0 comment Friday, July 11, 2014 | admin
The topic of secession is discussed more and more lately. One of the best pieces on the subject was that by Michael O'Meara, which Dr. D recently reminded me about in a comment. I didn't link to it when it first appeared; I supposed everybody here was aware of it, and had read it. If not, I recommend reading it.
Slate has an interactive piece up asking readers How is America going to end?
The fact that such a piece appears there is another sign that the idea of some kind of breakup of the United States is no longer confined to the right-wing, nor to Southron partisans. The results of the responses over at Slate shows that the average Slate reader probably has a very different conception of how a breakup might occur, and what would precipitate such an event. But go over and check it out, and discuss here if you like.
Another piece which appeared recently is this one: A reasonable case for secession.
See also this blog, which discusses Democratic separatism.
As for my own ideas about secession or some kind of breakup of our formerly-united states, I think I've expressed my thoughts before, so that most of you know where I stand. I was writing about this a few years ago when it was still a shocking idea to some and I've watched the topic become less radioactive over the last year particularly.
I notice that certain ''arguments'' always come up when the topic is discussed, even now that it has become less fringe. The skeptics, who, like the poor, are always with us, say ''It'll never happen! Can't happen! Impossible! Crazy! They won't let us! They'd stop us!'' or some variation thereof.
I suspect those arguments (if we can call them that) were also heard back in 1775 or so. Famous last words, back then.
Moreover, it annoys me that there are some who insist on being doomsayers, or who take some kind of odd pleasure in quashing any suggestion of an alteration in the status quo. I really take issue with the notion that someone, anyone, can say with such ironclad certitude that a given course of action is doomed and impossible, out of hand. That presumes some kind of supernatural ability to predict what may be a year from now or at any time in the future. Nobody has that kind of certain knowledge. Things can change, turn on a dime. Anyone who has read a history book knows that, and our situation now is unstable, and therefore what is true today may not be so in a month or a year or certainly a decade. So it's presumptuous, putting it mildly, to say it cannot happen.
Then again there are the people who like to smugly remind us that ''it didn't work back in the 1860s, so it ain't gonna work now.'' Or this one: ''We settled that back in 1865.'' No, actually, we didn't. The rift still exists. And the War Between the States did not discredit the idea of secession as such; it simply proved that the North was able to subdue the South and force her back into the ''union.'' Might does not make right.
Also, need I tell anybody that the country was a very different place back in 1865, with a very different set of problems -- although some of the same problems have carried over.
I think there are a certain number of people who like to throw cold water on the idea of any kind of big change, whether spontaneous or deliberate, because some people have vested interests in the status quo, and some are simply afraid of the idea of upheaval -- but I think most of us are pretty well certain that upheaval is in the cards whether we choose it or not. ''Things fall apart, the center cannot hold...''
Some simply want the existing order of things to go on, even though it's untenable over the long term, and things seem to be deteriorating rapidly. However, change is and has always been the one certainty in this world, and ''change'' of an unwelcome kind is the order of the day. What alternatives are there?
Slate has an interactive piece up asking readers How is America going to end?
The fact that such a piece appears there is another sign that the idea of some kind of breakup of the United States is no longer confined to the right-wing, nor to Southron partisans. The results of the responses over at Slate shows that the average Slate reader probably has a very different conception of how a breakup might occur, and what would precipitate such an event. But go over and check it out, and discuss here if you like.
Another piece which appeared recently is this one: A reasonable case for secession.
See also this blog, which discusses Democratic separatism.
As for my own ideas about secession or some kind of breakup of our formerly-united states, I think I've expressed my thoughts before, so that most of you know where I stand. I was writing about this a few years ago when it was still a shocking idea to some and I've watched the topic become less radioactive over the last year particularly.
I notice that certain ''arguments'' always come up when the topic is discussed, even now that it has become less fringe. The skeptics, who, like the poor, are always with us, say ''It'll never happen! Can't happen! Impossible! Crazy! They won't let us! They'd stop us!'' or some variation thereof.
I suspect those arguments (if we can call them that) were also heard back in 1775 or so. Famous last words, back then.
Moreover, it annoys me that there are some who insist on being doomsayers, or who take some kind of odd pleasure in quashing any suggestion of an alteration in the status quo. I really take issue with the notion that someone, anyone, can say with such ironclad certitude that a given course of action is doomed and impossible, out of hand. That presumes some kind of supernatural ability to predict what may be a year from now or at any time in the future. Nobody has that kind of certain knowledge. Things can change, turn on a dime. Anyone who has read a history book knows that, and our situation now is unstable, and therefore what is true today may not be so in a month or a year or certainly a decade. So it's presumptuous, putting it mildly, to say it cannot happen.
Then again there are the people who like to smugly remind us that ''it didn't work back in the 1860s, so it ain't gonna work now.'' Or this one: ''We settled that back in 1865.'' No, actually, we didn't. The rift still exists. And the War Between the States did not discredit the idea of secession as such; it simply proved that the North was able to subdue the South and force her back into the ''union.'' Might does not make right.
Also, need I tell anybody that the country was a very different place back in 1865, with a very different set of problems -- although some of the same problems have carried over.
I think there are a certain number of people who like to throw cold water on the idea of any kind of big change, whether spontaneous or deliberate, because some people have vested interests in the status quo, and some are simply afraid of the idea of upheaval -- but I think most of us are pretty well certain that upheaval is in the cards whether we choose it or not. ''Things fall apart, the center cannot hold...''
Some simply want the existing order of things to go on, even though it's untenable over the long term, and things seem to be deteriorating rapidly. However, change is and has always been the one certainty in this world, and ''change'' of an unwelcome kind is the order of the day. What alternatives are there?
Labels: American History, Balkanization, Secession, Separatism, Sovereignty Movement, States Rights
0 comment Wednesday, May 21, 2014 | admin
'Men and women need each other
Should be like sister and brother
There�s a fraction too much friction...'
Well, I didn't want to write about this subject but it seems to be everywhere I look these past few days. It's the subject of the rift between men and women that seems to exist mostly among racially-conscious Whites. On the recent thread about race and dating/marrying, the subject was discussed, with men blaming feminism for their misunderstandings with women, and/or their antipathy to White women.
And on Steve Sailer's blog, in a discussion about an Obama-related piece, there was this comment:
...The phenemonon of whites bashing other whites for perceived insensitivity towards minorities is too widespread to be disputed.
[...] I think that the gender version of this is just as commonplace but considerably more lethal -- men bashing other men for being insensitive to the needs of women; i.e., for not saluting feminist shibboleths. To some extent, it isn't anything new under the sun; just a PC version of the chivalry racket that men have been caught up in for centuries. But given that men and women are considerably more inseparable than any set of racial groupings, a permanent schism between men and women - i.e., a governing mindset that says that "all men are bad for women" (with the man of the moment who is making that declaration always exempting himself from that universal censure) -- is bound to have a much more toxic effect on human relationships (both male-male and male-female) than mere racial and ethnic one-upmanship.''
And here, from TakiMag, on a thread that had nothing, really, to do with male-female conflicts:
...Not only are 3rd world women still pretty--they don�t suffer from a divided puritan psyche (madonnah-whore) which plagues so many western women. In short, western women are boring!'''
It's tempting for me to undertake a knee-jerk defense of my own sex, in the face of the criticisms, but it would be just that: a knee-jerk reaction, which I usually counsel against. I know that I myself am not one of those male-bashing women, but I know that they do exist.
In the past I've been fairly critical of women on this blog; I've actually taken a more critical stand towards my own sex here than many males on the right do, and some of my male readers have disagreed with me and defended women or even some feminist ideas. A woman criticizing other women is always at risk of being branded disloyal by other women and, even more likely, being branded -- by men -- as 'catty' towards other women. So it's a delicate balancing act.
I've said or implied on this blog that I thought female suffrage has, overall, been a negative for our society, and I've expressed disapproval of women in combat and the co-ed military, as well as the absurd practice of having women police officers or firefighters who are not the equals of men in size and muscular strength. Oddly, many men have disagreed with me, not so much on this blog, but on forums where we've discussed such things.
The commenter from Sailer's blog alludes to this phenomenon of men defending feminism, or bashing other men for not being appropriately 'sensitive', and it doesn't just happen among liberals.
So why is it, guys, that some of you defend many feminist innovations, like the co-ed military and women in combat or other such roles? Another way in which many men defend feminist innovations is in regard to legalized abortion.
Hermes over at Wise Man's Heart discussed a slightly related topic: Does sexual liberation deter white men from being traditionalist, in other words, does it encourage men to at least outwardly support feminism?
...But the predicted white men's reaction to my traditionalist views is: "you're never going to get laid with an attitude like that." Young men know that most single young women are liberal, and, except for those with strong religious convictions about sexual behavior, the overarching concern in life is to have sex with women. So the truth or falsity of non-liberal views is almost irrelevant; the question for the young man is "will women be attracted to me if I accept this view versus that one?" This phenomenon has spilled over to religious conservatives as well; a few weeks ago I remarked to some evangelical Christian friends that I thought that by and large, women should not be doctors, and one of them said to me, "you're never going to get married!"
[...] in the past restraining one's sexual desires was seen as manly, whereas today to bend over backwards for liberal women in order to "get laid" is seen as manly while to care more about standing on principle than about opportunistically having cheap sex will get one labeled weak, feminine, wimpy, etc.''
In some cases, though, some men on the right are simply trying to be 'fair' in taking the non-traditionalist stance as regards women and 'women's rights.' Some of you have daughters and you want your daughters to have all the opportunities that men have, although presumably conservatives or realists can see that women and men are not equals in all respects, just as the races are not equal, and women cannot do certain jobs that men do.
I could spend more time on this blog bashing feminism, because I certainly think it's been an immensely destructive force along with all the other guises which leftism assumes, but would that be shouting into the wind? I seem to have more male readers and commenters than females, and I think this is a reflection of the fact that more men than women are political, interested in what is going on in the world, and men are more inclined to be nationalistic or 'tribalistic' or territorial, as opposed to women whose concerns are more domestic, familial, and personal. So my blog is less likely to draw female readers; so be it. I wish that more women would see things as I see them; some do, obviously, as I have some female readers, and there are other like-minded women on our side.
But in criticizing feminism, who would my audience be? My women readers are already something of an exception, and are not likely to be in need of a message critical of feminism. And some of my male readers seem to have the urge to go all chivalrous when I have criticized feminism, or when they perceive that I am bashing my own sex. So in all, it seems counterproductive for me to criticize feminism or feminists, though I certainly have taken my shots at them from time to time.
I think instead what is needed is a message of reconciliation between men and women, particularly those of us who care about the future of our people. The stark fact is: we have no future if we can't resolve our anger and resentments towards each other.
I've mentioned before that I used to be quite the feminist when I was young and liberal. But even then, I recognized the absurdities of some of the radical feminist ideas, such as female separatism. Even then, I could see that while people may form separatist groups along many lines, such as religion, age, politics, or race, they could not divide along sex lines and still continue. The two sexes are interdependent and complementary in ways that other such groups are not. Men and women need each other. There might be some individuals who have no need for marriage and who for idiosyncratic reasons don't like the opposite sex, but they are anomalous, and overall, men and women, and the male and female principles are necessary to survival and to a healthy balance.
But right now, survival in the narrow sense is what we are concerned with. Our numbers are dwindling, we are under siege, psychologically, politically, physically. We have nobody but each other. There are precious few among the minority groups who will side with us, even in the most tepid fashion. We are all we've got.
We truly cannot afford to be a people divided against ourselves, and yet we are, in many ways. Left vs. right, Christian vs. non-Christian, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, everybody vs. middle-class, urban vs. rural, North vs. South. And now male vs. female. We just cannot afford it.
It seems pointless to try to point the finger at the other side, to accuse men like the not untypical one I quoted above saying 'western women are boring' and extolling Third World women as superior. It's not helpful for us to quibble over who marries out more, or who embraced that trend first. It's all counterproductive, and it keeps the cycle of blame and anger going. Time is wasting. We have to try to put the resentments and the rancor aside and realize we need each other.
Men who claim to be racially conscious or pro-American and who still seek out foreign women are frauds, plain and simple. Who we marry and have children with shows much better than words where our loyalties lie. Marrying out is the surest way of turning your back on your own people. Some imagine that their kids will be unequivocally 'American' even if they marry out. This is not so; there will be conflicts, there will be divided allegiances, and in many if not most cases, the nonwhite, non-American side wins out.
Somebody has to break the impasse. Why can't both women and men try to focus on the good things about our own opposite numbers within our own people, and stop finding fault? It wouldn't hurt either women or men to examine their own behavior and attitudes and see where and how we are guilty of contributing to the hostility and the resentment.
I certainly am aware of a lot of 'male-bashing' on the part of women, and although the battle of the sexes is age-old, going back to Adam and Eve, it has escalated greatly since feminism. I hear from the younger generation that many younger women (even the married ones) are very prone to bitterness towards men.
Insofar as I have any influence at all, I try to be a counterexample, and I am not above calling women on this if they do it in my presence.
Men, own up; many of you do your share of female-bashing too. Some of it is thoroughly justified; I have a few male relatives who have been seriously wronged and 'taken to the cleaners' by predatory-type women. It does happen. There are abusive and exploitative wives, just as there are abusive husbands. We tend to think women are the gentler sex; unfortunately we are not, always.
Women, we can do a lot better in trying to teach and model more respect for the opposite sex among our daughters. We have to try to counter all the propaganda of the media, both the 'news' media and the entertainment media, which is the source for the worst of the anti-traditionalist messages being received by our younger generations. The schools, too, are a source of the poison. Homeschooling is of course to be preferred for anybody trying to raise up good children.
The answer, such as it is, is to 'ask for the old paths', to go back to traditional attitudes and roles. They worked reasonably well for millennia. Of course relations between the sexes, like any other human interaction, will never be perfect and problem-free, but we have to muddle along and do the best we can, with the goal in mind of preserving what we are at risk of losing: our children's future.
Should be like sister and brother
There�s a fraction too much friction...'
Well, I didn't want to write about this subject but it seems to be everywhere I look these past few days. It's the subject of the rift between men and women that seems to exist mostly among racially-conscious Whites. On the recent thread about race and dating/marrying, the subject was discussed, with men blaming feminism for their misunderstandings with women, and/or their antipathy to White women.
And on Steve Sailer's blog, in a discussion about an Obama-related piece, there was this comment:
...The phenemonon of whites bashing other whites for perceived insensitivity towards minorities is too widespread to be disputed.
[...] I think that the gender version of this is just as commonplace but considerably more lethal -- men bashing other men for being insensitive to the needs of women; i.e., for not saluting feminist shibboleths. To some extent, it isn't anything new under the sun; just a PC version of the chivalry racket that men have been caught up in for centuries. But given that men and women are considerably more inseparable than any set of racial groupings, a permanent schism between men and women - i.e., a governing mindset that says that "all men are bad for women" (with the man of the moment who is making that declaration always exempting himself from that universal censure) -- is bound to have a much more toxic effect on human relationships (both male-male and male-female) than mere racial and ethnic one-upmanship.''
And here, from TakiMag, on a thread that had nothing, really, to do with male-female conflicts:
...Not only are 3rd world women still pretty--they don�t suffer from a divided puritan psyche (madonnah-whore) which plagues so many western women. In short, western women are boring!'''
It's tempting for me to undertake a knee-jerk defense of my own sex, in the face of the criticisms, but it would be just that: a knee-jerk reaction, which I usually counsel against. I know that I myself am not one of those male-bashing women, but I know that they do exist.
In the past I've been fairly critical of women on this blog; I've actually taken a more critical stand towards my own sex here than many males on the right do, and some of my male readers have disagreed with me and defended women or even some feminist ideas. A woman criticizing other women is always at risk of being branded disloyal by other women and, even more likely, being branded -- by men -- as 'catty' towards other women. So it's a delicate balancing act.
I've said or implied on this blog that I thought female suffrage has, overall, been a negative for our society, and I've expressed disapproval of women in combat and the co-ed military, as well as the absurd practice of having women police officers or firefighters who are not the equals of men in size and muscular strength. Oddly, many men have disagreed with me, not so much on this blog, but on forums where we've discussed such things.
The commenter from Sailer's blog alludes to this phenomenon of men defending feminism, or bashing other men for not being appropriately 'sensitive', and it doesn't just happen among liberals.
So why is it, guys, that some of you defend many feminist innovations, like the co-ed military and women in combat or other such roles? Another way in which many men defend feminist innovations is in regard to legalized abortion.
Hermes over at Wise Man's Heart discussed a slightly related topic: Does sexual liberation deter white men from being traditionalist, in other words, does it encourage men to at least outwardly support feminism?
...But the predicted white men's reaction to my traditionalist views is: "you're never going to get laid with an attitude like that." Young men know that most single young women are liberal, and, except for those with strong religious convictions about sexual behavior, the overarching concern in life is to have sex with women. So the truth or falsity of non-liberal views is almost irrelevant; the question for the young man is "will women be attracted to me if I accept this view versus that one?" This phenomenon has spilled over to religious conservatives as well; a few weeks ago I remarked to some evangelical Christian friends that I thought that by and large, women should not be doctors, and one of them said to me, "you're never going to get married!"
[...] in the past restraining one's sexual desires was seen as manly, whereas today to bend over backwards for liberal women in order to "get laid" is seen as manly while to care more about standing on principle than about opportunistically having cheap sex will get one labeled weak, feminine, wimpy, etc.''
In some cases, though, some men on the right are simply trying to be 'fair' in taking the non-traditionalist stance as regards women and 'women's rights.' Some of you have daughters and you want your daughters to have all the opportunities that men have, although presumably conservatives or realists can see that women and men are not equals in all respects, just as the races are not equal, and women cannot do certain jobs that men do.
I could spend more time on this blog bashing feminism, because I certainly think it's been an immensely destructive force along with all the other guises which leftism assumes, but would that be shouting into the wind? I seem to have more male readers and commenters than females, and I think this is a reflection of the fact that more men than women are political, interested in what is going on in the world, and men are more inclined to be nationalistic or 'tribalistic' or territorial, as opposed to women whose concerns are more domestic, familial, and personal. So my blog is less likely to draw female readers; so be it. I wish that more women would see things as I see them; some do, obviously, as I have some female readers, and there are other like-minded women on our side.
But in criticizing feminism, who would my audience be? My women readers are already something of an exception, and are not likely to be in need of a message critical of feminism. And some of my male readers seem to have the urge to go all chivalrous when I have criticized feminism, or when they perceive that I am bashing my own sex. So in all, it seems counterproductive for me to criticize feminism or feminists, though I certainly have taken my shots at them from time to time.
I think instead what is needed is a message of reconciliation between men and women, particularly those of us who care about the future of our people. The stark fact is: we have no future if we can't resolve our anger and resentments towards each other.
I've mentioned before that I used to be quite the feminist when I was young and liberal. But even then, I recognized the absurdities of some of the radical feminist ideas, such as female separatism. Even then, I could see that while people may form separatist groups along many lines, such as religion, age, politics, or race, they could not divide along sex lines and still continue. The two sexes are interdependent and complementary in ways that other such groups are not. Men and women need each other. There might be some individuals who have no need for marriage and who for idiosyncratic reasons don't like the opposite sex, but they are anomalous, and overall, men and women, and the male and female principles are necessary to survival and to a healthy balance.
But right now, survival in the narrow sense is what we are concerned with. Our numbers are dwindling, we are under siege, psychologically, politically, physically. We have nobody but each other. There are precious few among the minority groups who will side with us, even in the most tepid fashion. We are all we've got.
We truly cannot afford to be a people divided against ourselves, and yet we are, in many ways. Left vs. right, Christian vs. non-Christian, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, everybody vs. middle-class, urban vs. rural, North vs. South. And now male vs. female. We just cannot afford it.
It seems pointless to try to point the finger at the other side, to accuse men like the not untypical one I quoted above saying 'western women are boring' and extolling Third World women as superior. It's not helpful for us to quibble over who marries out more, or who embraced that trend first. It's all counterproductive, and it keeps the cycle of blame and anger going. Time is wasting. We have to try to put the resentments and the rancor aside and realize we need each other.
Men who claim to be racially conscious or pro-American and who still seek out foreign women are frauds, plain and simple. Who we marry and have children with shows much better than words where our loyalties lie. Marrying out is the surest way of turning your back on your own people. Some imagine that their kids will be unequivocally 'American' even if they marry out. This is not so; there will be conflicts, there will be divided allegiances, and in many if not most cases, the nonwhite, non-American side wins out.
Somebody has to break the impasse. Why can't both women and men try to focus on the good things about our own opposite numbers within our own people, and stop finding fault? It wouldn't hurt either women or men to examine their own behavior and attitudes and see where and how we are guilty of contributing to the hostility and the resentment.
I certainly am aware of a lot of 'male-bashing' on the part of women, and although the battle of the sexes is age-old, going back to Adam and Eve, it has escalated greatly since feminism. I hear from the younger generation that many younger women (even the married ones) are very prone to bitterness towards men.
Insofar as I have any influence at all, I try to be a counterexample, and I am not above calling women on this if they do it in my presence.
Men, own up; many of you do your share of female-bashing too. Some of it is thoroughly justified; I have a few male relatives who have been seriously wronged and 'taken to the cleaners' by predatory-type women. It does happen. There are abusive and exploitative wives, just as there are abusive husbands. We tend to think women are the gentler sex; unfortunately we are not, always.
Women, we can do a lot better in trying to teach and model more respect for the opposite sex among our daughters. We have to try to counter all the propaganda of the media, both the 'news' media and the entertainment media, which is the source for the worst of the anti-traditionalist messages being received by our younger generations. The schools, too, are a source of the poison. Homeschooling is of course to be preferred for anybody trying to raise up good children.
The answer, such as it is, is to 'ask for the old paths', to go back to traditional attitudes and roles. They worked reasonably well for millennia. Of course relations between the sexes, like any other human interaction, will never be perfect and problem-free, but we have to muddle along and do the best we can, with the goal in mind of preserving what we are at risk of losing: our children's future.
Labels: Feminism, Separatism, Social Divisions, Societal Decay, Traditionalism