Question Gender? Your Life Might Fall Apart
2 hours ago
On the Good Bad Books issue, I’m grateful for the response, and for the recommendations. Oddly enough, the educated middle class have for years been quite happy to own up to reading thrillers of a certain sort – le Carre, P.D.James’s detective stories, maybe Eric Ambler in the right company. And of course Sherlock Holmes. But not, I think, the sort of books I mentioned. By the way, I just don’t like Bernard Cornwell’s books. I may have been influenced by the fact that Sean Bean is the actor chosen to star in the TV version, and I just can’t enjoy his performances in anything. I also seem to recall feeling there was something anachronistic about the language and the minds of the characters, and anachronism is something which I cannot stand in historical fiction.
Chapter III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.Similar advice is implicitly given by Jack Donovan. Men should focus on making themselves better men, and not worry so much about finding a woman. In these sad times, they should probably be indifferent or even resigned to the possibility that they may not marry because there may be an insufficient number of good, godly, and submissive women out there. (This stoicism is not incompatible with a trust in God's providence, if one believes that God does not "micromanage" his creatures or coerce their wills.)
Josef Pieper is best known in this country for his work, Leisure as the Basis of Culture, and its companion essay, The Philosophical Act, published as one book in 1952. In this book, Pieper’s argument is seemingly straight-forward: culture depends upon leisure, and leisure in turn depends upon the cult of divine worship. For Pieper, the cult is the ritual of public sacrifice that acts as the primary source of our independence and freedom, while culture involves natural goods of the world that belong to us but are beyond our immediate needs and wants. Leisure, as the basis of culture, therefore is our fundamental relationship to reality as a type of “philosophical act” where we learn to see how certain aspects of reality demand a celebration of them in divine worship. For Pieper, the highest relationship we can have with reality is one that is free of practical considerations, a philosophical theoria, and that can only be preserved within the sphere of leisure. Although his argument appears to be only about leisure, Pieper is actually exploring the nature of philosophy, specifically Christian philosophy, and its role in the education of souls.
In the voluminous writings of Wilhelm Roepke, we find an effort to come to grips with this dilemma of unfreedom and to outline a way of getting what we want in a deeper and fuller sense. Rather than perpetuate the feeling of dependence and unfreedom by restricting choice to the usual alternatives in political economy (socialism or libertarianism), Roepke envisions a "Third Way" that would in a properly understood sense be truly "liberating." It is not the Roepke as Austrian economist that is here considered, or the Roepke as anti-communist, but rather the essential Roepke, Roepke as radical reformer, as idealist.
[T]he most terrible monsters are human, because what Martin is very good at describing is the shocking ruthlessness of naked power politics, unrestrained by law or God. He draws his characters cunningly, tempting the reader to misjudge them and showing them a wholly different aspect as events unfold.
In healthy patriarchies, men push themselves to earn the respect and admiration of other men. They work to prove their strength, courage and competence to each other. Men pride themselves on their reputation for mastery of their bodies, their actions, and their environment. They want to be known for what they can do, not just how well or who they can screw. And they sure as hell don't waste their time trying to figure out what they can do to bedazzle bimbos.
It is in the Declaration of Independence that we see best how the Founders envisioned state and federal authority uniting to form a national union.
Contrary to the now-popular view that regards the Declaration as Holy Writ, the Founders viewed the great document as illuminating and explaining the foundations of the American republic as resting upon a political compact. Such an agreement formed a republic in which there existed the same equality of rights among the states composing the union as existed among the citizens composing the states themselves.
The Declaration claimed legitimacy for a political compact that had developed with "time and experience" into a model of political and social stability. It preserved the center of authority within each individual state, and it allowed for secession when government "becomes destructive of these ends," for then "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."
While the Declaration appropriately described the status of "Free and Independent States" as essential to the republic, the document also confirmed the true story of the creation of the country: the states "ordained" or created the republic.
The Declaration introduced — or rather, officially recognized — the original design of the republic. The Articles of Confederation, the first American constitution, incorporated this design into the fundamental law of the regime. For the Founders, the provisions and language of the Articles served as an authentic guide to the American Constitution.
The Constitution of 1787 cannot be understood without first understanding the defense of local authority contained in the Articles. Drafted in stages from 1776 to 1777, the Articles extended and revised the Declaration's defense of local and state authority, and the delineation of state autonomy, while establishing popular rule based upon the deliberative, decentralized, community-centered participation of the citizenry. As with the Declaration, the Articles recognized the original design for a union of liberty, a republic of independent and sovereign states.
Yesterday brought the news of Andy Griffith's death at 86. Unfortunately, the type of television exemplified by The Andy Griffiith Show died long before its star did. Long gone are the days when the networks aired prime time series that parents could safely allow their children to watch, much less a prime time in which such shows actually dominated the competition. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a network even making a show like The Andy Griffith Show today. After all, The Andy Griffith Show was wholesome and innocent and completely devoid of vulgarity or sexual immorality or even any topical references to current events, much less propaganda for favored Hollywood causes. There hasn't been a show like that on prime time network television in many years. And those responsible for what prime time network television has become deserve much worse than a visit to Sheriff Andy Taylor's jail, better known to fans of the series as "The Rock."
The Peak Oil debate is not a sporting event. What matters is not which side wins, but what reality awaits us. Will we see a continuing plateau in global crude oil production? How long will it last? How big a proportional contribution to total liquids production will we see from tar sands, shale, and other unconventionals? What will be the climate impact as the world’s petroleum supply is increasingly derived from lower-grade resources? And what will be the economic impact?
Indians, like the Chinese, are not “model minorities,” as they do not and cannot identify with the US. This is land formed by the blood, sweat, toil and tears of the Western European man. They share nothing in common with them. Additionally, with leftism as our new religion, they are able to act out their frustrations and figuratively humiliate the historic majority—the people who created all they enjoy, and all they could never create—for the crime of letting them settle in their land and affording them the opportunity to amass fabulous wealth and enjoy a standard of living undreamed of in their native land.(Someone may think that there is a little self-loathing going on here, but he subsequently responds to this charge. Besides, that he may not actually get along with Chinese wouldn't be unexpected. Others do not get along with Chinese as well, and Chinese people have their own chauvinism.)
When push comes to shove, these model minorities will jam-pack the airports gouging each others eyes out to get out here as the world comes crashing down. Such are the vibrant, diverse “citizens” of the Republic.
But I am not worried about them. They are the enemy in the sense that they are easily identifiable and will self deport when this house of cards comes crashing down. The real danger are white liberals. They can’t go anywhere and nobody wants them. Nor will any white man deport or exile his people which means we’re stuck with them.