Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Democracy is the polite version of Communism, on marriage, and more

  • From Takimag: Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s most famous quote is the one about how democracy is basically the polite version of communism; a “Gosh darn!” to communism’s “Goddamn it.” Put simply, Democracy, like either big-C or small-c c/Communism, is the opposite of the rule of law. Once we acknowledge the “right” of the mob to make rules affecting the lives of others, with or without their consent, we’ve already arrived at the point where 51 percent of the population is voting to take away the toothbrushes of the other 49 because some people have rotten teeth.
  • From MCJ: Censoring George Will when the mainstream right like him throws social conservatives a bone.
  • From Jim's Blog:
    • Talking to, being friends with, showing normal human kindness to a disordered person is not tantamount to: a) approving all the free choices that person has made; or b) favoring social and/or legal norms that support the person’s disorder; or c) joining them in their organization (should it exist); or d) inviting them into your organization (should it exist).
    • Marriage: headship and the beginning of the end in the West. Contraception and no-fault divorce are much to blame, but:
      If two people are close, they cannot be equal. Equality requires fences, requires some separation, requires each has his own turf, his own things. A single household must have a single head of household, thus the contract must designate one person as the head. And, in practice, women will not put up with being the head of household. They will struggle to take charge, but if they succeed in taking charge, will not have sex with their husbands. So the contract, necessarily, commits the wife to submit to the husband. The contract must designate the man to be in charge. The New Testament prescription – indissoluble and patriarchal marriage – is the only practical solution. A society with some other form of marriage will have trouble reproducing biologically, culturally, and economically.

      People say the rot set in with no-fault divorce, but it is worse than that. The rot set in with George the Fourth’s unsuccessful attempt to divorce Queen Caroline. We then, in 1820, first see the doctrine that women are angels, with no sexual character, therefore they do not need restraint, supervision, and discipline. Around the 1960s or so, the left doctrine that women are angels with no sexual character was replaced by the doctrine that women are angels even if they have sex, and history was abruptly rewritten to attribute the previous version, that women are sexless angels, to the right. Of course the actual right-wing point of view was always that given half a chance, a woman will bang a total stranger like a barn door in a high wind, should he superficially appear sufficiently high-status, with utterly disastrous results for her family, her children, and herself, and that therefore women had to be restrained for their own good, and the sake of society.
      (Feral female behavior as Roissy says. Hypergamy or status-climbing: the instinct to get the strongest man to care for her and have strong babies, knocked off course.)

      This left-wing doctrine, the angelhood of women, led the state’s destruction of the family, starting in England with the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857: a woman who left her husband had the legal status of an independent household, but not a man who left his wife – thus began what in due course became unilateral divorce at female whim. The British 1857 change gave the woman a bomb and a detonator to blow up her family at any moment. That a woman cannot irrevocably commit herself to marriage necessarily reduces the husband’s commitment, no matter what the law may say. Giving them the power to capriciously destroy the marriage, one they momentarily don’t want, denies them the power to obtain the marriage that they do want.

      The big high-explosive, society-smashing bomb in the 1857 act is that a woman could walk out of marriage, get a job, or get her lover to let her stay with him, and she was just fine, it was as if the marriage had never been, none of her former obligations entangled her, other than that she needed to get a divorce before marrying again, but if a man walked out of marriage, and had a job, he was in deep $%!#.

      This fundamentally and radically altered the balance of power in marriage – which of course made women less satisfied with marriage, and less inclined to get married, because it deballed their husbands.

      People say that marriage was fine in the 1950s, if only we could go back to the 1950s. And marriage was fine in the 1950s, because church and society socially enforced the rules that the state no longer legally enforced, indeed was busily undermining: That the husband was the head of the household, and that it was utterly unthinkable for a wife to walk out on her wifely duties.

      But these rules were under social and cultural attack starting with the attempted divorce of King George the Fourth, and had ceased to be legal, coming under legal attack with the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. So from 1820 to the early 1960s, we were running on cultural capital that was under social and legal attack, and around the 1960s or so, just ran out out of cultural capital.

      It was a state-centered attack, the state attacking society. The state is the left and the left is the state.

      And thus, the left completed their attack on marriage that they began during the reign of Cromwell, when Parliament declared marriage not a sacrament.
  • The big change: great for players, who are selfish and think short-term, bad for society, as Roissy (for all his other talk about avoiding marriage and playing the field as it is now) and others point out. In civilization, the nice average girls and the beta providers (nice guys, that is, most men) were very happy to have each other. As it was before, as Jim writes, Uncle Sam became the Big Pimp/sugar daddy. Some manosphere writers have wondered if some of the feminist cant about careerism and fat being beautiful is really disinformation from alpha girls to wipe out competitors. The sexual revolution cleared the field so alphas and the hottest girls could use each other for a few years at a time without pesky obligations or beta suitors. ("I don't need a man" = "I've got the Big Pimp extorting beta bucks for me so I don't have to live with or have sex with them.") And Roissy's said the alphas aren't necessarily right: you break your marriage contract, you have to pay.
  • Reminds me, of all things, of the preachy anachronistic (long hair and '70s beliefs in the Army in 1952?) lefty TV show "M*A*S*H." In the beginning, like I understand the hippies were, Hawkeye and his pals were all about womanizing; the lone defender of the Christian standard (change Frank a little and it sounds like political correctness) was a hypocritical buffoon. There was always that connection between the wrong kind of alpha and feminism: Playboy literally helping support Ms. (Hef's rep: an example of the left being nostalgic for the wrong things. Makes sense considering they want to destroy civilization as we know it.) By the way, the man who wrote the book M*A*S*H was conservative, I think in a party-hearty, womanizing way, so he didn't like the show.
  • Smart anti-game blogger but good reactionary Bob Wallace puts it well: As for "Game," it's basically the confidence/courage of the Four Cardinal Virtues. "Walk like a man, talk like a man." It's not about reciting pickup lines. As Roissy recently wrote, it's as simple as imagining a twinkle in your eye, a smirk on your mouth, and a bolder walk, tailored for you. (Bob Wallace: it's really about arete, being the best you that you can be, like that slogan the Army ridiculously tried to apply to itself in its recruiting.) Looking confident makes a man confident, more likely to talk to girls, etc.
  • From Fr. Hunwicke: Nathanael Woodard, founder of the Woodard Corporation of Anglican Catholic Schools in one of which I taught for twenty-eight years, used to say that Education without Religion is pure evil. How right he was. I was reminded of his words after hearing a thing on the radio about the promotion of 'non-sectarian education' in Northern Ireland. This is, apparently, deemed an admirable thing, because 'sectarian' education is divisive. The card which the sharper has neatly concealed up his sleeve is the fact that 'non-sectarian education' is simply the ruthless imposition upon every child of the relativistic assumption that religious truth is a minor individual choice at the margin of community, rather than something central both to individuals and communities. Of course 'non-sectarian education' suits the secularists because they have their own thoroughly ruthless agenda with its own non-negotiable dogmas. Suggest to these people that children should not be given Personal and Social Education (i.e. indoctrination on the rightness of sexual immorality and of perversion) because it is Divisive, and watch the steam come out of their ears. I've done it. It's not a pretty sight.
  • The Duprees.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave comment