People too frequently talk about morality as entirely disconnected from this world. Everything here is wrecked, they suggest, so you perform this otherworldly duty that makes no sense by the rules of the gritty physical environment in which we live.
While that description applies to most of the arbitrarily abstract theories of those who have lost sight of reality as a cause/effect relationship, it does not apply to the oldest school of morality.
In the eyes of the ancients, morality was a pragmatic adaptation to the conditions of existence — but also carried with it a grace, and reverence, that showed a connection not to the convenience of the present but the ideals of the future.
So it is with chastity. You don’t act the slut not so much because you expect to die of AIDS or have an anvil fall on your head, but because acting like a slut lays (no pun intended) the groundwork for a future order that is negative, or based on the cheapness of things.
Instead, you might prefer an order based on the value of better things that rise above the rest, especially if you think you might someday have a teenage daughter. (Watch your friends: they get more conservative when their kids, especially daughters, hit puberty.)
In the modern era, we have cheapened many things under the guise of making them equally accessible to all. While we have achieved our goal, we have also failed to consider its larger context, which is that by cheapening things we make valuable and good things farther out of reach.
Only about 10 people attended, but the room came to a complete silence when the officer interrupted the more senior officer and made the reference to “sluts,” he told the Star.
“You know I think we’re beating around the bush here,” the officer said, according to Hoffman. “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
The senior officer was silent for a moment and then picked up the presentation.
“I don’t think he was sarcastic or malicious. I think he thought he was being helpful,” Hoffman said. – The Star
Officer Honest McClueless here committed a sin: he was unaware of the social dimensions of what he was saying, even if it was true. This type of action is only a sin in a time of decay. In other times, people would recognize the mathematical truth of his statement: if you hand out sexual favors, you have reduced the distance between consent and force. After all, you’ve cheapened those sexual favors, so it’s not like robbing a bank, but more like shoplifting.
In the same way, women at colleges across America are finding out that getting blind drunk and wandering off with some dude puts you into a legal gray area. In “he said, she said” cases, the courts generally do not prosecute because there is no evidence chain. Making that even worse, drunk women tend not to resist forcibly enough to have incontrovertible signs of violent sexual assault.
When we cheapen sexuality, we remove the sacred nature of relationships themselves. At that point, all that remains is lust and convenience, and these do not make for lasting relationships, but rather, temporary ones:
There is, for me, nothing worse than coming home to find somebody who cannot even be bothered to turn their head away from the television to ask how my day was.
It makes me feel that I’m invisible or don’t deserve the kindness of a simple ‘hello’. That’s loneliness.
So is two people sleeping back to back, or making conversation with somebody with whom you have nothing left in common. Loneliness for me is about a lack of connection, whether that’s to a person or to life itself, so if there’s anything lonelier than alienation from another human being whom you once loved — and were loved by — I have no idea what it might be.
I feel far less lonely on my own than I did in a marriage filled with polite, frigid silence. – Daily Mail
The root of modern alienation is in that in order to achieve equality, we have removed everything unique to experience and distilled it to a factory-made, one-size-fits-all, contextless material experience. Everyone can participate in that. Equally, even. But it is soulless. Without the highs and lows of life, and some things being rarer than others, we settle into a comfortable entropy where each choice is about as good as the next. We stop striving. And our civilization decays.
Now to explain the overburdened metaphor in the title of this blog post:
Image and quotation below from How the middle class became the underclass (CNN).
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans — those making $380,000 or more — have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust.
The article goes on to woolgather about reasons why this income is so low, but most of their “reasons” are not causes, but effects. The actual cause, which is too many people in the workforce competing for the same jobs and thus driving the value of those jobs down, is not discussed. Globalism gets a nod.
In the meantime the super-rich are getting richer not so much of their own doing, but because the value has been squeezed out of the crab-bucket of people scrabbling for jobs, and has to go somewhere. It travels to the top and those who own these businesses that employ the interchangeable cogs.
We should also take note that since 1988, our ability to pre-fabricate necessary ingredients in the workplace has multiplied. Not only pre-fab parts as you’d see at a Home Depot, but also our use of computer software, legal rulings and management theory to standardize the office. Now each office really is like pretty much any other.
The bigger principle is one of how we approach life itself. We can accept rarity, and treasure it because it allows some exceptional things to exist. Either that, or we can rage against rarity because it threatens us personally, and thus demand that we do away with rarity, with chastity, with exclusivity and elitism, and in doing so, conduct the value of our economy (or personal lives) into a state of entropy.
As modern society faces a “convergence of catastrophes” as Guillaume Faye puts it, from declining resources to unstable climate and radical politics, we will have this decision thrust on us again and again.
Do we want each sexual act to have meaning, or should we remove context? Do we want a nation of equally impoverished middle classes, or a hierarchy? These questions are eternal because they are mathematical, not human, in origin.
44 queries. 1.447 seconds
“if you hand out sexual favors, you have reduced the distance between consent and force. After all, you’ve cheapened those sexual favors, so it’s not like robbing a bank, but more like shoplifting.”
That is a self-evidently correct concept, completely new to me – and a stunning bit of writing.
[?Typo in "The root of modern alienation is in that in order to achieve inequality"]
“it’s not like robbing a bank”
Such a heist is the true path. Steal the seed of the greatest women.
[...] STEVENS, at the website Amerika, argues that the loss of chastity as a social ideal is part of a larger denigration of hierarchy. As such, [...]
if you hand out sexual favors, you have reduced the distance between consent and force. After all, you’ve cheapened those sexual favors, so it’s not like robbing a bank, but more like shoplifting.”
I don’t doubt that this is the point of view of the rapist. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least that a violent criminal is inclined to view another human being as similar to an item of merchandise on the shelf. But a violent criminal is not going to suddenly recognize a woman’s humanity just because she dons a burka or a demure flowered dress. Taking a vow of chastity isn’t going to suddenly persuade a rapist that I am a person too, a person whose desires and consent should be respected.
Women are not obligated to run their lives (how they dress, their sex lives, where they go) based on the point of view of the lowest common denominator. Safety precautions (what precautions to take, what degree of risk or constraint to tolerate, etc.) are highly personal choices that necessarily must vary from woman to woman. For a police officer to use viciously shaming language (“slut”) to try to dictate women’s dress choices based on arbitrary, highly relative standard (i.e. “sluttiness”) in the guise of “offering advice” was totally out of line, not to mention unhelpful (and that’s putting it mildly).
This is the kind of thing feminists are referring to when they say “women are people too.” When you adopt the rapist’s framework of viewing women as either heavily guarded items in a vault (the treasure in the bank to be robbed) or cheap merchandise on the Walmart shelf, you have forgotten that women are people. It doesn’t matter if you “respect” the demure ones by not trying to break into the bank; you are dehumanizing all of us, regardless of where we fall on the virgin/whore spectrum.
P.S. When a woman freely chooses to have sex, she isn’t “handing out sexual favors.” Sex isn’t something women give to men. It is a mutual experience that both parties participate in voluntarily because they both enjoy it.
Margaret,
Well said.
“virgin/whore spectrum”
I have not heard that one before, but I’m going to steal it from you if you don’t mind.
Lemme defend the article a bit though: It is a male perspective and thus valid for men to think this way and view the situation this way. Thus women’s job, if they disagree which is what I think you do, is to get men to see women’s sexuality differently. I studied the psychological philosophy known as transference and countertransference — an idea that seems to have some validity. Basically your internal response to another’s behavior or words should guide the other in formulating more pleasing behavior or words toward you the next time you have an exchange. In order for this to be effective one has to control his or her induced feelings and make the other person respond to those feelings in a productive way. I thought your response did this.
In defense of your post, tis true that men are permitted to be whores whereas women are not. Men are actually the loosest whores of all if we include homosexual men among any given virgin/whore sample. ;)
You also said, “Sex isn’t something women give to men.” Agreed. Such an idea suggests that women lose part of their womanhood/innocence/wholesomeness when they engage in sex. This then leads to cognitive dissonance: women are taught by our “Amerikan” society and the Jewish media to be sexy and are hyper-sexualized in the iconic sense, but if they actually engage in a sex act then they are “instaslut”. No wonder 99% of Western women are psychological basket cases. If you’re interested in seeing how media and pop culture (among other things) plays into this cognitive dissonance amongst our women, please see the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_2QKASEaqc
Anyway, a thought-provoking article and a great rebuttal. This is a good site.
Baldur
In defense of your post, tis true that men are permitted to be whores whereas women are not.
Good point. I don’t think we should encourage men to be sluts, either. As Athol Kay writes, it’s best if both partners are as virginal as possible. Otherwise, you start using the other person as a means to an unshared end (that sounded more obscene than I intended).
This then leads to cognitive dissonance: women are taught by our “Amerikan” society…to be sexy and are hyper-sexualized in the iconic sense, but if they actually engage in a sex act then they are “instaslut”. No wonder 99% of Western women are psychological basket cases.
This reminds me of the cycle of marketing in general. Your job is to get someone to buy the product; after that, your job is to treat them like they owe you for helping them make your product work for them, if at all.
I thought of one more thing last night and I’ll note it now.
Back to the transference/countertransference idea–
Men need to ask themselves why feminism exists as well as why it’s so popular. More women are feminists than not, so something is compelling them to identify with feminism. Likewise, women are doing something to cause men to retract/retreat from marriage (hence the negative phrase “ball and chain”).
If the two sexes would learn what actions and words they do and say evoke certain responses, then there would be no “battle” between the sexes. Of course the Jewish factor of divide and rule comes into play, but that’s where we all must see the Jew for what he is: the catalyst and culture-destroyer. Once we all identify that we can all begin the self-cleansing process. Life has become much more enjoyable and tolerable for me since becoming aware of the world’s foremost problem. It should in fact be part of any sort of family or couples therapy: exposing what the media does to you and how it affects your worldview.
When I studied psychology I was floored at its Jewishness. They have made that science their own. It’s a huge problem and feminism and male whoriness is all part and parcel to that bigger problem.
A bit off topic, but the connection between Disney and Hollywood programming of female “role models” can no longer be ignored. There is a much bigger agenda behind everything in the world today and feminism is just one tiny part. It’s all designed to alter human behavior and thought: the ‘handlers’ are in charge. We know who they are.
Baldur
There is a much bigger agenda behind everything in the world today and feminism is just one tiny part. It’s all designed to alter human behavior and thought: the ‘handlers’ are in charge. We know who they are.
Your thinking is clear, but on this point I ask you to be careful. We cannot risk mis-identifying the problems in our world. It seems to me that a media hellbent on selling products has the most to gain from divide and conquer, and making a grey race of cultureless people who have no activities they enjoy except buying things, feeling bad, and then “treating” themselves with products and services designed to uplift. Supposing that you are right, and Jews are overrepresented in media; that may be an issue, but the fundamental issue is the nature of media itself, which is a product designed to sell other products. Even if most prostitutes are Filipina, it doesn’t mean the source of their corrupt behavior is their ancestry — it could be simply that they are prostitutes.
Ah, but dear Herr Stevens has not read Leon de Poncins yet!
Allow me the honors of introducing this old school writer to you: http://www.amazon.com/Freemasonry-Judaism-Secret-Powers-Revolution/dp/1881316904
That book will, ahem, change your life and drastically alter your thinking. Red pill, swallow? Not written all that well, but the arguments and facts are stunning — if I may say so myself.
Baldur
Thank you for your kind comments. I appreciate your perceptiveness in noting the double messages women get in our culture (though I wouldn’t agree that most of us are basketcases). Messages like, “We insist you be sexy but if you are, we are going to say you’re a slut,” or “You need to be very concerned about how you look, but when you spend time on your make-up or getting plastic surgery, we are going to say that you are frivolous and stupid and vain.”
I also appreciate your willingness to engage, though I must register my objection to the phrase “Jewish media.” (This makes me wonder as I just stumbled onto this post – is this an anti-Semitic site???)
Marg-
Oh but the media is Jewish. Take a look:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Their-Own-Invented-Hollywood/dp/0385265573/ref=pd_cp_d_2
http://www.amazon.com/Up-Oy-Vey-History-Superhero/dp/1881927326/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
The playground label ‘anti-semitic’ no longer means anything to me. It’s like a little kid on the playground telling another kid his mom is “fat and ugly.” It’s the label Jews slap on their opposition to try and make them cower like worms, but it doesn’t work on me.
Baldur
I also appreciate your willingness to engage, though I must register my objection to the phrase “Jewish media.” (This makes me wonder as I just stumbled onto this post – is this an anti-Semitic site???)
The writers on this site do not take the position advocated. Our view of the media is that it is a business and succumbs to the weaknesses of those. Whether or not it is Jewish-owned is irrelevant; its character is decided by the need to make money through human drama. However, in the spirit of respect, we do not censor or speak against those of our commenters who feel it necessary to express such viewpoints.
This is where we peacably diverge Herr Stevens. But if you keep writing like you do our divergence makes little difference in the grand scheme of things. You’re like Vigilant Citizen, though he avoids racial discussion like the plague. He won’t touch NS with a ten foot pole and I can’t blame him. I make up for that. What he does do, as you do as well, is attack the media. My goal is to try and get the many positions to at least tolerate one another so as to stear inquisitive minds in the right direction. That’s all that really matters.
I would recommend you watch part 7 of the Kinsey Syndrome though (and please read De Poncins): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmNeZEpPcM&feature=related
Kinsey is the so-called “father of America’s sexual revolution”. I’d say “sex sells incorporated” is a bit more than just selling a product. But that’s me.
Baldur
What he does do, as you do as well, is attack the media.
I can agree on this, although I think our goal here is to attack memes of deceptive information.
I will never be on board with The Holocaust, genocide, racism or even starting and losing world wars that kill millions of our brothers and sisters and lay waste to the land. We are against diversity here because it makes no sense, and in favor of nationalism because it does make sense, but the rest is too much for my soul.
The media however — well, if you want to lose your soul, it’s a good place to start. They make a product that is human drama, often sadness, pretending to be “news.” They inundate you in the negative and destructive and profit from it. And since that’s the way the industry is structured, even if we replace them with innocent babes tomorrow, the next generation will behave the same way.
Not sure where this would fit in theology, but I always liked Kant’s concept of “radical evil.” It’s the mundane things “everyone” seems to think are OK that, if we analyzed the, we would realize are gateways to great and pervasive evil. As a good idealist I have to say that no matter what the cost in lives, it is better we have clear souls than become overprotective of something we do not use (our capacity for life).
“I will never be on board with The Holocaust, genocide, racism or even starting and losing world wars that kill millions of our brothers and sisters and lay waste to the land.”
Nor will I. In fact I oppose any and all forms of violence and physical warfare. I prefer psychological warfare.
You are aware that Hitler had the most diverse military force in Western history and even permitted race mixing when politically necessary, correct? He officially sanctioned a marriage between an Arabian princess and one of his officers serving in East Africa. My point? 99% of historians are liars. You may begin your journey towards the truth by reading these three books:
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Jewish-Soldiers-Descent-Military/dp/0700611789
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Nazis-II-Minorities-Foreigners/dp/1453812695/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298182784&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/East-Came-West-Volunteers-1941-1945/dp/1891227394/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298182806&sr=1-1
And that’s just for starters.
Safety precautions (what precautions to take, what degree of risk or constraint to tolerate, etc.) are highly personal choices that necessarily must vary from woman to woman.
Transfer this into another context. We’re now talking about women camping in the woods and how they’re going to deal with the possibility of bear attacks. Would you say the same thing there?
Absolutely. The choice whether to take a particular risk or not is up to the individual. This applies to men and women. For example, my uncle loves mountain climbing. He has engaged in major climbs, including a climb in which two of his fellow climbers died. There is no doubt that he is placing himself in danger — but the danger is worth it to him rather than lose out on the joy of mountain climbing.
The problem is we often don’t respect women’s right to make that kind of cost-benefit analysis. Instead, we tend to TELL women, “Don’t do this,” “Don’t do that.”
Camping in areas with bear populations is similar to mountain climbing. Is it worth the risk in order to enjoy the pleasures of camping? Millions of men and women apparently think the reward is worth the risk. In addition, there are things one can do to mitigate the risk, such as storing food in a way to minimize smell and carrying items likely to repel bears. (I think you can buy noisemakers and sprays that tend to run bears off. Or you can bring guns.) All of this goes for women campers too.
I was curious as to why you used this particular example. Through google, I found reference to the belief that the odor of menstruation can attract bears. Is this what motivated your question? I don’t know whether there is any truth to this belief. But assuming there is, it is like anything else. A woman must make her own decision whether to avoid camping altogether or accept the risk with her choice of means of mitigating it (such as avoiding camping during one’s period, disposing of sanitary napkins and tampons in the same way one disposes of old food, carrying guns or other means of repelling a bear).
What a totally absurd position. You are literally saying that women should never listen to advice.
This police officer was giving a lecture on safety. It stands to reason, therefore, that he would give people advice on how to remain safe. He did not force anyone to do anything. I’ll repeat: he did not force anyone to do anything. (Whether or not his was reasonable advice appears to have fallen by the wayside.) Perhaps he could have a followed up each and every statement by saying “Of course, you are, as autonomous women, perfectly free to make your own decisions.” I seriously doubt that most women have trouble understanding this implicitly.
The equivalent to this would not be forcing your uncle to stop climbing mountains, or preventing some inexperienced individual from going camping. Rather, it would be your uncle complaining about being given advice on how to remain safe while climbing mountains, even if he were an utter novice. (“I’ll just figure it out myself!”) Similarly, the issue is not whether or not some inexperienced camper should take the time to learn about camping, rather than just wandering off and figuring it out as they go along. (Brett’s point was clearly not that women should not go camping in bear-infested areas, but that they should learn about whatever dangers there may be beforehand and prepare for them. And he was surely not talking about menstruation attracting bears . . .)
This is not about men vs. women. (Men give advice to other men, shockingly enough.) This is about how some people have greater knowledge on certain topics than do other people, and it would therefore be wise for the latter to listen to the former. After you hear them you can weigh to facts and make your own decisions. But to take offense at the very idea of listening is just ridiculous.
P.S. Though this is not an anti-semitic website, mainstreamers would conclude that it is a racist site. You are now sullied forever.
P.S. Though this is not an anti-semitic website, mainstreamers would conclude that it is a racist site. You are now sullied forever.
I doubt they would, if they took the time to read a few of our articles, and see how complex our position on race and multiculturalism is.
Furthermore, I’m not sure what you’d want me to do here. Should I censor a commenter on the website? Or rush in a hasty indignant disclaimer, like a parent descending on a kid who says something too literal? I find that repellent. Please post your suggestions here for the community to decide where it stands on this issue.
Through google, I found reference to the belief that the odor of menstruation can attract bears. Is this what motivated your question?
No, it is not, and I didn’t know about that.
I view rapists as like wild animals: they may not “mean” badly but they are bad news. And the sensible thing to do is defend against them, and to design a society that gives them as little chance as possible.
The problem is we often don’t respect women’s right to make that kind of cost-benefit analysis. Instead, we tend to TELL women, “Don’t do this,” “Don’t do that.”
I understand what you’re saying, but in my view, the consequences are more than personal. If we allow rapes to occur in any form, that encourages more to occur. We should hold a hard line against rapes by not only doing our best to catch and incarcerate rapists, but also, by modifying social norms to be unfriendly to rape-like activity.
Thank you for this site. I just found it today and I have gained more in the one hour I spent browsing than I have in many days on the net. If I believed in prayer or God, I’d give thanks.
I’ll be back, a lot.
“Only about 10 people attended, but the room came to a complete silence when the officer interrupted the more senior officer and made the reference to “sluts,” he told the Star.
“You know I think we’re beating around the bush here,” the officer said, according to Hoffman. “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.””
If a woman has to hide her gender from a man to be treated with respect… Then he is a rapist. And, that is a fact.
Your entry is fine except that one part… You should not have quoted that. It’s not even properly on topic.
Just to clarify my post, certainly, the heist scenario spoken of in the article brings about the idea of rape, and I apologize for the loose metaphor, but it is the interest of the best men to have the most women, those women being the best, thus bringing with those bonds the best possible future.
Oh dear. Some very dangerous comments here: the kind that get women badly hurt every day.
The deadly line of reasoning that goes: this *shouldn’t* happen; therefore I will assume it *can’t* happen (and if it does happen, then it is NOT MY FAULT).
In other words mainstream media feminism.
But the thing is to find out how the world works; then take the necessary precautions.
As an antidote to this deadly wishful thinking and much else, try The Woman Racket, by Steve Moxon:
http://www.imprint.co.uk/moxon/
It is not just a blistering polemic but has some good new science, and a convincing revisionist history (e.g. about how women got the vote in England; indeed already had the vote, in some cases).
The deadly line of reasoning that goes: this *shouldn’t* happen; therefore I will assume it *can’t* happen (and if it does happen, then it is NOT MY FAULT).
This is a good point. We get lost in this consensual hallucination of moral and social reality that we forget that consequences trump all else. Whether a woman wants to take the risk, or thinks it’s unfair, she still must deal with the threat — much like bears in the woods. I may want them to be warm and cuddly, or to be friends, but for all campers male or female, bears are a threat and precautions must be taken. I could not in good conscience tell a woman in my life “It’s your choice” when dealing with bears or rapists. You protect your friends, and your family, and even your pets. There is nothing wrong with extending the same protection to women. I see it as no different from cautioning a friend that his gas tank cap is off, causing a fire risk.
Pretty good article but premarital sex was common before the 1960′s. It’s the fact that people a having so many sex partners that’s bad. Please ignore Kinsey’s data because it is very controversial.
http://www.jstor.org.ez.centenary.edu:2048/stable/pdfplus/2770528.pdf?acceptTC=true
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~reiss001/paper/standards%20of%20sexual%20behavior1961.PDF
http://www.heretical.com/costello/index.html
Reminds me of this question:
“If a man forcibly has sex with a prostitute, is it rape or is it shoplifting?”
Good read. Scarcity and demand create value, but in this sexual dystopia, it’s not a zero sum game but rather negative sum.
I think a stagnant middle class wage and a rising top income has more to do with the subjugation of the middlle class. Hierarchy is great when you get to be on top but never works well for the ones below who work their ass off for the ones at the top and get nothing from those fat cats. Also if that stagnant middle wage theory is right and I’m wrong ill live with it. How can you even pretend to promote American ideas?
“I could not in good conscience tell a woman in my life “It’s your choice” when dealing with bears or rapists. You protect your friends, and your family, and even your pets.”
Admirable, and natural. A man does this. At what point, though, does a woman become so mutated away from any reasonable facsimile of womanhood, as to no longer elicit such a response?
When every man is a rapist and every woman an innocent victim, what is left to protect?
Time will tell.
At what point, though, does a woman become so mutated away from any reasonable facsimile of womanhood, as to no longer elicit such a response?
Atomization causes people to remain independent of others to such a degree they do not defend collective interests. I find it rather bleak and hope we move on to something more interesting soon.