, but I wouldn’t argue that it’s not essentially a Foucaultian take on things (History of Sexuality?)
Well, yes; that’s part of it. If you are managing an increasingly large and diverse society, the temptation is always there to start pitting various ingroups against one another, lest everyone decide to abolish your job.
You’re doing the same thing “Hipster Racist” and “Blue Pill Professor” did yesterday, namely to construct strawman arguments, in an attempt to discredit anyone who asks reasonable questions about this term. (I don’t recall describing any “book written by a right wing crackpot… and I’m sure you’ll post a link if you disagree). I find the phenomenon interesting. If you were me, what conclusions would you draw from this tendency?
Is it possible that “Cultural Marxism” is such an article of faith to you all, that you feel personally threatened by questions about its definition?
Thanks for the link, by the way. It seems to address the most reasonable of Marcus D’s numerous, mutually incompatible definitions, and describe CM as postmarxist literary criticism and aesthetics. This is much more coherent than the “secular Jewish conspiracy” theory, or what I’m coming to call the “extended Frankfurter” theory (including poststructuralists — lololol). In any event, I’ve not read several of those titles, and they appear worthy.
Best,
Boxer
I want to return to the question of Jazz and to Craig’s response to my dismissal of the genre. Just because I do not like it is not really good enough but threads move quickly and sometimes a reply needs a little sustained thought.
I have never liked Jazz. I am reminded of my own teacher’s views – he a man who was always supportive of composers, an attitude I have imbibed; a man sufficiently distinguished as a composer that his scores and papers are deposited and archived at The Britten Pears Library in Aldeborough – and yet he had the occasional blindspot. One was Jazz and his objection to Jazz was that the drumming simply got in the way. Sympathetic though I am to that idea, I have to acknowledge that to do away with the drumming would do to Jazz what removing the drone from a bagpiper would do to the piper’s music, so although he is right he is also wrong.
One day I bumped into a friendly acquaintance of mine, himself a professional Jazz pianist of Latino taste. For some reason I now forget I made a motion with my left hand, to which he responded that ‘there goes a classically trained pianist and behind the slightly patronising attitude – for he is a much better pianist that me – he added that with Jazz it is all in the right hand. That gives a clue as to what is going on: there are after all a dozen or so Concerti for Piano left hand (Strauss {2} Hindemith, Britten, Korngold and Ravel come to mind) and the trick of course is not to make it sound as if only one hand is playing and to do so the music is consistently driven up from the lower notes on the keyboard. Even with a two handed Concerto it is all in the left hand.
Craig says that Jazz is all Theme and Variation. Far from it for me to disagree and yet it never sounds like that. I therefore call in aid (a new German for Boxer) Helmut Lachenmann. This is what he says ‘Expressive reinterpretation through comprehensive variation’. but one question might be directed to the degree of variation as no composition is completely free of variation and therefore of ‘individuation and estrangement’. How much variation destroys common associations and up to which point is it ‘mere stylistic immitation’? That seems to me to be the point: and Jazz seems to me to achieve both extremes, that is to say: one Jazz solo being to my ears interchangable with any other (a view by the way Adorno holds if I correctly recall) and thus stylistic immitation and at the same time the solos seems to my ears to destroy any link with the popular tune on which the improvisation is said to be based. When I listen to The Goldberg’s, the Diabelli’s, the Enigma’s or the Young Persons Guide (Purcell), I neither hear stylistic imitation nor am I left wondering what the connection with the initial theme might be.
There is no answer to the question. I am thus reminded of a story a friend of mine told me: At the time he married his first wife – a nineteen year old (alright she was an ex of mine) his father a somewhat gruff no-nonsense man visited his daughter-in-law’s home for drinks and met her father. Some music was on the turntable and he enquired what the music was, to which the reply was that it was Jazz. ‘I can hear that’ he replied with some exasperation and yet perhaps that is the point of Jazz; that it is effectively, merely Twentieth Century Taffel Music.
Embracing reality, I guess I figured that since every man knows there are ways to ejaculate without a woman being present that it would be clear my question is more about a heterosexual man’s overall desire to hold, kiss, touch, flirt with, and have sex with a woman. Nothing in the flesh replaces those feelings.
I’m asking about this, because for all intents and purposes, I’m involuntarily single. (There have been women who have been interested, but I haven’t been, or there’s been too great of a distance separating us). From my understanding, men who are going their own way are voluntarily single, though, and don’t feel like pursuing marriage to anyone at all. I’m just wondering how a Christian man feels completely fulfilled while doing this unless he’s someone like Paul who is doing some type of ministry with which he is typically very busy and focused on, anyway.
no legacy.
I have no idea since I’ve never cared the least about that or even understood the concept. Legacy? In this fallen world? In this socialist, communist, wicked nation?
One might argue that that’s all the more reason that those of us with the right attitude should have children and raise them right, so that they might be positive influences on our bad culture.
As to the rest, yes, one may still be left alone in one’s old age or ailing states in spite of having a family, and one may still be denied consortium in spite of being married. However, aren’t the risks much higher for a single man?
Maybe I just don’t have a complete grasp on MGTOW yet, but I can’t personally claim I’m part of it, because for me at least, that would be a sour grapes scenario. I can’t claim to want nothing to do with marriage, simply because I’m having trouble finding one I’m attracted to who’s attracted to me.
Dale
In my very limited experience, this is difficult, although vastly better odds than trying to find a worthy woman from here. It was difficult for me, as I only had the few weeks I was over there, to try to start a relationship. If things are going well after 7 to 10 dates together, then you have a good chance… In my experience, girls from that other culture were much more open, and willing to talk bluntly about where things are going and what life priorities we will have.
But still, anyone who says this is easy, is trying to sell you something. And is trying to rip you off.
Thanks, Dale. Are you saying you did or didn’t marry someone from another country? If you did, where did you meet her, and where all did you look? How are things now? Are they still going well? (I could email you with these questions, but I’m sure this discussion could benefit others, and if I have more personal questions that you don’t feel like answering publicly, then I’ll ask those privately). Thanks again.
GunnerQ said
I get married and have sex whenever *she* wants it, which is likely as often as a politician taking responsibility, or I keep control over my life at the price of the frustration I would have anyway.
Dale
This is a really important point, that many others choose to not understand. If the woman will not fulfill the role of wife, what is the point of taking her as wife?
This can’t be stressed enough. A man can cook his own food, clean and order his own dwelling, find his own friends, discus books IRL or online, meet with an exercise buddy, go to the symphony or any other musical event with friends, change a diaper and feed a child, and so forth — he doesn’t need a wife to do any of those things. He doesn’t. It is obvious that under Christian theology, the only woman he can have sex with is his wife. Full stop. End of story. So of all the things that women busy themselves with, there’s really only one that belongs to her and her alone: sex and childbirth.
That’s it. Under the doctrine GunnerQ, Dale and other men live with, a wife is indespnsible in those roles. Everything else can be done by someone else, although not as well. Makes one wonder about the priorities of women who insist on treating sex as a reward for good behavior…
You women who lurk here, especially those of you who go to church, might consider pondering this.
Scott of the CourtShipPledge, I’ve emailed you twice on your blog, each time weeks ago. If you can’t get back with me for whatever reason, then that’s OK, but I just wanted to make sure my messages were getting through, nonetheless.
Dale says:
April 13, 2015 at 11:43 pm
Dave’s comment “An excuse that you cannot find one anywhere in the world is bogus, and won’t stand God’s scrutiny” is of disputed intelligence. I have things to do with my life.
In other words, the reason why anyone who would love to marry a chaste woman but remais single is because they do not consider it a priority to find a mate? Thank you for confirming what I earlier wrote. Yep, I say it again: no Christian can stand before God and claim they were jerking off because they could not find a spouse.
And some may question spending so much time or money on seeking a wife, especially given Paul’s comments about serving God better as a single (1 Cor 7).
If you lack a desire to be intimate with another, then maybe marriage is not for you. But as long as your libido leads you to jerking of while you fantasize about the life you never had, you had better get down to the business of seeking a spouse, brother. It is far, far better, and so says the Scripture.
>Jerking off is not of “good report” among Christians and should ne be indulged in by followers of Christ.
Unless you can clearly give Scriptural support for this, you are trying to state what is moral on your own authority. And in so doing, I see you committing the sin of blasphemy. Only God can say what is moral. I am not God.
Nice try, but no cigar. You should go ahead and show us a single example of biblical men who jerked off when they were horny. Fact is, God already provided the right solution to a raging libido: go get married and enjoy the wife of your youth! The marriage bed is still undefiled, no matter how often you experiment.
Alternatively, you may want to first show us where the Bible condemned cigarette smoking, or state publicly that because you can’t, therefore, it is OK to smoke as a Christian.
This is very unwise. Will you accuse me of being “unholy” because I choose to urinate? Urination empties the bladder.
This is a silly argument. Urination comes naturally when you are in a position to urinate. You do not need to do anything else other than simply urinate. Ejaculation also comes naturally when you are in the position to do so. Jerking off is an artificial solution to a natural urge, and it is unbecoming of a Christian.
If you really think masturbation is wrong, then why did God not choose to give clear instruction on that point?
Actually, He did; you only refused to accept it. God does not want you to dishonor your body (which really is not yours, but the Lord’s). The only outlet that God has designed for sexual release is your spouse. Anything else is outside His word. That is why pornography is wrong. Why phone sex (other than with your spouse) is wrong. Why deliberately reading prurient materials that get you “hot and bothered” is wrong.
Elliot Rogers = radicalised sensitive Elliot?
New post up at the pledge…
http://courtshippledge.com/2015/04/the-moral-context/
Hank–that is very strange. Try kilo lima alpha juliet india charlie delta at gmail dot com. 🙂
Excellent. Thanks, Scott!
“Yep, I say it again: no Christian can stand before God and claim they were jerking off because they could not find a spouse.”
But are you entirely sure that none of us can stand before Him and say that we didn’t pursue marriage because He gave us wisdom and discernment to realize that Western marriage, and especially Western divorce, can ruin us?
Some might say that it comes down to the Lesser of the Two Evils, but as a born-again believer for 17 years, I know that the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn masturbation. I know that modern Feminism has convinced people of both genders that we no good, evil members of The Patriarchy think about sex every seven seconds, but our God-given sex drives don’t have to always get the better of us.
NRX / SIMLEG / 6 REASONS / WAGE GAP
@Hipster Racist
“Tell your son that, at 24, with a bright promising career in STEM”
It’s not even a guarantee (both in the sense of active discrimination against men in STEM because of “badfeels” (etc), but also because STEM jobs are not appearing all that quickly):
The myth about women in science
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/williams-ceci-women-in-science/index.html
Hank, I too am involuntarily single. Sort of. Partially I regret it, partially not.
I’ve seen men in happy marriages, and I envy them. But I’ve also seen men ruined by divorce, and then I’m glad I never married.
Modern marriage is like playing Russian Roulette. The woman has all the legal power to destroy you, take your kids, bankrupt you. For a man to marry is to place a gun against your head and hope for an empty chamber.
So, I regret that I don’t have a happy marriage to a loving wife. But how to find one? Marriage is no guarantee of a happy marriage or a loving wife.
Red Pill Latecomer, I know what you mean. I’ve thanked God multiple times for not giving me what I wanted when I was in my teens and early 20s. Some of the women in those cases turned out to be neither desirable physically nor personality-wise, and now, I feel sorry for the men who married them. I’ve also seen several men, including friends and family, whose wives have frivorced them.
However, I don’t think marriage is quite like playing a game of Russian Roulette, because one can increase one’s odds of marrying a good person. A lot’s going to depend on how she was raised and the beliefs she holds. I know there’s still a chance things can go badly, but I’d say we’re not completely powerless to help our chances.
By the way, why does no one mention prenups when talking about divorce around here? Do people just feel that they offer no legal protection whatsoever?
Hank, prenups are subjectively enforced by a judge, subjective. It is up to the judge to see if he or she thinks the terms of the prenup should be enforced if the marriage ends in divorce. And of course, if the woman is frivorcing her husband and he had a prenup to protect all his assets he accumulated prior to the marriage, her attorney is going to make every single argument possible to try and explain why the prenup should NOT be enforced. Ultimately, it is up to the judge.
More and more, judges ARE enforcing them provided the judge feels there is not real grounds for a divorce that he MUST grant (by law) unilaterally. I’d say that if you get a prenup to protect your assets (one that also protects HER asses prior to marriage), and you stay faithful to your wife, if she frivorces you its unlikely she will sieze those assets you accumulated even if the judge was a hardcore feminist. But there are no guarantees other than death and taxes.
Hank,
I’ll defer to Nova and the other law-talkin red pill guys here, but this list looks pretty comprehensive for answering your question:
http://www.attorneys.com/divorce/when-is-a-prenuptial-agreement-enforceable/
Emphasis mine. If she and you entered into the marriage and it is the way it typically is when both parties are in their late 20s or early 30s with all the “anti-dowry” (he already has a house or condo, no credit card debt, and has almost paid off all his student loans meanwhile she has continuously defered her student loans by going for more and more useless but easy education, has no house or condo, has the 15 to 25K on the credit cards to finance her “shoe” habit, and a big montly payment on a BMW lease) then of course, any frivorce will automatically leave her “destitute.” How could it not? She was completely “destitute” when you met her, “destitute” when you married her, ending the marriage now wont change that. BUT it will give her attorney an argument as to why the prenup should not be enforced because in ending the marriage, with the prenup she will end up leaving with nothing. So be wary of that even if anti-dowry girl signs the prenup.
If there are kids now as a result of the marriage, then forget all that. That could change pretty much everything in the prenup. It becomes a big mess.
OK, thanks for that explanation, innocentbystanderboston. I think if I were an attorney for the party with the assets, I’d argue that the prenup wouldn’t render the poorer party destitute. It would just leave them where they started. Of course, this argument would be based on a strict definition of the word “render,” as in “cause to be.” I’d say that essentially, a prenup could only possibly render the party with the assets destitute, because that’s the party with something to lose. However, I know the criteria listed are just an attorney’s summarized understanding of the law, not the letter of the law, which itself is always subject to interpretation by the courts, too. Anyway, I get what you’re saying. There are still significant legal risks, prenup or not.
@Hank —
I am not a family law practitioner, but I am a lawyer and I do know other lawyers who are family law practitioners and have discussed pre-nups with them. For starters, it depends very much on where you live — both the state and the locality, in terms of what the judges there will do with pre-nups. The general principles listed by IBB are more or less true, but to get a bit more specific:
1. The most enforceable aspect of pre-nups relates to pre-marital property (i..e, stuff you owned separately before the marriage) which is kept segregated from property you acquire during the marriage. If you have significant pre-marital separate assets, a pre-nup relating to this is likelier to be enforced if it follows the guidelines discussed in IBB’s post above. Keep in mind that this does *not* apply to appreciation in the value of pre-marital assets which occurs during the marriage –> this is generally considered marital property in many states and can be subject to being distributed between the spouses like other marital property.
2. Some areas which people are interested in covering in pre-nups are very unlikely to be enforced almost anywhere. These include (1) laying down your own rules and penalties for when a spouse can divorce (e.g., saying that if someone commits adultery, they waive all right to property distribution), (2) anything relating to child custody arrangements and (3) anything relating to child support.
3. The ability to regulate alimony levels in a pre-nup is a greyer area, and will very much depend on where you live, and the specific circumstances of your marriage and post-marriage financial situations. In general, alimony is becoming less significant in divorce decrees because more couples have more equal incomes, and if there is some gap, the payment is often small and temporary. This is, however, not the case in all states, so you really have to know what the law is where you live and, if you move during the marriage, where you are moving to.
4. Very generally, again keeping in mind that states vary a lot on this, the likelihood of enforcing a pre-nup decreases when the impact on one spouse is “inequitable” in the eyes of the court ( legal standard that amounts of significant unfairness). This is going to be the case much more often in SAHM marriages, precisely because of the income differential, and the fact that the SAHM will most always get custody of the children. In that case, any pre-nup which acts to empoverish the mother in that situation is more likely to be set aside. This means that men living in more traditional arrangements are more likely to be disproportionately financially punished if they get divorced — in fact, it’s this fact pattern (higher earning husband, SAHM) around which the entire system of support and alimony was built to begin with, so you’re in the bullseye crosshairs of the system if that’s the lifestyle you’re leading. The system itself is designed for maximum fleecing in that fact pattern.
Bottom line is this: consider a pre-nup if you have significant pre-marital assets that you would like to preserve from being distributed in a divorce, and which you can and will keep segregated. If you don’t have that, it may be more trouble than it’s worth, especially given the significant cost (in order to increase enforcement, each side needs its own lawyer, which each side pays for itself, and the document actually has to be somewhat negotiated) and aggravation for the relationship as well.
@ Hank,
I’m voluntarily single in spite of the fact that I’m tall, quite well off financially and apparently attractive enough that attractive women, mostly non-believers, demonstrate interest and even attempt to pursue me. I’m not boasting, just simple facts to premise my point of view on marriage. When I was young (20’s) I tried meeting decent Christian girls at church, singles group etc. I dated quite a few and I’m telling you, I rarely dated a ‘Christian’ girl who was a virgin even when I was dating girls who were 17, some made that known, it’s like they were bragging. I wasn’t looking for fornication, I was looking for a good wife among harlots at church. I didn’t and will not date fatties, some of who are virgins simply because no attractive men wanted to sex them, not because of their moral resistance. I’ve dated online at Christian dating sites for years, mostly the same thing. Some of my friends did marry and nearly all of them ended up divorced or trapped in horrible marriages. I’ve seen many, many decent men, coworkers, acquaintances, family end up divorced or trapped in a living hell with a shrew of a wife. It could of happened to me, or you. Count yourself very fortunate as I do for staying single thus far.
@ Dave,
“Dave’s comment “An excuse that you cannot find one (wife) anywhere in the world is bogus, and won’t stand God’s scrutiny”
This sounds like something a woman would say. Anywhere in the world? What are you talking about? I’m not in eastern Europe or Italy I’m in Amerika where most women, Christian or otherwise are, or soon will be, too fat to make me function biologically as a husband. Most of the women who are basically attractive have already been plowed through by umpteen men and are unsuitable as wives, used goods no self respecting man should have to settle for. Marry one if you want but don’t be surprised what you get. You’ve been warned here repeatedly. The few suitable women are already married. Men aren’t “jerking it” while attractive, suitable single women are drying up on the sidelines. Men are jerking it *including many Christian married men* because most of the women are unsuitable as wives. The bible specifically deals with “FORNICATION, ADULTERY”. Pornography is sinful because its lust of the eyes. “Jerking it” is not dealt with in the bible specifically and you’re not going to control men with your manipulation, it’s a joke, nobody cares what you think. We don’t need you to play god and add sins to control us. If you’re a man you’re already jerking it anyway. Are you a man?
Dave, which is it, A or B?
A) You’re a woman trying to convince men here they should settle for fat or slutty women as wives or women who are both who will, if married, have all the power over sex rendering it infrequent if at all. The power to divorce us and take everything we have and the reputation for all of the aforementioned.
B) You’re a man trying to convince yourself to eat this bowl of moldy oatmeal because lots of other men are doing it.
Either way you’re a clown.
It would just leave them where they started.
Perhaps, but that’s not what the court is looking at during the divorce. The standard isn’t putting everyone back to where they were pre-marriage, but rather dividing up what has been obtained during the marriage (including income streams that have been obtained by one spouse during the marriage) in a way that the judge sees as “fair and equitable”.
Dave, embrassing reality said it best….
You get it Dave? We really do not care at all, what you think.
IBB, ER, et al.
Eventually, Dave will just call you “racist” because, the Bible.
Not really worth the effort.
Hey Scott, Dalrock, Nova, Opus, end of the world watch! Here is how bad the economy is in Europe…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/business/dealbook/in-europe-bond-yields-and-interest-rates-go-through-the-looking-glass.html?_r=0
But still indeed. So banks are so flush with cash they are paying people to borrow it from them. But its worse….
This just…. can’t be good.
Yep, it’s happened in Portugal and Spain as well now. Where loans and other interest rate products are pegged at EURIBOR plus spread, when EURIBOR goes negative (which it has done for 30-day rates, see: http://www.euribor-rates.eu/ ), the spread may not yield a positive interest rate. So far regulators have been telling banks they have to pay mortgagors and charge depositors interest. With the ECB having just begun its own QE programme last month, it’s hard to see those rates coming up much soon.
Chris @ 11:52 am:
“Some might say that it comes down to the Lesser of the Two Evils, but as a born-again believer for 17 years, I know that the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn masturbation.”
It isn’t explicitly addressed by the Bible but passages like “not even a hint of sexual immorality” from Ephesians and “I beat my body and make it my slave” from Philippians make masturbation very dark for a technically gray area.
The Bible is very consistent on the themes of controlling yourself and sex only within marriage. Better to fap than fornicate, of course, but never forget that God demands moral perfection, not adequacy.
I haven’t followed the whole conversation, but I will still put forth that NAWALT. My wife has her own challenges, but she is not overweight nor has she been unfaithful. She is not available however.
Those who keep civilization going will laugh at the memory of those of you who completely gave up.
The task is hard, but so what? Surviving 500 years ago was hard for many or even most.
Raising the strawman of future claims is a bit bogus and several of you should certainly know better.
Gunner Q and Chris,
How often is masturbation not accompanied by something that is spoken against, such as fantasies.
[Phl 4:8 KJV] 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.
This is a stand alone admonition. It would take some time to make out a full Biblical case, but many things are certainly not profitable, whether they are “legal”.
I find ZeroHedge has a lot of the end-of-the-world news.
Related: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-14/banks-across-europe-pay-borrowers-buy-homes
Marcus, the comments on that zerohedge site are hysterically funny and frightening, all at the same time.
“Better to fap than fornicate, of course, but never forget that God demands moral perfection, not adequacy.”
The only human being who ever attained moral perfection was Christ Himself. And I think that was the point of His words concerning lust and anger in Matthew 5. He was essentially saying, “Now you Pharisees know what it’s like to be crushed beneath the Law. Now get off your pedestals.”
That is a foolish focus though.
“Better to lie than to murder someone” would make just as much moral sense. It is best to aim at perfection, repenting and re-aiming as needed.
No, Boxer, you are incorrect. We didn’t construct a “strawman” argument. You are pretending that the intellectual trend of cultural Marxism doesn’t exist. Bios actually provided you with links to half-a-dozen books written by self-proclaimed cultural Marxists writing about other cultural Marxists.
You are displaying a false erudition. You keep throwing out various authors and ideas (like Chomsky and Falsifiability) with no indication that you have actually read any of those authors or even understand the concepts you are appealing to. You – admittedly – picked some Chomsky passage – at random – and didn’t even seem to understand what he was talking about, and use concepts like falsifiability and the strawman fallacy in ways that show you don’t even really understand them.
Anyone can use a bunch of 50 cent words.
Notice how Boxer is doing this arm-chair psychoanalysis? If you notice that this intellectual trend of cultural Marxism exists – if you quote self-described cultural Marxists – Boxer claims this is some sort of moral of psychological failure on your part. Calling it an “article of faith” or saying that people are “personally threatened” – that is just ad hominem. He’s not making any sort of logical point, he’s just insulting the people that disagree with him.
But what *is* fascinating is that is exactly the tactic of cultural Marxism. That is what The Authoritarian Personality does – it suggests that people who are conservative, religious, and support patriarchy really just have something wrong with them, that they are psychologically damaged in some way. In Boxer’s case, he is saying that people just feel “personally threatened.”
That is what you do when you have no reasonable argument – you just start insulting people.
How ironic that Boxer accuses *other* people of using “Alinsky” tactics when that is what he himself is doing.
It doesn’t matter how often you define cultural Marxism, it doesn’t matter how many links to self-described cultural Marxists you post, and it doesn’t matter how many times you reference the actual arguments of cultural Marxists. Boxer will simply claim there is something wrong with you.
It’s patently transparent to anyone reading.
@Hank Flanders re ForeignBride
No, I did not get married. Not because there were no worthy women however. I simply can’t (effectively) pursue two women at once. So I picked one, and she turned out to be not yet ready for a serious pursuit. (IMO) I can’t know her state until we have some opportunities together for us to see how reliable, mature, etc. the other person is however, so I have to give it time. And I’ll admit I chose her partly due to attractiveness and instant emotional connection. I knew better, but I felt a strong connection, as did she, and I hoped for the best.
Where to look: Any culture that is too poor to afford feminism and they value family more than money. As others have said, many women will be greedy and selfish if they can get away with it. I doubt you can prove that this race of people is less selfish than that race. Regardless of source culture, you both need to be molded into a person of integrity, character, maturity and generousity. If I had weighed those four higher, along with adequate physical attractiveness, I would have chosen another woman to pursue, and would likely had seen a far different result. In fact the one I thought gave the highest impression of maturity was upset with me for not pursuing her.
Where not to look: Any company trying to get you to talk with a woman you have never met. This is a waste, and very likely a scam. I would also say that any company trying to charge a flat fee of more than perhaps 1500 US dollars for an “all included” week is ripping you off. Not necessarily bad, but consider just how much profit you think is reasonable. For example, where I stayed, a one week trip cost:
3-star hotel including all-you-can-eat healthy breakfast @ $29/night: 203
translator at 50/day: 350
private, official taxi from airport in a city 100km away: 50
private, official taxi to airport in a city 100km away: 50
total fixed costs: 653
Non-included costs
date fee to meet someone from a local marriage agency: 50$/person
If you do not arrange for a translator by the week or by the day, then $15 per hour.
your other meals
taxi rides within the city at $4 each or bus/metro rides at at $0.25 each
dates (for example, 6 games of bowling and 3 shoe rentals for $5 total cost)
Prices for hotel will vary; I paid 33 per day for an apartment with kitchen. Translator costs could go to double the fixed cost listed above, but if you do an internet search for a local translator before you get there, and offer to pay 350 for a week of work, that should go over well.
My point with the pricing is not to be cheap, but rather to warn you than some companies offering to “help” you are most interested in lining their own pocket. Two large companies I know of charge about 3200 to 4900 for a week. Remember $653 from above? In addition to those fixed costs, they provide a couple of speed dating events or large “mixer” events. I do not mind the idea of those events, but how can I justify going from $653 to $4900? The events are obviously not free to run, but they are not $3000 per person either. And in my case, the thoroughness of the service, and the total services rendered, do not justify the extra $3000.
Also remember that any large group events, by their very nature, will probably have a group with at least 50% of people that are not suitable for you. They are trying to serve all the customers, not just you.
Where not to look: Unfortunately, I would include churches here. I really want a moral wife, but two problems:
1) The church group only meets once a week. If you are there two weeks, that means you have a whole 2 chances to meet someone.
2) In my limited experience, trying to start a conversation with a woman in a new church did not work well. No problems, the women just did not want to engage in more than 5 words of conversation. Some of the guys were open to a conversation, but not all.
In my experience, trying to start a conversation with a woman who signed up with a marriage agency, and who came to a meeting with you for the purpose of meeting a man with whom she will possibly pursue marriage, works vastly better.
Where to look: I would suggest trying to find someone who was already in the culture to which you plan to go, and pump him for information and contacts. Or better yet someone going again; then go together. I am hoping to try again this fall — and I won’t charge you anything either hah hah.
One of the most important things is to pay attention to what Dalrock and others say about what a woman says she wants, versus want God designed her to need. I am careful about trying to lead a woman here; there many are open to this and expect it. If you do not lead or make plans, you may come off as weak. She wants a man who will make her feel safe; wimps will not cut it.
I think the pick up artists are mostly immoral, and do not encourage anyone to follow their advice. But they have a more accurate view, I think, of women than the average western man or churchian. Best of all however would be to read the Bible, see what it says about the roles and expectations of husbands and wives, and then think about how you would think and act differently if you really believed what God says. I have a Bible study / exercise I put together for this purpose 🙂 It is absolutely AMAZING what you will find in the Bible… and what you will NOT find.
/rant
@Anonymous Reaade and his comment at 9:24 am
+1!!! How to get someone to say what he said in a church youth group, or women’s group??? My male friends have no trouble discussing their responsibilities.
Begging for my attention again, the spankard “Hipster Racist” whines:
Here’s the first fallacy Hipster Racist manufactures, on the first day he latched on (like the parasite he is, to this conversation):
Unfortunately, Boxer is downplaying a connection that is obvious… It’s hilarious, though. Trying to erase the influence of Marx and Freud – atheist, secular Jews – and instead label their movement “fags” – let’s just say it reminds me of the people saying, “no, Communism was not a secular Jewish movement – that’s a ‘conspiracy theory’ – it was really the celibate (read: fag) Jesuits!”
If the implication is that I hold “the Jews” relevant to anything at all in this conversation, then this is a strawman argument. If not, then I suppose it’s a red herring. Theodor Adorno was a German, born of Italian parents, and he was baptized a Catholic as a baby. He wasn’t at all religious. He opposed antisemitism, I imagine, for the same reason I do. It’s the hallmark of individual mediocrity.
There are a few kooks in the manosphere who are obsessed with how “the Jews” are supposedly responsible for all the ills of the world (feminism among them). I’ve found an instant and perfect correlation to the people in the manosphere who are pathetic losers, with no real world achievement. Life’s failures need some shadowy group to blame their lack of accomplishment on, and “the Jews” is one of a few popular scapegoats.
There’s nothing wrong with the link Bios posted. It fits in with the one and only worthwhile reference Marcus D. posted earlier, which was also pretty interesting. At this point you just seem sorta butthurt that you’re not the center of attention. Very womanly of you. I’m sure the Jews are behind it, somehow.
Regards,
Boxer
@Hank Flanders, IBB and Novaseeker re pre nups and family trusts
>By the way, why does no one mention prenups when talking about divorce around here? Do people just feel that they offer no legal protection whatsoever?
A pre nup can be argued by the family/divorce court judge. Plus, the wife is (supposedly) entitled to half of the increase in any asset, and entitled to the matrimonial home if she steals his children, etc.
A FAR better solution is a family trust. You make the trust (my trust for a different purpose cost about $1500) and give your assets to the trust. You and only you are the beneficiary of the trust. Later your sons will be added (if you do it Biblically). If she wants to continue to benefit from the assets of the trust, she has to stay with you. Just as you have to stay with her to continue to receive the benefits of marriage with her. No judge can order that the home / car / whatever be taken from you and given to her, because you do not own it.
I think one of the best things a father can do for his young son is discuss what the Bible says about a man’s inheritance. E.g. how much is supposed to go to the first-born son, versus other sons, versus daughters, versus ex-wife who betrayed the family, versus widow.
Then set up a trust for him, and the father arranges for the purchase of the son’s eventual house in the trust. Obviously the son, and maybe the father, will need to co-sign any mortgage, as the trust earns nothing. A banker will know more about how to make that part work.
Then the son pays rent to the trust at fair market rates (keep documentation), thus building up equity in the family trust, NOT where it can tempt the bride to divorce for profit and an easier life. If groom and bride firmly know that their lives will be better if they stick together, they are more likely to do so.
Legally, it might be better if the house is already fully paid for and in the trust prior to marriage, but that is really only possible if your family is rich or the son has already worked long enough to buy whatever house/car/asset he wants to give to the trust. Novaseeker?
In Canada, any pre nup statements about limiting child support are apparently worthless.
And any pre nup agreement can be voided if the judge decides it is no longer “fair”, regardless of whether they both agreed to it or how many millions the husband has already agreed to pay. Do a search for “Maple Leaf Foods CEO must pay $175k a month in spousal support”, dated January 12, 2013. That is a poor example as it was a post-nup rather than a pre-nup, but the extreme numbers should show just how little regard is given to marriage contracts in the Canadian courts.
Family trust! Family trust! Family trust! If you do not own it, the judge cannot steal it.
Only thing better is a man and woman who genuinely are submissive to God. Problem is that I cannot see into your mind (1 Sam 16:7), and people can change drastically over seven years.
Plus, the family trust does not need to be negotiated, with whatever frustration that yields when you insist to bride that the trust will have Biblical rules. You set the rules in the trust when you create it; she does not even need to be in your life yet.
Thank you to IBB and Novaseeker for your comments on this topic as well. Any comments on the family trust, in particular from the lawyer Novaseeker?
Dear Brad A:
Roll over, Immanuel!
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/259/what-would-kant-do-when-two-categorical-imperatives-conflict-could-he-ever-just
Seriously, the parallel ethical discussion is one of the better things I’ve seen lately. I have nothing to add to it, but hope it keeps going.
Boxer
Dear Opus:
OK, you’ve intoned my name, so I have a serious question to ask you…
Is this representative of Lachenmann’s work? I listened to it today. If so, it’s way more obtuse than Charlie Parker with Strings.
Don’t get me wrong, I can understand why some people might like it. They’re the same people who like Rothko’s murals in Harvard. It’s very cerebral. I can’t imagine that he’d have anything critical to say about anyone else’s form, though. He’s pretty far out himself.
Boxer
Remember, in the post above, Boxer made a specific accusation against me. Then, when I responded, he uses language like this:
Does this come across as someone engaged in a honest debate? Or is he just throwing around insults? The passage I quoted is not a fallacy. Boxer was trying to downplay the connection between Marx and the Frankfurt school and the social justice warriors of today. The fact that I pointed out what he was doing that is not a “fallacy.” He is not even using the term “fallacy” correctly.
Now, we see Boxer is desperate to discuss some purported “Jewish conspiracy theory” – this is his way of trying to downplay the significance of Marx and Freud. Marx was a secular Jew, many of the Frankfurt school were, so was Adorno. Does this mean that this dozen or so atheist, secular Jews mean anything about a “the Jews” – collectively? Boxer seems to want to make that case. If Marx and the Frankfurt School were Jewish, then … what? They didn’t exist? You cannot criticize their influence? What point is Boxer really trying to make with this?
As we see, since Boxer has been proven wrong by a number of different posters here, thus he resorts to name calling. That’s all he has. He thought he could use a bunch of Big Words and reference some obscure authors that few people have heard of, but as we see, he’s just pulling passages at random without even understanding them.
He is actually making the claim that anyone pointing out the influence of real world intellectuals – Freud, Adorno, the Frankfurt school, etc. – has something wrong with them. You see this assertion of psychological inferiority on the part of his opponents. He can’t actually back up his absurd claims, therefore, he resorts to character assassination.
More of the same. Boxer said there’s no such thing as cultural Marxism. Posters have provided him with link after link, article after article, and he just brushes it all aside – it’s just a “Jewish conspiracy theory” by “fags” and “pathetic losers.”
He claims no one can define cultural Marxism, so when people did, he just pretends they didn’t.
The honorable and manly thing to do would be for Boxer to admit he was wrong. Admit that cultural Marxism does exist, that it was – and is – an influential trend is modern society, and specifically, how it influenced the “social justice warriors” so many people are complaining about.
I’m not going to hold my breath, of course, as it seems like Boxer cannot actually make a decent argument, that he hasn’t actually read all those authors he claims to, that he doesn’t even understand some of the concepts he’s throwing around, and he’s going to – like clockwork – resort to petty name calling.
That’s what a cultural Marxist would do, after all.
Any comments on the family trust, in particular from the lawyer Novaseeker?
I would have to check with a family lawyer in the jurisdiction where you live, but to be honest, a trust created where the settlor (creator) and beneficiary are the same, and which is easily demonstrable as being entered into for the express purpose of evading asset distribution, would have a high likelihood of being set aside if in fact it contained the lion’s share of the distributable assets for equity reasons (yes, family courts can order that, too, especially where one of the spouses is a the settlor and beneficiary). This is quite apart from the risk relating to the trustee, which presumably could be managed (you can’t act as the settlor, trustee and beneficiary of a trust as far as I am aware, pretty much anywhere).
Single men need to get married so they can stop “jerking it” like Dave!
From “The Marriage Bed” search “Solo Masturbation in Marriage”
“DO MANY MARRIED MEN MASTURBATE?
Of the 1,040 [647] men who replied, 87% [84%] said they had masturbated in the three last months. While this may seem high, it is in line with other sources.”
“HOW OFTEN ARE THEY DOING IT?
Monthly frequency looks like this:
Less than once 13% [11%]
Once 12% [14%]
2-3 times 18% [19%]
4-6 times 23% [23%]
7-14 times 16% [16%]
15-22 times 9% [9%]
23-31 times 6% [5%]
more than 31 3% [2.5%]
“DO MANY MARRIED WOMEN MASTURBATE?
Of the 381 [136] women who replied, 77% [65%] said they had masturbated in the three last months. This somewhat higher than the 65% number given by sources that polled the general population of married women, and mostly likely is a reflection of the sex positive cross section of the population doing our poll. (Note: we did not get many female responses in the first pass, so the original numbers are based on a small sample size.)
Again, we specified self-stimulation to climax apart from her husband.
HOW OFTEN ARE THEY DOING IT?
Of those who are masturbating, the monthly frequency looks like this:
Less than once a month 21% [5%]
Once a month 16% [28%]
2-3 times a month 23% [34%]
4-6 times a month 18% [18%]
7-14 times a month 9% [11%]
15-22 times a month 7% [3%]
23-31 times 3% [1%]
more than 31 times a month 2% [0%]”
The above survey was of married Christian people. Marriage you say? That will fix us up with some sex eh? Woohoo, got to get me some of that.
Just the summary of the “solo masturbation in marriage” survey
“The bottom line:
There is a whole lot of solo masturbation going on in Christian marriages. Much of it is unknown to the spouse, and sin and selfishness seem to be the root cause for a great deal of it. The odds are both you and your spouse have masturbated in the last month, and if either of you is refusing the chances that your spouse is doing it are very high. We strongly suggest you talk about masturbation with your spouse. If you both feel there are times and situations where it is acceptable that is fine, but be open and honest about it. If you are both masturbating, maybe you could have more sex, and both be happier about that.
If you do not like your spouse masturbating, you have a more difficult discussion. If you feel it is sin, and they do not, you have a very difficult discussion. Ultimately, you both have to do what you feel is right, while giving as much grace and support as possible to your spouse. If you unwilling to meet your spouse’s sexual needs, telling them they should not masturbate is not likely to go well.
If porn is a factor (as it is for 16% of the husbands and 13% of the wives) you will likely need some help. We recommend Dirty Girls Ministries for women caught in porn, and Be Broken Ministries for men using porn, and wives of men using porn.
The surveys behind this article are still open; you can add your anonymous answers: men’s survey and women’s survey.”
So clearly marriage doesn’t fix “jerking it” for most Christian people. Reality, embrace it.
BradA: “Those who keep civilization going will laugh at the memory of those of you who completely gave up.”
The Future will laugh at us? So what? We’ll all be dead — both those who “gave up” and those who didn’t — so what the Future thinks won’t matter to any of us.
I’m here now. I must make the best of what my time and place — post-“Women’s Lib” America — offer me.
I grew up on 1970s TV. I was taught that women wanted sensitive men who respected their equality. I was a Beta who pedestalized women. That didn’t work. By the time I figured things out, well into my 30s, I was attracting women, but not the sort I wanted to be married to. They were all well-worn women, and bitter about men.
I’m in my early 50s. Never had a wife. No kids. I will die alone. But I’m also financially comfortable. I needn’t work. I have time to do as I please. I can travel. But one bad divorce — and I’ll be working at Wal Mart into my senior years just to survive.
So I will not “keep civilization going.” So be it. Let the Future laugh at me. Better I should keep myself going.
@NovaSeeker
>a trust created where the settlor (creator) and beneficiary are the same
In the trust I created previously, the company was the creator, and the beneficiaries were the employees. So they were different parties. You are right of course about needing to consult with a lawyer in the required jurisdiction. Knowing the rules however, I should think it would be possible to satisfy them.
E.g. have the father create the trust, and his son who someday will marry is set as the beneficiary, along with the son’s eventual sons. That way the two parties are separate. And in practice will exactly follow what I see in Scripture. So freedom of religion “may” provide a defense, although I am unsure if the particular family court judge will be submissive to the law.
@embracing reality
>So clearly marriage doesn’t fix “jerking it” for most Christian people. Reality, embrace it.
I would change that to: So clearly, the Satanic form/perversion of marriage that is lawful in our country and that is fully endorsed by the organized religions, doesn’t fix “jerking it” for most Christian people.
FIFY
And yet you have religious nutcases (see upthread) who cannot distinguish between the marriage advocated in Scripture and “marriage” as it is available to me. And since they cannot see the difference, they think this Satanic marriage form is still the solution God intended for us, and advocate we must pursue it as such.
Of course, regardless of what the rules allow, if you had a husband and wife who *remain* in submission to God, that would be great. Now, where to find a unicorn? I had that guide book around here somewhere…
@Red Pill Latecomer
>I’m in my early 50s. Never had a wife. No kids. I will die alone.
You needn’t die alone, but for the first part: I can empathize with your pain. And not just because I am heading there myself, about 10 years behind you. No decent person wants another to be in want, and for his whole life.
God loves and wants to accept you. That is more important in the end than a marriage, although not a substitute (Genesis 2:18).
>But I’m also financially comfortable. I needn’t work. I have time to do as I please.
I look forward to the same goal.
I need help. Wife refuses to try and get pregnant
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=956144
Unexpected #5 & unsupportive spouse
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=956137
Non Catholic Spouse and Birth Control
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=956126
@Boxer
Only a week ago you professed ignorance of new music. Now, you are familiar Lachenmann, his writing and his music as well as having a passing acquaintance with the Estonian Arvo Part. Is this really what you expected from a Christian Manosphere blog?
I am, I trust you realise, not responsible for anything Lachenmann either writes or composes. German’s always dig deeper but they tend to come up somewhat dirtier: you won’t find English composers writing music like Lachenmann nor will you find them writing vast tomes (as do the French) as to what it is they think they are doing. The same of course goes for Philosophy: Whilst Kant and Hegel – and Adorno – are moving in ever decreasing circles and Foucault and Derrida become ever more obscure or at least difficult of comprehension the English race to the front of the philosophical pack with the clarity that emanates from Hobbes and Hume (or if you prefer Russell and Ayer or as he got a mention up-thread Jonathan Culler) thus infuriating some Europeans though for others awakening them from their dogmatic slumbers.
I know the game you are trying to play but neither Lachenmann nor his piece (he is very keen on the concept of rejection) that you have linked are the whole of modern music. The Germans lost the war and have been beating themselves up about it ever since (hence the obsession with rejection) and this must explain the awfulness so often of their present output of music and that is why it is Germany that is now a land without music. There was after all no German equivalent of The Beatles or The Stones or The Who or the Kinks.
I would suggest that the best modern music is (both i popular music and serious) British but as you would say that I had bias in that view and as you are a Canadian, why not start with Claude Vivier or if that is too Quebeciose for you, F. Murray Schafer – born the same year as Lachenmann – (or Brian Adams) . Let me know how you get on, though I should warn you that Vivier (tragically murdered in Paris by his rent-boy) was German trained.
Dear Fellas:
Hipster Racist sez:
(snip another hilarious kookfart, pages and pages long)
Whatever you say, dear.
Then Opus sez:
Our arguments mirror the discussion I was having, last evening, with other members of the Frankfurt School, at the weekly shindig hosted by the Cultural Marxist Appreciation Society. Like you, many of my comrades think that Jazz is the foremost threat to American society, and will inevitably destroy American culture. As a matter of banal curiosity, I went looking for some of that evil jazzmusik from 1930s Germany.
I never got a chance to hear this before (part of our conspiracy is flushing such stuff down the “memory hole”) but it’s still on youtube. I gotta say, I like it a darn sight better than the German fellow’s composition I posted yesterday. Reminiscent of the best of Scott Joplin (an American negro musician, of whose produce Comrade Adorno surely would not approve), and sounds quaintly American, despite being dreamt up across the lake.
I’d promise to confess my crimes to the other members of the CMAS, but unfortunately we got so rowdy that the rabbi’s wife told us all to fuck off, and we now have no other place to meet.
…as a bit of a followup to the ‘thirst is real’ comment I made above (somewhere), I asked a female friend of mine who was at that party for some more details on one of the “riders” I described above. The one in question is late 40s, grossly overweight, dresses from Dumpster and Fitch, and has two (nearly) adult children from her only marriage. Since then, she’s had two decades’ worth of a succession of men, of which I found out (from my friend) that at least half were/are married. When I expressed surprise at that, my friend shook her head, “Yes, its terrible. xxxxx (The rider) was done dirty by those married men….made her all sorts of promises and then left her in the lurch. She stays away from married men now…she won’t let them hurt her again.”
@Boxer
I was not aware that we were arguing; I was the teacher and you the pupiI. I merely described the extent of new music and if you were paying attention you will recall that I likened the parameters of new music to a cross whereon the respective composers interests may be plotted.
Tomorrow we will discuss Scandinavian composers (very strong right now) and why though there are great composers from Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland (Grieg, Sibelius, Neilsen and Leifs respectively) there are not – unless you count Abba – any great Swedish composers. Very puzzling.
Poke,
Friend?
Her hamsterization is one of the most perfect reasons as to why men and women can’t be friends. If a friend of mine told me that, I would tell him how wrong he was about ALL his reasoning, about why I know now that I don’t even really KNOW him, and why his thoughts are wrought with evil. We’d argue and either he’d change his mind or we aren’t friends anymore. Good luck trying to get to that point with any woman (not moral agents.)
@innocentbystanderboston: Your son is screwed. If he (at 24) wants a virginal girl, then he’ll have to marry a 15 year old. Most of the girls I knew by the time they were 16 already popped their cherries.
This is a silly assertion; there are plenty of girls over the age of 15 who are legitimate followers of Christ and do not engage in gross immorality. I know plenty of them.
He WILL be seen as creepy at age 24 or 25 (with a Master’s Degree) snooping around 18 year old high school seniors in an effort to “court” them. They will be creeped out by it, their dad’s will yell at him, and most likely YOU will be confronted by their fathers.
Incorrect. A good friend of mine in his early 30s recently approached a dad of a girl who just turned 18 and was not rebuffed. Did the same with a girl a bit older a little while ago. Doesn’t guarantee the girl herself is interested, but he’s in the running.
@Scott: We discussed it at length, and not matter how much I offer to help (even telling him to consider marrying while still in college and we will help financially) it seems he would rather chew his own arm off then depend of us that way. I told him “when the time comes, as ANYTHING. If we can do it, we will. In this new world, the only support you will have is from a strong family.”
I’m glad you are doing this. Be assured there are many, many other families who are doing the same thing with their daughters as well. I say this because I know them. Although I would correct your statement to “The only support anyone has ever had is from a strong family, either biologial or ecclesiastical”.
Signs of a godly Christian woman who is a good candidate for marriage:
– Raised in, or converts to, a strong church which seeks to live out the Bible and the principles listed below
– Shows her belief in these principles below by being a member of a church which holds to these doctrines and disciplines or excommunicates members who violate them
– If her family is also in the church, demonstrates strong submission and obedience to them.
– Refuses divorce and remarriage under any circumstance. Considers apostate relatives / friends who have divorced to still be married in the eyes of God to their first spouse. Refuses to attend adulterous remarriage “weddings”.
– Dresses modestly, consistently, 24/7, and does so simply and plainly. Avoids makeup, jewellery, etc
– Dresses in a gender-distinctive way. Men don’t wear dresses, and women shouldn’t wear pants, because God wants to remind us that gender distinctions are important.
– Wears a literal symbol of submission on her head, as ordained in 1 Corinthians 11, and does so consistently (at home, in public, or in church). Likewise, refuses to cut/trim her hair.
– Avoids fleshly indulgences such as overeating, becoming obese, watching too many movies or watching worldly movies, watching live TV/sports, going to movie theatres, etc
– Is very judicious about higher education. Will only attend university if she can live with parents/relatives and is careful to attend with a like-minded friend to avoid succumbing to the temptations of the world. Higher education is for a specific useful purpose, such as nursing.
– Refuses to date unless it has marriage as a goal in mind. Dating does not last long periods of time (6 months normal). Engagement periods do not last a long period of time (6 months normal, 1 year max).
– Dating/courtship is “hands off” with actual accountability for this (for private conversations, be out of earshot of others but still visible).
– Social media use is restrained; limited to relatives or real life friends of similar faith. Profile pictures are of pets, kids, or nature, embodying a lifestyle of modesty.
– If raised in the church, educated via homeschooling or in a church school where the church emobodies these principles.
– Upon reaching adulthood, does not take a “vacation” from this lifestyle, such as joining a more liberal church, getting a haircut, dressing in a worldly manner, etc.
– Absolute refusal to marry outside of like, similar faith. Marrying someone who is not a church member of a likewise similarly-principled church is grounds for excommunication and disfellowship.
The results are clear: Christian women from a family, lifestyle, church, and school environment like this enjoy a 0.3% divorce rate, as do their husbands. Virtually any plain anabaptist community embodies the above principles.
The women who marry outside the faith enjoy the usual 55% divorce rate. (Everyone has some relatives or friends they grew up with who leave the church, become wild/worldly, or marry outside the church. And everyone speaks in hushed tones about their marriage problems, divorce, kids who are off track, remarriage, etc.)
What baffles me is why every Red Pill man hasn’t joined a church like this. Accept the church’s doctrine, live the church’s lifestyle, and be a godly Christian man who can actually find and keep a godly Christian woman.
@Dale Where to look: Any culture that is too poor to afford feminism and they value family more than money.
You would do better to look at a culture that is rich enough to afford feminism, but rejects it anyway, and still values family more than money.
The strongest defence against a woman blowing up her family in a frivolous divorce is knowing that her family will consider her to be an apostate unbeliever, and every conversation with her many brothers and sisters, cousins, parents, and so forth will start and end with “We are praying for your repentance and the fate of your eternal soul”. No excuses, no mulligans, no “outs”–if a husband is having serial affairs, etc. then it’s up to the church to discipline him. Marriage is for life, and divorce isn’t an option. If one spouse chooses to leave the church and not submit to its discipline, they can go apostate and leave, but they’re disfellowshipped as brethren and not even to be eaten with.
We will now cue the usual “but what about abuuuuuuuuse?” questions.
And I heard a “non-denominational Christian” on the radio say that masturbation is adultery, because when men do so, they fantasize about women they are not married to. So according to him, masturbation is only permitted if one fantasizes about one’s wife while doing it.
This is about as absurd as claiming that briefly thinking thoughts of revenge against someone who cuts you off on the freeway is equivalent to murder (and thus you should be treated as an unrepentant murderer in church, in public, by the law, etc.)
The Bible has volumes to speak on sexual ethics and morality and standards for personal sexual behaviour. The most allusion it has to masturbation is words frequently translated uncleanness or concupiscence, which mostly refers to lewd ideations, not masturbation itself. If it were an important part of a biblical sex ethic, then perhaps it would mention it just once.
If a man frequently covets someone who’s not his wife, that’s a problem, and he should deal with it appropriately. But I don’t see what this has to do with masturbation or sex in the slightest. Coveting your neighbour’s donkey is just as grievous a sin–I’ve certainly been guilty of being angry about my own truck and really wishing I had my neighbour’s, say, lift kit and oversized wheels with knobby tires when my own truck was struggling during the brutal winter we just had.
“Incorrect. A good friend of mine in his early 30s recently approached a dad of a girl who just turned 18 and was not rebuffed. Did the same with a girl a bit older a little while ago. Doesn’t guarantee the girl herself is interested, but he’s in the running.”
I asked my 18yo daughter last night if she would find it creepy to be approached by a 24 yo college grad/grad student, and she did not see anything amiss. I certainly don’t.
innocentbystanderboston: “If a friend of mine told me that, I would tell him how wrong he was about ALL his reasoning, about why I know now that I don’t even really KNOW him, and why his thoughts are wrought with evil.”
One of the most offensive things you can do in modern society — especially to a woman — is to JUDGE her.
I knew one Christian woman (here in Los Angeles) who insisted that judging is unChristian. That Jesus was about love and forgiveness, and “not about judging.” At age 42 she was a self-admitted “former addict” who continued to smoke weed, ride the carousel, and was fiercely “pro-choice” on abortion. She was as promiscuous with churches as with men. She was never satisfied with any that she attended because the congregants would invariably disappoint her.
Her notion of Christianity was of a God who loved and accepted her unconditionally. A God who was there to help her. A God who sided with her against all the mean, unGodly people out there.
@innocentbystanderbyston: women… (not moral agents)
Your assertion that women are not moral agents is tiresome. As far as I can tell from scripture, both men and women were created by God, were affected by original sin in the fall, were offered the law to be a part of God’s old covenant, and now are offered Jesus’ redemption in the new covenant. Both covenants lay out requirements which presume moral agency.
An infant is not a moral agent. A severelly mentally handicapped adult is not a oral agent. But a typical adult woman, or teenage girl, most certainly is.
She is responsible for hearing Christ’s message of grace, with the eyes of her understanding opened through the Holy Spirit. She is responsible if she rejects that grace. And the evidence of that grace being real and effective is when she turns away from sin and the world–evidence which is quite easy to discern in this day and age:
A woman who dresses modestly, prays and fasts, does not usurp men’s authority, displays godly self-discipline, and who shares the gospel dislays signs of being a co-heir to the gracious gift of life alongside men, although such outward signs are no guarantee of such.
A woman who neglects these things, however, “lies, and does not the truth”.
Everything I have said is applicable to men as well, but for some reason nobody has these hang-ups with men. I’m tired of the attitude of giving women a free pass to stomp on Christ’s grace, to be sinful, and ultimately to be consigned to eternal hellfire. Christianity offers something better than that.
Dear John:
Thanks for pointing this out.
I have an acquaintance who is in his mid 30s, who is seriously dating a girl who just turned 21. They’re both religious (some sort of protestant, I suspect) and her parents have him over for dinner and such. Don’t know much more than that.
IBB has daughters, and I find most of his more extreme comments here (which stir the sheep to anger) are shared by fathers of girls generally. I think this is a hardwired tendency, for the most part (fathers are built to be overprotective) and can’t fault him for it. In the abstract, I’m sure he finds the thought of one of his barely grown daughters marrying a 30 year old dude to be distressing. When it happens in meatspace, though, it seems a lot more mundane.
They’re both adults, and no parent is going to be able to tell a 19-25 year old girl anything anyway, so it’s probably best to just accept it if she likes some dude, despite the age difference. In the old days, this was the way it was done anyway… men came back from war or starting businesses to get married, and women always married up (in age, and otherwise).
Regards,
Boxer
Escoffier,
Never got that comment you mentioned regarding a possible (mis)reading on my part. Would be curious for your thoughts if you could find it.
Des,
I was away for a few days and not reading here. But I am not recalling what you’re asking about. If you see this and can refresh my memory, I will try.
“Friend?
Her hamsterization is one of the most perfect reasons as to why men and women can’t be friends. If a friend of mine told me that, I would tell him how wrong he was about ALL his reasoning, about why I know now that I don’t even really KNOW him, and why his thoughts are wrought with evil. We’d argue and either he’d change his mind or we aren’t friends anymore. Good luck trying to get to that point with any woman (not moral agents.”
This friend (I don’t know of a better descriptor) is female, so your last sentence applies. I don’t try to ‘reason’ this anymore with her, I just nod, mmmmhmmmmm, and file the intelligence away for later analysis.
Those who keep civilization going will laugh at the memory of those of you who completely gave up.
I definitely tend toward the “doomed” side of the debate so take this FWIW.
I don’t know that it’s possible for a “remnant” to keep civilization going amidst general decline or even collapse. History would suggest not but even abstract reasoning reveals the idea to be questionable.
Who can say what the exact numbers are, but just extrapolate to neighborhoods, towns and cities. Once the forces of “entropy” reach a certain level, which appears can be much lower than even 50%, the forces of order can be overwhelmed. Detroit is probably the greatest example of a very swift collapse that seemed to happen without warning. It was, for many decades, the richest city in North America (per capita, at least, if not absolutely). Within a decade of the 1967 riot, it was gone, never to recover.
Places with large concentrations of order, force and wealth—such as NYC—can withstand disorder better, rally their forces and “take back” much in short order. But the power of the feds, of the whole nation, of the global economy and so on are behind all that.
What happens when all that wider fabric is also unravelling? As it now seems to be …
It’s hardly self-evident that small cadres, no matter how well disciplined, can keep civilization going in a wider maelstrom of decline and collapse.
Red Pill Latecomer
One of the most offensive things you can do in modern society — especially to a woman — is to JUDGE her.
This brings up an interesting point I was pondering recently, which is that I don’t know if I’ve ever heard anyone besides women and maybe effeminate men ever even utter those ubiquitous words, “Don’t judge me!” It’s like they know what they’re doing is wrong, and since, as has been pointed out here many times before, women are herd creatures (even going in herds to the bathroom), it’s like they’re trying to convince others not to think badly of them as a way to cope with their own poor behavior.
I even noticed my 12-year-old cousin say, “Don’t judge me” the other day, and while she was just being funny, since it was over something silly, it made me wonder how early girls and women learn to use that phrase in a serious way.
@Boxer
The real question is why dads are so grossed out by the thought of 30 year old men marrying their daughters in a Marriage 2.0 universe–where their daughters will hold all the cards, should the men become wife-beaters, or adulterers, or else prove themselves to be unworthy men.
There is not nearly as much concern about men of any age engaging in fornication with said daughters. (And be assured that if a girl is attracted to men older than they are–and the best pickup artists estimate them to be about 40% of girlsare–they can, and will, be sleeping with men in their 30s and 40s.)
I don’t want to pick on IBB, since this is an attitude I see from many men. Basically, they’re far more concerned about marriage, even non-lifelong-marriage in western Marriage 2.0, than they are about fornication.
My best theory so far is a Freudian-esque one of jealousy towards men who are closer to them in age.
Thanks, Novaseeker and Dale for your detailed comments. I’ll probably be studying those. 🙂
@Escoffier
Amish, Hutterites, plain Mennonites, and plain Brethren have higher numbers than they ever did in the past, despite having to live through persecution and endless warfare in the Holy Roman Empire in the 16th century, Prussia in the 18th, Ukraine/Russia in the 19th. They blossomed in the U.S. and Canada in the 20th. Today they continued to do so there, in Germany, in Mexico, and elsewhere in Latin America.
The main distinctives throughout those four centuries was an absolutist level fo zealotry to remain separate and distinct from the world, to refuse to fight in wars or take up arms, and to maintain control of the education of their own children.
I expect any other group who copies a few of these principles to survive the coming civilisational collapse. I expect Mormons to exist in large numbers post-collapse, although I expect them to eventually turn into something like mainline Protestants, just like everything else.
Us plain Anabaptists have an “escape valve” in that those who are not really of us always have the option of turning to the world. The non-plain offshoots of our churches continue to experience numerical decline, whilst fretting about what to do about it and trying bone-headed schemes to stop the bloodletting like sanctioning same-sex marriage, military service, or admitting divorced & remarried members.
Of course, the future has lots of martyrdom in store for us. But I’d rather be martyred than deal with Marriage 2.0, chalimony, frivorce, our young women turning into deranged courtesans and our young men having no goals beyond ratchening high N counts, or being forced to go MGTOW due to no Christian women in existence for them.
“Those who keep civilization going will laugh at the memory of those of you who completely gave up.”
The past laughed at me as they saddled my generation with their debt. The present laughs at me for being a sexless loser. What’s the future going to do, laugh at me for not reproducing asexually?
More likely, the future will hate me for not paying my “fair share” in genetic perpetuity. I can live with that.
…
John Nesteutes @11:55 am:
“You would do better to look at a culture that is rich enough to afford feminism, but rejects it anyway, and still values family more than money.”
Which country is this?
“The strongest defence against a woman blowing up her family in a frivolous divorce is knowing that her family will consider her to be an apostate unbeliever,”
I used to think that, too. In practice, however, it seems the wife’s parents have a very strong tendency to back her over their son-in-law even when the little darling grows horns and hooves.
The strongest defense is not having frivorce be a legal option in the first place, either through healthy legislation or asset protection. If you aren’t a desirable frivorce target then the sluts will screen themselves out. There’s no comparison between “she wouldn’t dare” and “she can’t”.
Amish, Hutterites, plain Mennonites, and plain Brethren (and many others) depend decisively on America in particular and the world order in general continuing on. Perhaps in a situation in which they did not have to defend themselves, they would be well suited to a post collapse world. In one respect at least, they would have a leg up, in that they are already used to life without a lot of technology and they know how to grow food. Their cohesion would also help.
I am not convinced they could weather a general societal collapse, however.
In any case, none of here commenting are—ipso facto—Amish.
John,
I don’t know why other dads are so grossed out by that thought. And I guess I don’t care why they are. I know why I am grossed out by it, and that is pretty much all I’d care to know.
Lets put it this way John, long before I got married, I knew quite a few (way too many, actually) marriages where the guy was in his late 30s (maybe even early 40s) and his wife was like…. 21 or (in one really super creepy perverted case) 19. These marriages were lawful, legal. That is about the best thing I could say about them. But I didn’t know any of these May-December marriages that lasted very long. They all ended…. early. This is the main reason why I am grossed out by it.
In most cases, the mariage ended (early) because of the (lack) of money. She only married this old fart because he had money and could give her security. Forget about love, that is just a subjective meaningless concept to her. She didn’t want to work or keep a house or raise kids or really, DO anything. She was never actually attracted to him. She was grossed out by him. She just wanted his money and house and shopping allowance he gave her and the car he gave her and when he lost the business, the house, the high powered job with the big salary (and he could not instantly replace these things) she went and got a lawyer and frivorced him. This was usually the case. I expect that this is pretty much ALWAYS the case for the May-December marriage where the husband falls on possible hard times financially.
In some cases, the marriage ended (early) because of the physical. It was her firvorcing him (after she got sick and tired of riding his old, smelly, ever limp, wrinkly d-ck) or him frivorcing her (when she turned 25, was suddenly too old for this 50 year old who wanted to deflower another 19 year old baby.) But either she desired to be rid of his old pen-s or he decided that she just wasn’t tight enough anymore or he simply had to bust another hymen. Either way, sick John.
In some cases, the marriage ended (early) because he died. She was 23 and he was 45. Okay, people don’t really think too much about that until he is dead at 60 and she is a lonely widow at 38. Yuck. I know, I know, that could happen to any woman married to any man at any age. But the law of averages say that it was most likely going to happen to her because she married a man old enough to be her father. But it gets worse John. What if the then 23 year old and the 45 year old man have children, and he dies at 60. Now her kids are fatherless at age (what?) 10? Maybe 12? Maybe even 8? Yeah that sounds like a wonderful situation does it not?
And in some cases, the marriage ended (early) because she’s nuts. She is BPD, Bi-Polar-1, NPD, alcoholic, drug addict, whatever, she is bad energy. But because she was a ball of energy, totally on fire (in her “mania stage”, lots of fun), this old fart thinks he can relieve his younger days by marrying her (give him a “fresh start” as it were.) That wound up being the worst mistake of a friend of mine’s life. He is lucky she only frivroced him and didn’t actually kill him. I know this could happen to anybody at any age, but I’m of the opinion that the majority of BPD and Bi-Polar girls (if they have their choices to marry anyone) typically marry older men for the financial provisioning.
Sorry guys, I just don’t see anything good or wholesome or (dare I say it) Christian about larger age disparities between husband and wife. If he’s 26 and she’s 22 or whatever, I guess I don’t care. But if he’s 25 or 24 and he’s lurking around the high school seniors just because he wants a virginal wife, (…sigh….) I think that kid is really asking for trouble. And he’s probably going to find it. The two of them are lightyears apart in emotional maturity, and where he is (in the case of Scott’s 24 year old son with the Masters Degree) then his wife is not likely to ever bridge that emotional maturity gap, not for what may be a very long time. That will have an effect on the marriage.
This father wants his daughter to grow OLD with her husband after they had a brood of kids. This father wants his daughter to live a long life with her husband, where they raise their children, help raise their grandchildren, retire together, and have a marriage that lasts half a century or more before God calls one of them home, not 15, 12, or even just 8 years.
I don’t expect you guys to agree with my reason but it IS my reason. These marriage do not last long. You can place blame anywhere you want. That’s up to you. You can look at the data anyway you want. But as for me, I just look around and see what happened in the world of reality. And it didn’t work, the marriage ended early. Any of you guys want to marry a frivorced 26 year old girl who was married to a 41 year old? My guess would be no.
@Gunner Q: More likely, the future will hate me for not paying my “fair share” in genetic perpetuity. I can live with that.
Many influential figures in history lacked marriage or children: Jesus, Paul, an assortment of popes. In my own faith tradition, our heroes are fellows like Dirk Willems, Conrad Grebels, Felix Manz, who had few or no children, but whose ideas caught on like wildfire. (Even though in our own faith tradition, the average fertility per women is in the 5.0-6.0 range, depending on how “conservative” you are.)
Which country is this?
Our citizenship is in a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. So, the country it is in is Jesus’ kingdom. But you’ll find us in the U.S. and Canada, and to a lesser degree in Belize, Mexico, and (recently) Germany.
The key takeaway here is that this isn’t a result of government and law; more like in spite of it.
I used to think that, too. In practice, however, it seems the wife’s parents have a very strong tendency to back her over their son-in-law even when the little darling grows horns and hooves.
That’s why the church is the ultimate authority, not a straying wife’s parents. Divorce (or separation) is never tolerated. Ever. Christians don’t sue other Christians.
The strongest defense is not having frivorce be a legal option in the first place, either through healthy legislation or asset protection. If you aren’t a desirable frivorce target then the sluts will screen themselves out. There’s no comparison between “she wouldn’t dare” and “she can’t”.
What’s the likelihood of healthy legislation or asset protection that actually works? Your assets should be invested in Christ’s kingdom, where neither moth nor rust destroy (and, as a bonus, Christ’s kingdom doesn’t recognise judgment liens from wayward spouses).
A lifestyle commited to Christian service, plainness, and witness to the world isn’t particularly attractive to women who don’t also desire those things.
For what it’s worth, my liberal compatriots consider one of the gravest injustices in my communities “all those abused women who are unable to leave their bad marraiges to abusive husbands because they’re afraid they’ll go to hell if they do”. Fortunately, most of my brethren aren’t buying what the liberals are selling. They accuse of having rampant sexual abuse, of being inbred, of having widespread incest, despite the fact plenty of sociologists put us under a microscope and find no such things; law enforcement in Mennonite/Amish/Hutterite areas holds us to a seemingly higher standard; and all of us do get to witness what a culture full of sexual abuse and incest looks like: we just get to see it when we do mission work either in American cities or overseas, and we judge the reason for such abuse to be lifestyles lived in a worldly way. (Hence why nobody wants the liberals are selling.)
@Escoffier: Amish, Hutterites, plain Mennonites, and plain Brethren (and many others) depend decisively on America in particular and the world order in general continuing on. Perhaps in a situation in which they did not have to defend themselves, they would be well suited to a post collapse world. In one respect at least, they would have a leg up, in that they are already used to life without a lot of technology and they know how to grow food. Their cohesion would also help.
Amish (1693), Hutterites (1526), Mennonites (1525), and Brethren (1708) all predate the existence of America as a republic. They made do by migrating to wherever they could find where they could live in as much peace as possible. They existed before America, and the followers of Jesus’ kingdom will exist after America.
In short, we trust God with our very safety and lives, instead of trusting in man’s kingdoms and laws. Man’s kingdoms and laws have resulted in a divorce rate past 50%. Plain Anabaptists run around 0.3%. Whose kingdom do you trust more?
I am not convinced they could weather a general societal collapse, however.
I trust that Jesus will safeguard his followers to weather whatever storms come their way, be it societal collapse, persecution, famine, or war. He has been doing so for 2,000 years.
In any case, none of here commenting are—ipso facto—Amish.
My home congregation dropped “Amish” from its name less than 50 years ago. The culture is very much alive and hasn’t changed much – try to learn about the culture from something beside reality TV.
Since rampant divorce and female misbehaviour isn’t a big problem in our communities, there isn’t much interest for manosphere/Red Pill in it. It’s sort of already ingrained into everyone’s thinking. I spent enough time in the world that I still have difficulty with it sometimes; I still chafe when women are required to do something that men aren’t required to do, and my brethren just look at me quizzically as if I’m from Mars or some kind of heathen for not understanding that women are just weaker in certain areas, thus the Bible places more demands on them to do certain things that we men can get away with not doing.
@innocentbystanderboston
According to you, any girl over the age of 15 is not a virgin anymore, and any man who is more than 2-3 years older (you already wrote off 24 & 18 as too much of a difference) is a gross, disgusting, impotent pervert.
In my community we marry young and marry for life. A typical pairing is a 21 year old man with an 18 year old girl. Men who remain unmarried into their 30s or 40s are generally considered bizarre (unless they converts from the world or from worldly churches), and either have some irredeemable character flaw or are homosexual. No matter to me. We believe God provides opportunities for single men and women to serve him. It just is pretty rare that that happens, percentage wise.
But elsewhere you have expressed disapproval for women marrying so young. You want them to finish college first, so they can’t get married until they’re 21 or 22. And by then it’s guaranteed they will not be chaste virgins (and marrying a non-chaste non-virginal woman is a foolish thing for a godly man to do).
In short, you seem to want the human race to go extinct, and you don’t want a single soul to live out a godly marriage or sexuality. I believe the Bible is true and that Christians can live a victorious life, including in the areas of marriage and sex.
The point is, wherever and whenever the Amish and like groups are, they have always lived in a cocoon within a cocoon—whether that outer cocoon is America or some other state, plus the ambient world order that gives aid to all states. There has never been, to my knowledge, any such community that has had to depend fully on itself for everything—that has been truly sovereign in the political sphere, successfully so, for any length of time.
There is something admirable about these communities no doubt. But I very much doubt whether any of them can survive a general political and societal collapse.
I was also not aware that using computers was in any way “Amish”.
Be all this as it may, Brad seemed to be saying that he and a few others—who definitely do not seem to be Amish or anything like it—can keep civilization going all on their own when and if some collapse comes. I don’t think so. I think the little corners of order that he and others are able to maintain are very likely to be swamped by the ambient disorder when and if everything goes under. The extent to which we all depend on the functioning parts of the broader order—as corrupt as it is so many ways—is vast. We will probably only fully realize that extent once it’s gone.
@Escoffier: The point is, wherever and whenever the Amish and like groups are, they have always lived in a cocoon within a cocoon—whether that outer cocoon is America or some other state, plus the ambient world order that gives aid to all states.
Of course. Nobody anywhere lives without being under some kind of nation-state. In turn, there are various subcultures within that. As citizens of Jesus’ kingdom, we are called to be set apart and separate: in the world, but not of it. (And at the same time, we are called to submit to man’s governments and order, unless and until we must choose between serving God or man.)
There has never been, to my knowledge, any such community that has had to depend fully on itself for everything—that has been truly sovereign in the political sphere, successfully so, for any length of time.
Short of starting a colony on Mars, nobody is going to be able to depend on themselves fully for everything. And why would we want to be truly sovereign in the political sphere? I do not wish to replicate Constantine’s Christianity. Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world; if it were, his disciples would be fighting.
There is something admirable about these communities no doubt. But I very much doubt whether any of them can survive a general political and societal collapse.
They’ve survived since 1525, including surviving the fall of the Holy Roman Empire; the magisterial Reformation; two World Wars; the fall of the Russian Czar adn the rise of the Bolsheviks; and in our own day, they have survived feminism.
That’s more that I can say for my brothers and sisters caught in mainstream evangelical traditions. They might have survived World War II, but they completely lost the culture wars with feminism. And the reason is because they want to be loved by the world and they love the things of the world. An American national cultural identity of evangelical Christianity seemed realistic in the 1980s. It sure doesn’t now.
I was also not aware that using computers was in any way “Amish”.
I can’t think of any blanket Amish ban on computers, certainly not amongst Old Orders. Internet connectivity would be a much more contentious issue (it being seen as a one-way path for the world to invade everyone’s homes).
Be all this as it may, Brad seemed to be saying that he and a few others—who definitely do not seem to be Amish or anything like it—can keep civilization going all on their own when and if some collapse comes. I don’t think so.
I’m glad we can agree on this, because I think the uniquely American notion of holing up in our homes and defending ourselves with an arsenal of semi-automatic AR-15s is a rather foolish plan, purely from a pragmatic standpoint. Civilisation depends on a lot more than individual and collective defence.
With that said, people like Brad are notorious for inviting our types to come and run the farms. We’re good at growing food, and we’re also good at not fiddlingwith your politics and wars social orders, as long as you leave us alone to worship our way and to educate our children our way.
I think the little corners of order that he and others are able to maintain are very likely to be swamped by the ambient disorder when and if everything goes under. The extent to which we all depend on the functioning parts of the broader order—as corrupt as it is so many ways—is vast. We will probably only fully realize that extent once it’s gone.
Such will merely be an opportunity for Christ’s kingdom to flourish.
John Nesteutes 2:32 pm:
“Which country is this?
Our citizenship is in a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. So, the country it is in is Jesus’ kingdom. But you’ll find us in the U.S. and Canada, and to a lesser degree in Belize, Mexico, and (recently) Germany.”
John, why are you here in the Manosphere? A membership drive? Ego fluffing? Because you aren’t even pretending to help. We are fighting a cultural World War here and you think you’re exempt. Feminism has Christianity on the ropes and instead of suggesting tactics, opportunities and allies, you repeatedly suggest people should just move to your community and quietly obey your leaders and everything will be fine. As if you Mennonites are incapable of falling as other churches have. As if there’s a magical shield of rainbows that will prevent your community from ever suffering the fate of mine.
You arrogant fool, to think that sitting out this war is an option. To think the problem is we Protestants & Catholics aren’t good enough Christians to receive God’s protection.
John Nesteutes @ 3:37 pm:
“Short of starting a colony on Mars, nobody is going to be able to depend on themselves fully for everything. And why would we want to be truly sovereign in the political sphere? I do not wish to replicate Constantine’s Christianity. Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world; if it were, his disciples would be fighting.”
Contact with the Manosphere should have disabused you of this notion. Separation of Church and State was a major factor in the collapse of American Christianity. For example, the driving force of Feminism is the laws of Marriage 2.0. Because we Protestants have no political power, we cannot reinstate God’s plan for marriage.
The Bible should also have disabused you of this notion. The leaders of ancient Israel regularly wielded religious as well as secular authority. In the New Testament, Paul did not hesitate to make use of his Roman citizenship.
For all the references you make to doing whatever your pastor-princes tell you, you are wide open to the same attack. What will you do, I wonder, when your religious leaders begin leading you away from the Bible? Just like ours did sixty years ago.
That may be the case for many fathers, but to judge from IBB’s past freakouts on this issue, it’s not so much that as the frightening prospect of his/her over-educated and cock-sated daughters in their late 20s or 30s being unable to find quality men because all the men their age are happily pairing off with 19- to 22-year-olds.
@PokeSalad
>“Yes, its terrible. xxxxx (The rider) was done dirty by those married men….made her all sorts of promises and then left her in the lurch. She stays away from married men now…she won’t let them hurt her again.”
Jerk! Now I have a headache, after trying to reason out how someone could actually feel that the adulteress who deliberately acted to destroy other marriages is the victim… In this situation of her own choice.
@John Nesteutes
>Refuses to attend adulterous remarriage “weddings”.
I failed in this one, as I have previously realized. Very good of you to bring up this issue.
>– Wears a literal symbol of submission on her head, as ordained in 1 Corinthians 11, and does so consistently (at home, in public, or in church).
I think the first portion of 1 Cor 11 is relating to times of worship or direct actions of the Spirit. See the references to prophecy and prayer. So I would expect this only in those circumstances. I certainly would not have a problem with my (hypothetical) wife wearing such at other times however.
>Likewise, refuses to cut/trim her hair.
It can be necessary to trim hair if the ends start to split, but otherwise I heartily agree (1 Cor 11:14-16).
>What baffles me is why every Red Pill man hasn’t joined a church like this. Accept the church’s doctrine, live the church’s lifestyle, and be a godly Christian man who can actually find and keep a godly Christian woman.
Because I do not know of one (*). Even merely asking for outward submission, just at weekly service, is (apparently) unreasonable. I do not know of any church where both men and women consistently, just in weekly service, show obedience outwardly to:
1) no cross-dressing Deut 22:5
2) no cross-gender appearance for hair length 1 Cor 11:14-16
3) be not visibly lacking in self control (Titus 2:1-6), such as obvious drunkenness, obesity, etc.
4) head covering 1 Cor 11:1-13
* I do however have experiences with such churches in another country. Plus a church here that is partly in submission, but that is due to the church taking it’s members from immigrants, not native-Canadians.
I will have to check out an Anabaptist church here. Thanks for the hint.
@IBB
>But if he’s 25 or 24 and he’s lurking around the high school seniors just because he wants a virginal wife, (…sigh….)
If you are hinting that it is childish or unreasonable for a man to want, or require, a virginal wife, you may wish to consider the attitudes shown by God in the command given in Deut 22:13-21. And the implications for your daughters should you fail to train them up properly.
I can agree with many of your other comments on men or women marrying with the wrong attitudes however.
@John Nesteutes
>What’s the likelihood of healthy legislation or asset protection that actually works? Your assets should be invested in Christ’s kingdom, where neither moth nor rust destroy (and, as a bonus, Christ’s kingdom doesn’t recognise judgment liens from wayward spouses).
Thanks for the great laugh. Yes, Matt 6:19-24 gives a perfect way to protect the results of your labour.
One problem however: We need a place to live. A tent is not worth much, but in my cold climate, it is not really a suitable home year-round. Which means I want an apartment or house. And those are mighty pricy. And thus attractive targets for servants of Satan.
>In my community we marry young and marry for life. A typical pairing is a 21 year old man with an 18 year old girl.
Hmmm… I guess you are giving me an opportunity to resist temptation (Ex 20:17)… by refraining from coveting your opportunity to have grown up in such a community.
>Men who remain unmarried into their 30s or 40s are generally considered bizarre (unless they converts from the world or from worldly churches), and either have some irredeemable character flaw or are homosexual.
hah hah. I am certain many consider me bizarre. I “claim” my enduring lack of marriage is due to lack of appropriate candidates, and also severe lack of confidence in my early twenties. Although I suppose if I had an irredeemable character flaw, by its very nature, I might be unaware of it. Or unwilling to admit it. 🙂
@GunnerQ
I have not noticed JN trying to convince us all to move to his commune / farm / whatever. So I think your accusation is unwarranted.
Although, if he had told me that doing so would have had a 99% chance of seeing me married off by early 20s, with a viginal wife, and for LIFE, I very possibly would have done so.
I may not have been welcome there anyway however. I also agree with Christians acting in the political sphere to advance God’s kingdom and justice. William Wilberforce is an obvious example. And as you pointed out, in the past God’s people in Israel were in roles of secular authority — and they were also warriors. And that at the express command of God. Certainly, that was for a limited purpose in a limited geographical area, but still it is obvious that it is not guaranteed to be immoral to be trained in arms or to kill in combat. If it were, God would not have so commanded.
It’s back to the same issue again, really.
Lots of Christians want their daughters to follow the script, and marry between 26 and 30, in effect. In effect, this means that there *will* be fornication, and not a small amount of it. I think many Christian parents of daughters see this as the lesser of two evils, and this explains why Christianity in the West pretty much supports mass fornication, even for young Christians. Not de jure, of course, and not openly (blind eyes are very, very willingly turned everywhere), but in effect this is what is happening.
This is the impact of the broader culture. Almost no-one can escape it, and almost no Christians do, even devout ones, as parents. At some stage, following these cultural imperatives eventually becomes perceived as being a “good Christian” as well, even though the lifestyle that is implied by this approach for people in their 20s isn’t Christian in the least.
“Is it possible that “Cultural Marxism” is such an article of faith to you all, that you feel personally threatened by questions about its definition?”
It’s not an ‘article of faith’ to me, but it is a curious cultural phenomenon. As i mentioned previously, I believe Foucault had more of an influence on contemporary leftism than Adorno and Marcuse.
What makes the Frankfurt School relevant to contemporary leftism though is that it’s essentially a ‘repressive society’ thesis. That’s the one thing that most of them seemed to agree on. None of them recommended that a life of decadent hedonism would subvert the existing order(of capitalism), although it would be easy to make that inference.
All the best.
@Gunner Q:
>John, why are you here in the Manosphere? A membership drive? Ego fluffing? Because you aren’t even pretending to help. We are fighting a cultural World War here and you think you’re exempt.
I don’t think we’re exempt. Many people who were part of us 75 years ago are integral parts of the feminist movement now. The key thing here is to discern what’s made us different, learn from it, and carry it into your own communities.
I do feel I had a tone of pride in my post that you picked up on, and I apologise for that. I do feel very proud of my community and how we have resisted being co-opted by feminism. And that’s something I should not have expressed the way I did.
> You arrogant fool, to think that sitting out this war is an option. To think the problem is we Protestants & Catholics aren’t good enough Christians to receive God’s protection.
Friend, I think God wants to redeem you Protestants & Catholics as well, and he would bid both of us to learn from each other. (For what it’s worth I think traditional Catholics are pretty close to where they need to be.)
>Contact with the Manosphere should have disabused you of this notion. Separation of Church and State was a major factor in the collapse of American Christianity. For example, the driving force of Feminism is the laws of Marriage 2.0. Because we Protestants have no political power, we cannot reinstate God’s plan for marriage.
This is where I strongly disagree. Protestants were a powerful political force in the 1900s. Unfortunately, that powerful force ended up being used for the women’s suffragette movememnt, then the women’s liberation movemement, and now in our present time is being used for such abominations as same-sex marriage.
I would be a lot happier if your types were in charge, but you guys aren’t. The last few Presidents were faithful mainline Protestants (Methodist, Episcopalian, etc.). The current one is United Church of Christ. Yet they’re the vanguards leading us exactly where we shouldn’t be going.
>For all the references you make to doing whatever your pastor-princes tell you, you are wide open to the same attack. What will you do, I wonder, when your religious leaders begin leading you away from the Bible? Just like ours did sixty years ago.
We will split off from them, along with other faithful brothers and sisters. Ministers and bishops are not some kind of absolute authority; “we must obey God rather than men”. Our religious leaders led us away from the Bible too in the 1950s. One of the key issues was divorce/remarriage. Those who went down that dark path are some of the key proponents of things like same-sex marriage.
@Dale
>>Refuses to attend adulterous remarriage “weddings”.
>I failed in this one, as I have previously realized. Very good of you to bring up this issue.
I wouldn’t beat yourself up for it; attending adulterous weddings just gives more ego-validation to the adulterous bride. It’s a sign of good character in a woman, though, that she steadfastly avoids celebrating adultery. For men, it’s a bit different: probably got dragged there by family or spouse, etc.
>I think the first portion of 1 Cor 11 is relating to times of worship or direct actions of the Spirit. See the references to prophecy and prayer. So I would expect this only in those circumstances. I certainly would not have a problem with my (hypothetical) wife wearing such at other times however.
That’s a good theory. The issue at hand is that women and wives universally have great trouble with submission. There’s nothing wrong with the church telling its women “you need to keep a constant visible reminder of this around at all times”.
>>Likewise, refuses to cut/trim her hair.
>It can be necessary to trim hair if the ends start to split, but otherwise I heartily agree (1 Cor 11:14-16).
Experience is that once one gives in an inch, women go a mile, and there’s really no reason that split ends need cut (this is a fiction invented by hairdressers to keep business going). Every church that has allowed trimming ends up in two generations with short haircuts on women. Since we’ve gotten to see that progression happen, none of us want to go down that path.
> I do however have experiences with such churches in another country. Plus a church here that is partly in submission, but that is due to the church taking it’s members from immigrants, not native-Canadians. I will have to check out an Anabaptist church here. Thanks for the hint.
There are quite a few conservative Mennonite communities in Canada. Whilst I don’t advocate everyone join, I think a lot can be learned from them.
>hah hah. I am certain many consider me bizarre. I “claim” my enduring lack of marriage is due to lack of appropriate candidates, and also severe lack of confidence in my early twenties. Although I suppose if I had an irredeemable character flaw, by its very nature, I might be unaware of it. Or unwilling to admit it. 🙂
Well, all converts from the outside are expecting to come in worldly. It’s considered bizarre for someone who grew up in the community not to marry young (where “young” is 21, not really that young if you think about it).
We generally have a view of the outside world as a place where family and marriage has almost completely broken down, and thus we consider it normal, but sad, to see so many people in their 30s unmarried or divorced.
>I have not noticed JN trying to convince us all to move to his commune / farm / whatever. So I think your accusation is unwarranted. Although, if he had told me that doing so would have had a 99% chance of seeing me married off by early 20s, with a viginal wife, and for LIFE, I very possibly would have done so.
Yes, that’s exactly the life script. It’s not considered some unattainable ideal. It’s normal marriage and family life. (Although non-virgins do exist, sometimes people go out into the world for a while and then come back. Significant signs of repentance are expected in such cases. They are of course considered a higher risk for marriage, since they might become worldly again and do worldly things like divorce.)
>I may not have been welcome there anyway however. I also agree with Christians acting in the political sphere to advance God’s kingdom and justice. William Wilberforce is an obvious example. And as you pointed out, in the past God’s people in Israel were in roles of secular authority — and they were also warriors. And that at the express command of God. Certainly, that was for a limited purpose in a limited geographical area, but still it is obvious that it is not guaranteed to be immoral to be trained in arms or to kill in combat. If it were, God would not have so commanded.
That’s a great theory. But so far all I see is Christians being influenced by the world, not the other way around. We’ve done flat out zero to do anything about the no-fault divorce epidemic in the world; meanwhile, the world has talked almost all of Christendom into no-fault divorce, feminism, and fornication. (I will forego the theological debate about whether or not Jesus commanded non-resistance in the Sermon on the Mount, since I know it won’t get us anywhere.)
What I really see happening is–there’s a vibrant community that, yes, is actually quite influential, but simply chooses not to do so through political means (as if there’s any hope of redeeming our political parties in Canada or the U.S. byu a tiny group of remnant Christians), offers excellent family life, raises excellent women…
… and nobody’s interested because they might have to hypothetically lay their arms down, abandon self defence (which is pretty much criminal anywhere outside of a few states in the U.S.), and stop voting for political parties who have done nothing but advance the cause of feminism, whether or not they’re called Conservative or Republican or whatever.
@Novaseeker
It is better for a heavy millstone to be hung around one’s neck and to be case into the sea than to lead a little one who follows Christ to stumble into sin.
And yet Christian parents everywhere are leading their children straight into fornication, and taking zero responsiblity for doing so.
@John Nesteutes
Thanks for the informative replies. In particular I appreciate the wisdom in your comments re women having a “constant visible reminder … at all times” and re what happened in your churches’ histories when women were allowed to trim their hair.
Sometimes it is difficult to foresee the consequences of flexibility, in areas where the Scriptures do not give clear-cut limits. I think many would fear the consequences of submitting to what may seem like a cult, where the leaders add rules or “clarifications” not explicitly found in Scripture, similar to what the Phasisees did. (Matt 15:1-9, 23)
One obvious response would be to consider the results / fruit of such potential “cults” (Matt 7:15-20). If your claim of 0.3% divorce is accurate, then that alone would seem a blazing and obvious fruit indicating they have things generally correct. (No human organization will have everything correct, simply due to the presence of all the sinful people.)
BTW, I do not dispute your statement re 0.3% divorce; I simply do not have the data that demonstrates it, and it is completely foreign to my experiences.
I suspect the relief-valve you mentioned, whereby the rebellious can simply leave, is a significant contributor to the low divorce rate. If they were rebellious before they married, they would never have stayed in your church long enough to marry there. And if a husband or wife later became stubborn and rebellious, they presumably would leave at that point.
Does the 0.3% figure consider all marriages started in your church, whether the people later left or not? If it does not, then it would be less impressive. A woman could simply nag her husband until they left, then continue down the path upon which she had started. (Or husband could do the same.)
>That’s a great theory.
I love that! A very respectful way of communicating that you disagree, leading in to your reasons for why. I think I will steal that 🙂 (Fine, “adopt” that… hah hah)
>What I really see happening is–there’s a vibrant community … and nobody’s interested because they might have to hypothetically lay their arms down, abandon self defence … , and stop voting for political parties who have done nothing but advance the cause of feminism
I wouldn’t be so sure. Personally, I would see only one hypothetical area for disagreement, and I think many men would value what you are presenting. Thanks for the alternative views.
> [Matt 18:5-7 re better to drown than cause a little one to sin] And yet Christian parents everywhere are leading their children straight into fornication, and taking zero responsiblity for doing so.
Great challenge.
Those who think they have enough money to survive old age have no idea how together their mental facilities will be when they are older. You may have enough money, but that won’t be much help if you are not with it enough to keep others from taking it from you.
I say that as one who faces the same prospect myself. No close family, my adopted children have almost completely turned their backs on me, etc. Things don’t look great no matter how much wealth I pile up.
Society needs reliance on others and this idea that we are our own little island is quite idiotic, no matter how pleasant it seems for the moment.
1. See an attorney
2. Ask him about a revokable trust
3. Don’t take any advice from anyone on the internet about this. Only someone who is looking directly at your portfolio can give you competent help.
You’re generally right, but there are ways to minimize and mitigate the risks. A trust might be the only way you can keep some of your assets in the event of an old-age divorce. (the trust owns all the stuff, not you, etc.) But, see a qualified professional in your area. I don’t know where you live and ain’t qualified to give advice nohow.
Much love man. Be strong. You will survive this.
Boxer
Pingback: Man up and share your feelings. | Dalrock
Physiognomy, it explains a lot in the photos of this man and his wife. He is very dweeby looking and she is moderately attractive. He probably feels inferior to her in many ways and is trying to bridge the gap between them by trying to be all touchy feely with her. Unfortunately for him, that can be a one way ticket to divorce.
Pingback: Links to posts for Christian husbands. | Dalrock
Oversensitive