Monthly Archives: May 2013

Gay Unions are Better

Here’s an article from Slate, Gay Couples Do It Better, in which feminist Hanna Rosen writes:

Without those assumptions, gay couples tend to make more logical choices. The one who is the better cook more often makes dinner, without worrying that this might violate some principles of either feminism or masculinity. The one who earns more money works more, etc. In economics this is called “specialization,” and it tends to make households —much like industries—run more efficiently. One great surprise: Gay dads, studies show, are slightly more likely to have a full time stay at home parent than straight couples. Why? Because much as we hate to hear it, that arrangement is probably more efficient and makes everyone less stressed. But the important lesson here is, the one who stays at home doesn’t need to be the mom.

We now know that feminists accept that traditional family roles are more logical and efficient as long as its gays doing it, not women in heterosexual relations.

It’s easy to see from this that feminism has never been about logic, reason, or the best for civilization or children. It has always been about the selfish desires of selfish women.

****

The blog post linked back to this Atlantic article. Because the discussion of this article is about how much better gay unions are than marriage, rather than a discussion of marriage between oppressed women and oppressive men, the article is willing to actually be more forthrite on ‘controversial’ topics than is typical for liberal rags. So there are a few delightful little tidbits if you ignore the propoganda.

The National Center for Family and Marriage Research has produced a startling analysis of data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that women’s median age when they have their first child is lower than their median age at first marriage. In other words, having children before you marry has become normal. College graduates enjoy relatively stable unions, but for every other group, marriage is collapsing. Among “middle American” women (those with a high-school degree or some college), an astonishing 58 percent of first-time mothers are unmarried.

That’s kind of sad, don’t you think?

For instance: we know that heterosexual wives are more likely than husbands to initiate divorce. Social scientists have struggled to explain the discrepancy, variously attributing it to the sexual revolution; to women’s financial independence; to men’s failure to keep modern wives happy. Intriguingly, in Norway and Sweden, where registered partnerships for same-sex couples have been in place for about two decades (full-fledged marriage was introduced several years ago), research has found that lesbians are twice as likely as gay men to split up. If women become dissatisfied even when married to other women, maybe the problem with marriage isn’t men. Maybe women are too particular. Maybe even women don’t know what women want. These are the kinds of things that we will be able to tease out.

This is a good fact to pull out next time casual divorce is blamed on men.

On the contrary: the institution is far more flexible and forgiving than it used to be. In the wake of women’s large-scale entry into the workplace, men are less likely than they once were to be saddled with being a family’s sole breadwinner, and can carve out a life that includes the close companionship of their children. Meanwhile, women are less likely to be saddled with the sole responsibility for child care and housework, and can envision a life beyond the stove top and laundry basket.

Wow. ‘Not all is broken in marriage, it simply doesn’t mean anything anymore.’ I’ve written on this before. Simply put, marriage is about creating a division of labour for raising children and sexually monogamy. By destroying the division of labour and destroying per-marriage chastity, marriage itself has been rendered moot.

And yet for many couples, as Bianchi, the UCLA sociologist, has pointed out, the modern ideal of egalitarianism has proved “quite difficult to realize.” Though men are carrying more of a domestic workload than in the past, women still bear the brunt of the second shift. Among couples with children, when both spouses work full-time, women do 32 hours a week of housework, child care, shopping, and other family-related services, compared with the 21 hours men put in. Men do more paid work—45 hours, compared with 39 for women—but still have more free time: 31 hours, compared with 25 for women.

The good ol’ second shift. I’ve already written about the housework debate here and we already know the second shift is a myth based on poor methodology. So, I won’t go farther into that. This is just a reminder it’s all BS.

It’s not that people don’t want to marry. Most never-married Americans say they still aspire to marriage, but many of them see it as something grand and out of reach. Getting married is no longer something you do when you are young and foolish and starting out; prosperity is not something spouses build together. Rather, marriage has become a “marker of prestige,” as the sociologist Andrew Cherlin puts it—a capstone of a successful life, rather than its cornerstone. But while many couples have concluded that they are not ready for marriage, they have things backwards. It’s not that they aren’t ready for marriage; it’s that marriage isn’t ready for the realities of 21st-century life. Particularly for less affluent, less educated Americans, changing economic and gender realities have dismantled the old institution, without constructing any sort of replacement.

This here is one of the main problems with marriage. This pernicious attitude of marriage is destroying marriage and society with it.

Marriage works best when you build a life together. It is not a capstone to your life, it is a foundation. Marriage is stability, not decoration or status.

If you serious about having children at some point in your life, you are ready for marriage now. There is no “right” time, there is no reason to wait. It doesn’t matter if you’re 18 or 35; if children are something you plan for your future, be serious about marriage now, find a suitable spouse now, and get married, now.

It is a shame the church has bought into the notion that young people should build their lives, then get married. Getting married should be the beginning of a shared building and this attitude should return to the church.

What Schwartz and Blumstein found is that gay and lesbian couples were fairer in their dealings with one another than straight couples, both in intent and in practice. The lesbians in the study were almost painfully egalitarian—in some cases putting money in jars and splitting everything down to the penny in a way, Schwartz says, that “would have driven me crazy.” Many unmarried heterosexual cohabitators were also careful about divvying things up, but lesbian couples seemed to take the practice to extremes: “It was almost like ‘my kitty, your litter.’?” Gay men, like lesbians, were more likely than straight couples to share cooking and chores. Many had been in heterosexual marriages, and when asked whether they had helped their wives with the housework in those prior unions, they usually said they had not. “You can imagine,” Schwartz says, “how irritating I found this.”

Remember, earlier about how lesbian unions end much more frequently. Also, you know how cohabitationg couples break-up far more often than married couples. There’s a reason.

There were still some inequities: in all couples, the person with the higher income had more authority and decision-making power. This was least true for lesbians; truer for heterosexuals; and most true for gay men. Somehow, putting two men together seemed to intensify the sense that “money talks,” as Schwartz and Blumstein put it. They could not hope to determine whether this tendency was innate or social—were men naturally inclined to equate resources with power, or had our culture ingrained that idea in them?—but one way or another, the finding suggested that money was a way men competed with other men, and not just a way for husbands to compete with their wives. Among lesbians, the contested terrain lay elsewhere: for instance, interacting more with the children could be, Schwartz says, a “power move.”

You mean earning money is a form of competition for men? Am I ever surprised.

This is why having a female breadwinner is death on a marriage. The female working makes the money issue a competition for the man. If the man is not winning the competition (especially to his wife), he will not feel good about himself and the wife will not respect him.

Lesbians also tended to discuss things endlessly, achieving a degree of closeness unmatched by the other types of couples. Schwartz wondered whether this might account for another finding: over time, sex in lesbian relationships dwindled—a state of affairs she has described as “lesbian bed death.” (The coinage ended up on Schwartz’s Wikipedia page, to her exasperation: “There are other things that I wish I were famous around.”) She posits that lesbians may have had so much intimacy already that they didn’t need sex to get it; by contrast, heterosexual women, whose spouses were less likely to be chatty, found that “sex is a highway to intimacy.” As for men, she eventually concluded that whether they were straight or gay, they approached sex as they might a sandwich: good, bad, or mediocre, they were likely to grab it.

You mean men and women have different views of intimacy? Am I ever shocked.

When the opposite-sex couples did parent simultaneously, they were more likely to undermine each other by talking at cross-purposes or suggesting different toys. The lesbian mothers tended to be egalitarian and warm in their dealings with one another, and showed greater pleasure in parenting than the other groups did. Same-sex dads were also more egalitarian in their division of labor than straight couples, though not as warm or interactive as lesbian moms. (Patterson says she and her colleagues may need to refine their analysis to take into account male ways of expressing warmth.)

Men and women are different in their relation to children? Shocking.

Even as they are more egalitarian in their parenting styles, same-sex parents resemble their heterosexual counterparts in one somewhat old-fashioned way: a surprising number establish a division of labor whereby one spouse becomes the primary earner and the other stays home. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, told me that, “in terms of economics,” same-sex couples with children resemble heterosexual couples with children much more than they resemble childless same-sex couples. You might say that gay parents are simultaneously departing from traditional family structures and leading the way back toward them.

In his seminal book A Treatise on the Family, published in 1981, the Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker argued that “specialization,” whereby one parent stays home and the other does the earning, is the most efficient way of running a household, because the at-home spouse enables the at-work spouse to earn more. Feminists, who had been fighting for domestic parity, not specialization, deplored this theory, rightly fearing that it could be harnessed to keep women at home. Now the example of gay and lesbian parents might give us all permission to relax a little: maybe sometimes it really is easier when one parent works and the other is the supplementary or nonearning partner, either because this is the natural order of things or because the American workplace is so greedy and unforgiving that something or somebody has to give. As Martha Ertman, a University of Maryland law professor, put it to me, many families just function better when the same person is consistently “in charge of making vaccinations happen, making sure the model of the World War II monument gets done, getting the Christmas tree home or the challah bought by 6 o’clock on Friday.” The good news is that the decision about which parent plays this role need not have anything to do with gender.

More on how the traditional division of labour is awesome, as long as it is not applied traditionally.

More surprising still, guess who is most likely to specialize. Gay dads. Using the most recent Census Bureau data, Gary Gates found that 32 percent of married heterosexual couples with children have only one parent in the labor force, compared with 33 percent of gay-male couples with children. (Lesbians also specialize, but not at such high rates, perhaps because they are so devoted to equality, or perhaps because their earnings are lower—women’s median wage is 81 percent that of men—and not working is an unaffordable luxury.) While the percentage point dividing gay men from straight couples is not statistically significant, it’s intriguing that gay dads are as likely as straight women to be stay-at-home parents.

Gay men’s decisions about breadwinning can nonetheless be fraught, as many associate employment with power. A study published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies in 2005 by Stephanie Jill Schacher and two colleagues found that when gay men do specialize, they don’t have an easy time deciding who will do what: some stay-at-home dads perceived that their choice carried with it a loss in prestige and stature. As a result, gay men tended to fight not over who got to stay home, but over who didn’t have to. “It’s probably the biggest problem in our relationship,” said one man interviewed for that study. Perhaps what Betty Friedan called “the problem that has no name” is inherent in child-rearing, and will always be with us.

Not intriguing at all. Men are more logically rational and more given to thinking in cold economic terms, such as specialization.

RULE 3: Don’t want a divorce? Don’t marry a woman.

Hehe. Self-explanatory that.

Which perhaps boils down to something like this: straight women see themselves as being less powerful than men, and this breeds hostility.

The curse of Eve.

Anyway, the piece goes on about how awesome gay unions are and how horrible traditional marriage is, but this was the interesting stuff.

Lightning Round – 2013/05/29

Both nihilists and civilizationists are necessary.
Related: Why it had to be PUA’s.

You might be a patriarch if

da manosphere summarzied by daGBFM

No guts, no glory: love does exist.

“When the sky gods war or the earth goddess dances, when the human curse of zealotry or simple stupidity lays waste to our delicate civilization, it takes Men, doing Manly things, to bring us back from the edge of barbarism.”

The proper framework for marriage.
Related: The fallacy of mutual submission. More.

Why ‘you always find someone when you aren’t looking’ works for women.

The male equivalent of the slut is the beta orbiter.

The blue pill and the red pill: reality and ideal

Victor Pride with some more motivational writing.

The reason the red pill tastes bitter.

Approach factors.

Do desert dates instead of dinner.

Why PUA’s don’t have all the answers.

Fat girls don’t deserve love.

The pretense and necessity of responsibility.

Treat mediocrity as a crisis.

Heavy is the head.

Study sends shockwaves through feminist groups. Hehe.

Should we redistribute based on sexual desirability.

My condolences go out to Danny.

The Captain and Private Man on Samsung.

The Captain is asking for some help.

Gender Nihilism.

5 easy steps to get him to propose.

Aging, selfish, entitled women is angry no men want to have children with her.
Related: An MGTOW reply in the MSM. Going mainstream?

Being single has its perks.
Related: Women 40% more likely to develop mental illness.
Related: 30% of women are sexually dysfunctional.
Related: Women commit the majority of domestic violence.

Non-institutional false rape accusations also occur.

The same site that attacked Karamazov, has turned to another manosphere denizen, Frank. Is this the start of a trend? I find it amusing that people who communicate mainly in .gifs  and substitute emotion for reason are insulting his intelligence.

Blogging, the MSM, and trust.

Reducing the links in your blogposts.

Is the tide turning? The comments on this Schwyzer article are almost all pro-male.

In defence of the use of ‘the Cathedral’.

The sociology of reaction.
Related: Going forward: the specialization of reaction.

Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment. I hope I’m important enough to get the card treatment next issue. Also, Radish seems to be going by Karl now. Wonder if that’s his real name.

The Cathedral demands its sacrifice.

The progressive glossary.

Is the doom and gloom overhyped?

Has intelligence been declining since the Victorian era?

Revenge on the bankers.

Frightening facts about the US economy.
Related: US treasury will take from pension funds to avoid default.

Sweden is being culturally enriched. So is Britain.
Related: Stockholm continues to enjoy being culturally enriched.
Related: They don’t want to integrate.
Related: Only dark explanations explain Sweden.

Islam in Europe: how it ends.
Related: According to SDA, this is not satire. I weep for the Vikings.

On SHTF; what the collapse could look like.

Canada firearms laws; persecuting the innocent.

The police state is warming up with some political, unlawful arrests.

The scary part of the IRS scandal is the general reaction.
Related: Foseti on the IRS scandal.
Related: The personal effects of the IRS scandal.
Related: Gibson targeted by federal raids for political activities.
Related: Pravda edits the news: MSM neutrality? A lie.
Related: Obama met with IRS union head before Tea Party targeted.
Related: Obama administration on why government should be smaller.

Britain is increasingly becoming a police state.

The growth of the fourth branch of government.

Why there can be no conversation about guns with the freedom haters.

60% of Jamaicans think they would be better off as a British colony.

Permanent affirmative action.

Workers find out what’s in the health care bill.

Abuse is one thing, but the NYC school system cannot abide this.

Public school is literally more lethally dangerous than guns.

John Dewey is one of the most evil Americans of the last century.

The federal government issues speech code recommendations for universities.

Rob Ford and the politics of class.

Susan Walsh and the Atlantic manage to somehow miss the obvious demographic question. Sometimes I wonder if they are being purposefully ignorant of if goodthink is simply that ingrained.

The pope is theologically wrong or at least on the very edge of wrongness.

It’s been a while, so once again: Paul Krugman is a lying intellectual whore.
Related: Lobbyists should write bills I approve of.

Monsanto is big government.

Shell: We can’t’ find capable women.

Mother Jones: Blacks more likely to be murderers, pedophiles, and rapists.

The glories of the union.

The business of Cards Against Humanity.

Bad advice tumbler.

The fatkini; because sloth and gluttony are nothing to be ashamed of.

Freeze your eggs for when you realize you made a mistake in life.

Feminist just discovers that boys like groups, girls like pairs.

Veganism kills.

Does it say something about our society when so many movies about the apocalypse and the white house are being released this year?

The MGTOW’s continue to make good arguments.

(H/T: Instapundit, SDA, Bill, Foseti, Save CapitalismTIWMGTOW, CC, Maggie’s Farm, Shining Pearls, Castles & Cooks)

The Cathedral Footsoldiers

The Karamazov Idea has gone down and just a week or so after I added him to my blogroll. It seems he pissed off the feminists (this link is the second highest Google result for Karamazov Idea) and was threatened with being doxed. (Before he went he made this good post examining empirically the types of women who get tattoos. Check it out on this archived page.)

You may also remember that earlier this year CDM-N went down in a similar situation. A similar thing could have happened when Lindy West of Jezebel attacked Victor Pride, but Victor Pride fought back and he’s now given up his anonymity. Numerous other blogs in our little corner of the internet have had trouble with being doxed, outed, or real life attacks.

In larger culture, this has also happened to public individuals like John Derbyshire, James Watson, and, recently, Jason Richwine. It doesn’t matter how small or big you are, they will try to shut you down. Even in national politics we can see this, such as the recent IRS case.

Now, this is a common tactic of the left, using their bullying power to shut down people whose ideas they don’t like. The religion of the Cathedral is Truth and heretics must be stamped out. Thankfully, they haven’t gotten to burning people at the stake, yet, they simply try to take away your livelihood and economic future.

The left, supposed “free-thinkers” who love “critical thinking”, will try to remove your livelihood from you simply for expressing an opinion, or in Richwine’s case, simply presenting facts. But of course, we all know the left doesn’t like actual free-thought or critical thinking, these are simply code-words for intellectual stultifying conformity.

Eventually, unless something changes, these kinds of witchhunts will simply result in shooting. At some point, the right is going to get sick of fearing constantly for their jobs and their family’s food simply because of their political opinions. This will result in them realizing we have all the guns and the cowards at Jezebel, Gawker, et al. have purposefully disarmed themselves. The ‘fight’ at this point will be rather one-sided, maybe enough so to simply be a ‘cleansing’.

But that’s for the future. Right now, for us here in the manosphere/alt-right, this means we have to be aware of their tactics. There are three ways to deal with this: either need to have nothing to lose, such as Victor Pride who works for himself, or we must be willing to accept the costs of being the leftists’ enemies, such as Vox Day who has said before that he has lost work because of his writings (but I can’t find the link), or we must simply be anonymous, then back out when the threats come and let someone else takeover, such as with CDM-N and Karamazov. (There’s also the possibility of just being a fun guy like Danny, who no one seems to take offense to).

For myself, for now, I choose anonymity, it’s easier, but as a single man with no family to support and in a unionized government job, I’m not overly worried about being doxed.

Remember, be aware of the risks, but don’t let them stifle you. Leftists may be controlling, close-minded, tyrannical assholes, but they are not omnipotent.

****

Martel remarked at SSM’s:

In regards to blogs shutting down and the like, I though WE were the supposed oppressors. If we’re so damn oppressive, then how is it so easy for the oppressed to completely wreck our lives?

There are countless oppressors like Rollo and Roissy who have to blog anonymously (even me, although I’m not in their league yet), but victims of oppression like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Wakeman use their real names. It’s like the oppressors are afraid of something but the oppressed aren’t.

However much the left might pretend they’re “fighting the power” or how oppressed they are, they’re lying to gain ideological points. The left has a firm grip on the levers of power.

The power differential is easy to see; leftists do not have to worry about being fired or having their anonymity slip because there are no repercussions for being a leftist. Rightests have to steel themselves and prepare, because being a heretic can end your career and economic livelihood.

****

Now having said that, I just want to examine that blog post about Karamazov’s post and its comments a bit.

The title of the blog post attacked Karamazov, “Karamazov Idea” Says Tattoos Make You A Slut. Of course, IIRC he argued that sluts where tattoos, not that tattoos caused sluttiness; the writer failed to distinguish cause from effect, but then again logic and feminists tend to have an adversarial relationship.

Now, one thing that will surprise no one, is that despite being against judging people on sexual history (the quip about “slut assignment” being case in point) they do seem to be a sexually judgmental lot. Some quotes from sluts who are opposed to sexual judgmentalism:

I have a $100 wager running that if this guy ever sees a naked woman in real life, he curls into a fetal position and vomits on himself.

I’m thinking that Christian Mingle wouldn’t even fuck him.

Sounds like someone was rejected by a woman with tattoos!

He’s totally a virgin.

Frustrated virgin dud really hates women who’re giving it up to everyone but him.

You’ll get laid someday little buddy.

Seething Dude w/ mommy-issues compounded by can’t-get-laid issues is seething.

Something tells me this guy has been rejected by too many tattooed women.

Pretty sure this is a sixteen year old boy who is super sad that he’s never seen pair of boobs in person.

That guy is a fucking douche. Majority of the female population has some kind of ink. So therefore no pussy for him. And he’s mad. I can read the anger through his little bitch boy post (s). He needs a high five to the face by a fierce tattooed up chick.

The only response I have for “Realism” [ed: one of the few sane people in the comments] is “HELLLOOOOO VIRGIN!” and this:

They are infuriating at first until you realize that they are just the new generation of guys who play Magik the Gathering and hold resentment that their moms made them zip up their jacket in front of girls.

Dude, you’re a 23 year old “man” with obvious mother issues. Sort yourself out before you die alone.

mommy issues… right???

Come hither, young Karamazov. I want to show you something fun you can do with your penis. No, it doesn’t involve sticking it in me. But it will be fun, and probably the closest thing you will experience to actual sex with a woman.

Here’s some of these people who are against discriminating against people based on their body:

Agreed… this guy has a teeny tiny little penis.

What this guy looks like in my mind. [image of fat, ugly man]

If only you had an echo chamber to console your tiny, lonely penis.

He does – it’s called his right hand. [ed. following prior comment]

He reminds of the dudes in grad school who used “intellectualism” and an interested in Christian theology as an excuse to say nasty things about women.

FWIW- those dudes were unattractive, socially awkward and didn’t get into their top choice PhD programs (or any).

Now, it should come as no surprise to most by now, but feminists are hypocritical when it comes to judgment. Men can not judge the sexual history of women, but at the same time those same women will happily judge a man’s presumed sexual history. “Slut-shaming” is evil sexism, but “virgin-shaming” is great. Shaming fatties and tattooed sluts who chose to deface their bodies is wrong, shaming a man through libelous accusations of having a small penis is thoroughly acceptable.

Remember, for the Jezebel and Feministing types, modern feminism has little to do with logic or principles and is simply the ideological wrapping-paper for the selfish entitlement complexes of sluts. Hypocrisy and illogic are all you can expect.

I wonder how these people would react if Karamazov called someone a cunt:

WOW I HOPE YOU NEVER GET LAID YOU MAN CUNT. ;D

Here’s a bit of irony:

Does any woman really care what this asshole or any man, for that matter, thinks?

This is being asked while 9 pages of women bitch and act offended by what he said. I know logic isn’t the feminists’ strong suit, but if any feminist reads this: [Protip]: not caring is the opposite of spending 9 pages bitching and being offended. Also, it’s kind of hard to argue no woman cares, when at least one spent enough effort to track him down in real life and threaten to ruin his anonimity. One woman even cared enough to start their own blog solely because of this post.

It seems women care a hell of a lot when someone points out that maybe making stupid choices in life is not the wisest move.

The best quote though, is this one:

I’ve been seriously toying with the idea of getting a tattoo for quite some time now but have been on the fence. Now, thanks to the Karamazov Idea… I know I definitely want one! So thanks a bunch douche bag!

You can really see the high level of decision-making skills in these gals: “Imma gonna permenently deface myself to spite some random guy on the internet I’ve never met and I think is a loser.” Fantastic.

****

Anyway, the point of this post: feminists are often hypocritical, but they have have the cultural power to hurt you, so be aware of that.

Or maybe they’re not hypocrites, but are just inferior beings who hold others to higher standards than they hold themselves.

DE Reading List Update

Here are some additions to the Dark Enlightenment Reading List based on comments from the original post.

The Moral Animal – Robert Wright
Meant to add this one, but somehow it didn’t get added.

The Manipulated Man – Esther Vilar
Darkness at Noon – Arthur Koestler
Patriarcha (the Natural Power of Kings) – Sir Robert Filmer
Is There Anything Good About Men? – Roy Baumeister

I would have added The Resistance by Ernesto Sabato but I can not find an English version.

A few books, such as the 48 Laws of Power, were already on my Free Man’s reading list and didn’t really fit this one, some didn’t fit either list, and some already had similar, preferable options. Macaulay, for example, seems to be a whig.

I’ve also added a few more from Moldbug and Radish:

Popular Government – Henry Maine
The Rising Tide of Color – Lothrop Stoddard

You are Not so Smart was added to the Free Man’s List under Mind.

Some asked for history and I think it would be a good addition, but I wasn’t sure where to start on this, but I found this list on Moldbug, so that sounds good:

Life and Liberty in America – Charles Mackay
Land of the Dollar – George Steevens
Outre-Mer – Paul Bourget

Shall Cromwell Have a Statue? – Charles Francis Adams Jr.
Memoirs of Service Afloat – Adm. Raphael Semmes
The Roving Editor – James Redpath

Democracy and the Party System in the United States – Moisei Ostrogorskiy
A South-Side View of Slavery – Nehemiah Adams

The Origin of the Late War – Lunt

Here’s a couple more from the Free Man’s list:

Reflection on the Revolution in France – Edmund Burke
Origins of English Individualism – Alan MacFarlane

Here’s a few more from other Mencius posts and Foseti:

True History of the American Revolution – Sydney George Fisher
The Shortest-Way With The Dissenters – Daniel Defoe
While you Slept – John T. Flynn
The Road Ahead; America’s Creeping Revolution – John T. Flynn
America’s Retreat from Victory – Joseph R. McCarthy

I think that should be enough history; if anyone has any other DE-related history books that should be read, feel free to suggest.

Added GBFM’s reading list and Foseti’s “books that influenced me” to the other reading list links.

Lightning Round – 2013/05/22

There are no winners in a shit-test.

Beta training.

What kills love?

Dalrock on traditional marriage.
Related: A divorce story.
Related: Against marriage licenses.
Related: You do not have the right to marry.

How churches abandoned the Christian single.
Related: Looking for the one.
Related: Why I will probably never attend church services again.

The idiocy of the state replacing the family.
Related: Weaker men more likely to welfare state and redistribution.

Logos and Agape: reason comes before love.
Related: Some people need civilization beaten into them.

“The curse of Eve is the irresistible allure of the unknown.”

Science: Build comfort by talking about her.

Presence.

Don’t you even have a life?

Body and face. I’ve always had a preference towards face myself.

The paleo attitude.

Some rhetoric advice.

Do not become misologic.

It is not weird to have feelings for a girl.
Related: Loneliness if deadly.

An alpha gene?

Science: ED caused as much by partner as it is by age.

The failure of overparenting.

Eating disorders and feminism.

Misandry does not exist.

Going ghost and the parasites.
Related: Obamacare a raw deal for men.
Related: Vox comments.

Be a security guard or join the military.

The loser I was; a story of porn.
Related: A story of self-destruction.

Always be in control.

Most sexually abusive men, were sexually abused by females.

An evolutarionary psychologist on PUA’s using his work.

Game, DE, and Reaction.

The Gods of the Copybook Heading in a nutshell.

IQ denial is a religious belief.

Is the right growing a spine?
Related: Even if people don’t accept biological IQ differences, maybe they should at least research them.
Related: The open-mindedness of the Cathedral.
Related: On race as a biological construct.

Not whether but which.
Related: “Indeed, our society has killed God only to leave these people searching for him up their ass.”

On r/K life cycle theory.

Now arriveth the consequences of anti-natalism.
Related: Hamsters hitting the wall.

Using ‘leviathan’ instead of ‘cathedral’. I prefer the latter; the religious connotations are essential to exposing the reality of the issue, the former strips that layer of meaning.

The abuses of the IRS. Big brother in action.
Related: The real scandal of the IRS scandal.
Related: The IRS scandal is not about the president.
Related: Polls: No one cares. Why the Republic is doomed.
Related: IRS told pro-life group it must promote abortion.
Related: IRS steals 60 million medical records.

EPA shows favouritism for liberal groups.

Bill with a list of executive orders.
Related: US military overturns Posse Comitatus.

Did the administration spy on congress?

Passport control is people control.

Obama admits he’s a socialist? Maybe overstating based on the context.

Gay pride has killed more homosexuals than the closet.

We now know what leftists are. They hate you.

Diversity saves.

They come for Victoria Day.

If she wants baby it’s murder, if he wants baby it’s choice.

Targeting boys with anti-teen pregnancy ads.

Hate-fuck hoaxer is a violent criminal. Hehe.

Eating disorders and feminism.

Göbekli Tepe and social evolution.

Socialism follows the same script it always does in Argentina.

Will shares some specialized dating sites. Hehe.

Creepy things kids have said.

Best conspiracy ever?

10 facts about sleep.

Map of world’s most and least tolerant people.

Trivium pursuit. Home-schooling the Trivium.

(H/T: SDA, Clarissa, Phineas, Maggie’s Farm, zhainai, Save Capitalism, Sarah’s Daughter, GLP)

More on Rights

Phineas has responded to my response. It seems that we are mostly in agreement in the whole:

Ordinarily, in any other case outside of gender relations, I’d agree with Free Northerner’s post more wholeheartedly. But the original text was about the relationship between men and women and must be dealt with in that light. With the warped and twisted way life is right now, the only proper thing is that any discussion regarding men is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve rights. Conversely, any discussion involving women is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve responsibilities. As long as the rights/responsibilities pendulum is being held to the side and not allowed to rest at equilibrium, this must be the case.

Nowadays, men are given responsibility without the right to the fruits of their efforts, while women are given rights to the fruits of men’s efforts, without the responsibility of working for it. I agree, and I also think it is deplorable. So maybe, some imbalance in the discussion to the reverse may be necessary.

But I still stand by my original assertion, but I’ll expand based upon his criticisms. Nobody, neither men nor women, have natural rights, and nobody, neither men nor women, has a natural obligation to most other people.

By natural obligations, I mean that people owe the provision of something to other people. People do have God-ordained obligations to God (which take the form of being rendered to other people), to specific people (ie: parents), and obligations to not commit certain actions against others.

In this case, I am using natural rights as an abstract theological/philosophical concept. Not as a practical concept. People do have ‘rights’ as a practical matter, but these are social and political creations, no more, no less. It is necessary for a society to develop a list of rights and freedoms (and corresponding responsibilities), as inviolable freedoms lead to the healthiest societies.

But these rights are not granted to you by God, these rights are not something inherent in being born, these rights are social creations.

Despite our general agreement, I’ll talk to a few other points:

Rights are exhibited in the form of laws, and God has His own laws. “Right to life”“thou shalt not kill”. “Right to private property”“thou shalt not steal” and the like.

The duty to not kill does not necessarily imply a right to not be killed. The duty to not take others property does not necessarily imply a right to private ownership. I agree fully that every society should have both a right to life and a right to property, but neither of those are inviolable gifts from God. Given that God has seen fit to let almost one in three people die as infants throughout the majority of history and often personally commanded mass genocide and executions, it is hard to see where a right to life is guaranteed.

Those that go around claiming “rights don’t exist” will at the same time cry about their rights or the rights of others when the government comes to take their guns, or someone robs their home, or even claim a “right to life” when it comes to the issue of abortion.

One can discount natural rights, yet still believe in societal rights, or simply desire to be left alone. An American can say they have a right to a gun, because the right to a gun is societally accepted in their constitution, and non-Americans can desire a societal right to own a gun. Neither implies a natural right. There is no fundamental contradiction.

This leads into responsibilities undertaken willingly, which addresses Col 3:22 and Matt 16:24-27. People can willfully trade responsibility for responsibility. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist, but that people have the right to negotiate an exchange of goods and services. It, however, is a proof that responsibilities come from rights and not the other way around. Undertaking all things have a cost, and even Jesus warned of counting costs in such things. The misapplication of these Scriptures involve the fact that a choice was made to undertake a vow. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist.

I highly doubt most slaves had a choice in the matter and willfully traded their freedom for the care of their master.

Christ does not bid anyone come by force. This is obligation. The nature of men is to turn something that should be out of love into a forced obligation and something that should be given out of grace into an entitlement.

Absolutely agree.

This brings us back to the silly and absurd statement that “rights don’t exist”. When this is said in the context of the manosphere, it usually meant to mean “Rights Don’t Exist for Men.” In traditional practice, this is a true statement. This is readily seen by the practice of chivalry, which takes all rights away from men and all responsibilities away from women. This is akin to the statement that “Responsibilities Don’t Exist For Women”.

When I say it, I mean it for both sexes. I have written a number of times on the double-standard of rights, including chivalry. What society enforces and what is natural are not one and the same.

****

Also, this got linked on Reddit, where I was accused of subverting the red pill for Christianity. I will simply say the same conclusion must be reached by atheists. What natural rights do accidently evolved bags of water that happen to have certain electrical and chemical interactions occur within them have? Where do these natural rights come from?

The answer is they have none and they cannot come from anywhere. Any atheist proclaiming the existence of natural rights has simply failed to review his presuppositions. I thought this was obvious enough to those in the alt-right to not need mentioning.

Dark Enlightenment Reading List

While creating the Free Man’s Reading List, some recommended I add some books on what is sometimes referred to as the Dark Enlightenment. The Dark Enlightenment is something I’ve been reading for years and my blog here sometimes edges near the periphery of that territory, moreso as time goes on. Neoreaction is something I desire to learn more about.

So, I’ve been trying to create a reading list over the last few monehts for those wanting to learn about the Dark Enlightenment and I’m going to try to read through it while reading through the Free Man’s list (because one massive, multi-year reading list just isn’t enough).

Before that, I’ll briefly explain the Dark Enlightenment. It is essentially the realization that men are not equal. It is a reactionary movement against the progressivist ideology that dominates the Cathedral (ie. the elites) and is based on the untrue assumption of the equality of man.

Beyond that, there is a diverse array of ideologies among those that would be considered part of the Dark Enlightenment. Among those in the Dark Enlightenment are reactionaries, paleo-conservatives, paleo-libertarians, Christian traditionalists, formalists, fascists (in the non-pejorative sense), monarchists, tribalists, ethno-nationalists, nihilists, hedonists, and many others. The uniting link between these disparate ideologies is opposition to the current progressivist order and her sister ideologies of democracy, egalitarianism, socialism, feminism, multiculturalism, modernity, etc.

This list is meant to introduce someone to the Dark Enlightenment and its ideas. There is little discussion of the various little tribes of the movement; these are more focused on the broad-brush issues.

Not all (or even most) of the writers here would consider themselves part of the Dark Enlightenment, but these are books and writings I think would be useful in introducing the ideas that are fundamental to the DE.

Introduction

First we start with a few introductory web readings on what the Dark Enlightenment is:

The Dark Enlightenment Defined
The Dark Enlightenment Explained
The Path to the Dark Enlightenment
The Essence of the Dark Enlightenment
An Introduction to Neoreaction
Neoreaction for Dummies

Here is are two longer introductions that may be helpful for some. The first is by a non-reactionary and may be useful for those now from the right:
Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell
The Dark Enlightenment – Nick Land

The Cathedral Explained.

Being introduced to Dark Enlightenment thought, I would suggest reading When Wish Replaces Thought by Steven Goldberg. The book itself is written by a liberal, but thoroughly debunks numerous liberal shibboleths through objective logic. It’s not reactionary in itself, but it will cause someone capable of thinking to question what they view as accepted “truths”.

Then try Three Years of Hate from In Mala Fide. The collection of essays touches on numerous neoreactionary topics and is an enjoyable, easy-to-read entry point, as long as you don’t mind the virulent nihilism and offensiveness of the book.

Now we can get down to the various categories of dark enlightenment thought. You can read these categories in whatever order you wish; each is somewhat separate, but all are inter-connected.

I probably have missed some stuff, so feel free to provide some suggestions.

****

The Decline

These books introduce outline the decline of our civilization, the reasons, and the potential consequences. These books are more ‘mainstream’and due to their natures, each highlights numerous interrelated ideas. Because of this, they should make a good introduction.

We are Doomed – John Derbyshire
America Alone – Mark Steyn
After America – Mark Steyn
Death of the West – Pat Buchanan
The Abolition of Britain – Peter Hitchens

****

Civil Society and Culture

The importance of organic community and culture are embraced by all rightests. These books outline the the disappearance of organic community due to modern society and the decline of our culture.

Coming Apart – Charles Murray
Disuniting of America – Arthur Schlesinger
The Quest for Community – Robert Nisbet
Bowling Alone – Robert Putnam
Life at the Bottom – Theodore Dalrymple
Intellectuals and society – Thomas Sowell

****

Western Civilization

These books analyze the importance of western civiliziation.

Civilization: The West and the Rest – Niall Ferguson
Culture Matters – Samuel Huntington
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization – Ricardo Duchesne

****

Moldbuggery

Mencius Moldbug is one of the more influential neoreactionaries. His blog, Unqualified Reservations, is required reading; if you have not read Moldbug, you do not understand modern politics or modern history. Start here for an overview of major concepts: Moldbuggery Condensed. Introduction to Moldbuggery has the Moldbug reading list. Start with Open Letter series, then simply go from the beginning.

****

Reactionary Thought

Start with Carlyle’s first two:

Chartism – Thomas Carlyle
Latter-Day Pamphlets – Thomas Carlyle

Then move onto the other two major works necessary to enter the Froude society:

The Bow of Ulysses – James Anthony Froude
Popular Government – Henry Summers Maine

Then finish off Carlyle:
Shooting Niagara – Carlyle
The Occasional Discourse – Carlyle
On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History – Carlyle

Having gotten through Carlyle we can move onto Julius Evola. Here’s his three main works in recommended reading order, but first a very short summation of his work and practical application thereof.

The Handbook of Traditional Living – Raido
Men Among the Ruins – Julius Evola
Ride the Tiger – Julius Evola
Revolt Against the Modern World – Julius Evola

Here are a few other reactionaries to read gained from Moldbug, Radish, and elsewhere.

Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler
Hour of Decision – Oswald Spengler
On Power – Jouvenel
Against Democracy and Equality – Tomislav Sunic
New Culture, New Right – Michael O’Meara
Why We Fight – Guillaume Faye

****

Economics

Dark enlightenment economics tend towards either the Austrian school, techno-capitalism, or some form of economic nationalism/protectionism/mercantalism. Here’s some basic Austrian economics to destroy what modern keynesian notions you may have. This overlaps with the other reading list.

Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen – Frederic Bastiat
Man, Economy, and State – Murray Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises

****

HBD

Human bio-diversity (HBD) studies the biological roots of human behaviour a major topic within the Dark Enlightenment as genetic differences between people and groups provide a more fundamental view of inequality than the “root causes” touted by the Cathedral.

Darwin’s Enemies on the Left and Right Part 1, Part 2

The History and Geography of Human Genes (Abridged edition) – Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
The 10,000 Year Explosion – Gregory Cochrane
Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Rushton
Why Race Matters – Michael Levin

****

Intelligence and Mind

The science of intelligence and the mind is closely related to HBD and provides one of the more visible and controversial aspects of the Dark Enlightenment, while destroying the blank slate ideology.

The Bell Curve – Charles Murray
The Global Bell Curve – Richard Lynn
Human Intelligence – Earl Hunt
Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence – Robert Sternberg
A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
The Blank Slate – Stephen Pinker
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature – Murray Rothbard (essay)

****

Education

The control of the modern education system and its leading role in the perpetuation of the Cathedral has made the modern education system and its

Real Education – Charles Murray
Inside American Education – Thomas Sowell
Illiberal Education – Dinesh D’Sousa
God and Man at Yale – William Buckley
Weapons of Mass Instruction – John Taylor Gatto
The Higher Education Bubble – Glenn Reynolds

****

Sex

These books outline the biological realities of sex and sexual differences that are denied by the Cathedral.

The Way of Men – Jack Donovan
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley

****

Government

It is essential to know how government works for any reactionary; these books will show you. Also, yes, I did include a TV show; watch Yes, Minister, there is simply no better way to actually understand the actual mechanics of government than to watch this show. I work in government, and yes, bureaucrats will say this is exactly how government works.

Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show

****

Fiction/Poetry

Complete Verse – Rudyard Kipling
Harrison Bergeron – Kurt Vonnegut
Camp of the Saints – Jean Raspail

****

Other Related Reading Lists

Derbyshire’s list of Dark Enlightenment blogs
The Great Books of The Aristocracy
Library of the Dark Enlightenment