For Everyone’s Sake: Win

I want to redirect a little bit from Dalrock’s post The perfect response to Patrairchy Chicken in which he highlighted a response from commenter Junkyard Dawg:

That actually happened to me a number of years ago. I was in a park where there is a wide walking path. People walking toward one another from opposite directions usually each moved to the right (like on the roads) to let one another pass. I saw a woman coming my way and moved all the way to the right, to the edge of the path. I soon saw that she had no intention of moving and she also was all the way over on the right (in her case, the left), and for sure, I was not going to step off onto the grass to let her pass, nor move to the center of the path – why should I?

I didn’t know how I was going to handle it, as she was almost face to face and I didn’t have much time to consider. But just seconds before, I stopped, put on a big spontaneous smile and said, “Good morning, how are you?” (We were now both standing still, face-to-face, about a foot apart.) This apparently was unexpected and she seemed to come to her senses, said, “OK,” and then moved over and kept going, and I resumed walking.

Dalrock added:

This is perfect, because it defeats the passive aggressive intent of the “empowerment” and forces the ugly feminist to choose one of three responses:

1. State outright that she is playing childish power games.
2. Go around.
3. Engage in a friendly conversation.

If she chooses option 1, you can then respond with appropriate amusement.  But chances are she will do as the ugly feminist did in Junkyard Dawg’s experience and move out of the way.  Option three isn’t ideal, but keep in mind that being friendly is pure torture to an ugly feminist, so no matter how much you would prefer not to talk to one, she is far more bothered by being polite than you are.

It is also possible that she wasn’t actually an ugly feminist at all, but instead just not paying attention.  Note that this response is perfect for that scenario as well.

As Dalrock notes, this is an excellent response, but often the best response doesn’t come to us in the moment. I have a rule that I keep and tell other men; especially younger men and boys.

Never arm wrestle a woman. If you win: Then, big whoop, you beat a girl. If you lose: You got beat by a girl. But if you do: Win.

Here’s what I suggest men should keep in mind even if the response is less than perfect: Win. It is best not to fight with women if for no other reason than we men who are not raging psychopaths do not like the feel of it, but if she is bound and determined to have a confrontation with you: Win.

You can get lost in caveats and exceptions (and if you want to do so in the comments, go nuts) but in our liberal and egalitarian democracy there are few stations in life to be respected. This is a failure of our culture. Our correction of the economy of respect must start at the fundamentals.

---

HT: Dalrock and Junkyard Dawg

I’m Interested in the True, not Alternatives

Several people have tried to convince me that authoritarianism is not the right word to describe a form of government (whether in the home or over a country) in which the head creates a real obligation of submission for his body when he gives a command. My reading on the etymology of authoritarian is that it used to mean someone is in charge, and those under him are obliged to obey him, but that Communists (somewhat ironically) habitually used the word authoritarian as a synonym for totalitarian; which is a different thing.

Gee, I am so surprised to find that Communists told lies to subvert common knowledge…

Nevertheless, leave your suggestions in the comments.

The Big One of 1968

At the end of October I wrote that it’s not too late to stay frosty in response to a Pat Buchanan article stating that 2018 is not as violent as 1968:

According to Bryan Burrough, author of “Days of Rage, America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence,” “During an 18-month period in 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported more than 2,500 bombings on U.S. soil, nearly 5 a day.”

No, 2018 is not 1968, at least not yet.

But Victor Davis Hanson has an admonishment:[1]

But maybe the ’60s, not the silent majority, won out after all. The world a half-century later looks a lot more like 1968 and what followed than what preceded it.

Most of the political and cultural agenda from that turbulent period — both the advances and the regressions — has long been institutionalized. The military draft, for good or bad, has remained defunct. There is greater transparency in politics, fewer smoke-filled rooms. Disabled children, once ostracized and/or dismissively labeled “retarded,” are now far better integrated into society and treated more ethically as special-needs kids. The rights of women, minorities and the LGBT community are now widely accepted.

Yet lifestyles have been radically altered — and often not for the good. Before the late ’60s, most Americans married before having children; afterward, not so much. One-parent households are now far more common.

Other legacies of the ’60s include couples marrying later and having fewer children. A half-century later, these social inheritances often mean prolonged adolescence, older parents, delayed or nonexistent homeownership, and more emphasis on leisure time than on household chores.

It’s a viewpoint against which it is hard to argue. I think they’re both correct and perhaps from the future’s long view 2018s troubles will be recognized as aftershocks from The Big One of 1968.

There are, I’m sure, some lessons to be drawn from examining the 1960s.

One might be that the path to political victory MUST be via one of the two parties; that–because of the gendered nature of our political system–all third party efforts are made with as much vanity and nonsense as the so-called “non-binary genders” of transsexual activists. The Hard Left took over politics not with a Socialist Party, nor by routing Republicans, but by taking over the Democratic party.

Another more important is less a lesson than an observable truth: The so-called Right in America actually stands for nothing but Liberalism. It must stand for something. Larry Kummer writes in, The Left Pushes America down a slippery slope:

The Left drives America down a slippery slow to an unknown future. Radical social changes are coming ever faster, experiments powered by government power, done without our consent. We can still get off this path.

How? We might wonder. LK gives his prescription in his comments:

Hence awakening a desire for liberty and for self-government is necessary.

Yeah, that makes sense: What the Right needs to do is to be better Leftists. Then we will stop the Left…

Larry Kummer is not alone in his thinking. I was right there with him until I got smacked around by the writings of Zippy Catholic. I trust everyone sees the problem, but just in case: To be Right–and not Left–is to be overtly for authority; to take joy in being yoked together, each under the other–in, into, and of–a powerful structure. That is what has been capitulated.

Please leave your own suggested lessons in the comments.

---

[1] HT: Nathan Rinne

(Edited to add the link Dalrock’s post, which I had intended from the start of this post.)

Why It’s Who You Know and Not What

What I want–what authoritarianism just is–is a government in which authority is delegated. That’s so straightforward that, in a way, it’s hard to understand what I mean so let’s compare it to our current system of government: bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is the delegation of the tasks, rather than the delegation of authority itself. That’s why whenever I encounter bureaucracy it is something in my way and never what gets things done for me. That is why the bureaucracy was made. It’s design is to diffuse authority; to dehumanize power and mask responsibility.

Bureaucracy isn’t why you have to stand in line. That’s authority imposing its power whether anyone under that responsibility likes it or not, and even though we don’t think about it very much because of the mask and diffusion.

Bureaucracy is why, when you get to the front, the woman sitting there can’t solve your problem…unless she is a friend. Then she feels free to resort to her authority.

Anything Without a Head is Either Dead or a Monster

I am for fathers and fatherhood. That does not mean I am for any father for me, or for my kids. Nor am I for just anyone fathering, or claiming fatherhood. No one questions this. Everyone not an SJW understands it.

Likewise: Just because I am for authoritarianism, and just because I believe that authoritarianism is the reality of all political arrangements, and just because I see that it has been hidden under a garbage heap of lies in a contextual-less world of a long-overthrown and subjugated Europe: It does not follow that I am for just any kind of authoritarianism, or just any authoritarian. I’m not. I want good ones. We need them if we are going to defeat the post-modernists, cultural marxists, BLM, AntiFa, and the rest of the Eloist-Morlockian Alliance that Rules our Necropolis. What they have going for them, which we do not, are leaders. We don’t have leaders because the few with the gumption lack the resources. Those with the resources lack the gumption. And both can see that most of us aren’t worth leading since we categorically refuse to be under authority on the basis of a glamor of liberty which we do not actually possess. Above all, those with the gumption and resources do not themselves disbelieve the spell.

Whatever can’t go on forever, won’t; so the saying goes. But the things with a head go on longer, and get more done. Without a head, a thing can’t even make plans for the day. Two-headed bodies are either tragedies or abominations.

Or, How I Learned to Love the Boss

This is a dashed-off list of the main 10 thoughts that led me to recognize the sweet, sentimental affection for freedom I have inside me, reach deep down in there, and start choking that bitch out.

• Zippy Catholic, in particular his idea of the “unprincipled exception”: rules and ruling that do not proceed from the principle of liberty, but from something else, like “good”, or “just”. As well as being repeatedly confronted with the idea that I find it preferable to have a “free government” over a “good government”. That is just dumb.

 

• Thinking about the Men’s Sphere complaint of the conservative formulation of familial headship–authority is responsibility but no command–is not true authority.

 

• The interchangeability of the words: power, liberty, command, freedom, etc. We play subtle but corrosive games with these words. We think we understand each other, but I doubt it.

 

• Taking stock of what few freedoms I actually have (in contrast to the things that are restricted from me), and how I’m mostly ok with that. My problem isn’t a lack of freedom. My problem is that I can’t count on my authorities to uphold me in justice when I make a good decision.

 

• Martial Law. When things get bad, real bad, so bad that we have to resort to violence, we enact martial law. That is, we become overtly authoritarian. Obviously then we think that is the best, must-have form of government. And that means that everything else is half-ass measures. We’re playing shadow games here with liberalism.

 

• The Kingdom of God. I must admit that the government the Lord chooses is the best, wisest, and most just kind of government.

 

• Contemplating “Alt-Right”. As a lifelong member of GenX, Alt-Right is a gay term. It reminds me of Third Eye Blind’s “pierced queer teens in cyberspace”. I don’t want an alternative right. I want the good right. I want the just right. And I want a legitimate place in it, with authority over my own domain. I don’t want to be free to own a weapon. I want to be authorized–expected–to be armed.

 

• Recognition that love for authority doesn’t mean all authorities are to be loved. Some kings need to be fought, abandoned, or killed…but they should be replaced with good ones.

 

• Recognition that authoritarianism isn’t a synonym for, tyranny, despotism, etc. As well as recognition that authoritarianism doesn’t necessarily mean monarchy, inherited aristocracy, etc. (As well as some recalculations of whether those are good or bad, and how.) Authoritarianism just means liberties and responsibilities descend from authority, for real.

 

• Respect is impossible to derive from freedom itself. If we’re all merely free to do or say this or that, then from whence can respect come? It’s just, like, your opinion, man. This is a big one.

Liberty on the Fringes of Jane’s Books

Oscar writes:

Freedom – more correctly, liberty – is not the ability to do whatever one wants, which is what most people today think it is.

The ability to do whatever one wants is not liberty, it’s hedonism. Hedonism is what “liberals” want. They don’t actually want liberty.

Liberty is the ability to govern oneself. The implication being that one who does not govern himself must be governed by others.

To paraphrase Federalist 55, when men possess insufficient virtue to govern themselves, nothing short of the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Questions:

1. Who decides what is virtue? Who really decides–leaving some alone but punishing others–whether or not a man governs himself? Whoever that person is, he is the authority under which the others live. Christians should not believe that the answer is only “God”. Our scriptures tell us that we are to obey not only God, but several authorities who He has given the mission to rule.
2. What does the author of Federalist 55 mean by govern except to be under control; under authority? Does he think destroyers and devourers are not making their own choices?

What Oscar calls Liberty just is Authority; the permission to act within certain boundaries of responsibility. Liberty is the bit within the boundaries. Most of the world is outside those boundaries.

We can test this. Pick up one copy of each of the 77 Jane’s Information Group books. (Here is a list.) Separate them into two piles: one pile with the things an adult American citizen with no criminal history but without special licenses is allowed to own and use. Put the rest in another pile of the those which are forbidden him without special license. Those piles will contain 0 books, and 77 books, respectively.

Ok, now take those books, and tear out the pages. (This will take some time. There will be a lot of them.) Separate those pages into piles according to the same criteria. This will now put some pages in the Allowed pile, but the vast majority will be in the Forbidden pile.

Those piles constitute what is meant by: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

When I point out that what we want is Authoritarianism, there’s no reason for clear observers and thinkers to be scared. It’s what we have right now. We lie about it because we have been taught by Liberals to be afraid of it. But lying is utterly corrosive, and not at all manly or godly.

It gets even better: Liberals are afraid of it! Things that Liberals are afraid of should be go-to weapons.

CoE III: The Opposite of Liberal was a Dirty Word to Me

Conservative is what I used to call myself, and then again later. But conservative isn’t the opposite of liberal. It’s just a descriptor of the kind of liberal who is sentimental and unprincipled.

Between those times “Libertarian” seemed like a good thing. It wasn’t. Potheads, usurers, sodomites, and a boatload of layabouts make terrible company, and worse government. For awhile now I’ve politically been ____________. “Something the opposite of Liberal.”

I’m not the only one. Do you ever wonder why many who are against Post-Modernism, Feminism, Cultural Marxism, Progressivism, Perversion, etc. call themselves and others who defiantly speak the truth: Conservatives, Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Revolutionaries, Barbarians, Deplorables, and even Shitlords?

Ever wonder why, at just the moment they should coalesce into a group, they instead disperse into atomized bits of powerless snark?

Because they hate the opposite of Liberal, the word itself. That word is authoritarian. Nasty thing! We hates it, my precccccioussss!

Well, Cane: Get over it, cupcake.