Some Scattered Thoughts

Today’s post is a short one, owing to a lack of time and imagination on my part. There are a few posts around the ‘sphere that I want to comment on or highlight for my readers.

To begin with, Beefy Livinson critiques the liberal “distinction” between “Rule of Law” and “Rule of Men.”  As he explains it,

Government simply is authoritative discrimination in favor of one alternative instead of others.

Worth a read, especially for those with a political bent.

Deep Strength has a couple of posts up that are interesting. His most recent covers his first meeting with “her father.” I think it is well worth the read, especially for those single men looking to marry among my readers. He made a number of unforced errors, and hopefully others can learn from his experiences. Like some of the other readers, I thought that the father’s actions were also doubtful at parts. At the same time, it is evident that he truly cares about his daughter, which is a rarity these days. I think it is worth pointing out that the father may not have any prior support to help him in his own vetting process. Christian fathers are often as bereft of knowledge these days as young Christian men looking to marry. Past generations dropped the ball for everyone.

Additionally, Deep Strength examined the matter of vetting and the risk of divorce. Lots of good analysis there. I want to take a stab at answering the questions that Deep Strength posed at the end of the post. In particular, I want to offer an additional theory: the “Feminine Mystique.” Women like to maintain the air that the female of the species is ultimately unknowable. In the context of DS’s post that means unpredictable. I know Rollo has a post or two on the subject, but as I see it women like to keep men in the dark about how they really are as it benefits them for men (or most of them) to be ignorant. Ignorant men cannot catch on to strategies like AF/BB, for example. Also, it helps women filter for male attractiveness- those rare men who do “get them” are more likely to be successful with women, and thus probably superior genetic stock. There are probably other reasons, but I think I’ve established enough for what it is. It is also worth mentioning that much of it might be unconscious on the part of women- almost reflexive, as it were. But not all, of course.

Cane Caldo has made some dramatic life choices recently. The first post is here. The second is here, and the third here. A point he brings up is that patriarchy, as far as daughters are concerned, is heavily focused on protecting and guarding them. The same can be said of sons as well, in an indirect fashion. By ensuring that women are raised right, fathers in a patriarchy can ensure that their sons have access to decent pool of marriageable women. Without the protection of Patriarchy, such a pool will dry up quickly. See the present day for reference.

Zippy is back, at least for one post. Once again he covers the lies inherent in a democratic form of government. What surprised me is that he predicts our present system has as many as 50 years left in it. I wouldn’t have given it that long, but unfortunately he might be right. Ours has proven to be a surprisingly robust socio-political system, and inertia can have a profound effect.

Finally, congratulations are in order to blogger Chad, who became recently engaged to the young woman he has been courting for some time.

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Civilization, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Red Pill, Sexual Strategies, Women

16 responses to “Some Scattered Thoughts

  1. Maea

    Also, it helps women filter for male attractiveness- those rare men who do “get them” are more likely to be successful with women, and thus probably superior genetic stock.

    The bolded phrase is something which warrants discussion with Christians.

    Marriage wasn’t always for everyone. Throughout history, there were more roles for people– the priesthood, nuns, monks, lifetime employed laypeople, etc. The limited knowledge I have is from reading several historical books on the Middle Ages to the Reformation (only Western culture), but the cultural difference is noticeable.

    In a discussion, I recall someone saying marriage was a form of eugenics. Not the eugenics to eliminate people, but to ensure superior genetic stock was available in the marriage pool. There are behaviors, attitudes, etc. associated with the status of marriage and up until a hundred years ago, it followed a pattern which worked. Those who did not marry had alternatives, which were meaningful to society and provided outlets the sex-charged society we live in now doesn’t provide.

    Where I’m going with this is not to say people who desire to marry shouldn’t, or be barred from it. Nor do I believe in a society where people were essentially owned by a manor lord. The issue needs addressing as not everyone will and can get married, because they aren’t suited for it. There needs to a way to allow the unmarried be part of society without the stigma of “the single people.” I’m talking culturally, from an orthodox traditional Christian perspective.

    If I went completely into right field, let me know but that phrase got me thinking about something no one’s discussing.

  2. See the present day for reference

    I don’t quite know why, but this line cracks me up. Must be the language nerd in me. It would play almost as well if it were “See Life for reference” or “See yourself for reference.”

    I suspect Beefy may have made a mistake or two in his post, but I’ll have to re-read it when I’m awake to be sure. He did raise some good points, though.

    I didn’t know you were a sports fan.

  3. mdavid

    DG,…women lkeep men in the dark about how they are as it benefits….much of it might be unconscious…almost reflexive
    Practically all. Male projection to believe otherwise. Women are random vagaries of emotion. Breeding is too important for nature to allow people think about it. Men display and pursue. Women emote and act.

    DG, …men who do “get them” are…probably superior genetic stock.
    No “probably”. Communication is perhaps the most important cognitive human trait. It’s life and death, success or failure, food or starvation. Women grasp for at least an equal here, or put their linage is at risk.

    Maea, There needs to a way to allow the unmarried be part of society without the stigma of “the single people.” I’m talking culturally.
    The problem? There is no “culture” today except one of rapid technological change (which most humans are not cognitively evolved for). In industrial times, these people were needed for labor and war. No longer, and they are breeding like crazy, while the cognitive elite does not. Scary times.

  4. Haha. Thank you Donal, I didn’t expect a shout out like this

  5. Maea

    @mdavid,
    No longer, and they are breeding like crazy, while the cognitive elite does not. Scary times.

    Yes, I believe there was writing not too long ago pointing out the lowering birth rate amongst middle and upper classes. I can’t remember what decade it was from, but it had an eerie foreshadowing tone. Unfortunately it’s all true now.

    Can anything be done to bring back a culture? It’s a question I ask myself a lot.

  6. mdavid

    Maea, Can anything be done to bring back a culture?
    Yes. 1) slash spending 2) no processed foods 3) no TV 4) vacation at home 5) live w/extended family 6) SAHM 7) sacramental marriage 8) no birth control 9) homeschool 10) know leisure = culture 11) know less = more 12) exercise daily 13) pray at meals.

  7. Maea

    Number 5 is gonna be a hard sell for most people. Multi-generational homes aren’t exactly a thing of Western culture.

  8. @ Maea

    I want to address your first comment, but I think I may save that for another post. It is worth its own.

  9. @ Cane

    You are welcome. Yours was a bold move, and deserved recognition for that.

  10. @ NSR

    Yeah, I thought it was a good one-liner.

    And I’m not a huge fan, but I know some of the lingo.

  11. @ Chad

    I seem to recall your blog is private, so I couldn’t add a link. Figured a shout-out was warranted, though.

  12. @ mdavid

    @ Maea

    I want to address your first comment, but I think I may save that for another post. It is worth its own.

    I don’t think women are nearly so random as many ascribe them to be. I personally believe that there is a method to the madness more often than not. There are really two critical things you need to understand to figure out how a woman will react:

    1) Determine what environmental triggers are acting on the woman
    2) Understand what response each trigger is likely to produce (difficult when they work in concert)

  13. mdavid

    Maea, 5 is gonna be a hard sell. Multi-generational not Western
    Normative before we got rich. But who cares? West = E-X-T-I-N-C-T. God don’t need us, we need him. If moderns were dyslexic, we’d kick dog too.

  14. Maea

    @DG, that would be a great topic for a post. I think it’s a good idea to address it.

  15. Donal, I felt compelled to comment on that essay by Deep Strength about “meeting the parents.” I have to say I found it profoundly disturbing; no young Christian man – not to mention any decent fellow – should have to go through what he went through. Vetting is understandable, but what these parents did went way beyond that. Honestly, they’re no better than the quintestential American princess with her 300-point checklist. And the parents are also contradictory: they get irritated about Deep Strength being too proud of his achievements (a very masculine trait, which indicates among other things his ability to be a provider – not exactly a common feature within the African-American community, to be blunt), yet they then complain about his lack of manliness. If I had been in Deep’s position, after a certain point I would have just told the parents that although I certainly have my faults I’m also a good man, and I refuse to continue to go through this grilling. (Caveat Lector: I’m an agnostic, although even if I were a traditionalist Christian I would be saying the same thing.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s