Decline And Fall
A man owns a chair with four legs. His friends and colleagues have by turn cajoled and bullied him into believing that one of these legs is superfluous, and that the chair can seat someone safely with one less leg. The man, surrounded by loud, forceful opponents, eventually concedes. He saws off a leg, without making any other alterations to the chair.
He draws a line – “This is enough. I’m not going to saw off any more legs, lest the chair collapse under someone’s weight, after losing the needed support.” And yet, his opponents eventually succeed in convincing him to shear off two other legs as well, leaving only one remaining.
It’s obvious that this chair, in its current form, will fail to ever serve its purpose. Yet the man cannot concede that the changes he made are responsible for destroying the chair. Instead, he starts blaming the last remaining leg for not being strong enough. He believes the solution is to somehow shore up that last leg, to let the chair be usable again once more. “No, it’s not because I sawed off three legs, but because that last leg is just so weak!”
In truth, the last leg alone could never let the chair sit upright, even without someone sitting on it. Nor could any of the other legs. They were all essential to keeping the chair upright and healthy.
Enter The Mainstream Conservative
This man is the modern mainstream conservative. He has conceded much ground to progressivism, and worships at its altars. He freely tolerates and endorses its rituals. There is very little of which he doesn’t approve.
Of course, he doesn’t think so. He is captivated by constant opposition with progressives. The constant battling consumes him, and narrows his view. He is convinced that HE is the very antithesis of a progressive. When people of all eras and cultures are considered, the modern American conservative is indistinguishable from his progressive counterpart. Of course, he doesn’t see it that way; his eyes play tricks on him. The inches of distance between his progressive peer become a chasm many miles wide from his vantage point.
The legs of the chair, as it were, are the elements essential to creating and propagating a society that conservatives claim to want. Most of these legs have fallen away already, initially at the instigation of progressives. And each time progressives started to remove one, conservatives would join in to finish the job. As John Derbyshire memorably put it, the conservative is a man marching eastward on a westbound ship.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. – G.K. Chesterton
His protests are comically futile. Yet he shows no desire to jump ship, as it were. That would be too radical. Being a conservative today consists of the inability to see the consequences of one’s actions, and to be yesterday’s progressives.
For anyone who thinks clearly, these legs propping up traditional society are not hard to identify. Conservatives still believe that sex and childbearing ought to be limited to a man married to a woman. Yet people do not marry until their late 20’s nowadays, more than a decade after full-blown puberty. Nor are females sexually restrained enough to prevent promiscuity.
When women well into their sexual prime are free to have sex with little consequence or restriction, they will. To tell independent women to abstain and hope that more than a few will listen is insane. Our forebears knew better of course. But conservatives have long since given up on listening to them. Modern conservatives who pride themselves on being ‘hard-headed’ suddenly become naive utopians in the realm of human sexuality.
Conservatives show no taste for truly addressing promiscuity, let alone women’s liberation. To do so would be to promote early marriage, and largely oppose the admission of women to universities and the workplace, and to shame sluts. Broadly speaking, it would amount to restoring power over the institutions of society to the hands of men, while women would nurture the next generation to good health and spirit. However, their strategy is no such thing; it is identical to that of feminists – empower women and blame men.
The man who cut the legs off his chair steadfastly denied that his actions destroyed the chair. His denial is incoherent, and insane. So too, the conservative dementedly denies that the ideas he now supports contribute to conditions he so deplores. Just as he castigates the media for saturating society with sexual deviancy, he has a television and complete cable package to pipe in Hollywood’s finest at his convenience. The recommendations of the mainstream conservative is unsuited to achieving his stated goals. He must either change his recommendations, or give up on achieving his goals.
Recently, Return of Kings ran a piece by Bacon on how to persuade a woman pregnant with your child to abort it. For the sake of argument, let us concede that abortion is an unmitigated atrocity. When a mature man is confronted with an atrocity, he looks to how he might prevent it from happening again. Detractors of the article were not so wise. They opted for feminine outbursts of anger and condemnation instead.
The calculus is fairly simple – a bastard poses risks that men don’t want. Abortion is one final solution to avoiding these risks. The question then becomes, how do you reduce these risks, so that fewer men have a reason to abort a fetus? As the author suggested, giving the man the ability to opt out of child support obligations was one way – yet not a single detractor, as far as I saw, supported that. The main response was “another reason abortion is horrible – men can use it to their advantage.” In the moral hierarchy of modern conservatism, a woman’s right to a man’s paycheck trumps a fetus’s right to life.
If a man could opt out of paternity obligations, he’d have a lot less reason to push for an abortion. And as the detractors would have it, every conception is an immaculate conception – the fact that a woman chose to have sex goes unmentioned. Men have little in the way of birth control besides rendering themselves sterile for life, or making the sex mediocre by putting on a condom. Not to mention, to hit it raw is divine – God smites he who does not raw dog (Genesis 38:8-10).
Of course, abortion isn’t the only issue. Bastardy and divorce are pernicious as well, yet conservatives have largely given up fighting those. The constellation of factors behind these conditions are too great: late marriage, fornication, contraceptives, female schooling & careerism, racial differences in their prevalence, the list goes on. Abortion is an outcropping of deeper problems that the conservative now ignores. Even if abortion were banned, other problems would continue to surface.
He is too cowardly to discuss those deeper issues; he fears upsetting progressives with allegedly sexist and racist speech. In fact, he is their enforcer. Abortion is the rare safe haven where his perceived morality outshines his ‘bigotry.’ My aim is not to say what should or should not be done, but to note that the conservative has lofty visions and yet timid actions; he suffers from an incredible inadequacy, a marked mismatch of ends and means.
If abortion is their only concern, let them attack it directly by giving men the right to opt out of child-support payments before birth. Let them back their words with action, and call for male birth control as strongly as they’ve condemned Mr. Bacon. Let them fiercely steward female chastity. They won’t do any of these things, of course, because anything that empowers men and obligates women is unacceptable to them. To a modern conservative, just as how the ills of the free market always stem from big government, any time a woman screws up, it’s a man’s fault, someway, somehow.
Read Next: Are You A Traditional Conservative But Don’t Realize It?
The only remaining active societal conservatives are wholly blinded by either their own religion, or one or two specific issues that consume their thinking.
The same goes for societal progressives.
We live in a society of no debate and no ownership of society’s ills. We live in a society when constructive intellectual conflict and responsibility for problems has given way to political cultism. When something bad for one of society’s two competing political parties rears it’s ugly head, the blame is shifted and the story is buried. This is no different from any modern religious cult, like Scientology, finds itself confronted with dangerous truths about itself hitting the mainstream. When that happens, the cult organization literally calls their lawyers like attack dogs, and the outspoken people are silenced or coerced into letting the story die.
We live in an era where both progressives and conservatives are just another condom layer on George Soros’ big fat billionaire cock. All these political labels and divisions are the last defense mechanism of monopolistic corporate lobbies who fund parties that “represent” citizens.
The actual debates that truly divide conservatives and progressives do not actually have much bigger impact then being a nice discussion to have while drinking coffee with your neighbor. You two in the end, agree to disagree, however, politics always come out as it suits corporate lobbies
When it comes to green movement and preserving nature and rainforests – they are conservative as hell
When it comes to universal healthcare – conservative as hell
When it comes to abortion, medications and all other stuff that suits pharmaceutical and medical companies – suddenly liberal until the last breath.
http://s22.postimg.org/70wl8sfnl/different_era.jpg
More like a time when men were still leaders and women were discouraged from riding the carousel.
more like a time, when people knew their place and had respect……
it’s not easy to be the man at the head of the family… how many nights of lost sleep or struggles have men gone through for the benefit of their families ?
men like the captain of the ship are never truly off duty…..
women on the other hand used to sit inside the man’s world…. with reduced freedoms… sure…. but they also had increased ease and less to worry about…..
provided they chose a good man…..
now they are only interested in choosing a good cash cow through mind games and sexual manipulation…..
More like a time when men were required to support shrews, shrikes, and ice-queens or enjoy opprobrium and ostracism.
Why do husbands die before their wives?
Because they want to.
If the harshest penalty I’d have to pay by running out on a woman who decided to make me a father against my consent is people looking at me funny, then; I’d gladly pay it.
Do you really care enough about other peoples opinions to make yourself a beast of burden to an ungrateful shrew and her unwanted spawn for the rest of your life? If you do then you deserve what you get. Hell if nothing else just move to another town far enough away for your baggage not to follow you.
Divorce was frowned upon. Women were expected to wear dresses and become homemakers. And bearing a child out-of-wedlock was an utter and total disgrace to both the woman and her family.
Conservatives want women to fix men. They want us to man up, marry those sluts, and get “fixed” for the good of society. MGTOW scares the heck out of them.
I don’t want to be “fixed”, just let me be. And I don’t want to fix aspiring cat ladies, just let them be.
Give me a fucking break. The older people today is who actually fucked up the world by giving everyone what they wanted. They were the ones who got through all the promises that no one could keep. The baby boomers fucked everything up–plain and simple. Now my generation is stuck with the fucking bill. We’re paying for their stupid fucking wars, for their ignorance, idiocy, and hypocrisy; we’re paying for their goddamn bullshit medical care that’s probably gonna bankrupt this country. Yet they won’t even let us move the goddamn retirement ages, but it’s our fault? It all started with the Great Society under LBJ when things started to get fucked up; when all the dumb fucking wars started. My generation will fix it, but at what cost will these problems be fixed. The goddamn boomers and old hags have basically formed a voting block where nothing can be cut, but eventually, things will change. The only question is at what cost are these things fixed.
Our problems are symptoms of these old hags getting charge. America wasn’t really a country built by conservatives; it was a country built by men of the enlightenment. America was built by people who were willing to take massive personal risks for the sake of building something larger. By people who were willing to risk what others thought for the sake of being right.
The problem with society isn’t women having too much sex. It’s people unwilling to take risks and fail. This country was built by people who took what seemed like a one in a hundred chance and somehow succeeded. If we want to bring back America to what it once was, we need a society that fosters risk-taking, a society that encourages and welcomes failure.
We, as men, can blame women for all of our problems. Or we can realize that most of the men today are suckers. Most men are egotistical idiots who aren’t ever willing to admit they’re wrong have have no mental clarity in thought. Most men today aren’t willing to risk anything for what they believe. They’re people who have no courage or intelligence and don’t think clearly. Do men like that actually deserve any sort of power? Is it even a good idea to give people like that power? Shouldn’t men like that be manipulated?
The Great Society was just a sequel to the New Deal, which is what we can trace most aspects of our self destruction back to.
Conservatism, particularly its American variant, has no ontological stability. It largely defines itself as opposition to progressivism. Conservatives will fight against whatever the newest assault on the traditional order upon which civilization rests may be. Once it inevitably becomes enshrined in law, then not only do conservatives accept it, they defend it. Fifty years ago conservatives probably fought tooth and nail against no-fault divorce laws. Without googling, how many mainstream conservative commentators can you think of who are in favor of repealing them?
“Conservatives” are largely right-liberals who indulge in impotent grumbling about the excesses of left-liberals without ever challenging liberalism itself.
“Fifty years ago conservatives probably fought tooth and nail against no-fault divorce laws.”
First governor to sign no-fault divorce into law: California, 1969, Ronald Reagan
That is because they share the same (pseudo-) morality: altruism. The view that self-sacrifice is a virtue.
Replace Soviet Union with Progressivism.
liberalism, conservatism, who gives a fuck. im neither
This is why conservatives have no real base anymore.
Conservatives do have a base, it’s just that, like progressives, they’ve become too enamored in what people think of them. Politics is merely a game we all talk about, but it is played by fat ass millionaires and other companies. Companies control the outcome of elections, not the people. As seen in the 2012 election, the candidates that were funded the best (by special interest groups and crazy publicity stunts, i.e. CNN & MSNBC) won. Politics, it seems, cares little about the people. They are all corralled like sheep to vote for trendy groups (for the religion liberalism, Democrats, for nutty conservatives, Republicans). That’s why I consider myself neither–I’m a libertarian at best.
That’s why I consider myself neither–I’m a libertarian at best.-This is my opinion.
The rest you said, just sheople to lazy to find out the thing is rigged, or too tired to care.
It has always been the game of the elites destroying the people. It is the elites who destroy the people the least, at least as far as we can tell, that gain our favor. Sadly, our favor does not carry a lot of $ signs.
well , there’s not much quibble with this I have no cable, and have encouraged my daughter to fine a good hub and get on with her life instead of getting a masters in the STEM field she has majored in. but other “conservatives” think this is bad advice. .
I don’t fault anyone who is opting out of the decline. but I would say that my 3 children who are about grown have been a tremendous blessing.
there really is no conservitive party left. the republicans are proggressives on a budget.
A few like ron paul and kerry bentivolio are worthwile , but not a lot of them.
and when your daughter decides to get pregnant and give up the better part of her adult life to be a full time mommie…. and the guy whose place she stole on her degree course didn’t have the education to invent the next great breakthrough…… and just wound up on the dole…..
then we can see the disadvantages of putting women into the work force…..
This is already happening in large effect with doctors. All that med schooling just to barely work part time. You should see the job listings for physicians where I live. If I were a doctor, I could probably name my price they are in such high demand.
Can we stay away from politics and stay on women please?
erm… doh… this article is about politics…..
and it’s a very poignant article… since politics is an extension of sociology and that is what has allowed women to gain so much power and entitlement in the world…..
it’s the politics that supports things like the no fault divorce, originally gave women the right to vote and sets liars and cheats up in lifetime careers appealing to the emotions of women voters…..
it’s the politics that allows crafty underhanded beta males to back up the “suppressed” females, undermining the family unit and demanding government stick it’s head into every aspect of your family life.
it’s this politics that then brings up generations of young men who learn at a very young age, not to stick their necks out or take risks and to expect a handout from big brother if they mess up.
At the bottom of all the rot is the simple fact that men are mainly useful as providers and protectors. Once men themselves get so thoroughly indoctrinated that they support growing some giant government to protect their very own petty selves and the women they somehow believe will magically will still look up to them; of course everything goes to shits.
EVERY single ailment on this very planet, aside from pseudo-ailments relating directly to exponentially growing organisms competing for resources on a finite planet, are the result of that one failure; abdication of personal responsibility to some slick talking nobody casting himself as “ruler.”
American Conservatism used to recognize this; which is why the focus was simply on limiting the size of government. Not some silly spectacle of dimbulbs falling over each other trying to figure out what is good and bad government. Instead of, like the founding fathers, recognizing that there is no “good” government. It’s all bad. The only question is whether the bad is big or small.
you are quite right….. but the rot set in when they gave women the vote…. that watered down the rational brains in the electoral system and allowed the smooth talkers and BS artists to make life time careers for themselves appealing to emotions and making grand hilteresque speeches about a change we can believe in…..
rather than setting out real goals and logistics and providing a frame work within which free enterprise could work effectively…..
women in politics automatically neuters the men… and reduces politics to an emotional grand scale “mommies coffee morning” discussion about safety and community…..
even the guys that get into it with good intentions… just give up hope after a while and stick their hands in the cookie jar… seeing it for the pile of BS it really is….
I am sure if you gave any senator or congressmen enough whiskeys he’d admit as much.
There has to be quite a lot of rot already, before anyone considers female suffrage. Heck, probably a (much smaller) bit even to consider male suffrage…..
Female suffrage was simply the crowing achievement of the progressive decivilizatiors. The rot itself started generations prior.
Conservatism died when they gave women the vote….
I read the other day that in Spain until the mid 1970s…. that a women was permanently considered a minor…. she was either ward of her father or ward of her husband…. the concept of the father giving away his daughter at the alter takes on a whole new perspective….
women could not even own property without the permission of their husband….
and there is a good reason for this…..
women if given half a chance behave like children….
and so we have a world that is increasingly run by children and is fast turning into a giant version of Lord of the Flies meets 1984…..
“…. the concept of the father giving away his daughter at the alter takes on a whole new perspective….”
If you have not, previously, put any thought into it at all.
Consider allowing your new perspective to give you a new perspective on your perspective.
Do you really think this?
The idea that women are hardwired to act silly DOES make you a sexist. Now, if you were to say that women dont know how to act because they are raised in a society that doesnt hold them accountable or punish them for their actions, i could buy it.
But thats cool. Keep makin those assertions.
a man who paints his face must be a circus clown, but a woman who paints her face is sexy.
a man who wears platform shoes must have some deformity, but a woman looks great in those.
a man who preens himself spends hundreds on hair cuts and hours in front of the mirror is a vain fool, but for a woman that is normal….
now tell me women don’t act silly…
yes I am absolutely a sexist because the sexes are different… go to any maternity ward and see if you can find any men giving birth or breast feeding…
go to a remote gold mine or artic oil rig and see how many women are there all dolled up in evening dresses and heels ?
So? What’s wrong with being sexist?
I say 2+2=4
does that make me a mathist?
Truth is truth. And the truth is, you are a cunt.
This reminds me of that abominable conservative joke “Promise Keepers” from the nineties.
So I checked the National Review Online last week–first time in ages– and there was an article about how birth control is bad for a females health and IF ONLY MEN WOULD MAN UP and control there urges women could use the catholic approved “rhythm method”… yeah cause woman aren’t just as temped with urges and don’t struggle at all with self control, its only because of men. The argument was so pathetic I just laughed. Its our fault they pump type I carcinogens into there body. What a bunch of fucking betas. Hyper sexuality was always considered a female trait, they are the weaker sex. They have less self control.
if women learned to deep throat and swallow… and had the continuity to follow their own monthly cycle….. they could surely use the rhythm method…..
but of course they are too busy updating facebook and singing karaoke for that
You forgot about the port of Sodom.
spillage from the back door can still cause a pregnancy… but certainly women could learn to exercise their rectal muscles as much as they expect their husbands and boyfriends to exercise their wallets and biceps….
I think it goes without saying that the modern conservative isn’t conservative at all.
IMO, a conservative knows that human nature is fixed, and that humanity is destined to cycle through various phases of rise and decline, while the liberal believes that people are blank slates who can be brought on an upward path of progress. If you use this definition, conservatism is almost wholly unkmown to America since its inception.
Awesome quoting John Derbyshire, I discovered the Manosphere after reading one of his articles in Taki’s Mag.
I’m pretty sure there are 3 inputs, so if you don’t want to impregnate her there are multiple solutions.
Politics is like sports.
It’s fun to talk about. People spend lots of their time arguing about its details.
None of this changes the outcome of the game.
It’s all just a distraction. Mere entertainment.
So why get high blood pressure about something I can’t change?
For myself I find it hard to resist the temptation to read, think and talk about big league politics.
What I should be doing instead is ignoring all the big league stuff and find a small-time club level where I can get my hands dirty and actually affect outcome.
Gentlemen, enough idle talk and upset about stuff outside our control. Let’s get busy about the things that could be in our locus of control.
Anybody really DOING something already?
Share your experience or ideas.
I’ve got an idea: why not start a neighborhood Un-Masculine Activities Committee? lolzzz
I am of the mind that trying to persuade the electorate at large– with its majority of women, who are unlikely to sympathize with most men, and white knights– is a dead end.
Instead, I suggest a three-fold approach:
1) Resiliency. Manage the risk in your own life. Do not enter into inequitable contracts and avoid obligations that can subject you to arbitrary injustice or other fallout due to your political heterodoxy. Follow Roosh’s example in decoupling from the sour corporate teat.
2) Awakening. Write about your issues. Do it everywhere you can, from blog comments to books. Inoculate like-minded individuals with your meme.
Scream, complain, whine; it’s all fair game. Just remember that swaying the minds of intelligent men benefits from logical argumentation and a non-hysterical frame. If you feel the need to dissemble or propagandize, you have an integrity problem. Re-evaluate your theses.
3) Leverage. Engage in political judo to thwart your opponents… by holding them steadfastly to their own unjust laws. One very cost-effective way of doing this is to fund (wholly captured) activist legal organizations. Progressives have been doing this with spectacular success for over half a century. Take a page from their playbook.
That’s why you should concentrate on the state level when it comes to politics. They usually have more effect on gender relations then then federal government.
Who do you thinks sets all the guidelines for alimony? The state legislature.
Who do you think writes the rules regarding child custody? The state legislature.
Who do you think writes the rules regarding establishment and collection of Child Support? The state legislature.
Who do you thinks writes the rules regarding the establishment of paternity? The state legislature.
Who do you think writes the rules regarding abandonment laws? The state legislature.
Who do you think writes the laws regarding rape? The state legislature.
Who do you think crafts a majority of the laws regarding abortion? The state legislature.
The irony is that it’s easier to change things at the state and local level then at then federal level.
Agenda: Grinding America Down
This is all so complicated! I just want to stick my dick in something.
“In the moral hierarchy of modern conservatism, a woman’s right to a man’s paycheck trumps a fetus’s right to life”
This is the “philosophy” of the western woman. I have made numerous observations of articles that generated a lot of hate. And the common trend that they have was that men are basically just penis and money to everyone. Liberals, feminists, conservatives, etc.
It is incredibly hilarious that men who jump in on the shaming bandwagon fail to realize that they are in fact a part of that generalization.
The article on abortion was a sight to behold. Realistically, the term pro life is one of comfort. Because pro choice includes both the choice of life and abortion. But how many articles have you seen that were not pro choice, but pro abortion?
Because that is ultimately what the “choice” is. Pro Abortion. And if they can screech that women are entitled to the choice because they do not conceive those kids alone, then why get upset when the man involved wants to have his say?
Women wanted BC pills, but 49% unplanned pregnancies say they are not taking them. They have condoms too.
I get sick of hearing that “keep it in your pants” crap. What, women never want dick..ever at any time?? Have any of those people ever had spontaneous spur of the moment sex before?
If all those people were pro life conservatives, I couldn’t tell. If all the people on the news and writing books telling men to man up are conservative, then that is news to me.
What I’m wondering, is how long is this fiasco going to continue before we in the west begin to mimic the manosphere and take a hard look at the real problem. Once enough men bow out and say fuck this, they will have to turn their rage inward, and towards who is left.
the only argument for controlling abortion is to encourage people to be more careful in the first place…..everything else is religious hogwash… notice that Europe who got over their religious zeal a century or so ago…. don’t have quite such hangups…. where as the anti-abortion lot in the US are just a spill over from fanatical Christian colonialists, who were only able to hold on to their old fashioned ways because they were in a fish bowl like Alabama… instead of in the real progressive world……
I agree with people being more careful. But the general argument is for “men” to be careful. No one is asking anything of women except something along the lines of “whatever you catch, you keep”.
Just like Venus fly traps.
Notice the irony of the comparison of this plant to the average female genitalia:
-A Small, flat heart shaped, flower…
-The plant is named after Venus the god of love.
-Also historically has been told that it resembles female genitalia.
A fucking trap. But, it feelsgoodman.jpg. So men gladly walk into it. Myself included although far more prepared than others.
I think the old fashioned ways of how the non progressive people in society act, is mostly centered around guarding female sexuality from any criticism at all costs. Devout Christians use to shame women for infidelity and out of wedlock births. But more women who remain religious attend more congregations than men. It would make no sense to degrade their most avid attendees. Even though western religious goers (the African American population in particular who are very religious) live their lives in contradiction of all the things in the bible in regards to the relationships between men and women and having children.
I think in this aspect of sheltering women all ideologues tend to mesh together.
There are no real conservatives or liberals. Its about authoritarians vs everyone else.
This post reeks of entryism.
Conservative is not a hat you wear, it’s a badge you earn. You earn it by saying and doing and advocating conservative things.
Listen closely:
People who say and do un-conservative things ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES YOU STUPID FUCKING COCKSUCKERS DUHDUHDUHDUHDUHDUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
OK, I’ve actually read the whole article. This is the stupidest goddamned thing I’ve read since 1972. Not just wrong, but genuinely stupid. I’m sorry for being a griefer folks but I come here to get away from this sort of nonsense.
If you are of European descent and a Christian, you are not a conservative.
Good point, something to keep in mind when the next bleached talking head career bitch on fox goes on about her “conservatism”.
As soon as I read the following:
I knew from my basically similar conclusions that I have gotten on the right track in life. I didn’t understand social conservatism until I discovered the manosphere blogs which helped me to make sense of my frustrating experiences with women, and how we don’t have to live this way because a practical and fulfilling different way of life existed in the past and which could become the norm again.
We’ve suffered from the social philosophy which came from the Enlightenment and which assumed principles like universalism, democracy, egalitarianism and feminism, even though these principles happen to conflict with human nature. Eventually the costs of this ideology will exceed society’s capacity to absorb them, and future societies will resemble pre-Enlightenment ones again, based on nationalism/tribalism, aristocracy, hierarchy and especially patriarchy.
Yet as Emmanuel Goldstein says, today’s conservatives have conceded too much to progressives. People look at you as some kind of freak just from raising the possibility that women and men don’t belong in the same kind of moral framework, in that good things for men and for society, like higher education and careers, turn into bad things for women and society when women pursue them.
Keep stating the plain, Red Pill truth, guys. It make take a few generations, but eventually the men who arise from the ashes of society ruined by the Enlightenment’s social philosophy will rediscover this wisdom tradition and try to set things right side up again.
Social conservatives are fools.
The idea that conservatism is just a slightly older strain of liberalism, and that the center is marching ever leftward, was well stated by Mencius Moldbug, who also describes the mechanism of the leftward ratchet (the Cathedral). See here and here
“to hit it raw is divine – God smites he who does not raw dog (Genesis 38:8-10)”
I can’t seem to find that translation of scripture from Genesis in any Bible I have looked at. In the culture of the Bible it was a brothers duty to take care of his sister in law upon his brothers death. If she was without children he was to raise up offspring for his brother. This was a command, not a suggestion, a deliberate act of disobeying God instead took place. I do not believe this passage of scripture is in regards to raw dog or not to raw dog.
To call hitting it raw “divine” is a statement I would not be so bold to make. Such a statement may incur the wrath of God. Be careful with your personal interpretation of God’s word or you may displease the Lord and also find yourself slain.
God Bless Have A GREAT Day!!!
Genesis 38: 7 – 10.
“7But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. 8Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. 10What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.”
It seems God also smites he who pulls out. I like it — either you fuck the right way or you don’t.
Whoa, did God just pull a “man up and marry that slut”???
lollzzzol
Hence why Christians are so beta.
Yeah sure… Dalrock must be a real beta sissy according to your logic! You sure are one expert alpha, your horse comment alone reveals you for the true beta emotional tampon you really are.
Another poseur endlessly posting and getting “his” wisdom from Susan Walsh.
Christian beta’s nerve hit. And a stalker to boot!
God said thou shalt not waste your seed. To wear a condom, i.e. not hit it raw, is a sin.
What shall become of the house that Christ built if his flock flouts his message?
“What shall become of the house that Christ built if His flock flouts His message?”
Indeed! I would ask you the same, but I suspect you are either not a Christian or one of the multitude who masquerades as one.
Another of those who claim to be in Christ in name only perhaps? Or is this a taunting tactic used to shame those who are followers? The same tactics that women use when rationalizing the ridiculous statements they make and are called out thus. Warp and twist scripture and then resort to finger pointing and blame shift to the followers of Christ with a charge of disobedience! Are you really a woman posting as a man?
“God said thou shalt not waste thy seed. To wear a condom, i.e. to not hit it raw, is a sin.”
Again where in the Bible does it say this? Where did God say “thou shalt not waste thy seed”. This passage is in regards to a command from Jacob to Onan to fulfill his duty to his brother. God was not pleased with Onan’s behavior and killed him as a result of his disobedience. That disobedience was not providing offspring for his brother. You want rationalize it by application to your statement to mean solely that it is about all men in general, condoms, raw dogging or pulling out.
Taking scripture and using it as you see fit to justify your crude statement, then to label it sin is crass. To actually imply that Genesis 38:8-10 means “To hit it raw is divine – God smites he who does not raw dog.”
This entire passage has been taken out of context by you just for that purpose alone. The following scripture must have been exclusively written for you then.
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
What shall become of the house that ROK built if their flock flouts the message of it’s keyboard jockeys?
Less posturing and posing and more real world experiences.
I thought that this was going to be about The American Conservative magazine, which did a brave thing outing tribal racism in Harvard University Admissions who were using racial quotas to discriminate in favor of religion.
Unfortunately, they just wussed out and fired the editor for speaking out against the Cathedral.
It’s unbelieavable that there are people out there that still call you a “conspiracy theorist” when you point out that Kikes are parasites.
Liberalism, progressivism, what-have-you is so patently hypocritical and blatantly dysfunctional… I think there is a tendency on the right to ignore or not respond to their rantings as it just not how conservatives operate. Most of us are too busy working, for one, to even have the energy at the end of the day to deal with their b.s. The thinking conservative/independent is generally aware of history and what has transpired thus far in the human endeavor. He is not too concerned because he knows that this period too, shall pass. Conservatism by its very nature, is a conservation of ideas that work. It discards those that don’t. Conservatism is, in its ideal, an embracement of ideas that are self-evident. These are ideas that can or should be readily observable to all, regardless of color, race or creed. We don’t have to promote them, we don’t have to advertise them, we don’t feel the need to defend them, because they are, self-evident. Now maybe we should. Maybe we need to. Maybe we are losing, in bits and pieces, our rights and such because we are too quiet in the face of an internet-fueled cacophony of liberal squawks and squeals. Conservatives like myself don’t disagree with that premise but I believe that you reap what you sow and what comes around goes around. Modern, political liberalism will not last because it is simply at odds with the laws of physics and meta-physics that govern this universe. Sooner or later some catastrophe will befall us, some challenge will arise and in that time, like 9-11, men will need to be men, women, women, leaders will have to stand up, the fat asses driving around Walmart in golf carts will rot in their houses and all will be right. Until the cycle starts over again. Birth, growth, maturity, senility, death. Over and over, crimson and clover.
Goldstein?
Yeah like a Jew can be trusted on anything. They’re the ones who push the progressive agenda.
men being able to opt out of child support is more likely to cause a rise in abortions. men will never be able to force women to abort.
Okay, first off conservatism died when they let the preachers take over from pragmatism. I’m sorry, but Goldwater (AuH2O!) was right, politics requires compromise. Failure to do so, well look at the flag for losers since 1865, that’s what the inability to compromise earns you: defeat.
The article also fails to address reality. At 14 a Roman boy could join the legion, get a sword, become head of household, et al. Technically you can do that at 18 today, but reality (degree inflation) dictates that to truly support a family you should get a degree of some type.
Even in my father’s time, the smarter people acquired degrees to increase earnings potential. Degree inflation just makes it more necessary.
The days of simple labor earning a living are dead for most people. That means marriage age will rise with that factor as well, not just the pill and promiscuity. Other external factors affecting marriage are the desire (in te back of the hamster) to get the hottest, best producing male possible if the gal is ‘smart’, right?
Other factors, and certainly the fact that promiscuity without pregnancy is possible, all add up. So I’m not sayin you’re completely wrong, just missing some factors.
“Failure to do so, well look at the flag for losers since 1865, that’s what the inability to compromise earns you: defeat.”
You are a huge fucking faggot, you know that?
I mean, look at the American Revolutionaries. They sent the redcoats home by “compromising” with them.
The Union beat the Federation by compromising with them too.
Hi Roosh,
one of your writers might like to do an article about this. This is my in the Australian Federal Magistrates Court on 2009-11-26 denying the jurisdiction of the court.
The Mens Rights Area has buried this story for years….claiming that “they are going to throw your arse in jail”. Well? 4 years later all that is happening is ASIO (Australian CIA) are slandering me publicly. LOL!!
The might of “guvments” reduced to slander. How about that?
I think one of the best ways to turn lads off marriage is to show them VIDEO FOOTAGE of what happens in a divorce court. Don’t you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs9LkNWmIKw
I have to address a couple quotes…
“He is too cowardly to discuss those deeper issues; he fears upsetting progressives with allegedly sexist and racist speech.”
Let’s face it, if a conservative says anything that could even be remotely construed as sexist or racist, his career’s dead in the water, and the Traitor Media will burn him into obscurity, thus rendering him unable to get a platform of any kind.
“Let them fiercely steward female chastity. They won’t do any of these
things, of course, because anything that empowers men and obligates
women is unacceptable to them.”
And, sadly, this stance seems to make a modern conservative unelectable to popular office.
All of this article is right on the money, but sadly, America is too far gone for redemption.
This article is stunningly accurate and well written. Bravo!
“I am not for the conservation of this system. i am for the overthrow of it.” – Stewart Craine
Interesting analysis with the chair. I stopped using the term “conservative” when it became obvious those so labeled are usually nothing kore than defenders of the status quo. They’ll feebly resist a new move or tactic by the left until it becomes the status quo, then they’ll defend that against new usurpations…until those become the status quo. The pendulum doesn’t swing both ways. Those who claim it does are either ignorant or dishonest.
As a modern day conservative, i believe there is lots to address here. Let me get started.
“When women well into their sexual prime are free to have sex with little consequence or restriction, they will. To tell independent women to abstain and hope that more than a few will listen is insane. Our forebears knew better of course. But conservatives have long since given up on listening to them. Modern conservatives who pride themselves on being ‘hard-headed’ suddenly become naive utopians in the realm of human sexuality.”
It’s not insane anymore than it’s insane for a Father to teach his daughter(s) on the merits of abstinence. Just because modern society makes this kind of positive teaching a thing of scorn does not make it so. Also, when you reference our “forebearers” i take it you mean the Founding Fathers correct? How can you say they “knew better” when they also extolled the values of chastity and morality in personal writings as well as public? How often was the case when God was passionately mentioned on the floor of congress or God’s writings were expressed as a means of instilling the idea that God and morality were intrinsic to the existence and survival of the US? Your comment there is fundamentally flawed if it is indeed referencing the Founders.
Furthermore there is nothing “naive” about adhering to puritanical beliefs which speak of self responsibility and moral restraint. These notions formed the bedrock upon which this nation was founded, and it is therefore no coincidence that our society has become a veritable cesspool the more we eagerly abandon them. JD Unwin’s research shows that whenever a society abandons social mores to sexual liberties up to and including tinkering with Marriage, that society tends to die. There were no exceptions. The US will be no different.
You really come across like a libertarian here Mr Goldstein, by intent or by happenstance. Perhaps this is the reason you fail to illustrate properly the TRUE conservative, the one who encompasses both financial AND social (as well as foreign policy) philosophies. Not all conservatives are the same, and not all of them are actually conservative. I and others like myself are the real deal, the inheritors of the moral and constitutional legacy of the FF’s.
“The calculus is fairly simple – a bastard poses risks that men don’t want. Abortion is one final solution to avoiding these risks. The question then becomes, how do you reduce these risks, so that fewer men have a reason to abort a fetus? As the author suggested, giving the man the ability to opt out of child support obligations was one way – yet not a single detractor, as far as I saw, supported that. The main response was “another reason abortion is horrible – men can use it to their advantage.” In the moral hierarchy of modern conservatism, a woman’s right to a man’s paycheck trumps a fetus’s right to life.”
The calculus becomes far less simple when one factors in the equation of life is not a chesspiece to be moved and manipulated for the purpose of one’s social and financial gain. How a Man can reduce “his risks” is immaterial to the fact that abortion is not a constitutional right, for Women to exploit and Men to encroach on as a means of “termination fairness.”
It’s not about a Woman’s “right” to a Man’s paycheck trumping a Man’s ability to benefit from abortion with regard to those who disagree with you…your argument there is specious if not straw man. It’s akin to saying “let’s capitalize on an unconstitutional act by making it so Men too can profit and benefit from it” nevermind the fact that the Constitution in no way provides for the murder of developing life to be constitutional, for Women or Men. What if people in colonial America proposed addressing slavery by importing non Blacks as slaves, just to make it “fair” to Blacks? Hopefully you can see the absurdity in such a thing, as well as the absurdity in your argument there.
“He is too cowardly to discuss those deeper issues; he fears upsetting progressives with allegedly sexist and racist speech. In fact, he is their enforcer. Abortion is the rare safe haven where his perceived morality outshines his ‘bigotry.’ My aim is not to say what should or should not be done, but to note that the conservative has lofty visions and yet timid actions; he suffers from an incredible inadequacy, a marked mismatch of ends and means.”
You must be speaking of pseudoconservatives, because conservatives like myself are not afraid to take on hordes of leftist lemmings along with the prog snipers they tend to welcome into their ranks. I have been called all manner of things, from anti hispanic, antihomosexual, antiwoman, anti everything…none of it mattered. Words spoken from fools are merely the tools of the foolish. I have engaged in hundreds of debates in my life, and will likely debate hundreds more before the end of my life, here and in person. I don’t shy away from defending my beliefs, regardless of the consequences.
Furthermore, if your aim is not to say what should or should not be done, how are you behaving any more noble than those cowards you choose to condemn? You were bold enough to cite so called conservatives in this article for condemnation, yet you stop just short of offering a proposal that properly addresses the ills of society you perceive them as failing to address? So you seem content to point the finger at those you perceive as being in the business of pointing the finger of failure to others? This speaks of hypocrisy to me, if not intellectual cowardice. If you are going to attack a political demographic for their perceived shortcomings, you should refrain from displaying any yourself…just a suggestion.
“If abortion is their only concern, let them attack it directly by giving men the right to opt out of child-support payments before birth. Let them back their words with action, and call for male birth control as strongly as they’ve condemned Mr. Bacon. Let them fiercely steward female chastity. They won’t do any of these things, of course, because anything that empowers men and obligates women is unacceptable to them. To a modern conservative, just as how the ills of the free market always stem from big government, any time a woman screws up, it’s a man’s fault, someway, somehow.”
Ok here you are contradicting yourself from earlier…before you said “My aim is not to say what should or should not be done” but it seems that you are doing that exact thing here. Your inconsistency in thought is unfortunate.
Instead of taking your suggestions, which seem to be the equivalent of trying to benefit from an unconstitutional circumstance by allowing Men equal access to this sham, one could instead take a more practical and constitutional twofold approach to ending abortion.
First: abortion laws have succeeded wherever the rights of the unborn are argued. Despite the fact that the 5th amendment covers the rights of the unborn (no person…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law) no judge as yet has favored this type of argument in their verdict or specific obiter dictum (to my knowledge.) Until specific laws are passed demonstrating this 5th amendment understanding, a better case can be made that abortion laws as they currently stand violate the 14th amendment rights of Fathers with regard to ” nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Abortion laws flagrantly violate 14th amendment protection of equal applications of the laws to Men because they unconstitutionally grant special privileges that ONLY females can exercise.
We will therefore find far greater judicial successes arguing on the sexist grounds of modern day abortion laws, than we would arguing instead purely on the rights of the unborn. The first can lead to the second (and should) but the offensive on abortion must be waged in that manner if we are to succeed overall. I have been in talks with pro life orgs designed to wage war on abortion laws in order to stress the importance of this.
Second: We can take a more circuitous route and dismantle the entire abortion industry piecemeal, by eroding abortion laws through the citation of medical advances which are providing earlier and earlier stages of life with the chance for survival. This is actually the favored route of the majority of antiabortion groups in America today. We have chipped away at abortion and lowered the murder of developing life from 28 weeks, to 24, and now 20 with fetal pain laws. As science catches up with truth, we will further erode them until we can get as close to “zero” weeks as possible.
Both options should be implemented concurrently, to maximize the success rate of attacking abortion laws directly at the source and medically indirect, state by state.
I have nothing further to speak of with regard to your questionable article or you per se. I fundamentally disagree with your view as i perceive it, but nonetheless respect you (unless otherwise so noted) for having it.
Conservatives have no spine. So liberal will eventually have you renouncing have of your post. Or worse looking the other way and not being to vocal about the whole world ignoring conservatives while they fuck your daughter and have you pay for it.
The wimp conservatives have no spine. They are called CINOs (conservative in name only)
I am nothing like them.