← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche

Thread 4712

Thread ID: 4712 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-01-31

Wayback Archive

Avalanche [OP]

2003-01-31 03:10 | User Profile

I've moved over these posts from another thread as Dan Dare asked...

Avalanche

2003-01-31 03:12 | User Profile

Dark eddy: --Can women be encouraged to marry earlier in life, and can this  encouragement have a real effect? Yes. On WHAT basis do you answer this yes? Because you WANT it to be? As women become more educated, they marry later and later (and have kids later and later, and fewer too)! Are you going to close the schools to them? (And HOW could you possibly do it?) We "encourage" young women not to have sex or drink or smoke dope -- does it WORK!?!?! (And if you suggest that movies and TV are too strong an influence in the other direction, HOW will you wrest control of the media from the jews, who WANT to keep pushing their destructive plans?!)

--Does divorce really impact the birth-rate in the way you suggest? I am not sure why you think it does; I certainly don't see why it would have too. Maybe before you offer this as a possible fix, you should look into it a bit and see if there is any data about it. You offer a 'suggestion' on the basis of "well, I don't see why it would have to..." That is hardly a basis for any premise!!

--Can we make progress in moving back to single-income households? Yes, this possible through cutting taxes, and reining in personal spending on un-necessary goods and services; and through continuous criticism of the feminist idea that women 'need' to work. And just who are you going to get to cut those taxes? Anyone you can identify in our CURRENT govt? Even one? How are you going to convince women that they CAN rely on their husbands to support them AND the bigger number of kids you want them to have -- when it's clear that divorce leaves the women (and their kids) WAY worse off!? The vast majority of women in this country have trouble trusting that "their" men aren't going to throw them over for a newer model, and so they MUST remain able to support themselves. How comfortable would YOU feel in giving up self-supporting to trust someone else to provide for you for the rest of your life.

I have done so... it's excruciatingly hard! I trust NeoN with my life, and yet, BECAUSE I married him in my 40s, I know that I CAN take support myself. If he dies, or decides he wants a younger model, I CAN support myself, because I did for 20 years... If you want women to marry younger AND raise a bunch of kids, AND rely on a single income AND trust that the guy won't die or run off... you're not real familiar with women! (Or do you expect the state to step in and support them? Oh, wait, they do that now! Well, sort of...)

--Can we change individuals perception about the wealth required to raise children? A lot of people are trying, we can't rule out the possibility of a fair measure of success here. Except it DOES take a great deal of money to raise children, and the more kids, the more it costs! One of the biggest 'social costs' we seem to have in this country is PAYING for all these kids that the mothers CAN'T pay for!

--The US Federal Debt level is not at a particularly high level, historically or in comparison to other nations. Personal debt levels are not at levels that suggests they will not level off once the effects of the recession wear off (after we take over Iraq). But doesn't that assume you've got a populace that is interested in paying it off? Does the American populace seems like that to you? When we DON'T save and we DO spend on credit like there is no tomorrow? HOW do you intend to change the social and financial culture of this country?

**--The GOP is taking steps to reduce the size of the government. The general political trend is right-ward, toward less government. Gen X does not trust the government, and as it comes to power, Baby Boomer optimism will fade in its effect, and melt into the conservatism of old age. ** No, they're NOT! The political trend (whatever that is) may mean something to you, but the POLITICIANS are growing the govt just as fast as they can, and it will NOT stop!

Neil Boortz points out: Now, in this speech alone, Bush proposes: [list][]$400 billion over the next ten years to “reform and strengthen Medicare.” That’s $40 billion a year … and don’t we all know it will probably be double that? []$1.2 billion to put scientists on the government dole to figure out how to run cars on hydrogen. []$600 million to help an additional 300,000 Americans get drug treatment. This is in addition to the money we are already spending on the absurd and un-winnable war on drugs. Notice he says “additional 300,000 Americans.” Just how many are we treating now? And what is it costing us? []$15 billion over the next five years .. that’s $5 billion a year … to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. Look .. AIDS is a tragedy, no doubt. But where in our Constitution does it say that the federal government can seize money from a working American to spend on a medical treatment program in Africa? [*]$6 billion for vaccines against anthrax, smallpox and other diseases. Like with most other spending programs .. he’ll give this one a name. Project Bioshield.[/list]Federal spending is at a record level. The amount of our gross national product, the total value of goods and services produced in this country, that is seized and used by government is at an all time high. Record taxes and record spending, and George Bush couldn’t come up with one single suggestion for one single spending cut in his State of the Union message? Not one? Instead, he brags that “discretionary” spending will only increase by 4 percent and throws another $430 billion in spending programs in the pot?

Avalanche

2003-01-31 03:13 | User Profile

Dark Eddy wrote back:

Avalanche, in respect of your gender, I will answer your point about women. Can white women be made to act more intelligently, or must the US move further and further away from Europe as the white American womb closes amidst mass 3rd world immigration?

Obviously, getting white women to do anything expect complain and have sex with your best friend is very difficult. Hands down, this is a major problem.

However, getting women to marry earlier is maybe not impossible. You suggest it is like getting them not to have sex or smoke. But is getting married really as bad as not having sex? Or--and now this I find really unlikely--as BAD AS NOT SMOKING?

The message that is out there--from people like Maggie Gallagher, who graces the front page of Yahoo news and many a major print paper--is that if you don't get married young and start poping out some kids, your eggs will dry up and you will be left childless and bitter. Does this sort of thing have more effect than 'don't smoke, it's really stupid and you will get cancer'? Well, my sense, is--of course it bloody is!

--You suggest that white women wont marry early because they go to school. What? You can't be married and go to school? You can't get married soon after? Women have been going to school for a long time. The BA used to be called 'The Mrs. Degree.' I am not sure school is really the factor here.

--'If you want women to marry younger AND raise a bunch of kids, AND rely on a single income AND trust that the guy won't die or run off...' Trust? Well, I am not sure about trust. Why do you add this requirement in? I guess you mean: not make large-scale, disruptive plans to have an income if the man should run off. Yes, I trust that plenty of women wont make these kind of plans, even if they marry young and shoot out a horde of little rug rats. Maybe you think this assesement is due to some deep lack of familiarity with the female sex, but I would suggest it's a behavioral patter we have seen time and again--and a quite pleasant one too, at least from the male perspective.

Finally, as regards your claim that I have to disprove un-proven claims that counter my thesis: I don't think so.

darkeddy

2003-01-31 03:36 | User Profile

Here are some more words of wisdom on them white girls:

'Avalanche, I totally agree that men have let women get out of hand. That was most the point I was making. Women simply get out of hand automatically if you are constantly keeping them under control. Women only have respect for men when men are controlling them. It is probably a genetic survival strategy--'seek the strong male,' 'give up on a race when the males of that race no longer enforce fidelity to it.'

As far as your claim that men have dropped the ball by failing to adaquately indicate that they will provide for women--what a lot of nonsense. Men drop women because they get too old, and because other women offer them sex outside of the initial relationship.

I am not sure why you think I need to prove myself worth of female trust. Have I done something un-trustworthy? What worries you is that men will drop women, not take of the kids. I am apparently guilty of this flaw as well?

Anyway, as I mentioned, men generally drop women because they either want a younger model, or because they just want variety, where plenty is (potetentially) available commitment free.

The first problem has partly to do with us living longer. But it has more to do with feminists' desire for 'equality' in relationships, and consequent discouragement of more durable marriages that involve a girl and an older, established man (10-20 years older).

The variety problem is caused by the vast number of sluts out there--this is in turn tied to the nature of our cultural productions, and the breakdown of Christian organization of human sensuality.' (This was over in 'origins of feminist ideology'). There is also a PS that doesn't make sense out of context, but for completeness: 'PS No, I did not mean that I am a pimp. I mean that I am a pimpin' big Daddy (let me parse this for you: pimpin' = partake of cool ghetto-style, have air of player [=seduce lots of women], big Daddy: big, offers father role to younger and/or emotional dependent girls). However, this is all just a lot of BS.'

Avalanche

2003-01-31 05:42 | User Profile

**Avalanche, I totally agree that men have let women get out of hand. That was most the point I was making. ** Yes, but all your suggestions were for how women should act – there was no mention that there is anything missing in men, or anything THEY should do... You prescribe that women should start having more kids – but no directions for men about honorable husbandry. You say men should be in charge of their women, yet all your advice is towards women. Are you suggesting you can describe how women should be, but NOT how men should be?

Who will step up and describe for Dark Eddy what an honorable masculine man does in order to lead a virtuous woman to subordinate herself to him and maybe even bear him a pack of kids?! (I can describe it, but I think, coming from a woman, Darkeddy will hear it as one more set of tendentious feminist demands.

** Women simply get out of hand automatically if you are constantly keeping them under control. Women only have respect for men when men are controlling them. It is probably a genetic survival strategy--'seek the strong male,' 'give up on a race when the males of that race no longer enforce fidelity to it.'** Well, you’ve got parts of it, I guess... But ‘respect for men’ doesn’t come from them controlling women, the CONTROL comes from men being respected BY their women... I have no psychological problems subordinating myself to NeoNietzsche BECAUSE he has shown himself worthy of my respect! Had he NOT shown himself worthy of my respect, he’d ONLY be able to control me by force, which neither of us would stand for, and which would, obviously NOT create any respect for him. Men can’t ENFORCE loyalty, they must be WORTHY of loyalty (the same is true of a true military leader...) (You can ‘order’ soldiers, but you can only lead them if they respect you. And respect is earned, not demanded or forced.)

** As far as your claim that men have dropped the ball by failing to adequately indicate that they will provide for women--what a lot of nonsense. Men drop women because they get too old, and because other women offer them sex outside of the initial relationship.** And so, where are women supposed to GET the respect for these men? The bedrock foundation for respect is upholding your commitments – any “man” (chronologically advanced boy!) who drops his woman because she gets too old isn’t worthy of respect. (I assume, as a cause for dropping the woman, you meant SHE gets old, but don’t they BOTH get old?) And being ‘offered sex’ has NOTHING to do with accepting the offer... or are you saying men are helpless to resist? An HONORABLE man does not drop his oath because someone offers him sex.

** I am not sure why you think I need to prove myself worth of female trust. Have I done something un-trustworthy? What worries you is that men will drop women, not take of the kids. I am apparently guilty of this flaw as well? All** men need to prove themselves worthy of female trust, if they want to earn female trust. If you would try to ‘fix’ this country by having women produce large packs of kids, then those women MUST trust their men, or they won’t do it!

Your attitude towards women makes it apparent that you are NOT trustworthy. You blame feminist bitches for the flaws of "our system." But when a tribe or military group fails, it's usually because of the failure FIRST of the leadership! If women didn't NEED to take care of themselves, they'd rather be taken care of.

Sure there are exceptions, and MOST modern women have angrily turned away from believing that men should (or could!) lead -- NeoN and I get a sad chuckle about my (2-yrs) younger sister -- she is baffled and angered by our relationship, and HATES romance novels with a bitter passion (if she were truly 'free' from their pull, she'd be uninterested, not angry and hostile about them), and rather stridently insists on her general independence from her passive and gentle husband... but it's SO clear (from outside) that she is still SO hurt and disappointed by a previous serious love. She and her husband love each other, but we describe them as travelling through life, sort of in the same direction, kinda near each other, on usually the same path... She has turned away from what Pat Allen calls undependence -- independent and "masculine energy" in the work sphere (ONLY), but feminine and receiving in the home sphere.

My disagreement with you all along has been you keep saying ‘here’s how to fix this country’ –and a BIG part of your fix is: women need to start trying to outbreed the immvasion. But the ONLY way you can get (white) women to even consider outbreeding the non-white women, is to make them feel SAFE that they and those large packs of kids will be safe and provided for.
Without that, you will NEVER even have a chance at starting an outbreeding program. But instead of addressing the role of MEN in all this, you keep going back to woman are bad, horrid, feminist bitches.

** Anyway, as I mentioned, men generally drop women because they either want a younger model, or because they just want variety, where plenty is (potentially) available commitment free.** And this makes men honorable and attractive to all those women who’ve given up on finding a ‘real’ man worthy of giving up their feminist fight to survive? NOT! Why would any woman consider giving up possession of herself to a man who thinks any of this is okay? Especially a man who BLAMES women for the men’s misdeeds?!

** The first problem has partly to do with us living longer. But it has more to do with feminists' desire for 'equality' in relationships, and consequent discouragement of more durable marriages that involve a girl and an older, established man (10-20 years older).** But you’ve just said that men will drop these women too, once they get old. So WHY should they marry these older men (or ANY men)? The desire for equality is a result of two things – the men dropping THEIR responsibility to care for their women (a vow is a vow, right?! Or is that: unless it’s to a woman who gets too old?) and women’s need to protect, provide for, and care for themselves (or better, to be protected, provided for, and cared for – which is MAN’S job!).

** The variety problem is caused by the vast number of sluts out there--this is in turn tied to the nature of our cultural productions, and the breakdown of Christian organization of human sensuality.' (This was over in 'origins of feminist ideology'). ** And the whole program of destruction comes from a source, and is continually supported and enhanced by a group, you have said you are tired of discussing... :)

** There is also a PS that doesn't make sense out of context, but for completeness: 'PS No, I did not mean that I am a pimp. I mean that I am a pimpin' big Daddy (let me parse this for you: pimpin' = partake of cool ghetto-style, have air of player [=seduce lots of women], big Daddy: big, offers father role to younger and/or emotional dependent girls). However, this is all just a lot of BS.' ** (Shudder) And WHY do you want to have ANYTHING to do with “cool ghetto style” (that’d be black irresponsibility, false machismo, barely leashed violence, sh*tty music, bad clothes, and illiteracy?), and the “air of player” (that’d be misusing those women you want to eventually have children with – or is that the using and throwing away of women WHETHER OR NOT they are going to have your children?!) This is something to aspire to?! (or even consider slightly acceptable – are you or are you not contributing to the downfall of your own civilization?!)

Would you “offer a father role to younger and/or emotional dependent girls"? Would that be the pedophile’s way of viewing young girls? A “father’s role” is to protect, cherish, and raise a girl to love herself enough to protect herself from misuse by careless or predatory men... Only the black culture thinks ‘fatherhood’ means ‘how many woman and girls can I get knocked up to prove I’ve got sperm and therefore am worth something”?!

Pat Allen says: > ** In a rational family, a woman is taught to love herself first. If, however, she is raised in a family where her father wanted his feelings taken care of before his wife’s or his daughter’s (and did not give back lovingly), she cannot develop self-love.

and

A masculine-energy man does not marry a woman who gives to him, unless he is a “little boy”who wants to be mothered. A masculine man marries a feminine woman who is available to receive from him, who respects him for giving, and who knows how to give back to reward him, but always a little less than she gets. ... The only stipulation is that she not give back more than he has given her, which would put him in the feminine receiver position and perhaps make him feel smothered as well.

If you are a healthy, feminine woman, you are self-centered. You love yourself first, before any man. Then you share that love with your man, and your loved ones.  You say no to people, places, and things that hurt you in any way.  You say no to what strikes you as unethical. You say no to the man you love. You say, “I don’t feel good about doing what you ask, and I will not do it...**

And

** A masculine man is turned off by a yes-woman, because he knows she is needy, dependent, guilt-inducing, and easily manipulated by any man.  He needs to trust your no to believe your yes.  He has to be able to trust your virtue after marriage. Men know other men. They know that men go after what they want (the woman) and will get her, unless she loves herself better than she loves the man.  However, a man must love his woman better than himself, or he will use and abuse her if she allows it. If you can learn to say no, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you can never be used by any man.  A man can “propose” anything, but you must say yes or no to remain emotionally balanced and on control. ... What does all this mean, in terms of the stereotypical image of the  self-sacrificing woman? It means that the image is wrong. This image is exactly the one the women’s movement is confronting, often to the point of going to the extreme polarity.  Sometimes women are advocating not only “Don’t give,” but “Don’t even give back,” or “Just be yourself, you don’t need him and you don’t’ need to compromise for him.” But somewhere between demanding individual rights and melding into a relationship lies my premise of “giving” and “giving back.”**

And

** The basic qualities you will be looking for from your masculine man are that he be joyously generous, physically protective, and willing to cherish your painful feelings before his own.**

darkeddy

2003-01-31 06:59 | User Profile

Avalanche, I feel that you are missing much of the humorous content of my writing. That is too bad. Although of course it really is not that funny.

First, I have claimed that we need to increase the white birth rate. You have interpreted this to mean that I think women need to change, not men. I am not sure why you think this. Next, you interpret the fact that I have responded to some of Sisyfos's claims about the possibility of women's behavior changing, and the fact that I responded to a thread about the origins of feminism (which I happen to think involves a good deal of female input), as evidence that I think only female behavior has to change. Not so. I agree that men need to change their behavior so as to offer a more credible commitment to the raising of white families. Apparently, you feel that men who disagree with you about the proper analysis of the white race's problems are simply un-able to share this commitment.

You also interpret my claims about 'respect' too broadly. You are thinking of it as some kind of humanist value, or the like. I mean more something more along the lines of 'appreciate as potentially valuable mate.' You object to things that men do as un-worthy of 'respect' in a broad sense. However, this has little to do with how women--in general, for God's sake--behave toward men. Women will find all sorts of men who do awful, loutish things to be potentially valuable mates, and start having kids with them. (Likewise, if other men do awful things, that doesn't necessarily stop women from thinking that their man is different.)

I am not asking you to respect men who drop women they get old, or when they feel they need some variety. I am just describing the behavior of men--and not merely of white men, either. You are concerned that white men do not properly give a sense of security for mates and children. I am suggesting that when men do in fact fail to provide such security, their motives are typically tied to a sense of the age of their mate, or to a simple desire for sexual variety.

You next wonder who the feminist desire for age-equality is damaging here, since wont the old men drop the younger women when the younger ones get old? The answer is no, this is not typically how men think. When you are 60, 40-year olds look great to you. When you are 40, 20 years olds do. Now for a lot of men, 40 year old look just when they are 40 themselves, but these aren't the sort of men who get caught up in the sort of age-sensitive relationship ending I have been discussing. There are other men--A LOT of other men--who liked 20 year olds when they are 20, but don't like their 40 year wife when they are 40 and have been married for 20 years. However, the 60 year old who has been married to his 40 years old wife for twenty years is far, far less likely to loose his attraction to his wife.

--I will continue to blame feminist bitches for contributing to the decline of the white race. There is plenty of blame to go around; they can have a large bucket-full. I will also blame the feminist bastards, and the not feminist but just Leftist bastards.

--I will offer a closing comments on offering father images to younger women. Again, you missed the part about it all being a joke. Second, it works quite a often. It can even provide the basis for a stable relationship. The basis for a stable sexual relationship is what is attractive, not a bunch of rubbish about 'respect' and idealized visions of who is a father is and the proper bounds of a fatherly attitude. After all, the father-image is one of security--isn't that something you like? I know I like it when a woman is motherly toward me, even if she is 10 years younger.

George

2003-01-31 08:17 | User Profile

keep it simple... it's better...

and eventually, best for folks... except along the way, then the inevitable wars are internal... instead of external...

Ok... folks will notice this... (thanks G-d) now he provided primal theapy...

Morons can't 'read' this, having eyes they see not, having Ears, sadly they hear not? No, I'm kind, I don't fault them... the most successful human tool through all history, has inDeed been, Denial... it's great... it's our best one so far... Except... thanks G-d... for a sligthly better one.