Where Have The Good Men Gone? (20ish men living in extended adolescence)

10 posts

Cornelio

From Beevor's The Battle for Spain:

Favorable societal context ---> women rise to prominence.
Reality knocks on the door after some time: return to pragmatism/realism ---> women "return to an auxiliary role".
Niccolo and Donkey

Ken Loach's Land and Freedom has a scene in which the idealistic Liverpudlian returns from the hospital in Barcelona to the front to rejoin his POUM comrades. Upon arrival, he notices that his female comrades are now cooking and tending to their male comrades' wounds. One of the more butch females informs him that this new arrangement "comes from above".
Cornelio
Those nice girls where not exactly in need of an order from above . Fortunately they were put in their place for some time.
Bronze Age Pervert
The one who is stunningly naive is you, because you confuse the very mild system of government we have now, which is characterized more by incompetence than by effective malice, for a true totalitarianism. Even if those were Kagan's intentions (they're not) she has no real power or ability to put them into practice...the modern state is contemptible because it is weak not because it is evil. By contrast if you were under the rule of the Chinese or of Islamists they would commit actual genocide (not this vague "demographic change 'genocide' " that depends on the consent of Americans), they would impose actual totalitarian laws (ditto; modern speech codes are self-imposed), and would be effective in stamping out history and culture as they have in so many places where they ruled. By contrast this monstrous managerial state you speak of has never been able nor willing to do any of these things either in the US or in Europe. The forgetfulness of Western traditions is largely self-imposed. Two percent of France is monarchist--I mean in a direct way, they want the Church and the King back in Versailles. No government body raids their offices or shuts them up; their unpopularity is because the French masses have other priorities. If you don't see the difference between this and actual totalitarianism there's something wrong with you.

My point anyway was that if we in the West have a problem with liberalism is one thing; that doesn't mean I have to be lectured by some guy in a pee-stained robe, whose parents were using a public latrine and who has no idea of what is important in Western history or why liberalism is a problem. I won't just ally with anyone, especially in a discussion that entails no political action. My complaints and the Islamist rube's complaints are driven by entirely different, and antagonistic, assumptions. I'm not saying this is Angocachi...he's actually worse; he seems to believe in a "postcolonialist" Franz Fanon type mix of anti-Western "local culture" agitation mixed with loose Marxism. Fichte plus Marx loose mix. These people don't hate Elena Kagan, Barney Frank, and the managerial state, because they see them as a threat...they have contempt for them as weak and see them as an opportunity to take advantage of the West and to assert themselves in a moment of political weakness. This is why your sympathy for them is so misplaced.
Bronze Age Pervert
But once you base the state on feminist principles and liberate wimmins to this extent it follows that feminism will infect and corrupt every other idea and practice. So it is not surprising that a feminist woman-centered state would shift to a service-sector and consumption/spending-driven economy, with everything that this means. But that's not what he was saying. He was making a typically post-Marxism Franz Fanon-type point about capitalism, which he thinks is the root of the problem. This can't be tolerated because in reality the feminist criticism of "classical" capitalism is itself relentless and vicious...it is seen as a form of men's economic exploitation of women, and there is an accompanying hysterical "critique" of male competitiveness, the evils of a real capitalist/entrepeneurial/production-based economy, and so on. You can see this in shows like Mad Men. There is a feeling, as Devlin mentions somewhere, that everyone is aware that if you let some companies be all-male, they'd drive their equal-employment-opportunity competition into the ground. No, in our modern commercial world, capitalism can be a force against feminism, if properly practiced. This is the case in Japan and in East Asia in general.
Thomas777
This is mealy-mouthed bullshit of the kind you find in the pages of the National Review. The Kosher-Con line is that liberalism and the tyranny of the managerial state is ''no big deal'' or its silly but tolerable or its the ''cost of living in a pluralistic society''.

You can tell me the US Government is ''weak'' but it doesn't pass the straight face test. Hoppe in one of his more cogent moments pointed out that not only is the Federal government extraordinarily powerful, its also hyper-vigilant when it identifies ''threats''. His example was the Waco incident when Federal troops showed up backed by heavy armor and gassed and shot several dozen religious eccentrics to death based on flimsy probable cause that firearms laws were being violated. For that matter, I doubt guys like Matt Hale who end up in supermax prisons or these Hajis who are gulaged in Cuba for indeterminate sentences think the government are ''a bunch of pussies'' or whatever your claim is.

One of the Big Lies that Conservative media likes to trot out these days is that the Marxist fossils in the Ivy League, the Jewish counterculture radical on the high court, the Zionist partisan with the plum job at the Department of Homeland Security are just ''folks maybe we disagree with, but who are Americans nonetheless''; and that with the right procedures and customary discussion techniques we can all reach some kind of agreement that benefits everybody. Its ''bad manners'' to people like you to point out that the aforementioned luminaries are the fucking enemy if you happen to be anybody who isn't just like them.

Rahm Emmanuel is just a ''liberal fag'' right? He's harmless. The real enemy is a Pashtun warlord who has never left his village in his entire life. He's going to impose Sharia on the planet with his rusty AK and his 20 friends.
Thomas777
Kagan has the power to issue law by diktat, and 20th century precedent is that the will of SCOTUS judges is reflexively enforced by executive arms against the People if they resist.


France doesn't prosecute Royalists, and that's fine. What France does is criminally prosecute people who criticize immigration policy or who disagree with majority opinion on the Second World War.
President Camacho
This is surprising that you could claim this, as the judiciary is arguably the strongest 'official' branch of government.

The history of 20th century America is largely a history of the legislature being defanged by the executive but especially the judicial branch. Brown vs. Board, Roe vs. Wade, the recent homosexual military bill, Obamacare's reversal, etc. For better or for worse these were court decisions-- and none of them would have passed the legislature (while Obamacare did and was overturned by judiciary). Military integration of course was an unpopular executive order by Truman, and the reason Bush Jr signed more executive orders (ie, the torture authorization) than several presidents before him combined (I think) is because he understood how easily the legislature could be ignored.

And remember that the judiciary is not only sovereign but also has discretionary jurisdiction- it can pick and choose which cases it wants to hear (I think something like 90-99% are denied). So you can rest assured that before croaking a sewer beast like Kagan and her associates will have a hand picked case to overturn which mandates alimony for common law relationships or the creation of 'LGBT-friendly' public restroom facilities.
Your universalism here I think is wrong as you are comparing apples to oranges. The important thing for any state is propagating a mythos for the people to believe in, and all states that survive in the long run will do this effectively. The myth of constitutional rights" like "free speech", "free press", and "freedom of association" are valuable assets to American elites for manufacturing opinion and controlling the tone of politics. The "Chinese Empire" mythos in China (warped of course by Communist ideals, but retaining central administration, duty to the state, etc) now performs a similar function for the PRC as it has made a smooth transition from relative autarky to mercantilism.

I also think that it's silly to say that America is "scared" to use totalitarian measures when push comes to shove-- the Waco siege proved that. What do you think the US government would do if, say, a group of white men tried to recolonize an abandoned neighborhood in Detroit at the exclusion of black miscreants? The Chinese gov't, on the other hand, would likely approve of ethnic segregation (and Muslims, religious segregation) but views "free speech" as pathogen for American imperialism and conquest. Apples to oranges-- the state will do what it must to self-perpetuate.
Do you really think Chinese and Muslims follow the soap opera of American politics with the seriousness of the Bill Maher or Rush Limbaugh aficionado? Which Muslims have "rooted" for Kagan to ascend the judiciary so that they can infiltrate and colonize the "weaker" America that her nomination would spawn? Islamists correctly understand that the modern American state is hostile to Islamic self-determination, and that's all that matters to them. But I don't see how this translates into Islam being the Prime Enemy.
Bronze Age Pervert

You guys are deluding yourselves if you think the US "managerial state" is comparable to an actual totalitarianism. I'd say that's a psychological tactic to make yourself feel as if you're part of some significant resistance, but then you'd accuse me of Jewy psychologizing. But this is the line of the Altright vanity fair: "We live in a totalitarian state! My neighbor hired a spic poolboy and Kagan is genociding me by not kicking him out! This is just like Eastern Germany under the commies!" It comes from having no historical frame of reference regarding what totalitarianism actually means, or otherwise from willingly distorting it.

And you're missing the point anyway. My point wasn't that we should prosecute a "war on terror" or that international Islam is the biggest enemy. The point is that as bad as these people in govt. are I don't want some Chicom or some ignorant Yemeni wagging his finger at me about problems in the West and presenting his own "virtuous and pure" solutions. We have our own solutions in our own history. In your slavishness and deference to turd world pretensions you guys are just as bad as the multiculti professor who waxes romantic about the "sense of commitment" of the jihadi and stuff like that.

As for the opinion of the Islamists and the Chinese, they are very clear on the matter, and they do follow US politics and US culture. What they see on TV and hear about doesn't enrage them as a potential threat. They see it as a weakness to take advantage of. You won't be able to convince me otherwise, because I read them in their own words, and this has been the case every time I've spoken to Muslims myself. Western degeneracy is seen as an opportunity.

In the end this is all by the by; if you had to live under Chinese or Islamic rule you'd likely be running back into the arms of the oh-so-oppressive, Waco-doing US "managerial state" with its "myths" of freedom of speech and so on. Give me a break. Life under Chinese rule or hegemony would be 1000 times worse than anything these SWPL types are doing.

President Camacho
You start from the assumption that democracy, mob rule, is inherently more 'humane' than totalitarianism.
Who exactly are you addressing here? I am opposed to the spread of Islamic and Chinese power in any ways that threaten the West.
An opportunity for what? Spit it out, it sounds like you think Sharia and Islamic colonization are serious threats to America.

Once again, your universalism is disturbing.

1. Minorities enjoy special privileges in the American system, and anyway
2. I doubt very many Chinese living in the PRC would agree with your assessment. Even a large percentage of North Koreans return home after being exposed to the South.