The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Quota-Mongers, Gender Nihilism and the Insane Logic of Radical Feminist Theory

Posted on | December 18, 2015 | 53 Comments

 

Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner reports:

For further evidence that outrage feminists believe gender trumps all else, a new report from the Women’s Media Center bemoans the fact that more articles about campus sexual assault in major newspapers were written by men than by women.
Forget the content of those articles — women should write about rape, and men should write about whatever the modern feminists tell them they can write about. . . .

(Actually, feminists want men to shut up.)

WMC claimed that the gender of the writer skews the content.
“Furthermore, our research shows that the gender of the writer had a significant impact on how stories were covered, with women journalists not only interviewing the alleged victims more often than male journalists, but also writing more about the impact of the alleged attacks on alleged victims,” WMC wrote.
“A higher share of women journalists covered university policies and the prevalence of rape on campus, while a higher share of male journalists focused on campus proceedings and sports culture on campus,” they added.

You can read the whole thing. Feminists want to control who is allowed to write about rape as a means of controlling the narrative. Remember that feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it. Totalitarians rely not only on propaganda to promote their own ideology, but also seek to suppress dissent and silence opposition. Feminists have succeeded in effectively prohibiting criticism of their ideology on university campuses, and now seek to extend their hegemonic dominance throughout the culture. What feminism cannot withstand is the kind of sustained critical scrutiny that points out the fundamental absurdity of the feminist movement.

New Deadline for Submissions (May 15th, 2016):
F–k Your Gender Neutral Prison!
A Nihilist Insurrection Against Gender
Due to strong and intensified interest in the anthology, and to the increasing attention being given to Gender Nihilism and other critiques of Western Feminism and Transgender politics, it has been decided to push the deadline to May 15th. This is the new deadline for submissions.
When originally this anthology sought submissions this was a fairly new set of ideas, that mostly existed in online communities and did not have a lot of crossover appeal. Over the months these ideas have exploded and expanded into infinite directions of critique, expansion, and interpretation. It is because of this that I am expanding the anthology and pushing back the deadline.
There is a ‘crisis’ in Western Feminism and Transgender politics: the crisis of the female subject, transmisogyny, homonationalist imperialism and the (settler) coloniality of gender. Lost, driven out, abused, alienated and isolated — we are the victims of a regime of boundaries and definitions, a panoptic gaze of disciplinary behaviors and the ever-shifting goalposts of authenticity. We are the sacrificial lamb at the altar of respectability and profit. The ontological notions of gender and the essentialist politics of every gender based community, even ‘radical’ ones, has pushed us to this. We, much like those before us, call for the Death of the Female Subject and an opposition to trans identity politics of every form.
We cannot allow ourselves to be destroyed through what others call “liberation.” Our close friends call for an infinite expansion of gendered ontologies, new essentialisms, and new identity markers they wish would become intelligible in the eyes of others. Our distant friends see imperialist warfare as the highest form of gay and trans justice. They wish only to be murderers wrapped in a rainbow flag and the military insignia of their nationalist home. Our enemies hold on with their last breath the sex essentialism and gender ontologies of men and doctors – believing they know the real truth.
In every case, we see nothing as the only alternative to their reforms and reactionary essentialisms. We are declaring war. This war will not be fought with rainbow flags and military inclusion, hate crime legislation or prison construction, gentrification or settler-colonization, state recognition or ‘visibility’ politics. This war will be fought against the alienation of daily gendered life.
Inspired by Baedan: The Journal of Queer Nihilism this anthology would focus on the false ontology of gender and essentialism, radical trans politics, transmisogyny, the coloniality of gender, homonationalism, queer nihilism and more.

This is at once both manifestly insane and entirely logical as a consequence of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. — which denies the reality of human nature.

Translating academic jargon to plain English, feminists believe that equality between men and women can only be achieved by eliminating all differences between men and women. Feminist theory is premised on the denial that there are any meaningful natural differences between men and women; all apparent differences are a result of the artificial influences of a male-dominated society and culture (“patriarchy”). Feminists believe that the traits we think of as human nature — the masculinity of men and the femininity of women — are a coercive imposition of male power, which maintains the patriarchal order through systematic violence against women that Dee Graham called “sexual terror.” The key institution of patriarchy, according to feminist theory, is what Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality.”

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. . . .
Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”

 

Anyone who wishes to make sense of feminism must begin at the beginning, tracing this ideology to its origin in the radical Women’s Liberation Movement of the late 1960s and ’70s. Arguably the most important early statement of the movement’s beliefs and objectives is the 1969 Redstockings manifesto:

Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. . . . All men have oppressed women. . . .
We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. . . .
Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions.

What is crucial about the highlighted passage is the assertion that only women are able to understand their condition of oppression, and that only their “feelings” are “the basis for an analysis.”

Male experience and male feelings are irrelevant. Nothing any man says has any validity to feminists, who assert that their subjective “feelings” about their “personal experience” are a form of knowledge superior to whatever any man can ever claim to know, dismissing in a single phrase (“products of male supremacist culture”) everything that Aristotle, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Locke, Burke, Marx, Freud or any other man has ever said about the human condition. Males know nothing, and this negation of male knowledge is essential to understanding feminism as a totalitarian ideology based on a belief in female supremacy.

This is what confuses people who naively accept feminist claims that their movement is about achieving “equality.” Disregarding all evidence and logic to the contrary, feminists insist that women are still as much “an oppressed class” in 2015 as the Redstockings said they were in 1969. (Never mind, of course, the many articulate critics of feminism who denied that such “oppression” actually existed. Steven Goldberg’s 1973 book The Inevitability of Patriarchy was the classic refutation of that claim, but there is no need to repeat Professor Goldberg’s arguments here.) A careful examination of feminist arguments reveals that what they assert is not the equality of men and women, but rather the intellectual and moral inferiority of males. After all, if men were virtuous and intelligent, we would not need constant lectures from feminists about how stupid, wrong and evil we are. Rebecca Solnit’s recent 2014 bestseller Men Explain Things to Me is a shrewd distillation of this feminist worldview. Although she is careful to insert disclaimers of the “not all men” variety into her arguments, the astute reader perceives that Solnit never met a man whom she considered her equal, and condescends to tolerate males only insofar as they acknowledge her infinite superiority to them. She has no faults or weaknesses; she is omniscient in her wisdom, incapable of failure or error. To disagree with Rebecca Solnit is to be not merely wrong, but also evil. Therefore, no man can speak in her presence except to praise her.

Feminist ideology justifies and rationalizes this narcissistic perspective, and raises the question of how any man can be expected to love a woman who regards him with complete contempt. Supposing that Rebecca Solnit is actually desirous of any romantic involvement with males, on what terms would such a relationship be acceptable to Her Majesty? This question expresses the mystery that has perplexed critics of feminism for more than four decades. Stipulating that everyone is free to arrange their domestic life as it pleases them, where are the men who will agree to serve as subjects under feminist dictatorship? What sort of sadomasochistic psychology could possibly be a basis of mutual attraction? Encountering a woman who never speaks of males except to scorn them as her inferiors, only a man with a depraved appetite for humiliation could desire her companionship.

This is the obverse, incidentally, of what is wrong with “pickup artist” (PUA) discourse. Men who proclaim that they consider sex to be a sport, and view all women as natural prey in their game, thereby disqualify themselves as desirable companions. Would any self-respecting woman wish to add herself as just another number in the long roster of the PUA’s conquests? If he disparages all his previous partners in this manner — just so many pretty fools he has “played” — why should any woman imagine that she would be an exception to the otherwise universal rule? PUAs and feminists mirror each other in their narcissistic selfishness and derogation of the opposite sex. It would be an interesting experiment to see what would occur if the notorious Daryush (“Roosh V”) Valizadeh were to gather a half-dozen or so of his most adept young PUA disciples and infiltrate the next National Young Feminist Leadership Conference. Could the habitual womanizers and implacable man-haters find love together? Certainly, they deserve each other, but I digress . . .

Feminism’s function as a rationalization of selfishness makes it impossible that any feminist could ever justify or defend the normal roles of men and women as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage requires cooperation and parenthood requires sacrifice, and feminism encourages women to adopt an attitude of extreme selfishness that is incompatible with any sense of conjugal or maternal duties.

Feminism condemns marriage and motherhood as oppressive “institutions” by which “male power” is used to “keep women in an inferior position,” to quote the Redstockings manifesto. The co-founder of the Redstockings collective, Shulamith Firestone, was emphatic on this subject in her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex: “Pregnancy is barbaric,” (p. 180), and women are “the slave class” (p. 184), because “marriage in its very definition . . . was organized around, and reinforces, a fundamentally oppressive biological condition” (p. 202).

 

Accepting these assertions as the premises of the feminist syllogism, we cannot reject the obvious conclusion of the argument. Here we may quote Rebecca Solnit’s book (p. 62), where she says “feminism made same-sex marriage possible”:

Because a marriage between two people of the same gender is inherently egalitarian — one partner may happen to have more power in any number of ways, but for the most part it’s a relationship between people who have equal standing and so are free to define their roles themselves.

“The personal is political,” radical feminist Carol Hanisch famously proclaimed, but Rebecca Solnit makes no disclosures in Men Explain Things to Me that could help us understand whatever personal stake she might have in the same-sex marriage issue. Has she ever married? Does she have children? If she made any mention of either a husband or offspring in her book, I missed it, and spending more than an hour skimming through online profile features about her divulged no evidence that she has ever married or given birth. A life of unmarried childlessness is entirely common among feminists, of course. There is a long roster, from Shulamith Firestone to Amanda Marcotte, of women who condemned men, marriage and motherhood from the perspective of the barren spinster. Given the fact of Rebecca Solnit’s enthusiasm for same-sex marriage, and that she has lived almost her entire adult life in San Francisco, some might suspect she has followed the feminist syllogism to its obvious conclusion. Avoiding mere speculation, however, we may cite many other authorities on this subject. For example, in 1978, Professor Linda Gordon wrote an essay, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” that was included the anthology Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein. Professor Gordon wrote:

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality. The political power of lesbianism is a power that can be shared by all women who chose to recognize and use it: the power of an alternative, a possibility that makes male sexual tyranny escapable, rejectable — possibly even doomed.”

This article was quoted in Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988) by Professor Allison Jaggar, who commented:

“The abolition of compulsory heterosexuality would have an enormous impact on the system of male dominance. . . . The abandonment of compulsory heterosexuality would reshape the sexuality of both girls and boys and, if psychoanalysis is correct, would have tremendous consequences for the structure of the unconscious and for people’s sense of their own gender identity.”

Let us stipulate that both Professor Gordon and Professor Jaggar are correct in their analyses. However much I dislike seeing heterosexuality described as “male sexual tyranny,” we must remember that feminism requires the negation of the male perspective. The man’s experience, and his feelings about that experience, are entirely invalid in feminist discourse. He must remain silent, because only feminists have any basis for analyzing their oppression. Because it is impossible for any man to dispute what Professor Gordon and Professor Jaggar say, I am compelled to agree: Feminism and the “lesbian liberation movement” are essentially one and the same. Heterosexuality and feminism are fundamentally incompatible, and therefore the success of feminism means that the “male sexual tyranny” of heterosexuality is “doomed.”

 

Once you accept the premise of feminist theory — “Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total. . . . All men have oppressed women.” — it is impossible to reach any other conclusion. Feminism aims to destroy “the system of male dominance,” as Professor Jaggar calls it, and this requires employing what Professor Gordon calls the “political power of lesbianism” to destroy “the tyranny of heterosexuality.” If you disagree with this conclusion, your argument is not with me, but rather with these eminent professors. Disagreeing with feminists, however, is now considered a hate crime. This was made clear in June 2014:

Efforts are underway to stop the anti-woman group “A Voice for Men” from holding its first international conference in Detroit the last weekend in June. This “Men’s Rights Advocates” group, based in Houston, promotes male supremacy, sexism and sexual violence against women. It was designated a hate group in 2012 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes against oppressed people in the U.S.
Hundreds opposed to the conference rallied and marched through downtown Detroit on June 7. Organized largely through social media, the diverse and mainly youthful crowd rallied at Grand Circus Park where speakers denounced the misogynist, hate-based terrorism of MRAs and their anti-woman agenda. Some spoke about surviving sexual assault. Several raised the group’s anti-lesbian-gay-bi-trans-queer agenda and racist nature of MRAs. The LGBTQ community was well represented in the crowd, and Motor City Pride weekend started later that day. . . .
UNITE HERE Local 24 representatives passed out signs to “Boycott Doubletree” and denounced the hotel for hosting the conference of bigots. The union is waging a struggle for union recognition, decent wages and dignity for hotel industry workers, many of whom are women and people of color.
Unafraid and undeterred by male supremacist threats and possible MRA spectators, the protesters marched right up to the Doubletree Hotel and held the street in front of it. . . .
The crowd chanted “Hey, Doubletree, what do you say, would you host the KKK?!” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, MRAs go away!” as hotel management refused to accept more than 3,000 petition signatures demanding Doubletree cancel its reservations for the “men’s rights” conference.

Heterosexual males are the KKK, and anyone who speaks a word in favor of men must be part of an “anti-woman . . . hate group.”




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

53 Responses to “Quota-Mongers, Gender Nihilism and the Insane Logic of Radical Feminist Theory”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    December 18th, 2015 @ 4:42 pm

    Mentally ill women need their own club!

  2. NeoWayland
    December 18th, 2015 @ 4:53 pm

    First, not all feminists. And not all lesbians.

    Now with that out of the way, these particular females (I will not dignify them as ladies) do have a big problem.

    It’s all about the guilt. If the guys don’t feel guilt, there is no way these females will get their way. I for one am tired of it. I’ve been lectured to about the need for keeping silent when the RadFems are speaking. I’ve been lectured for pointing out that environmentalism makes no sense while ecology does. I’ve been lectured for saying #AllLivesMatter. And I have been lectured to when I refused to change my lifestyle because it is not acceptable to feminism.

    KYFHO.

    I make the same stand against them that I make against some of the conservative Christians. My life is my own. My choices are my own. My responsibility is my own,

  3. Finrod Felagund
    December 18th, 2015 @ 5:11 pm

    Meanwhile, in other news today, major progressive PR firm FitzGibbon Media has shut its doors following many multiple accusations of sexual assault and harassment concerning Trevor FitzGibbon, its President:

    http://moelane.com/2015/12/18/tweet-of-the-day-i-rt-this-tweet-from-aterkel-unironically-edition/

    “This is probably a story you could tell at 15 other organizations,” said a former Fenton employee who worked with FitzGibbon. “There are probably 20 other Trevors in our progressive movement in Washington.”

    “If I stopped interacting with all the men in the progressive movement who made inappropriate statements or advancements to me in this business, I’d be nowhere,” said a former FitzGibbon client.

    Join the conservative movement! We don’t force you to endure sexual harassment just to be a part of things!

  4. NeoWayland
    December 18th, 2015 @ 5:19 pm

    http://openborders.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Libertarian-leade-2.jpg

  5. Fail Burton
    December 18th, 2015 @ 6:53 pm

    I disagree this bizarre ideology is derived from Marxism in any real world sense. Basically a handful of mad lesbians have cherry-picked what they wanted to see in the first place from a similar handful of fraudulent French intellectuals. They didn’t discover ideas from study but studied ideas for confirmation that men are asshats and heterosexuality the thing which is an actual perversion and the two together an oppressive reality to noble lesbians. Due to the actual American-centric nature of “French Queer Theory” Jim Crow got smeared about globally and back centuries and so whites also joined the now “intersectional” party as yet more asshats.

    As you can see from the readings these people are bald-faced sociopaths who proudly state how mentally ill they are. Marching in lockstep are a lot of men and other white heterosexual women who are useful idiots serving the by now familiar role of “flak-catchers” and the “radical chic.” To say they are dangerous is accurate. Just remember that at one time the Swastika and the word “Nazi” had no evil connotations attached other than a type of progressive social justice.

  6. Fail Burton
    December 18th, 2015 @ 6:56 pm

    I’d like to add there is an air of madness about a cult which accuses everyone else of “anti-science” and yet which asserts heterosexuality is a “fiction” (Butler) which was “invented” (Penny).

  7. OrangeEnt
    December 18th, 2015 @ 9:35 pm

    “Anyone who wishes to make sense of feminism must begin at the beginning, tracing this ideology to its origin” which is the garden, after the serpent deceived the woman….

  8. mole
    December 18th, 2015 @ 11:33 pm

    A query for our host.
    In your readings of the various strains of feminist thought have you come across any that promotes capitalism as a source of women’s liberation?
    Or is it this stunning co-incidence that every bit I seem to read of it calls in some form or another of communisation of society?
    Capitalism is why these women have not only the freedom, but also the resources to whine incessantly about the society they live in. Most of these people would be conventionally unemployable if there wasn’t a bourgeois class of semi-feminists to lap up their womens studies and unread books.
    Actually I wonder how many of these “famous” feminist authors would have survived without academic institutions and libraries buying their “important” texts.
    Id be betting a lot of feminist books sit on library shelves without more than one or 2 loan stamps in them.

  9. mole
    December 18th, 2015 @ 11:35 pm

    I used to annoy my ex when she complained her period was starting by saying “well if Eve had left the apple alone”…
    I think that’s why shes an ex now.

  10. mole
    December 18th, 2015 @ 11:37 pm

    The only “shocking’ thing in that is a lot of “progressive” ladies have kept their mouths shut because apparently stopping personal sexual abuse around you is less important than using propaganda to say their is a sexual abuse problem in society.
    If you think about it too hard your head will hurt.

  11. Finrod Felagund
    December 18th, 2015 @ 11:57 pm

    This isn’t even new news; they did it for Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

  12. Jason Lee
    December 19th, 2015 @ 2:30 am

    Unfortunately, they have no idea what they’re doing.

  13. Jason Lee
    December 19th, 2015 @ 2:46 am

    “…My life is my own. My choices are my own. My responsibility is my own,”

    Conservative Christians are lined up to argue with you on these points?

  14. Jason Lee
    December 19th, 2015 @ 3:35 am

    It’s full-blown suicidal misanthropic madness.

  15. gentlemind
    December 19th, 2015 @ 6:15 am

    (Legitimate) feminism says females are equal to males. Sexual orientationism says gay sexual desires are equal to ‘straight’ sexual desires. But the ideology named Gender says “my fundental identity is my self-chosen, desired fundamental identity”. According to Gender, then, males and females can be male or female Therefore male and female are identical rather than equal. Likewise, Gender says gay, straight and bi are identical.

    The ideology named Gender trumps feminism and sexual orientationism, thereby making both of them legally unsustainable.

  16. robertstacymccain
    December 19th, 2015 @ 6:35 am

    “… any that promotes capitalism as a source of women’s liberation?”

    Don’t be absurd. While there are no small number of women who have grown rich from feminism — six-figure salaries as university professors, plus royalties from the sales of textbooks they have written or edited — they understand (a) that the academic sector is subsidized by taxpayers, and (b) the readership of their work, in America, is almost 100% Democrat in its partisan affiliation. Therefore (c) denunciations of Republicans and capitalism are almost as plentiful in feminist discourse as denunciations of men, marriage and motherhood. The few women who call themselves “feminist” and deviate from the general far-left dogma of the movement are condemned as frauds or renegades by feminists. There are no Women’s Studies professors who accept Christina Hoff Sommers’ claim to be a “feminist,” and most feminists don’t regard Camille Paglia as a member of their movement, either. Feminism is a totalitarian movement, and dissenters are the Enemy. There are no pro-capitalist feminists for the same reason there were no pro-capitalists in Stalin’s Soviet Union. If capitalism is good, feminism is wrong. They know this as much as we do, and it is high time we begin speaking the truth, I say.

  17. Fail Burton
    December 19th, 2015 @ 6:39 am

    You have it right. You see these women use names like Marx and Engels but bell hooks and Anita Sarkeesian aren’t about to go commie with their bank accounts anytime soon, nor are any of them. That’s just all virtue-signaling and gibberish to mask their attacks on straight white males for sociopathy and profit. We’ve seen what communism does in real world terms and none of these folks are going to emigrate to the paradise of Cuba anytime soon. That’s a place people hitchhike to work.

  18. robertstacymccain
    December 19th, 2015 @ 6:50 am

    “I think that’s why shes an ex now.”

    If you hadn’t said that, I would have.

    Having been married for 26 years, having raised one daughter to adulthood and my youngest daughter being a teenager now, I have become accustomed to the cyclical effects of estrogen, progesterone, etc. It is neither necessary nor is it usually wise for a man to make direct mention of this. Any reasonably intelligent woman knows that her body affects her moods, and she learns to recognize and compensate for what we might call somatic emotion. (Men, too, have hormones, but the effects tend to be more constant.) When confronted with a woman who is sad or angry for no rational reason, a wise man is sympathetic. She’s screaming or crying and he must absorb the force of this emotional hurricane without losing courage. “Bite you tongue,” he silently tells himself. “Say nothing. Walk away.”

    A man who can’t deal with hormonal mood swings should avoid marriage.

  19. NeoWayland
    December 19th, 2015 @ 7:34 am

    Unfortunately, that’s not enough for some conservative Christians.

    They want to meddle. For the greater good, of course.

    And that means taking lives and responsibility away from other people.

  20. NeoWayland
    December 19th, 2015 @ 7:36 am

    *grins*

    That’s the point. People can and should make their own choices.

    The only point in taking over the world is to make sure that people do make their own choices.

  21. NeoWayland
    December 19th, 2015 @ 7:38 am

    Jasmine tea can work with sympathy.

    Although gods help you if you get the sweetening wrong.

  22. Jason Lee
    December 19th, 2015 @ 8:00 am

    Which Christians? Real ones or internet trolls?

  23. Jason Lee
    December 19th, 2015 @ 8:04 am

    I think a lot of libertarians mean well, they just don’t have a firm grip on reality. They see the world as they want it to be, not as it is.

  24. NeoWayland
    December 19th, 2015 @ 8:38 am

    Both.

    Without going too much into my personal history, I’m related to many “enthusiastic” Christians.

  25. NeoWayland
    December 19th, 2015 @ 8:43 am

    The same could be said of almost any group.

    But I’ll stick to speaking for myself.

    What gives another man authority to rule your choices? His degrees? That he’s elected? That he’s “smarter” than you? That he can juggle numbers better than an Atlantic City accountant?

    What makes you more qualified to decide for your neighbor than he is? Would he agree with you? Or would he want to rule over you?

  26. Fail Burton
    December 19th, 2015 @ 9:49 am

    Legitimate feminism doesn’t say that at all. Legit feminism says they want equality before the law.

  27. gentlemind
    December 19th, 2015 @ 1:41 pm

    My point was to draw attention to the difference between Equal and Same, not the difference between Equal (in society) and Equal (in law).

  28. Palin: Battered Wife Syndrome? | Regular Right Guy
    December 19th, 2015 @ 2:23 pm

    […] Quota-Mongers, Gender Nihilism and the Insane Logic of Radical Feminist Theory […]

  29. Prime Director
    December 19th, 2015 @ 3:12 pm

    What sort of sadomasochistic psychology could possibly be a basis of mutual attraction? Encountering a woman who never speaks of males except to scorn them as her inferiors, only a man with a depraved appetite for humiliation could desire her companionship

    He had a sadistic superego

    She sounds like his inner critic, made flesh and blood.

    He does want her scorn; he’s hates himself and believes he deserves her scorn.

  30. Prime Director
    December 19th, 2015 @ 5:02 pm

    “SONNET 57

    Being your slave, what should I do but tend
    Upon the hours and times of your desire?
    I have no precious time at all to spend,
    Nor services to do, till you require.
    Nor dare I chide the world-without-end hour
    Whilst I, my sovereign, watch the clock for you,
    Nor think the bitterness of absence sour
    When you have bid your servant once adieu;
    Nor dare I question with my jealous thought
    Where you may be, or your affairs suppose,
    But, like a sad slave, stay and think of nought
    Save, where you are how happy you make those.
    So true a fool is love that in your will,
    Though you do any thing, he thinks no ill.”
    ? William Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s Sonnets

  31. Prime Director
    December 19th, 2015 @ 5:03 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3TkNgdUH8w

  32. chrisgale
    December 19th, 2015 @ 5:51 pm

    Roosh needs not attend the feminist conferences. They have invaded Eastern Europe, which has been his sane space for some years. And he is moving from picking people up to discussion fidelity, honour, and the need for Christendom to rediscover religion.

    In short, he is becoming a right nationalist, A nationalist conservative. The current effete conservative leadership repel him, and any man with his testes, as much as the average landwhale from the Gender studies department.

  33. Fail Burton
    December 19th, 2015 @ 7:00 pm

    It’s flat out insanity fixated on a hatred for whites, men and heterosexuals masking itself as social justice. Why anyone is fooled by this bald-faced hate speech is beyond me. The problem for this stupid cult is they are being given enough rope to hang themselves. They don’t even try to hide their hatreds and hysteria.

  34. Jason Lee
    December 19th, 2015 @ 7:06 pm

    My problem with libertarians isn’t that they want to leave people alone. That’s the one thing they get right.

  35. Wombat_socho
    December 19th, 2015 @ 7:21 pm

    I thought it was called Tumblr.

  36. Wombat_socho
    December 19th, 2015 @ 7:22 pm

    Booze and chocolate, not necessarily in that order. Worked for me until things fell apart for other reasons and I cut off the supply.

  37. NeoWayland
    December 19th, 2015 @ 8:22 pm

    That didn’t occur to me this morning, but you’re right. I should have remembered the chocolate.

  38. NeoWayland
    December 19th, 2015 @ 8:24 pm

    Now you’ve made me curious. If you don’t mind, what is the problem?

  39. Jason Lee
    December 20th, 2015 @ 6:44 am

    Although I am in no wise a knowledgeable critic of libertarianism, it would take quite some time to outline my objections to libertarianism. Hopefully it will suffice to say that objectivism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Libertarians have a grossly oversimplified view of human nature and an underdeveloped appreciation for the full spectrum of values that hold a society together. They mistakenly believe that reason can and should be the basis for policy. Their commitment to “open borders” is disastrously and suicidally stupid. They follow the left on social issues unquestioningly, abandoning their supposed allegiance to unadulterated reason. The best libertarians I can think of, e.g. Glenn Reynolds and Neal Boortz, can be taken seriously only because they are bad libertarians.

  40. NeoWayland
    December 20th, 2015 @ 9:36 am

    Fair enough.

    It seems to me that you think humans need to be governed. Is this your thinking? Might I ask why?

  41. Daniel Freeman
    December 20th, 2015 @ 5:03 pm

    Should I be surprised that so many people are becoming Christian nationalists, or that so many weren’t already? I don’t even know.

  42. Poem of the day 21 – Dark Brightness
    December 21st, 2015 @ 2:01 am

    […] Sonnet 57 […]

  43. Quota-Mongers, Gender Nihilism and the Insane Logic of Radical Feminist Theory | Living in Anglo-America
    December 21st, 2015 @ 5:30 pm

    […] http://kxm.209.mwp.accessdomain.com/2015/12/18/quota-mongers-gender-nihilism-and-the-insane-logic-of-radical-f… […]

  44. Jason Lee
    December 21st, 2015 @ 8:36 pm

    Are there any realistic alternatives?

  45. NeoWayland
    December 21st, 2015 @ 9:08 pm

    Well I think that a bottom up approach beats a top down one. But that’s probably my bias showing. After all, I am a part time trouble maker and a lowercase “L” libertarian.

    Still, if you think humans need to be governed, who do you trust to rule? Would the guy three streets over trust the same people? Would the gal down the block trust the same people?

  46. Jason Lee
    December 21st, 2015 @ 10:06 pm

    I think your lowercase L bias is perfectly delightful and I’m sure you’d be a great neighbor but if you and the gal down the block can’t agree on anything and get into an intractable feud, the rest of us may be forced to do something about it — in a top down approach. I’m sure you’ve thought this through, but I can’t imagine how you’d solve life’s myriad problems without government or some kind of de facto government.

  47. NeoWayland
    December 21st, 2015 @ 11:00 pm

    I just don’t agree that the default setting should be “government.”

    I also think that having government turns problems into Somebody Else’s Problem (an idea I stole from the late Douglas Adams). You don’t notice it because it’s Somebody Else’s Problem, even though you and your neighbors could fix it easily without technocrats and politicos telling you what is “right” and “wrong.”

  48. NeoWayland
    December 22nd, 2015 @ 8:01 am

    I don’t want to leave it there. I’m stretched a bit thin right now.

    There are assumptions that libertarians make that others do not. Chief among these is the free market. Not the corporatized government-sanitized-for-your-protection thing, but the actual free market. Choosing to make (or not to make) transactions between consenting adults.

    Then there’s KYFHO, which I consider a major cornerstone. I wrote the FAQ on it. Literally. Check out your favorite search engine. With just KYFHO I’m one of the top five entires. With KYFHO and FAQ, I’m the top choice.

  49. InRussetShadows
    December 22nd, 2015 @ 4:47 pm

    What you’re really saying is that you want to deprive Christians from having a say or actually winning any of the culture wars, because any laws that come forth would restrict your freedom. Aye, too late for that, though. Morality was enshrined in law with the first law against murder.

  50. InRussetShadows
    December 22nd, 2015 @ 4:57 pm

    Nope. It’s the same ol’ same ol’ libertarian mistakes. Men are not angels, which is why a limited government is necessary. Libertarianism presumes that everyone is nearly perfect and so has no need of discipline/law. It does not understand the nature of man and it does not understand how a nation functions. As a result, libertarianism is reflexively anti-nation; it cannot build a nation, and it sabotages borders, culture, and language whenever it can. It is thus inherently unable and unworthy of running a nation. It simply does not scale well past the individual.