Monday, June 07, 2010

Liberal Threats to Liberalism

I'll get back to the cardinal virtues in due time. After all, they've been here for over two millennia, so they're not going anywhere.

But I wanted to discuss a valuable book I recently finished, New Threats to Freedom, while it's still fresh in my mind. It's a compilation of thirty relatively short and crisp essays on -- you'll never guess -- new threats to freedom. I'll just quote from the product description:

"In the twentieth century, free people faced a number of mortal threats, ranging from despotism, fascism, and communism to the looming menace of global terrorism. While the struggle against some of these overt dangers continues, some insidious new threats seem to have slipped past our intellectual defenses. These new threats are quietly eroding our hard-won freedoms, often unchallenged and, in some cases, widely accepted as beneficial."

Of the thirty essays, I would say that about a third are quite good, a third mediocre, and another third slightly lame. I suppose for the sake of "diversity" -- ironically, one of the new threats to freedom -- they included a number of liberal authors, and their intellectually flabby contributions are the weakest, being that liberalism is the greatest contemporary threat to liberty (by its own acknowledgment, since it knowingly barters away liberty for its fantasies of equality).

In this context, it's a little like inviting communists to discuss new threats to private property, or NAMBLA to discuss new threats to children.

Judging by the density of my highlighting, it looks like the greatest threats to liberty are, in no particular order, the decline of American press freedom, the closing of the liberal mind, the new dogma of fairness, single women (this was one of the more important essays, as we shall see), the loss of the freedom to fail, the EU, the rise of anti-religious (really, anti-Christian) orthodoxy, multiculturalism and the threat of conformity, the tyranny of the news cycle, transnational progressivism, anticapitalism, and the rise of mass dependency.

Ironically, one of the liberals wrote on the dangers of anonymous trolls! He has a point, in that cyber-anonymity does permit sixty year old perverts to pretend they're girly adolescents and liberals to pretend they're not, but a sophisticated internet user quickly learns to tune out the extremists. Politics has always been a blood sport, and it's naive to imagine otherwise.

In his essay The Closing of the Liberal Mind, Bruce Bawer discusses the blatant contradiction of so-called liberals and their tacit (and often overt) alliance with Islamic terrorists, not just in Palestine, but all over Western Europe. He cites the example of Amsterdam, where life for homosexuals can be a living hell "because of predatory Muslim youth gangs who know that according to the teachings of Islam homosexuals deserve to be killed."

But the left just doesn't care. Why? One reason is that recognition of the reality would undermine their irrational faith in multiculturalism. They would have to acknowledge the self-evident truth that some cultures are better and more evolved than others, which is an impermissible thought on the left. And God -- or Gaia or Wakan Tanka -- forbid that Judeo-Christian culture be the most evolved of all! That would qualify as the ultimate secular heresy.

I remember getting into an argument with my late father-in-law and my eminent historian-by-marriage, who were insisting that they much preferred the ancient Greek gods to the Judeo-Christian God. No amount of factual evidence of the barbarism of the pre-Christian world had any impact whatsoever. This is the kind of adolescent sentiment I might have expressed back in my 20s, just to show how daring and unconventional I was. But in order to hold such a moronic view in one's 70s, one must literally forego intellectual and spiritual growth for the remainder of one's life. It's like irony and cynicism as guiding intellectual principles (a Christopher Hitchens falls into this camp as well, which ultimately amounts to the glorification of nihilism).

As Bawer writes, liberal values have been "sold out in the name of multicultural sensitivity," the result being that "millions of self-styled liberals have closed their minds to aspects of reality that challenge their ideology -- an ideology that is, in fact, radically illiberal." There was a point in my lifetime that liberals would have cheered the demise of a fascist dictator in Iraq, but as another contributor writes, JFK was the last Democrat president to govern on the principles of classical liberalism. He was as insensitive as Ronald Reagan or George Bush, declaring the Soviet Union to be "a slave state" that was "embarked upon a program of world aggression."

Bawer notes the truism that being a liberal once "meant standing up for freedom, both at home and abroad, against every form of oppression and totalitarianism." But in the last two years, we have witnessed the exact opposite of this philosophy in Obama, who has coddled or bowed to virtually every despot on the planet, while alienating critical freedom-loving allies such as India, Israel, and Poland.

The left is far more upset about Gitmo than they are about Iran executing homosexuals or about hateful Palestinians training their children to be genocidal islamikazes and mullahtov cocktails. Just as they hated Ronald Reagan far more than Gorbachev, they express far more animus for Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin than Arafat, Abdullah, al-Bashir, or Ahmadinejad. And that's just the A's.

But I think the most profound and far-reaching essay -- for it truly has cosmic and world-historical implications -- is Jessica Gavora's Single Women as a Threat to Freedom (she happens to be married to Jonah Goldberg). First of all, the essay is not the least bit inflammatory, although you could never convince a hysterical ovary tower feminist of this. (Ironically, because of their conspicuous lack of self-awareness, radical feminists display some of the worst untransformed traits of femininity!)

But if we accept the premise that the greatest threat to our liberty is the vast, intrusive, coercive, greedy, and corrupt State, then it is a simple matter of fact that single women are responsible for electing politicians such as Obama who promise to grow government -- just as married women and men can be statistically relied upon to oppose the leviathan state.

Before analyzing the reasons why single women wish to replace men with the government and become dependent upon the latter, let's crunch some of the numbers, shall we? Gavora notes that in the 2008 election, single women "delivered a whopping 71 to 29 percent majority for Barack Obama." It is simply a truism that liberty is not high on the list of values that animate the single woman. Rather, they much prefer to be swaddled by the state, largely because "increasingly these women are substituting the security of a husband [for] the security of the state."

This is a major -- and potentially fatal -- problem, because in 2007, "for the first time, the U.S. Census reported that the majority of American households were headed by unmarried people," and I don't see any immediate prospects for a reversal of this sad and dysfunctional demographic shift. This can only mean more government -- and, of course, fewer and fewer people to pay for it. Any remotely conscious person knows that our present economic course is unsustainable. But you can't tell that to a woman who is married to Uncle Sam, and who has made a lifetime commitment to making the relationship work, for richer and for poorer.

Thus, it is no coincidence that the left favors policies that are destructive to traditional family values -- for example, the redefinition of marriage. Because on most all issues, "Americans in traditional families tend to have more traditional values." Furthermore, "the presence and number of children only magnify this effect," making them the most conservative of all.

The problem is, dependency on the state is a self-perpetuating cycle that interferes with the normal evolutionary process of adult pair-bonding in order to grow emotionally and to nurture the next generation. Once women convince themselves that men are unnecessary, this has truly earthshaking consequences. For the cycle of dependency only creates more dependency, which requires more expansion of government, and then more dependent women and children. Here we can see how contemporary liberalism demands the persistence of social pathology, for in order to win elections, it must pander to this huge and growing segment of the population.

Unmarried mothers now "constitute 26 percent of all eligible voters," which is "a bigger pool than African Americans and Latinos combined." We all know how Democrats pander to the latter two groups, but most people aren't aware of the government's seduction of single women in order to perpetuate and expand its power. If the goal of feminism was independence for women, it must be judged an Epic Fail, for they simply wedded their fortunes to the biggest loser of them all.


Blogger Leslie Godwin said...

Sorry to start with a rathole (ie, off-topic comment) but couldn't help but think that re this:

"I remember getting into an argument with my late father-in-law and my eminent historian-by-marriage, who were insisting that they much preferred the ancient Greek gods to the Judeo-Christian God."

You know that if you had told them you preferred the Greek gods or the Aztecs, etc. they would have insisted that Thomas Aquinas proved that the God of the Catholics was the one true God LOL!

Mrs. G

6/07/2010 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Mrs. G:

I'm plenty familiar with that phenomenon in my own family. My mother and her brother were both champion debaters (my Mom won at West Point in the late 50s).

As you say, these folks will often simply take up the opposite position of whatever you happen to suggest because they enjoy the "sport" so much.

6/07/2010 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

"...folks will often simply take up the opposite position of whatever you happen to suggest..."

Yes, I believe I know someone, to whom I'm related by marriage, that displays that trait.

6/07/2010 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

I see you have more Pieper on deck.
Ever read: Abuse of Language Abuse of Power?

6/07/2010 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

More proof that a high IQ has a very loose -- if any -- correlation with wisdom and an ability to reflect deeply. Stephen Hawking is an intellectual powerhouse within his field of expertise, yet his musings on religion are almost pathetically thoughtless and shallow.

Stephen Hawking on Religion: 'Science Will Win'

Sad that such a powerful mind is so profoundly atrophied in this way, but hardly uncommon.

6/07/2010 01:38:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

Just noticed an awful lot of "Comment Deleted". What gives?

6/07/2010 01:53:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

They were deleted by whoever wrote them, not by me.

6/07/2010 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Tigtog, that was Van, who was having problems.

6/07/2010 02:05:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...


Van inadvertently posted 4 copies of the exact same post.

Blogger had an outage earlier today of some sort which caused various posting problems.

wv: psychr

6/07/2010 02:38:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Also noted while peering around the usual dank online leftist cesspits a bit today: any pretense of circumspection around the topic of Israel's destruction shown by the Left has pretty much evaporated, at least on the hard Left. Hundreds of commenters on mainstream leftist sites are unburdening themselves of variations on "Helen was right!".

Not so long ago the Left pretended to be in favor of a "two-state solution". Well, that didn't last long. The Left smells Jewish blood in the water and they're moving in. It remains sadly the case that many of those beating the drums of war against Israel are themselves Jewish.

6/07/2010 03:17:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yup. Via American Digest:

In the 1960s, "[The left] completely and utterly ignored anything the Communists did no matter how vile. Today, they've staked their reputation on the assertion that Israel's evil actions are the controlling factor in the conflict in the regions. They ignore anything that the enemies of Israel do, no matter how vile. By publicly proclaiming such a delusional outlook, they are forced to adopt ever increasingly radical assertions in order to justify their de facto alliance with evil. The only way they could justify carrying water for the Communists in Indochina was to paint America as being even worse. Today, the only way they can justify carrying water for the racist, sexist, homophobic, brutal autocrats of the Middle-East is to claim that Israel is even worse and/or that the actions of the autocrats are just reactions to whatever bad thing Israel has done."

Awwww, they're talking about our own anon!

6/07/2010 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Tigtog... sorry about the deletes, every time I clicked publish, I got the blogger error and none showed in the comments... I came back awhile later and found several went through... soooo... I commenced to deletin'.

6/07/2010 04:35:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Rick said "...Ever read: Abuse of Language Abuse of Power?"

Rick, I got it last week and have read the first (title) essay - highly racconmended.

6/07/2010 04:38:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

julie said "Tigtog, that was Van, who was having problems."

Boy... have I heard that one a few times before!


6/07/2010 04:40:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I've never read the book, but I have read excerpts in the Anthology (which is great).

6/07/2010 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

I am very interested in the issue of single women and the avoidance of marriage. Again, my lefty college town is living testament to "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and all the great consequences that follow from this delusional idea.

1) Many men see little or no need to get married because they get all they want and more and can move on to someone else who strikes his fancy.

2) Marriage is "just a piece of paper" at best and "oppression of women" at worst. Forget that marriage is actually about the legitimacy of children and about better insuring male parental involvement i.e. avoiding the very situation described in #1 above.

3) I have seen with my own two eyes a unwed mother who gets dumped by her boyfriend/baby daddy. Soon after starts sleeping with one of the sleaziest (and oddly non-manly, noticeably effeminate, singer-songwriter of twee songs of woe--go figure) who of course sees her as a distraction in between two other distractions. Does she ever wonder what she's doing wrong?

Women have the same right to be shallow as men, I suppose, but shouldn't be surprised if by giving it away with no conditions, most guys will take them up on it, and move on.

So with that ethos being fairly standard in these parts, it probably sits better with single women to be dependent on the government rather than a man (again, because they were taught in their women studies classes that marriage is just men oppressing women). And there's the whole radical chic aspect that is just a win-win for them and a big lose-lose for the rest of us.

6/07/2010 05:02:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Thanks, guys.

6/07/2010 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

I also had a female friend-- who is in a lesbian couple who plans to have a child "together"- that the government should pay a salary to women who have kids... and supply tampons for free.

She wasn't kidding.

6/07/2010 05:26:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Today, the only way they can justify carrying water for the racist, sexist, homophobic, brutal autocrats of the Middle-East ...

Awwww, they're talking about our own anon!

Lies like the above is why I am anonymous.

You people are terrible liars. You slander Obama, you slander me, you slander entire continents of people, and I am sure you are lying to yourselves all the while, so you may not even be able to tell that you are lying.

I'm anon so you can't hurt me, but you are definitely doing some damage to your own souls.

I'd advise you to take a good look at yourselves and think about whether this is really how you want to go through life.

6/07/2010 05:27:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

As anon -- or was it Helen Thomas? -- said just last week:

"You may disapprove of the Gazans tactics or just dislike them, but surely they can't be faulted on grounds of justice -- they were, after all, displaced from their land by an invading power and are now under occupation, so they have a right to resist."

Yes, we've slandered you, all right. You're even more indecent than we thought!

6/07/2010 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Man, for a guy who uses the accusation liar so much, you'd almost think he'd want you to think he cared what it means.
Reminds me of the pigs and the stone joke.

6/07/2010 06:08:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

sn't it weird how leftists always and everywhere feel compelled to lie about what they actually believe?

I think it must explain why they think we're the same way -- for example that when we say we're against affirmative action, we secretly just hate blacks, or that if we want low taxes we really just want to help "the rich." As always, they accuse us of precisely what they are guilty of.

6/07/2010 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anone said "I'm anon so you can't hurt me..."

LOL! You poor precious aninnymouse!

Pardon the correction, but you are anonymous because you are an intellectual coward bereft of the courage of any convictions.

Care to refute that?

Try stating the fundamentals of what you believe, and how those fundamentals add up to your positions without involving deep contradictions on all levels of them.

Barring that... enjoy the laughter at your expense... we certainly will.

6/07/2010 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

I work with a lefty who, as near as I can tell, thinks it's better to admit she's lazy. Because she's said this. In front of the boss, even. You know, the variation on the virtuous, "well, at least I'm honest" tactic. Ever witnessed that one, Bob?
Is it better to lie about your laziness or admit that are? I think I can make an argument for the former.

6/07/2010 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

It's not as if she's accused of it and therefore doesn't deny it. It's an unsolicited admition. Like boasting.

6/07/2010 06:28:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...


6/07/2010 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It's always best to be objective about oneself. However, it may not be prudent to volunteer self-knowledge to those who hold the purse strings -- who are usually of a different caste anyway and wouldn't know what to do with the information. I mean, that's why we have a secret lodge, isn't it?

6/07/2010 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

But that is the simple facts of the matter. You don't have to like Palestinians, or their leaders, or their politics, to acknowledge that many were in fact displaced from their land and are now refugees living under occupation.

You do, however, have to acknowledge that they are human beings with legitimate rights and needs like anyone else. This seems to be difficult for some people. If, on the other hand, you view them as subhuman verminoid scum, then it's easy to ignore their claims and treat them as nuisances to be dealt with in any way the real humans see fit. Is that your position?

6/07/2010 06:37:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

I'm lazy.
Don't tell my boss.
But at least I'm dishonest.

6/07/2010 06:37:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

"I'm anon so you can't hurt me"

Don't be so sure! You've entered The Raccoon Zone. There is no escaping zingers, put-downs and raucous mocking for you, my friend.

Last night you were full of bluster about how you planned to school us in your superior world view. Now that you're tripping over your own delusions and lies suddenly you're afraid of being "hurt" by a bunch of philosophy and religion buffs?

Ah, you're a riot sometimes anon. And for the record I don't think you personally are an evil person any more than I think every German in 1945 was evil. However the roots of your political views are most assuredly evil, just as the roots of German political order were in that dark year.

6/07/2010 07:06:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anone said "...they are human beings with legitimate rights and needs like anyone else..."

There you go again, using words whose meaning you have yet to demonstrate that you have any knowledge of.

"...many were in fact displaced from their land ..."

Uhm... their land?

Sorry, no, it was British land, taken over from those who possessed it via the acknowledged rules of real estate transactions in that area from time immemorial - with a semi-break during Roman rule - meaning they took it with the currency of military might and so dispensed with it, after some unnecessary discussion with their allies, as they wished.

And you should be careful... if you object to that... you might be forced to acknowledge the necessity of property rights (oops) Property Rights, Individual Rights, the sanctity of contract and the rule of objective law having primacy over the feelings and urges of an aggrieved group (possibly even a minority group... ee-gads!).

But it was cute of you to try and play with such big words.

6/07/2010 07:08:00 PM  
Blogger black hole said...

Well, Palestinians are people. If you wanna be spiritual, you must include them in with all of the rights and so forth.

If you want to create a separate category where Palestinians are lesser than others, then you've left the spiritual road and embarked on the nationalist road.

Either way is legit but you gotta decide what your are. There are no intersections between the two.

6/07/2010 07:26:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

bh said "Well, Palestinians are people. If you wanna be spiritual, you must include them in with all of the rights and so forth."

Your tenure is showing.

There are people who are Palestinians, and regarding those of them who respect the laws, property and rights of others, they should and must be extended all of the rights and privileges accorded to law abiding, civilized men and women; a brief examination of the ethnic makeup of Israel, including it's government, will show that that is already the case there. A brief examination of the of Jordan, Egypt, etc, will show that that is not the case there.

And of course for those who do not respect the laws, property and rights of others, be they Palestinian, or otherwise, cannot lay claim to what they themselves reject.

6/07/2010 08:05:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

BH wrote:

Well, Palestinians are people

Absolutely they are. Nobody from that area should be pre-judged as an individual simply because their culture has become profoundly diseased. (And those who cannot see that fact are frankly themselves diseased, IMO).

I've met a number of Palestinians who don't support violence and who left to come to the US or Canada precisely to escape that rotten culture. There are others who came here to perpetuate that culture, but the point is that there are many Palestinians who want no part of the culture of death.

It's a terribly difficult question but one thing is absolutely certain: the aiding and abetting by the international Left of the worst aspects of Palestinian pathology is doing as much or more damage to those people than they do to themselves. It's like what the Left did to American blacks, except far worse.

6/07/2010 08:11:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Amazing how just as anon is fulminating over the reality that the leftist or "progressive" impulse produced both the communist hyper-murderers AND the Nazi genocidal monsters leftist relic Helen Thomas comes along and spits it out: send the Jews back to Germany and Poland (i.e., Buchenwald and Treblinka). Furthermore the reptiles at Democratic Underground,, Daily Kos -- you name it -- all hissed in unison how the old Nazi witch was right and this is all the fault of Republicans for censoring her freedom of speech. She's the victim!

Anon -- you must have done some bad shit in a former life or something because your mojo ain't working.

6/07/2010 08:15:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Queeg is in a situation which is almost comical were it not so pathetic. He remains steadfastly loyal to Israel (so he isn't totally deranged -- yet) however he's now trying to convince people that conservatives are the ones leaving all the anti-Israel remarks on his site, rather than his new lefty friends (about 95% of the LGF users turned over after Queeg's already fragile mind finally snapped).

Recently Queeg sort of looks like a 72 year-old former hippy chick in pictures.

6/07/2010 08:36:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I think he looks like the Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons. How appropriate that so many posts wallow in his comic book fetish.

6/07/2010 08:50:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Charles at the keyboard.

6/07/2010 08:53:00 PM  
Blogger black hole said...

The jab at single females is interesting. However, if males are supposed to be essential to females, why are these single females being allowed to stay that way?

There should be some kind of regulated way our society makes sure people get mated up properly, and the younger the better.

Private sector (E-harmony,, POF, etc) aren't cutting the mustard. We need some kind of enforced mating program.

Females are horny; we need to bang. We can't be waiting around for marraige proposals in order to get busy. Self service isn't going to scratch that itch.

The guys get the free sample, then they split. Or in my case, the chick gets the free sample and then splits. Not even a sister can keep her hot stuff from running off.

So yes there's a problem. The floor is open to ideas for a fix on this thing.

6/07/2010 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Sorry, no, it was British land, taken over from those who possessed it via the acknowledged rules of real estate transactions in that area from time immemorial - with a semi-break during Roman rule - meaning they took it with the currency of military might and so dispensed with it, after some unnecessary discussion with their allies, as they wished.

Wow, that's incoherent. It must take a stupendous effort to write that poorly, I don't think anyone could come by it naturally.

So, I take it that you don't consider any property you might own to be actually yours, but "American land", and if the Chinese invade and take over in 2030 and exile you to Canada, you are cool with that, because they "took it with the currency of military might"? Assuming I am parsing your gibberish correctly, that seems to be how your theory would apply. I'm sure you'll correct me if I've misinterpreted you.

Your theory isn't that far off, actually. Property ownership is enforced by states so ultimately rests on violence, generally violent expropriation from previous owners. So the Israelis kicked out the Palestines with violence, and the Palis should just accept defeat gracefully, you seem to be saying. Just another military conquest in the long history of them. And maybe they should, but if they choose to keep fighting I can't see how you can claim they are any more immoral than their opponents who initiated the conflict by kicking them out. Which was my original point, if I remember correctly.

6/08/2010 12:37:00 AM  
Blogger Dianne said...

The Israelis did NOT kick out the Palestinians with violence. Seriously, anon, you should go read some actual history. As I've already told you, but of course you don't listen because it doesn't fit with your agenda - that whole area was prosperous for everyone living there under the Israelis until foreign islamic murderers headed by Arafat moved in. Just like they move into everyone else they invade and blame the victims and spead lies with the help of leftist, clueless media.

It's amazing to me that you close your mind to the violence from muslim terrorists - and not just in that area, but all over the world. Mindblowing that you refuse to see who the real enemy is. You're not doing yourself any favors. Even if you are one of them, if they succeed, you'll have to live in what they create. I just can't believe how stupid you and people like you are.

6/08/2010 04:57:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

One more thing about the lefty I work with and was talking about behind her back last night (but at least I’m honest). RE this issue of “lying” and what it means to the left and right. Lazily mulling it over a bit more I discovered an interesting contrast.

President Bush senior and the “no new taxes” outrage. I do not believe he believed he was lying when he said it. However, the left’s intolerance (feigned? – you know, I’m not so sure anymore) of this lie is almost joyously recalled in an instant to this day. But they actually look like they are repulsed by this "lying". They look sincere. And it’s pretty clear the left loves taxes. For the other guy. So it can't be about the raised taxes.

It is interesting how remarkably “honest” President Obama was when he told Joe the Plumber how he wished to spread the wealth around. “I just want to spread the wealth around..” I believe he couched it like that. “Just want”. Is that so wrong? Don’t be such a greedy bastard, Joe. Be honest. You’re greedy. Get honest like me. See? Honest is better.

Hey Dave, how was your weekend?

Eh, broke into a liquor store. Had to hit the old guy too. It’s kinda buggin me. But, I’ll probably do it again. You know me.. :-)

But at least you’re honest! I wish I had the courage to admit stuff like that.

Thanks, man.

6/08/2010 05:38:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Why on this one issue, are lefties for property rights.

Palestinians got there first?
Well that's not fair, is it?

(even if it were true)

6/08/2010 05:42:00 AM  
Blogger Jack said...


I guess that's the point: if both men AND women are just out and about "sampling" then it doesn't bode well. It is safe to say that in *general* women are far more interested in procreation then most males. And most males are far more interested in sex for its own sake than most females.

So in the lefty world a woman sleeps around "like a guy", focuses on her career--all within her rights. But then she decides she wants to procreate...and in a growing number of cases the guys aren't going along.

In the past there would be some kind of "trade off" for a man to participate in child-rearing i.e. what seemed like favoring the man in marriages was simply an enticement to get him to be involved at all.

But any sufficiently enticing trade off is less and less the case in leftytown. The "trade off" is that the man is expected to sign on completely to the female agenda as if it were his own. This does lefty men are feminized, or those aspects of learning to be a Man, is devalued and frequently seen, again, as "oppressive (yawn).

If boys don't learn to be true MEN, then they remain dangerous boys--in that they never learn to deal with and integrate their own aggressive impulses. These impulses, as we know don't simply go away, they are either suppressed or indulged. Again which is not good for anybody--particularly women.

I think in this situation most guys are actually *getting* what they want. Shallow, non-entangling, sexual relationships with women--ones that never require them to Man up and take responsibility for a relationship and raising a family.

The "solution" as I see it is not one that most feminists are ever going to like. But to start it means stop devaluing all things Male. Allow and encourage boys to become men--and that this process is not always going to be "aesthetically pleasing" to female sensibilities...which is kind of the point, isn't it?

Part of that is to realize that though many men do want families, it doesn't always come as natural to us as women--in fact not even close. If women expect men to sign on there has to be some acknowledgment of this and maybe some appreciation. I see many men in relationships were the more they seem to compromise the more the woman asks of them. In these case it really appears like it's a never ending sense of female entitlement. Not an enticing situation to say the least.

I think it also means a return to valuing *courtship* rather than seeing "hooking up" as anything other than sleazy at best. In most cases it is going to have to be the woman who largely maintains the boundaries of courtship i.e. holding off on sex, at least until a significant degree of stability has been achieved between those concerned. If she doesn't, than it's unlikely anyone will.

Or we can have increasing levels of single motherhood, with women more and more dependent on the government to help finance raising their kids.

My two cents.

6/08/2010 05:59:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

anone "I don't think"

Yes, it shows. And here I kept it short just for you. Oh well.

"Your theory isn't that far off, actually."

Constitutionally unable to metabolize irony I suppose.

"Assuming I am parsing your gibberish correctly..."

Never assUme. Just read the part beginning with "And you should be careful... " over again.

"It must take a stupendous effort to write that poorly"

Nah, it's second nature, just like your skill at dodging an issue to seize on an incidental... evasion, equivocation, begging the question... a leftist such as yourself is so used to doing such things you probably aren't even aware of it anymore. However it's plainly visible here though, so come on, straighten up, your but crack is showing.

Go on, admit it... the thought of actually expressing your own ideas is actually terrifying to you, isn't it?

Poor dear.

6/08/2010 06:34:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

"if they choose to keep fighting I can't see how you can claim they are any more immoral than their opponents who initiated the conflict by kicking them out. Which was my original point, if I remember correctly."

Er, no. Our original point was that imputing precisely that point to you did not constitute slander. Either we have slandered you, or you are a typical, malevolently ignorant anti-Semite. Can't have it both ways.

6/08/2010 06:53:00 AM  
Blogger Jack said...

...besides, I would imagine that most chronically single males just probably want to be left alone. Not fertile ground for any strong inclination towards Big Government. Whereas perpetually single females, those who want children, anyway-- may not care if it's the government i.e. other people's money, that pays for it. Like I said, it may actually be preferable to many of them.

6/08/2010 06:54:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"Well, Palestinians are people. If you wanna be spiritual, you must include them in with all of the rights and so forth."

Tell it to Hamas, et al.

Yes, a certain minority of Palestinians are even brothers and sisters in Christ. It's awful that they live under the thumb of a gang of thugs, that doesn't recognize anything like truth, liberty, goodness, "spirituality," etc. It's all, Death to Israel, even if it means death to our own people in the process. I can't imagine what kind of courage it takes just to be a Christian in that context.

6/08/2010 08:43:00 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

I'm not even certain where to start with the sheer number of straw men expressed here. I've tried, but as a self-described liberal, I can't find a single sentiment you've put in the mouths of liberals that I'd agree with.

I don't expect my comment to make any impact whatsoever, but if you can muster a bit of introspection you may want to consider the value in Sun Tzu's advice to know your enemy. You clearly have some work to do in that direction.

6/08/2010 08:45:00 AM  
Blogger Brazentide said...

I have to imagine that if the state stopped subsidizing single motherhood, we might see a bit less of it.

As the Traffic Guru demonstrated, once you remove the facade of state security, people start behaving more responsibly.

It will take a while, but as women are weaned from the faux spousership of the state, they will begin to value their own sexuality more and will in turn force men to do so as well.

6/08/2010 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger anon said...

Van: people who write as poorly as you should not attempt irony. First master the simple declarative sentence and the paragraph. See if you can write down a train of thought without sprinkling it with ellipses.

Dianne -- I'd say I'm considerbly better-informed about the history of Israel than you are.

Bob said: Either we have slandered you, or you are a typical, malevolently ignorant anti-Semite. Can't have it both ways.

Well, since I'm not an anti-semite, draw your own conclusion.

FYI: anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, and I'm not even anti-Zionist -- I just believe that Israel needs to recognize the legitimate claims of the people it displaced and find a way to live with them. A sizable fraction of the Israeli public (25% maybe) believes exactly the same thing.

6/08/2010 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Jack, first off, a woman ought to marry well.

She should find a man of faith, with humble spirit, good character, and integrity. Admire and respect him for who he is rather than majoring on his faults. Allow him the freedom to find his voice and grow into the leader and provider he was made to be. Be his biggest cheerleader, even when he makes mistakes. Be loyal and faithful and discreet; i.e., not complain about him or talk him down to others. (I have even seen women do this in the *presence* of their husbands!!)

In short, do unto him as she would have him do unto her. (This teaching of our Lord, so brilliant in its simplicity, is also impossible to carry out without the empowerment of His Spirit. Ever tried to follow the Golden Rule for 24 hours in your own striving? You will fail. :) )

I've pondered this a good deal, through 19 years of marriage (today! :) ). One of the big lessons I've learned (the hard way) is so simple: Never nag. I don't offer this advice to other women unsolicited (well, I don't offer *any* unsolicited advice, as I consider that rude) because most do not want to hear it anyway. They interpret it as "being a doormat," when it's really quite the opposite.

A woman who doesn't nag will find her counsel, when she offers it graciously and with genuine concern for him, respected and heeded, because a man can tell when his woman has *his* best interests at heart rather than her own convenience and petty whims. Five little words can transform a marriage: "Love seeks not its own."

It's foolishly counterproductive to nag (especially with a man of command or visionary temperament), and also, when you think about it, arrogant and prideful. It's treating a grown man like a child, and yourself as the superior. It's placing my whim and self-interest as the supreme value in our marriage with no regard to his comfort or perspective. It's feeding a mental habit of resentment, irritation and annoyance, rather than a habit of thinking about what is of "good report" in my husband.

And precisely who would I be trying to remake my man into? *My* image? LOL! Yeah, that'll make him a stellar individual all right. Who exactly do I think I am?

I'd far rather he grow into Another image, as He sees fit. It works out in both our best interests. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” What a disaster if I try to take over, control and manipulate that process instead. (As if I'd even know what I was doing.)

Women think they want men who act like women and comply with their every whim, but when they get that in any form (and they can only get it from those men with the steadiest, most patient temperaments--other types of men will *not* put up with it), they lose respect for their men and, as you have observed, grow even more demanding and petulant. It's a vicious cycle.

The old fashioned term is "hen-pecked." It think we ought to bring some of those descriptive terms back into common currency. It might bring a little proper shame to bear on our behavior. It's like women have no shame these days. (E.g., BH's lovely post.)

6/08/2010 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...


The Arab world need to recognize the legitimate claims of the hundreds of thousands of Jews it displaced (not to mention the wealth it stole) and just call it even.

6/08/2010 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"legitimate claims"

"Death to Israel" is not a tolerable, legitimate claim.

Have you ever seen Palestinian children's tv programming, or looked at their school books?

6/08/2010 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Furthermore, most of the Arab refugees were a result of the Arab nations telling them to leave so they wouldn't be in the way of their extermination of the Jews! It takes real chutzpah to blame Israel for that.

Indeed, it takes even more chutzpah to repeatedly wage offensive wars and then make claims upon the victor! A less moral victor -- such as China or Iran -- would have long ago expelled (or exterminated) the Jordyptians.

6/08/2010 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

By the way, one way you know the left is anti-Semitic, is that they express no moral outrage whatsoever for the Muslims who violently and illegally tore off a piece of India in order to create Pock-ee-stawn. That displaced many more people than did the legal creation of Israel, but I don't hear a peep out of the UN or the international left.

6/08/2010 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Oh, and it's always a good idea to have a Plan D when dealing with allies of Hitler....

6/08/2010 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

anone said "Van: people who write as poorly as you should not attempt irony."

Oh... drat.

"First master the simple declarative sentence..."

You are an intellectual coward bereft of the courage of any convictions.

How's that?

"... and the paragraph... See if you can write down a train of thought without sprinkling it with ellipses."

Hmmm... (oops!) that's kinda tough... (Oh! I did it again!), let's see... (Drat!). Ok, here we go.

I believe that reality is knowable through our senses. Through the process of reasoning, we integrate the data of our senses into concepts, and through carefully integrating those first low level concepts such as 'soft', 'warm' and 'yummy' and later others such as 'rock', 'hard' and 'ouch', we create progressively higher level concepts which enable us to perceive and operate in the world according to our nature as human beings. If we are careful to ensure that our concepts continue to reflect reality, we can integrate them into ideas, and if consistent with reality, then into principles, which make it possible for us to do more than just survive, they can enable us to thrive and prosper amidst ever larger communities of our fellow man. The proper development of our conceptual nature may eventually enable us to successfully integrate our knowledge and understanding of life into a coherent philosophy, which can guide us in creating worthwhile lives.

(Hey, this is kinda fun, thanks. Gotta say goodbye to being short winded though... gonna have to take a break here)

6/08/2010 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

(I'm baaack)
The extent of your success and increasing prosperity in life, depends upon the degree to which your reasoning respects reality, it is not enough to rely just upon the 'facts as you know them', you must continually check and ensure that they reflect how things actually are. Your success and prosperity is limited by the degree of disagreement present between the facts as you know them, and the facts as they in reality are. Whether you attain the heights of our Founding Fathers, or plateau out at the level of the Palestinians, depends upon how diligent you are in respecting what Aristotle called the law of non-contradiction. That,:

"For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; we must presuppose, to guard against dialectical objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above. "

And that is where leftist thought runs into it's self imposed limits. From philosophy to economics, and 'climate science' to politics, it is rife with contradictions, from Rousseau's "We must force them to be free!" to today, it depends upon not only proregressively false principles, but no principles, and as such it cannot tolerate or allow freedom and freedom of choice, but must instead force people to follow the choices their dear leaders have made for them, and in doing that they destroy Reason (Yikes! A capital letter! Don't concede, not yet!) and descend into primitive barbarism.

Reason is man's tool for making choices in the pursuit of a goal, and whether that goal is how to kill a bear, or how to represent God touching Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, it is in essentials the same. When you are forced to choose in opposition to what you see as being your best choice, not through persuasion, but through force - they have removed you from your actions. The choices you are making are no longer yours, you are not reasoning. To the extent that someone forces themselves upon your life, they forfeit the protection of the fruits of Reason: law, rights, liberty and perhaps even life itself.

Now anone, you have a choice. You can try stating the fundamentals of what you believe, and how those fundamentals add up to your positions without involving deep internal contradictions... (gasp!) or you can run away again, validating my claim, that you are an intellectual coward bereft of the courage of any convictions.

Your choice.

6/08/2010 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...


Thank you. Very well said. And Happy Anniversary!


6/08/2010 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Van, well congratulations on being able to focus. Keep up the good work.

Your first section is unexceptionable but boring: "I believe that reality is knowable through our senses." What could that mean that is of any interest? Certainly you can know some aspect of reality through your senses, like if it's raining. Can you tell if it's raining on a planet 1000 light-years away? No, so you cannot know that part of reality through the senses or any other way. Can you know the truth of the Pythagorean theorem through the senses? Is it part of reality? Do you mean that reality is known exclusively through the senses? Then you are an empiricist, but the problems with pure empiricism are well-known, and I wouldn't think it is a view that would appeal to you, but then what in the world are you trying to say?

The second section is simply wrong: "The extent of your success and increasing prosperity in life, depends upon the degree to which your reasoning respects reality" has no basis in reality. Realism is correlated with depression, which is not conducive to success.

And of course, reality is full of interesting contradictions. To take your trivialization of Rousseau for example, wouldn't you say that a drug addict is not very free? But if you force them into rehab for a month, they may be cured, and freer, and they may even thank you for it.

You can try stating the fundamentals of what you believe...

Well, one thing I believe in is not letting my opponents set the terms of debate.

I also believe that philosophy has been going for 2500 years or more and hasn't produced a single answer to anything. It has, however, raised some interesting questions.

Doing interesting philosophy is not a matter of forming a view that can be put on the back of a bubblegum wrapper; it's a matter of exploring the questions.

Excuse me, I have to go glory in the fact that the Republicans may just nominate an obvious nutcase as a candidate for statewide office in California. Who looks like a drag queen doing Carol Channing.

6/08/2010 08:15:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anone said “What could that mean that is of any interest?”

What could be of interest in knowing about whether or not reality is knowable? To a leftist or to a human? Maybe you should ask yourself why the tenured of wackademia spend so much time denying it?

Better yet, this is obviously wayyy above your little aninny head, you should really use your exceptional talents to write something more like guidebooks on how to be exceedingly shallow and yet still remain impressed with yourself, I’ve no doubt you’d excel at that.

Yes… what could that mean… what possible import could that have? My oh my… uhm… read any David Hume lately? He for some reason found that idea very interesting, carried it a step or two further than you managed to (in error, but that’s besides this point), and deciding that while his senses told him something about the world, they could only tell him about appearances, and he concluded that all our apparent knowledge was only of incidental associations, not of actual integrated knowledge of anything… and from all of that he led up to the conclusion that we couldn’t really have any real knowledge about reality at all, and so we could also have no real knowledge of causality, and that no IS could imply an OUGHT.

I’m sure that just bores you to death, but it did have some big implications for society, for political philosophy and for morality worldwide. It also managed to grab the attention of a few other folks, one of them, Immanuel Kant, claimed it ‘woke me from my dogmatic slumbers’ and spurred him on to write one of the most disastrous series of tomes in all of philosophy, including the Critique of Pure Reason, which helped bring about the end of the Age of Enlightenment.

Turns out that understanding that reality is knowable through your senses is quite a big deal, and denying it can lead to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

You really ought to look into it a bit, because denying that little boring statement also led into the works of Hegel, Fichte, Marx and a number of others which fed into the eventual development of not only Progressivism, on this side of the Atlantic, but also Fascism and Communism on the other side.

6/08/2010 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anone said “"The extent of your success and increasing prosperity in life, depends upon the degree to which your reasoning respects reality" has no basis in reality. Realism is correlated with depression, which is not conducive to success.”

Should I be laughing or crying for you on that? Are you really… actually… stupid? Well, I guess it shouldn’t be surprising, being a leftist and all, reality really has very little interest for you or your ideas.

“To take your trivialization of Rousseau for example, wouldn't you say that a drug addict is not very free? But if you force them into rehab for a month, they may be cured, and freer, and they may even thank you for it”

Not a bad demo of evasion and equivocation there, I wonder if you were even aware that you did it? Rousseau was not speaking about drug addicts, but of the mostly stable, ‘normal’ comparatively ‘free’ population at large, whom he felt didn’t live as he thought they should or believe the things which he thought they should believe, and so he felt that that exemplar of humanity, The Legislator (his caps, definitely not mine), should take those measures necessary to force them into conformity with the Politically Correct… you know, like your bud Obamao.

Rousseau also had a big effect on our friend Kant… you should look into it sometime.

You however, attempt to take the population at large who are working, raising families, making a living, you drop all of that distinguishing context and rudely rub them right up against a drug addict in an attempt to equate them – in an attempt to banish all relevance of what goes into living generally honest and responsible lives, and brushing that all aside, conclude that their freedom should be valued no better than someone who uses drugs to escape reality (plug that into your little notion of ‘realism’), to escape the reality, responsibilities and necessities of life in order to let their raw desires control what passes for their life.

My, what a truly disgusting little troll you are.

“Well, one thing I believe in is not letting my opponents set the terms of debate.”

Translation: “Ahhh! I am an intellectual coward bereft of the courage of even a single conviction! Run Away!!!”

“I also believe that philosophy has been going for 2500 years or more and hasn't produced a single answer to anything. It has, however, raised some interesting questions.”

Go back to Plato & Aristotle, try to work your way forward again (as if!), or you might end up spouting foolish things like this,

"Can you know the truth of the Pythagorean theorem through the senses? Is it part of reality?"


" Do you mean that reality is known exclusively through the senses? Then you are an empiricist...."


for who knows how long, Here you go, dealt with another troll's similar 'point' a couple years ago, his wizbang example was with square roots, there's lots of interesting punctuation and grammar issues you can snicker at in order to safely avoid the fact that you're a ditz and besides, I'm too tired to rehash it tonight, and you've become too boring to bother with again.

Goodnight, sleep tight, don't let the republicans bite.

6/08/2010 10:36:00 PM  
Blogger Judith said...

Just wanted to say, I'm one of the 29% of single women! I absolutely agree that single women are a threat to freedom and that many have simply substituted the state for a husband. I also think - and this will mark me as a weird reactionary - that women (married or single) in the work force and active in politics also have a negative impact on freedom because women tend to prefer safety over risk. Much more than men, women want stability. If you're a nester - whether you're actively nesting or not - the last thing you want is unpredictability and you've got to have safety at all costs. Women, therefore, tend to not prize freedom as highly.

As to how to change this & if it can be changed before it's too late: family formation and religious renewal (the two go hand in hand). The government should stop being hostile to both.

6/09/2010 07:40:00 AM  
Blogger anon said...

Where the antisemitism is. I can't help but note that Beck is a leading promoter of Jonah Goldberg's nonsensical theories as well. So he is essentially accusing Hillary Clinton of fascism, while promoting the work of actual fascists.

Still waiting for that apology btw.

6/09/2010 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger anon said...

Van: I see you are back to ellipses and sputtering again. You certainly seem to have read a lot of philosophy; but it doesn't seem like you've understood very much of it. Seems like a big waste of time.

6/09/2010 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

anone said “I see you are back to ellipses and sputtering again.”

Yeah, it’s fun seeing you get annoyed about it. Thanks for performing again.

“You certainly seem to have read a lot of philosophy; but it doesn't seem like you've understood very much of it. Seems like a big waste of time.”

Coming from the cowardly fool who thinks reality is either irrelevant or a hindrance... I think I can live with that.

Hey, just for the fun of seeing you turn tail and run again, how about you tell us what you think distinguishes socialism and communism from fascism, and why you think they are good or bad systems of government... how about it?

I’m betting you’ll set a new font speed record for evasion, equivocation and begging... but... come on... prove me wrong.

6/09/2010 01:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home