Right Conduct

by Elusive Wapiti on June 4, 2012

…precondition to, or result of, freedom?

Whereas statists and busybodies would point to the former, early twentieth century libertarian thinker Albert Jay Nock, quoted in this article over at Reason, claims the latter:

The point is that any enlargement [of government], good or bad, reduces the scope of individual responsibility, and thus retards and cripples the education which can be a product of nothing but the free exercise of moral judgment. Like the discipline of the army, again, any such enlargement, good or bad, depraves this education into a mere routine of mechanical assent. The profound instinct against being “done for our own good” . . . is wholly sound. Men are aware of the need of this moral experience as a condition of growth, and they are aware, too, that anything tending to ease it off from them, even for their own good, is to be profoundly distrusted. The practical reason for freedom, then, is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fibre can be developed.

Let us assume for this post that ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are interchangeable, even though Classical Liberal theorists would distinguish between the two concepts.  Nock asserts that it is freedom that best educates a man in moral behavior, and that the guiding hand of those in authority, however well-intentioned, invariably stunts a fellow’s moral development.

At first blush, it seems that at least one of the Founders would agree with Nock

The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy — John Adams

But that is not the entire story, for a great many of them also hold that virtue is a precursor to freedom:

To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea — James Madison

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters — Benjamin Franklin

[M]en will be free no longer then while they remain virtuous — Samuel Adams

On this point, the Founders seem to be in wide agreement. Virtue, right thought and conduct, predicates freedom.

So, then, having established that (a) government is powerless to instill virtue in men and (b) virtue is a necessary condition for freedom, from where does a man obtain moral training?  I have my biases, but I turn instead to the thoughts of our first president

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles — George Washington

Washington is correct here.  Virtue is instilled and shaped by Faith and the practice of it.  It does not spring up ex nihilo, it is not the product of  reason alone which, famously being the Devil’s whore, has demonstrably failed to restrain man’s more lethal passions, let alone engender systemic freedom.

But this is not to say that Nock does not have some claim on the truth here. For while we have established that more fiber is accessed into man through Faith, if not into each person individually then into the body politic as a whole, it seems sensible to conceive that it may then be subsequently sharpened and enhanced through the practice of freedom.  Put another way, Faith equips men with the basic tools of moral behavior, which are then further refined through practical application in an environment that tests each man’s fiber.


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 62 comments… read them below or add one }

Okrahead June 4, 2012 at 14:26

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. 11.1
Freedom requires that the citizen take on faith that his neighbor will behave in a certain way towards him. Freedom requires that the individual will act in a manner of greatest good for himself, his family, and his community. Freedom requires self-sacrifice, which seems a paradox. After all, freedom cannot survive if men do not freely give themselves to protect it, both for themselves and their neighbors. Hence freedom requires a will to sacrifice which faith provides, a faith which holds the sacrifice is not in vain. We must also note that if we break faith with those who have made the sacrifice we give up any claim to the freedom they have purchased for us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Huck Finn June 4, 2012 at 15:40

OT:

Arizona grandfather accuses Barnes & Noble of gender bias

“An Arizona grandfather says Barnes & Noble discriminated against him and forced him out of a Scottsdale store because he was a male customer sitting alone in the children’s section.”

“… a woman shopper complained to a staff employee, saying she felt uneasy about his presence in the children’s area.”

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/04/12051277-arizona-grandfather-accuses-barnes-noble-of-gender-bias#comments

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Ode June 4, 2012 at 15:44

If we are to assume that people are inherently morally good and rational minded then people should naturally be given maximum freedom because they will make the best choices. There would be no need to resort to fraud or force to keep individuals in check. The most effective Government would be the least government. This is the basis of Libertarianism.

But what if the fundamental assumption is wrong, What if people are NOT inherently good? As a young man I was a firm believer in Libertariansim. As I grew older and had more life experiences to draw upon my general opinion of society is less optimistic.
I firmly believe there is a huge segment of society like 50% that simply cannot be trusted to make rational decisions.
I see two possibilities
1. the first we can have a hierarchy where the elite class micro-manges the lower class
2. or we can create a segregated society where those who have money use it to distance themselves from the under lass.

I see the USA evolving into number 2
Those with the financial means whether liberals or conservatives or whatever their affiliation, what they all have in common is they are willing to spend a huge sum of money to get the hell away from the underclass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself June 4, 2012 at 16:28

@ Huck Finn

I guess there’s nothing “noble” about “Barnes & Noble.” I won’t but a book from them ever again.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself June 4, 2012 at 16:28

*buy, not but

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Eric June 4, 2012 at 17:23

Wapiti:
The French Revolution is a better example of Nock’s theory put into actual practice. Freedom didn’t build a moral people or a just society; it took Napoleon to do that.

I’m totally in agreement here with Ode. People can interact and relate better whenever they share a commonality, of which faith can be one element. But people also require a measure of stability and certainty to be able to function in a society effectively. An efficient government understands that.

1. Safeguard the liberties of the nation;

2. Don’t interfere with those liberties;

3. Suppress those who abuse those liberties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn June 4, 2012 at 17:47

@Geography Bee Finalist himself,

Same here and I do read books. You can go to the link below and send B&N an email letting them know you won’t shop with them in the future because of the misandry the man suffered. I just sent them an email.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/customerservice/contactus

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself June 4, 2012 at 18:02

@ Huck Finn

I just sent them an e-mail too. I also suggested that they change their chain’s name (but did not offer any suggestions).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti June 4, 2012 at 18:40

Ode,

“But what if the fundamental assumption is wrong, What if people are NOT inherently good?”

It is my understanding that the assumption that man is inherently good, or can be made good through works or through environmental conditions, is a fundamental assumption of liberalism. It is the engine through which they are propelled to nanny state us into bondage.

I think that libertarians do not focus enough on the spiritual and moral pre-conditions that enable the sort of minimalist government they seek. If people do not control themselves, if they are libertine, then we get the sort of society that Tacitus warns us about…”the more corrupt the people, the more numerous the laws”.

@ Eric,

Although I didn’t come out and say it in the post, I am in general dis-agreement with Nock, who seems to think that freedom is necessary and sufficient for virtue to develop. You point out, and I agree, that it is not sufficient. At most, freedom permits the enhancement of moral virtue, but I do not think it will instill it where none pre-exists.

Also, you touch on diversity in your comment. I think for liberty to exist (not necessarily freedom), the society must have a high level of homogeneity. Diversity is poisonous to liberty in my opinion, which is why I am troubled by our society’s present emphasis on it.

Al Thompson June 4, 2012 at 18:46

If mankind doesn’t have good character, virtue, and a way to achieve that good virtue, then he is lost and defenseless. I’ve been thinking about this a lot because I notice there’s no end to the information to what is wrong, but very little information to help people build their character. However, like government, religion I believe is the most destructive force on earth. If they were really doing a good job, we wouldn’t have these problems that we do now. Young people aren’t taught how to have patience, self-control, and how to fight off temptations to do evil. My view, is that the commandments that came from God are the only things that work to the benefit of mankind. Most of the religions that I know about are just a bunch of hucksters who benefit no one.
http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/05/defenseless-population.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Norm June 4, 2012 at 19:05

I heard phoney president Barack Hussein Obama (the long legged mack daddy) moaning about how it’s unfair that that women only make 70% of the wages men do. Is this guy stupid or what. I know he’s a blatant Marxist and was influenced by Bill Ayers. I’m glad I don’t live in the USSA. and I hope you who do can turn around this totalitarian state you are quickly becoming.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
3DShooter June 4, 2012 at 19:36

With all due respect, faith breeds conformity – NOT morality. It is a form of group think/tribalism which has spawned some of mankind’s most brutal inhumanities against against others and government is it’s bastard step-child.

Some of the most moral people I have ever known are atheists and some of the most bigoted are those of faith.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10
J June 4, 2012 at 19:48

I think people who bring the politics of this into this discussion EW brought miss his point.

It is not whether a man is moral in his own right. Today, due largely to modern “reason” if one can call it that, there is no morality. It is perceived as a social construct. No more, no less. Like the creation of chocolate ice cream. An icy, flavored treat, that “must” exist to “serve” our wants and desires of the time like on a hot day, and it’s ingredients just happen to be lying around..

The founding fathers were largely Diests, or the precursors to modern agnosticism. However, they recognized that Religion was of significant value, this being significant again based on the history of the Church of England vs. Catholocism, of which they were a part. A part that had largely rejected it. However, they knew that morality was itself a sort of law, like gravity. You may not be able to put your finger on it, but it holds the fabric of society together, like gravity prevents us from flying from the surface fo the earth with a subtle move.

For me, morality proves the existence of God. For if murder is the same anywhere, this planet, or anywhere in the universe; wrong! Then it is a law that the taking of life is not a mere fancy to be trifled with! even in self defense. Any society that feels otherwise, strnagely dies out! LOL

I find it interesting that the ten commandments are so in tune. By breaking even the least, it is as if you broke them all.

That standard we cannot hope to attain. So we have laws like the constitution, or monarchs, or whatever, to establish order for when we refuse to be ordered ourselves.

Ask any agnostic or atheist if they are comfortable with no laws, and let people be left totally to their own devices. They will not think for long before bringing up the social contract, and how it evolved to make everything better. Ultimately, if you have a cause, you have an effect. If you have evil, then you have good. If you have heat, eventually you will have non-heat ( what we call cold ) and the absence of everything we hold dear is lawlessness.

It scares us, I was not sent overseas to hunt down other men who felt they could blow us up for nothing! Be it oil, corruption, or a pure desire to do the right thing; or both. We struggle with ourselves. Because we ourselves are the problem! Virtue is not our natural default position, we have to learn it by experiencing it’s opposite!

Violence, beckons at the end of the path of sheer stupidity!

Cause and effect have their issues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
jaego June 4, 2012 at 20:02

Nontheless, Libertarianism puts all its emphasis on Freedom per se, as if that was an end in and of itself and not a prerequiste to Virtue – which means making the right choice. If enough people make the wrong choices for enough of the time, inevitably the Goverment will be forced to step in. Intermediaries between the Goverment and the State are thus necessary to keep the individual in line. The old guilds which maintained quality in product and services were one such. The Church another. In same places, the head of the Clan or Village Council is important.

But Libertarianism will have none of this. It speaks only to the deracinated, decultured individual who one aim: to maximize profit. As Thomas Fleming said, it proceeds with admirable logic from its principles – the problem being that they are not First Principles but merely economic. And Man does not live by Bread alone. Where I might differ from the Traditionalist: I think people have the right to make their own mistakes. They would say no one has the right to be wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Elusive Wapiti June 4, 2012 at 20:26

@ 3D,

It is true that man acting in the name of faith has done some pretty nasty things. I take comfort in noting that they are outdone by the body counts of the faithless.

On the flip side, I’m challenged to think of how the Abrahamic religions have much in the way of competition when it comes to bringing light into a dark world. But then, as a Believer, I own up to a fair amount of bias in this arena.

3DShooter June 4, 2012 at 20:43

@EW

I think you are being a bit intellectually dishonest appealing to the ‘body count’, because as we all know there are lies, damned lies and statistics. And I suspect that folks like Galileo might have an opinion on religion ‘bringing light into a dark world’ that differs from that perspective.

People are entitled to their faith, and I’m ok with that but in the fight
against feminism I think reason is our only hope as the fem’s have co-opted faith based organizations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price June 4, 2012 at 21:10

@ 3D,

It is true that man acting in the name of faith has done some pretty nasty things. I take comfort in noting that they are outdone by the body counts of the faithless.

On the flip side, I’m challenged to think of how the Abrahamic religions have much in the way of competition when it comes to bringing light into a dark world. But then, as a Believer, I own up to a fair amount of bias in this arena.

-EW

I think we ought to take a look not so much at the direct knowledge brought about by various faiths, but rather the structures they created in which progress could flourish. Why was strictly Catholic Renaissance Italy such a creative dynamo? Why did learning flourish in the safest, most secure enclaves of Islam?

Why didn’t the ancient Germans, talented and technologically adept as they were, develop a scientific and philosophical culture while they were ascendant barbarian tribes? Why did the astronomers who built Stonehenge fail produce their own Newton and leave us only a crumbling observatory?

There’s no need to apologize for Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Nor Confucianism, Hinduism or Buddhism for that matter. We can pick out flaws with each one, and hold them to the light, but savagery has never provided us with anywhere near the same capability that these faiths have. I’m drawn to the Greek myths, the Asian founding myths, Mongol shamanism, Norse paganism and many more of these stepping stones along the way to civilization. They are beautiful in their raw truth, but there are higher truths as well. Abrahamic faiths – Christianity and Judaism in particular – are special in that there is some preservation of the ancient rites, and therefore some continuity with them. Christianity never would have spread beyond the Levant if Celtic shepherds couldn’t relate to the Hebrews, or Germans to the martyrdom of Christ the Chief.

We ought to think of faith as the foundation of social science. Whether one believes it is God or nature that reveals the truth, it’s hard to argue with the prophets. What’s important is that there were men who took the broad, long view and spoke the truth. It’s often ignored, but by the so-called faithful as well as the faithless.

This is why I think humility is so important for us as a species. Our hubris is always our undoing. Just as the prophets chastised the people for ignoring God, today we chastise the people for ignoring human nature, and yet they stumble along like a blind, intoxicated crowd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Eric June 4, 2012 at 21:57

Jaego:
Specimen of Thomas Fleming’s logic:

“There is, it is true, a Men’s Movement, consisting mostly of disgruntled, peripheral males who are forever whining about their manhood. But if we set such marginalized creatures aside, we can safely consider that there are few defenders of what the feminists call Patriarchy.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
3DShooter June 4, 2012 at 22:03

@Welmer

Some interesting thoughts I’ll have to ponder for awhile. Certainly there were some stabilizing aspects to all of those ideas you’ve mentioned, but eventually they seem to run their course. How much of the innovation comes as a result of chipping away at the old paradigm? Too late to go any further with this one tonight though . . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric June 4, 2012 at 22:06

Wapiti:
‘Society must have a high level of homogenity’

Exactly. Anthropologists consider Scandanavia to be the most homogenous societies on earth. They are also one of the most stable. It’s interesting to look at a country like Denmark. After WW2, they transitioned into a Socialist economy and a few years ago transitioned back to a market-based economy, without destabilizing their country in any noticable way. These kinds of major social changes could never happen in a diverse country like ours without causing major disruptions and problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Buh June 4, 2012 at 22:36

Moral conduct doesn’t exist somewhere inside people waiting to be pulled out by religion. Moral conduct is a result of learning from the consequences of one’s behavior. With the decline of the father role, many children lack an environment which will shape moral conduct. A single mom who takes her spawn to church is still likely to raise fuck-ups for that reason. A priest will never replace a father in the life of a child.

Faith can be an important reservoir of strength, but that is its only value. The strength afforded by religion has been used as much by the righteous as by hypocrites and serves both equally well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Depravo June 5, 2012 at 00:01

Freedom as it was correctly understood before the mid 19th century (stand off and within certain very broad limits let the chips fall where they may) can only exist in a homogeneous community with a patriarchal family tradition in which special interest groups have no power. Which is to say democracy will always destroy it in the end, with or without mass immigration and internal malaise.

The US founding fathers understood this but could not have predicted how the world would change.

Is it too much to ask for a small government, wielding absolute power like a good surgeon, that looks out for the people’s interests on the world stage while leaving them the fuck alone individually? At the moment we have the exact opposite and six decades of socialism have stultified people to the extent that society no longer exists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Eric June 5, 2012 at 00:23

Depravo:
‘Democracy will always destroy it in the end.’

Jakob Burckhardt pointed this out too. The idea of a liberal democracy and a functional government, according to him, is a logical contradiction. As individuals within a culture are pusuing their own interests and tastes, they shape the society. The state is shaped by a constitution and a fixed set of laws. But when society begins to intrude into the government, or the government too far into social issues, then special interests rise and bring conflict between fluctuating societal norms and established laws. Then there can’t be any political or social stability. Paradoxically then, the government loses authority at the same rate it expands its powers. But since the government can’t expand its powers to infinity and the special interests are constantly demanding changes in the laws, eventually the system implodes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
unger June 5, 2012 at 00:25

Ode and EW: But you’ve got Nock all wrong – so much so that it’s blatantly obvious neither of you have read much of him. Nock not only did not think people were basically good; he was absolutely convinced that only the barest fraction of mankind was at all educable, and that only a subset of those had both the intellect and force of character necessary to perceive the good and adhere to it on principle. This is why he was profoundly anti-Statist: because he understood, correctly, that always and everywhere, the State has been the great machine that shielded people from the consequences of their moral failures, invariably at the expense of that moral minority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
unger June 5, 2012 at 00:29

forgot to add: A brief example of what Nock really thought about people: Isaiah’s Job.

Which was why, at least a long time ago, Nock was highly regarded by traditionalist conservatives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 5, 2012 at 00:51

It is off topic but does anyone find this video disturbing? It is a little boy being pushed down again and again when he tries to give a little girl a hug.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-57432878-10391705/toddler-learns-a-harsh-and-early-lesson-in-love-that-will-have-you-laughing/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti June 5, 2012 at 01:29

I need to modify slightly what I wrote above.

It’s not so much the faithful vs the faithless. I’m not sure the truly faithless really exist in any significant number. Moreover, the Marxists who brought us the charnel houses of the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries had their own small-f faith that shaped their political and economic systems as surely as any other faith (small- or large-F) does.

Rather, the moral system promulgated by a respective f/Faith is what is important. The question at hand is whether or not freedom can teach morality, or if morality is a prerequisite to freedom and liberty. If the latter, from whence does morality come?

The Founders, others, and I argue that, as a minimum, the practice of small-r religion equips men with morality, and this action is what makes freedom and liberty possible. A fellow’s morality may be sharpened by the practice of living in a free society, but he has to acquire his morality fundamentals somewhere.

As I think about this some more, other questions arise: are certain faiths-cum-religions incompatible with freedom and/or liberty? Does freedom and liberty pre-suppose a certain model of man and a certain relationship of men with their faith and their government?

Further, is it only in the context of Western Civ (as contrasted with Islamic, Hindu, Orthodox civilizations, for example) can we even have this sort of conversation in the first place?

Eric June 5, 2012 at 01:47

Wapiti:
I think it would depend largely on the definition of ‘liberty.’ I understand the concept to mean a set of specific rights possessed by citizens of nation; and government as a guarantor of those rights.

By that definition, even citizens of authoritarian government could still possess liberty, as long as the government limited exercsing its power to defend the rights of the citizenry. In a system where leaders are installed by popular vote, liberty could exist as long as the populace limits its power in the same way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Elusive Wapiti June 5, 2012 at 01:50

Unger,

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading, and guilty as charged wrt Nock. I don’t have a whole lot of depth with his writings…yet.

That said, I don’t see how I mischaracterized his position in my post. Only that I somewhat disagree with it, while being fully on board with his sense that the State belongs nowhere near moral training.

Elusive Wapiti June 5, 2012 at 02:05

Eric,

I conceive of liberty as a relative concept, in the sense that it is a sliding scale with anarchy being maximal liberty and totalitarianism being minimal, even zero, liberty.

The opposite of liberty is government; thus they are complementary, and sum to 100%.

I see it as quite conceivable that one could live in an authoritarian society and have quite a bit of liberty, and to live in a representative democracy and have little.

Troll King June 5, 2012 at 02:14

OT.

Feminists now want pregnimony, or for unmarried men to be legally forced to provide a form of alimony for any woman they get pregnant:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/preglimony_b_1554716.html

I want to know what happens when the man pays potentially up to 100k, for a risky pregnancy or whatever, and then finds out that he isn’t the father??? Could this be a way that paternity fraud could be recognized by the courts? Not that it likely would be but I have to wonder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
unger June 5, 2012 at 03:15

EW: I probably should’ve addressed the bit on Nock’s pessimism specifically to Ode. But you’re missing what Nock was saying. He did not say ‘freedom is necessary and sufficient for virtue to develop [out of nothing among the masses]‘; he said that freedom is necessary not only for the development of virtue among those capable of that sort of development, but for the expression of virtue. Which is to say, for the first part, that he had no illusions about what the masses would do with freedom, and for the second, that he understood the important difference between doing good when you cannot do anything else – or, for that matter, doing good because it pays better than the alternative – and doing good because it is good. He was not interested in freedom because he had some silly thought the masses, set free, would use their freedom to preserve society and civilization. He was interested in freedom because without it, the few really capable of learning moral lessons, the few really capable of virtue, and – just as an aside – the few on whom the preservation of society and civilization really depend, can have no opportunity to learn or exercise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay June 5, 2012 at 03:33

The Founders, others, and I argue that, as a minimum, the practice of small-r religion equips men with morality, and this action is what makes freedom and liberty possible.

So the question is what do you define as religion. I don’t believe in any gods or other metaphysical things, does that mean I’m incapable of morality?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay June 5, 2012 at 03:43

Feminists now want pregnimony, or for unmarried men to be legally forced to provide a form of alimony for any woman they get pregnant:

Well in the grand scheme of things with child support and so on this is just an additional few months of servitude for those man who got stuck with a pregnancy they didn’t want. For those who do want children there is at least a tax break.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
freebird June 5, 2012 at 03:48

We’ve replaced God with government.
The all seeing eye in the sky is now a surveillance camera network.
The regulation is hence external rather than internal,and all that implies.
Saw and episode of “cops” where the officers came into a mans home to see the beds were made and the house was clean-for-the children.
They were ‘good’ enough to bring milk post inspection.

The logical outcome of special interest groups (feminism) having ultra-legal protection is the totalitarian State.

The young men raised by single mothers lack the self regulation that a father figure would instill,hence the escalating rate of incarceration amongst this demographic.
You cannot emasculate-instill the feminine mindset into a male body,the negative polarity is destructive.
For potential to exist there has to be a ground from which to push.
Stable societies create that platform from which self regulation is achievable.

Cue up “Welcome to the jungle.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
freebird June 5, 2012 at 03:54

BTW- EW- Big fan- I read your blog daily,sometimes twice daily.Excellent writer with much insight.Been reading for almost 4 years and have not disagreed with a single word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
freebird June 5, 2012 at 04:05

Praise the Father-The Son and the Holy Spirit.
The direct philosophical opposite polarity of the Matriarchy.
The guide to a stable society has been hammered out long ago, it comes by many names under many “religions.”
It’s obvious this is the most efficient mechanism for self regulation-combined with the nuclear family and nuclear community.What the author referred to as “high level of homogeneity” can be inclusive of much diversity,but never deliberate subversive division-ism.(In the furtherance of totalitarianism.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
codebuster June 5, 2012 at 04:09

So the question is what do you define as religion. I don’t believe in any gods or other metaphysical things, does that mean I’m incapable of morality?

But do you believe in culture? I suppose that’s a bit like asking if you believe that the sun will rise in the morning. If you don’t “believe in” culture, then look around at the cultures that we have on this one very average planet in a very miniscule part of the cosmos. You don’t need to believe in god to realize that there are good cultures, bad ones, healthy cultures and sick ones. What kind of culture do you want to go to? A feminist one? On the question of how one should conduct their lives, people should be asking themselves what kind of culture they want to live in. Can you stand what your culture stands for? Or when you wake up in the morning, does every news item in the media make you want to puke in disgust at what your culture stands for? Culture lies at the heart of it all. You cannot have morality without reference to culture. Morality means nothing in the absence of culture. Individual personality is inextricably linked to cultural personality. These are ancient questions, only in the ignorance of science or the opportunity to observe how many different cultures are possible, our ancestors used to frame their enquiries in the context of heaven/hell, karma, nirvana. But with what we have at our disposal today, what with Hubble telescope records and various scientific theories, I reckon we have the potential to arrive at a much more sophisticated interpretation.

Morality in the absence of culture is just bland, sterile “niceness”, gutless obedience and as dull as dishwater, guaranteed to provide no bullwark against evil. That’s a major part of the problem with our sterile, genocentric zeitgeist. In our zeitgeist, it’s the cowards that rule and determine how people should live their lives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd June 5, 2012 at 04:57

@TrollKing

How is Preglimony any different from Child Support?

Child support is a get a man slave for free, for women anyway

These demented feminists turn all men into slaves for women & government, are seriously verging on the loony tunes fringe …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Troll King June 5, 2012 at 05:00

OT.

Ahashahahahahahahaha…..

One of the creators and major writers of No Seriously What About Teh Menz and Editor and Chief of The Good Men Project has decided to go full monty.

http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/body-image-2/im-stark-naked-deal-with-it/comment-page-2/#comments

It has been a interesting few weeks for our wannabe appropriators and colonizers of the Manosphere and MRM.

NSWATM got folded into the Good Men Project after Noah Brand became Editor and Chief and now he is baring it all.

Is the Good Men Project trying to become the next playgirl? For women but bought by gay men? Or feminist men? Are we learning something new about the inner most desires of feminist manginas?

Trolololololololollollolololol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Troll King June 5, 2012 at 05:05

Oh, some more details:

To quote:

“My body is a testament to high testosterone. I have a body type one sees a lot: male pattern baldness, plenty of body hair, builds both muscle and fat very easily. You see guys like me all the time, with our wide shoulders and wider beer guts. Burly sonsabitches, often rocking the shaved-head-and-beard combo. It is not, it’s fair to say, a body type that is highly lauded by media culture.

I didn’t always look like this. When I was a teenager, I was so skinny I won awards for dressing as Jack Skellington, which sounds like a joke and isn’t. When I was twenty, I dressed as Nightwing for a costume contest, and the woman MCing the show called me “the reason spandex was invented.””

Yeah, sure Noah. Tell yourself that all you want.

And for anyone who might be tempted to click on the NSFW link, I wouldn’t.

I clicked on it and was saved by my Kaperski Anti-virus. Someone uploaded a trojan apparently….I swear it wasn’t me..

Lololololololololololol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Troll King June 5, 2012 at 05:10

@Rmaxd

I have no idea.

The basic premise is that a presumptive father would have to pay for all pregnancy related costs, from ultrasounds to mumus.

I don’t think CS covers that, but I could be wrong. There probably is a case or two where some sucker had to repay pregnancy costs to a baby momma or something.

If you think about it, these feminist laws might be good for us.

If this passed I wonder how long it would take for some rapper to coin a word for it like they did for golddigger??? How many men would think twice about relationships or go the porn route or mgtow route?

We already have weekly columns written by women complaining about commitmentphobia and the lack of good men and so on, a law like this would likely just exacerbate that trend.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd June 5, 2012 at 05:40

@TrollKing

Why should married women, get all the benefits of screwing over men …

Of course feminists want unmarried women, to get the same benefits of a gold digging woman, without all the hassle of tricking a man into marrying their gold digging ass …

So now they want to make pregnancy a liability for men, so a £200 to £500 a month child support cheque isnt enough to cover a pregnancy & its costs …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Troll King June 5, 2012 at 05:58

OT.

Here we have the President of NOW going against some MRA issues that just barely got any spotlight.

I wonder if their clits are quivering in fear over not being the only voice in the gendersphere….ha, that rhymes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-oneill/where-the-real-shame-lies_b_1555946.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd June 5, 2012 at 06:05

@TK

Have you noticed how the GMP’s trying to co-opt the MRA, while still supporting gay & lesbians, as if they were serious issues for men …

GMP’s feminist roots, like a lot of the mangina’s, like Eric & Rob, will never call out women for turning men into unwilling slaves & turning our work places, into slave labour camps run by sexual harrassment suits & race hating minorities …

Women & mangina’s pretty much guarantee, everyone gets screwed over everytime they shout what about the women & children …

Screw the women & children, we’ve got a civilisation to run …

MEN FIRST, women & children benefit from us, men have always produced & been benefactors for the benefit of society …

Women & children will always ultimately depend on men, since when have women or their children worked to further the rights of men?

Its about time, men put the emphasis on them, their personal & political rights come first

Their political rights to their children, their rights to their property & most importantly their rights to their wealth & masculinity

Unless men emphasise the importance of putting what men want & need first, society will never put men first

Do you want to be demonised as a man, for having wealth & masculinity?

Put masculinity, leadership, dominance & the importance of being competitive & intelligence first

It’s the only way to take back society, & turn it back into a bastion of sanity

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Rmaxd June 5, 2012 at 06:15

lol the president of now, trying to shame anyone who wants a decent legal day in court …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Traveller June 5, 2012 at 08:14

“Why was strictly Catholic Renaissance Italy such a creative dynamo?”

The Pope was a ruler like anyone else. And the Pontifical State was no different from any other confining state. Just with an advantage due to the mass of believers. The Pope blessings were on sale to the better buyer.

There were much richness and much luxury, quite the opposite of a “strict Catholic” imaginary environment. Except if you think Lucretia Borgia was a symbol of Catholic woman.

Many artistic creations were born for exalting the greatness of the local rulers (that I do not say I disagree – patronage) but for sure this material display is not so compatible with the original Jesus preachings.

Giordano Bruno was killed by the Church, fate just avoided by Galileo later. And Leonardo da Vinci studied anatomy against the Church orders, stealing corpses night time from cemetaries, and wrote in that famous “mirrored” calligraphy to hide his findings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
DG June 5, 2012 at 08:15

On a related note: Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Craig June 5, 2012 at 08:56

Actually the only family on my block that lives by traditional American family values is the Hindu family from India down the street. A person who seeks enlightenment, no matter how he defines that word, will probably be a better neighbor than one who accepts the baser programming of his culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
OT June 5, 2012 at 09:08

Cute, intelligent Russian women increasingly boycott marriage, resign to singledom:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/04/russia-s-single-ladies-fed-up-with-country-s-useless-bachelors.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Craig June 5, 2012 at 09:22

People need an anchor, no doubt about that. My anchor is Zen Buddhism. I believe that the major difference between men and women is that most men derive their values from an external idea or set of principles whereas women derive their values from the group. And the group, in our case, is this poisonous culture we live in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky June 5, 2012 at 09:42

In a state of freedom, we are as moral as any other predatory pack animal that is forced to share limited resources with other predatory pack animals. I think true individual morality is not found in a state of pure freedom, or in a state of pure tyrannical control, but in a moderate state of self government, much like our own “claims” to be. Our government has unfortunately been corrupted by money and a population that pays more attention to Jersey Shore than their representatives. The prison population has metastasized, the education system is Marxist, family law is feminist, and the tax code has been twisted to the purposes of the powerful elite. When it is time to ask who is NOT MORAL; look to the people with the power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The rich are too rich. The government representatives and bureaucrats are too entrenched. Unions grow too powerful. These are the devils of our days. Be self sufficient, avoid paying taxes, avoid getting married, and educate the masses around you as best you can. Point them here, the to The Spearhead. The present is the history of the future. Will you take part in the stories found in the history books yet to be written? Revolutions happen again and again. There is no reason to not BELIEVE in this one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky June 5, 2012 at 10:08

“Morality in the absence of culture is just bland, sterile “niceness”, gutless obedience and as dull as dishwater, guaranteed to provide no bullwark against evil.”
-Codebuster

Awesome quote Codebuster!

“My anchor is Zen Buddhism.”
-Craig

Mine too in many ways, and to tie the two quotes above together, through the lens of Zen, one cannot be moral without possessing the qualities of immorality at the same time. If one is purely “good”, one will not be able to do the “evil” acts necessary to defend what is “good”. Conversely, if one is purely “evil”, one will self destruct by not doing the “good” acts necessary for survival in an inhospitable universe. Morality might be found in a balance of passions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Eric June 5, 2012 at 12:23

‘…like a lot of manginas like Eric & Rob”

LOL, the obese feminist troll Rmaxd has hijacked another thread to spread false accusations.

Suppose I really was a plant hired to discredit the MRM. How would I go about it? Let’s see. I would…

1. Swiftboat other MRAs and discredit them with false accusations;

2. Spout a bunch of lunatic-fringe theories that could be taken out of context by MRM enemies, that never have anything to do with the topic;

3. Rave about violence in the hopes that unbalanced lurker will act on them and discredit the MRM;

Any of this stuff sound familiar? It does—but not from me or Rob.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Eric June 5, 2012 at 12:44

Traveller:
Renaissance Italy was a creative dynamo because of its form of government. Unlike the corrupt and decadent monarchies around it, most of the Italian states north of Rome were aristocracies. They were examples of liberty with an authoritarian state to which I alluded earlier; and the least notable form of government for carrying out persecutions.

You point to a few persecutions of individuals there, but don’t mention that many of these Renaissance states were havens for the persecuted, including the Papal States. Pius II had a huge re-settlement policy going for Albanians and Greeks displaced after the Moslems conquered Byzantium.

For all the persecutions you can point to, none equal the hecatombs of innocents slaughtered by secularist ideologues: e.g. French Jacobins, German Nazis, Russian and Chinese Communists, and others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Rob June 5, 2012 at 13:13

Giordano Bruno was killed by the Church, fate just avoided by Galileo later. And Leonardo da Vinci studied anatomy against the Church orders, stealing corpses night time from cemetaries, and wrote in that famous “mirrored” calligraphy to hide his findings. — Traveller

I don’t know the veracity of the following (I haven’t researched it closely myself), but it coincides with other things I have read about the church in relation to times past:

“It’s not widely known that Galileo’s research was initially funded by the church. This is hard to reconcile with the suggestion that the church simply murdered scientists wherever they could be found. While it’s true that Galileo was forced to water-down the description of his theory so that it was merely a proposed alternate mathematical model, and then held under house arrest for the rest of his life, he was never jailed. In fact, he was permitted to continue his research, and published his most important work after the trial.”The Galileo Affair

Christianity is not inherently against such things or responsible for all the atrocities committed in the past. Humans are. Keep in mind, one of the pillars which Cultural Marxism seeks to undermine is Christianity.

“The main weapon used to fight this war is Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the “essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family,patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism.”

Isaac Newton was heavily religious and his scientific approach was about discovering how God had put together the world.

There are often accusations of things like “burning at the stake” by the millions. This is wildly over-blown. I think it was Artfuldodger who a few years ago extrapolated the numbers, and showed that for the average citizen at the time, they were under less danger of dying at the stake than the modern day citizen is from dying on a bicycle ride. “Bloody Mary” got her name for her notorious killings, however, she “only” killed around 400 people – and they were more political opponents to the state, and pretty much knew the risks they were taking.

Karl Marx lived at arguably the absolute height of Christian power, and in the heart of its power centre (London) and he ran around saying his object in life was “To dethrone God and destroy Capitalism.” He didn’t even get a hot-foot for it.

Christianity is not inherently anti-science. This is as false as accusing men of being naturally misogynist – and it stems from the same source and for the same purpose – to undermine the social order of our civilization.

If anything, since the Church was where you went in the old days to become highly educated – like the priests and the monks – it is also fair to say that it was the Intelligentsia or Academic features of the church of the day that committed these crimes – much like how Academics today are closed minded and do everything they can to drown out independent thought with heavy-handedness – academics have always done this, and have prevented much advancement themselves – it is feature of human nature. Academia enforces what is already known, and tries to discredit anything “new” which over-rides their power sphere. When the church was doing it, that is also where much of the academics of the day resided. Is it Christianity, or Academia then that is to blame?

Also, you are talking about times when the Church had enormous power over the state – or in other words, they had undue influence over both our moral and legal spheres. Thus, one could also extrapolate that it is when government controls both our morals and the means to enforce them, evil ensues… much like what is happening today as the government tells us what is right and wrong to believe, and then passes a plethora of laws over-riding rights and freedoms to enforce their self-declared morality. (Dead-beat Dads – we will find you! We will make you pay!) This is what happens when governments decide our morality for us. At the time, the Church was pretty much government… so, is it a feature of Christianity, or a feature of Government?

If anything, the Church was at least constricted by the Absolute Unchangeability of the Bible – they could twist things only to a certain degree before they outright contradicted the Bible. Even the Pope is bound by the Bible – he cannot re-write it, he must abide by its rules. It keeps human nature from going too far off into la la land. This is also the reason for the Founding Fathers to have constructed the Constitution and a person’s Unalienable Rights the way they did – to create an absolute truth that cannot be easily manipulated away by humans.

Without such an absolute, we have the moral relativity of Human Nature untied to absolutes – thus, we see Communism murdering over 120,000,000 in less than a century, and we have feminism fast closing on their heels by murdering babies in the womb at an almost on par level within the same time frames.

Christianity is certainly not above reproach, but I suspect that without the Bible’s absoluteness, our history would have been but a footnote, as we would have “gone off the path” way long ago, and never got off the ground in the first place.

Jail is full of innocent people. We have a remarkable ability to justify anything we wish to justify. Absolutes prevent us from getting too far off track… that’s not to say we never do, but with absolutes, it becomes recognizable that we are going astray. Without them… we go really, really wild.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Traveller June 5, 2012 at 13:19

Eric:

1. “Persecutions of a few individuals”, means simply there are few geniuses who emerges from the masses. Others do not need to be persecuted.

2. As usual the Catholic delusion about Nazis. Adolf Hitler was the most Catholic leader of human history.

Anyway, my point was obviously religion deserves very small credit for the progress and the arts created in that time – despite many here would like the opposite.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Elusive Wapiti June 5, 2012 at 15:43

@ Unger,

Thanks for the clarification, my friend. I found Mr. Nock’s description of the mass-man and remnant quite illuminating.

@ Art,

“I don’t believe in any gods or other metaphysical things, does that mean I’m incapable of morality?”

Not necessarily. But I tihnk the atheistic / agnostic among us essentially free-ride on the moral culture crafted by the theistic majority, be that poly- or mono-.

@ Freebird, thanks for the comment and your readership.

@ Craig,

“will probably be a better neighbor than one who accepts the baser programming of his culture”

Or himself, as it appears the masses are inclined to do these days.

Elusive Wapiti June 5, 2012 at 15:47

“Adolf Hitler was the most Catholic leader of human history”

I’m no papist, but srsly?

Eric June 5, 2012 at 16:12

Traveller:
1. You’re wrong about the reasons these geniuses were persecuted. It was usually the civil governments who saw them as threats. The Medicis and others had more flexible systems of government, than the surrounding monarchies, under which these people could operate.

2. Hitler as Catholic: Hitler was born into a Catholic family, so was Himmler. They both signed orders to have the Pope arrested and shot if their campaign to recapture Rome had been successful. Goebbels and Rosenberg were also born into Catholic families. They had blueprints drawn up for a post-war suppression of Roman Catholicism and its replacement with Nazified-Aryan religion. I think it could be better argued that the nuns wasted a lot of time trying to teach these guys anything.

Some better German Catholics were Marshal Rommel, Admiral Canaris, and Col.von Stauffenburg who in 1944 attempted a coup against these maniacs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay June 6, 2012 at 04:07

But I tihnk the atheistic / agnostic among us essentially free-ride on the moral culture crafted by the theistic majority, be that poly- or mono-.

Well that may very well be, but we can’t really know at what kinds of moral standards a culture that’s truly atheistic would arrive, but we can deduce from other cultures that believe in other gods / things.

I think being moral is always something that’s opportunistic, although some are more idealistic than others. You act a certain way for a certain payoff, be it an expectation to be treated the same way by others or a reward from your god/gods or good karma or whatever.

Also, statistically, atheists seem to do a better job at being moral, upstanding citizens than religious people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Thos June 6, 2012 at 11:28

Price:

You may want to change the end point of the linked paragraph on the front page so that it doesn’t end at those last three words.

:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: