Saturday, June 21, 2008

How We Can Get Our Culture Back

Ypp is a regular commenter here at Gates of Vienna. He wanted to respond to Fjordman’s recent post, “The Greatest Betrayal in History”, but felt his essay was too long to leave in the comments, so I volunteered to post it here for him.

How We Can Get Our Culture Back
by Ypp

This essay is an answer to Fjordman, who recently raised the question about women’s, and especially feminists’ role in bringing in Third-World immigration. I believe there is a good deal of misunderstanding among the general public, as well as among feminists themselves, about what they really want. I will try to look at the claims of feminists from a different point of view.

To start with, let’s consider the famous thesis that “all men are rapists”. Given such an a priori moral judgement — that rape is bad — we are stuck in a situation which is impossible to resolve.

However, if we only dare to assume that rape may be, in some fantasy way, desirable, we get a clue. By saying that all men are rapists, feminists hint at that they want to be raped.

Assume that feminists are women who cannot have normal relations with men for psychological reasons. But that does not mean that they don’t want those relations. That means that they actually desire to be forced into such relations.

I spoke with several lonely women, and all said that what they really wanted was a procedure by which they could get married without active participation on their own part. In other words, they would prefer a traditional patriarchal way of marriage over modern freedom.
- - - - - - - - -
If we broadly define ‘rape’ as some sort of enforcement, the initial hypothesis seems justified. Fjordman wrote in his essay that “feminists usually take [this line] regarding rapes: It’s about the ‘patriarchy’. That’s it.

According to Swedish feminists, “Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban,” continues Fjordman. Now, substitute “good” for “bad”, and you find that Swedish feminists do not prefer foreigners!

Recently I had a correspondence with a lady who called herself a feminist. Trying to find some sense in her seemingly illogical accusations against Men and Capitalism, it came to me that what she really wanted was security. She wanted to have a reliable marriage, many children and financial protection, and she wanted the state to actually enforce all that.

Of course, she wanted equality too, but… And if, and only if, a man deserts her does she want financial support from the state and possibility to have abortion. But first of all, she wanted security.

So my advice would be: if we want to win the hearts and minds of our women, we must drop that “freedom is a must” paradigm, and admit that what many women need is not equality but traditional and safe marriage. And if we can provide that option for them better than other cultures, and prove that they are safer with us than with others, they will inevitably choose us.

“A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground,” quoted Fjordman. If our women can trust us, they will love us. And we will win back our culture.


Anonymous said...

I've been mulling this issue over for some time now in a short story. In the story, the young woman is asked by the man to ditch her career and stay home and have babies. He accuses her of wanting a career because she doesn't 'trust' him, or any man. She replies that in historic times, such as in the era of Jane Austen, first-born men inherited the whole of their parent's estate, while currently they get a little help with college and not much more. She says, 'If you can get your parents to give you their home, debt free, as a wedding gift, and to compensate me for lost income in the 24 years it will take to raise four children to 18, you've got a deal. Anyway, you can see where this is going. To put this into the real world; if young men could tell their potential wives they would start their career with the assets of their parents, and that the only obligation was to ensure they (the couple) looked after them in their old age, then I think young women would be happy to say I'm yours, get me pregnant.

Just as an aside, fiction is a great way to work out social issues.

Anonymous said...

And if, and only if, a man deserts her does she want financial support from the state and possibility to have abortion.

I disagree. Many women want the man's money but not the man. That's why so many demand government benefits: they get the man's money (by proxy) without having to do anything for it (or for him). Heck, I've heard such women brag about how "independent" they were.

Fjordman said...

Thank you for the post. I have touched upon this subject several times before. For instance, I wrote the post The Fatherless Civilization in response to Diana West's latest book:

I sometimes wonder whether the modern West, and Western Europe in particular, should be dubbed the Fatherless Civilization. Fathers have been turned into a caricature and there is a striking demonization of traditional male values. Any person attempting to enforce rules and authority, a traditional male preserve, is seen as a Fascist and ridiculed, starting with God the Father. We end up with a society of vague fathers who can be replaced at the whim of the mothers at any given moment. Even the mothers have largely abdicated, leaving the upbringing of children to schools, kindergartens and television. In fashion and lifestyle, mothers imitate their daughters, not vice versa.

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled "the nanny state," but perhaps it could also be named "the husband state." Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men was to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has been "outsourced" to the state, which helps explain why women in general give disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. According to anthropologist Lionel Tiger, the ancient unit of a mother, a child and a father has morphed from monogamy into "bureaugamy," a mother, a child and a bureaucrat. The state has become a substitute husband. In fact, it doesn't replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the children and cares for the elderly.

xlbrl said...

Arthur Koestler, a well known and repected Hungarian English novelist, was ultimately revealed to be a serial rapists. But what is far more revealing is that many of the women he raped stayed with him--at least until he found others to rape. Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. Since our vices and virtues are part of the same thread, this shows us that what women desire is, at the mimimum, not a lack of assertiveness.

Ypp said...


I believe that men's power and domination, be it good or bad, is not identical to men's devotion and persistence. Societal attitude is disastrous, but personal attitude is much more important. I am not looking for who to blame, because it is too complicated a matter. Rather, I suggest what we personally can do.

We must be devoted and persistent, however bad those women are now. Isn't being persistent the man's virtue? Someone, whoever he is, taught us that we have "unlimited opportunities". No, we don't. Unlimited opportunities is the road to hell.

Women may be really unbearable sometimes, but they are our only tool and only weapon. If we can keep them we win.

Anonymous said...

Interesting thoughts. Women's desire to have protection and security is a result of evolution. We can see this in nature - female animals will choose the strongest male who can protect her and therefore ensure that their genes are passed on. Somehow, I guess humans have almost become too clever, for lack of a better word - we advocate freedom, but is that truly what some of us want?

Just my two cents... I'm not saying I don't want freedom or anything like that. But I feel that it is important for us to "win back our culture," as Ypp says.

spackle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
spackle said...

" The state has become a substitute husband. In fact, it doesn't replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the children and cares for the elderly."

Now if the state could supply a sexual partner for her carnal needs we will be really screwed. I fear with the advent of vibrators and artificial insemination we are quickly approaching doomsday for the male. After all, the only thing we have left to offer is our seed. : )

Ypp said...

Dressing a boy into girl's dress may be a sort of an irony: look at yourself, who you became. Those feminists are really nasty sometimes. But they can be potentially the most useful women, if put on the right track.

Zenster said...

Ypp: To start with, let’s consider the famous thesis that “all men are rapists”. Given such an a priori moral judgement — that rape is bad — we are stuck in a situation which is impossible to resolve.

However, if we only dare to assume that rape may be, in some fantasy way, desirable, we get a clue. By saying that all men are rapists, feminists hint at that they want to be raped.

Assume that feminists are women who cannot have normal relations with men for psychological reasons. But that does not mean that they don’t want those relations. That means that they actually desire to be forced into such relations.

Without providing the least justification for rape—a truly heinous crime—the illogic and irrationality of modern radical feminists seems to give serious support to your assertion that they desire sex by force. As I noted in Fjordman’s post, “The Greatest Betrayal in History”.

“… radical feminism has become so morally and sexually inverted whereby such hatred for men literally assures that consensual heterosexual liaisons can only be regarded as "sleeping with the enemy". This suddenly opens the door for rape being the sole way of obtaining heterosexual intercourse.”

So my advice would be: if we want to win the hearts and minds of our women, we must drop that “freedom is a must” paradigm, and admit that what many women need is not equality but traditional and safe marriage. And if we can provide that option for them better than other cultures, and prove that they are safer with us than with others, they will inevitably choose us.

I think that the “freedom is a must” paradigm has simply overrun its legitimate boundaries. While gender equality is a good and nobel thing, giving women the ability to mold men according to their own whim—as I commented upon in Fjordman’s post—is where things have well and truly gone off of the rails.

This mistaken notion has permitted women to subscribe to the idea of, “If he really loves me, he’ll change for me”. Which then leads women into thinking that they can actually convert the bad boys over to genuinely nice people. A task which has repeatedly proven misguided at best and, more often, disastrous in the form of rampant spousal abuse. Being rewarded with women’s affection has, in fact, led to an overabundance of these bad boy @ssclowns and given them precisely ZERO reason to change their pointedly successful ways.

What’s more, for women to suddenly fall back upon men and demand that they fulfill their traditional role as protector and “he who sets things right” after DECADES of warping the sexual selection process is not just unfair, it is wholly irresponsible. To a very large extent, women have bred up this oversupply of jerks and they had damn well better set about disincentivizing such poor behavior.

Currently, women are NOWHERE even close to making this fundamental break with the irrational manifestation of their deranged desires and thus—no matter how cruel it sounds—largely deserve the abuse, neglect, unsatisfying sex and abandonment that they commonly experience in relationships.

If women truly want decent men, they’d damn well better get busy with showing a genuine preference for being treated with respect instead of just paying lip service to chivalry whilst cozying up to abusive cads. Examples of this are in how modern feminists are deafening silent about the incredibly misogynistic abuses of shari’a law and the way that young women subscribe to gangsta rap’s thug life even as it degrades women in the most abject fashion.

There is a profound disconnect going on in the heads of modern women and it is not something that honorable men can fix for them, if at all. Women had better begin walking their talk about equality and start giving decent guys a chance or they can learn to suck up the beatdowns they otherwise so richly deserve for adoring their worthless thugs.

Frank Hilliard, your whole scenario falls to the ground when a family has more than one boy-child.

spackle, you neglect to consider how vibrators and turkey basters aren't much good at whispering sweet nothings or providing some decent post-coital pillow talk.

Whiskey said...

Ypp I profoundly disagree. Feminists have been IMHO quite clear about what they want, which is a complete upturning of the social order so that they may pursue many men without social censure or financial/career insecurity.

When feminists say "all men are rapists" it is a political statement, aimed at other women, to say that traditional culture and marriage and particularly family (which is likened to a prison by feminists) is something to be hated and avoided, and the politics should follow the "It Girls" aka feminists to the new promised land of limitless sexual freedom, anonymity, and other "boring people" taking care of any kids.

Feminists simply push consumerist culture, with it's meaningless choice, to the ultimate limits. If one man is as good as any other, why not simply shop in the supermarket of the cities. "Roissy in DC" at notes that because of endless choice, urban anonymous living is bad for relationships. He's one of those "Pick Up Artists" guys blogging about his experiences, but his observation is quite solid, based on empirical obsveration.

You can see this line of thinking in the beauty arms race, with trillions spent on cosmetics, plastic surgery, fashion, etc. All to keep attracting the hot guy of the moment as women age. Barbara Ehrenreich in the 2000 Time Magazine essay noted that the future of women would be "short, passionate, intense affairs" with child-raising given over to the "village" who would presumably jump at the chance to raise someone else's child so that women could "fulfill themselves."

Feminism is nothing more than intensely female-oriented consumerism pushed to it's absolute logical conclusions.

What is needed to argue against it is an anti-consumerist message. That points out that women will not get love, affection, and life-time companionship at all if they pursue against social traditions, dictates, and mores the endless choice of the hot new brand of guy in the supermarket of the cities. That they will end up the emotional equivalent of the fat kid who ate at McDonald's everyday -- old, alone, lonely, and without any interest at all by anyone. Comparing btw the wages of female-oriented consumerism to being "fat at McDonalds" is IMHO a powerful metaphor. "Fat" for women = "no one wants to have sex with you."

Against this of course is the thrill of choosing the new, improved bad boy who is higher in testosterone than the last. There are few studies out showing that intelligence correlates with testosterone. Testosterone peaking at average intelligence, around 100 or so, and declining quite rapidly as intelligence increases. Certainly most women would prefer an athletic jock who cheats on them than a faithful, but less masculine and more intelligence scientist or engineer. Particularly since social skills seem to decline against mathmatical and spatial intelligence. See here

I think it is quite difficult in the main to argue against the short-term pleasures and fantasies of women getting the most testosterone laden men for more intelligent but less masculine men in committed relationships. It is IMHO primarily a cultural affair that would require decades of entertainment showing bad choices for short term gain (consumerist choice of bad boys in the Welfare state).

JacksonvillePat said...

I am reminded of G. K Chesterton's book "What's wrong with the world" From Chapter XII "The modern Slave"

The Feminist (which means, I think, one who dislikes the chief feminine characteristics) has heard my loose monologue, bursting all the time with one pent-up protest. At this point he will break out and say, "But what are we to do? There is modern commerce and its clerks; there is the modern family with its unmarried daughters; specialism is expected everywhere; female thrift and conscientiousness are demanded and supplied. What does it matter whether we should in the abstract prefer the old human and housekeeping woman; we might prefer the Garden of Eden. But since women have trades they ought to have trades unions. Since women work in factories, they ought to vote on factory-acts. If they are unmarried they must be commercial; if they are commercial they must be political. We must have new rules for a new world-- even if it be not a better one." I said to a Feminist once: "The question is not whether women are good enough for votes: it is whether votes are good enough for women." He only answered: "Ah, you go and say that to the women chain-makers on Cradley Heath."

Now this is the attitude which I attack. It is the huge heresy of Precedent. It is the view that because we have got into a mess we must grow messier to suit it; that because we have taken a wrong turn some time ago we must go forward and not backwards; that because we have lost our way we must lose our map also; and because we have missed our ideal, we must forget it. "There are numbers of excellent people who do not think votes unfeminine; and there may be enthusiasts for our beautiful modern industry who do not think factories unfeminine. But if these things are unfeminine it is no answer to say that they fit into each other. I am not satisfied with the statement that my daughter must have unwomanly powers because she has unwomanly wrongs. Industrial soot and political printer's ink are two blacks which do not make a white. Most of the Feminists would probably agree with me that womanhood is under shameful tyranny in the shops and mills. But I want to destroy the tyranny. They want to destroy womanhood. That is the only difference.

Whether we can recover the clear vision of woman as a tower with many windows, the fixed eternal feminine from which her sons, the specialists, go forth; whether we can preserve the tradition of a central thing which is even more human than democracy and even more practical than politics; whether, in word, it is possible to re-establish the family, freed from the filthy cynicism and cruelty of the commercial epoch, I shall discuss in the last section of this book. But meanwhile do not talk to me about the poor chain-makers on Cradley Heath. I know all about them and what they are doing. They are engaged in a very wide-spread and flourishing industry of the present age. They are making chains.

Whiskey said...

Jacksonvillepat, as a practical matter women are the largest demographic slice, due to longer lives and lower death rates at either tail of the age distribution.

I don't think you will find many takers for the proposition that they should give up freedoms. You might find takers for the argument that other means of selection would increase their happines..

JacksonvillePat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JacksonvillePat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JacksonvillePat said...


I should have added that G. K. Chesterton's book was written in 1912, before Women's suffrage.

I think it unlikely to find someone today in favor of taking rights away. I have not read later G. K. Chesterton books advocating the repeal of Women's Suffrage.

I think G. K. Chesterton's point is that obtaining a freedom sometimes results in achieving a different form of tyranny.

Ypp said...

2 Whiskey

"When feminists say "all men are rapists" it is a political statement,..

I disagree. This claim goes further than any political statement. By blaming all sexual relations, they call for canceling reproduction. You cannot seriously call people for self-extermination. Therefore, this statement cannot be considered as serious or political.

Like communists, who claimed that private property is slavery, and finished by labor camps. Because their claim was self-contradictory and impossible from the beginning, which means that there must be some hidden agenda. With feminists it is the desire to be forced into relationship. With communists it is probably the desire to be forced into labor.

Gaeidhil said...

As some of you have may have noticed from previous comments I have a tendency toward promoting/defending Irish culture.

So given the current topic's trending toward societal roles of men and women I'd like to direct the readers to what is known as "Law of the Couple" [Cáin Lánamna].

There is no way that I could do justice to this legal tract by offering comment on it, so I'll just post a couple of snippets and let the readers digest it's content and marvel at the succinct brilliance it contains from the perspective of legal rights and obligations.


"Law of the Couple" [Cáin Lánamna]

Question. How many pairings are there in Irish law? Answer. Eight: a lord and his base clients, a church and its tenantry, a father and his daughter, a girl and her brother, a son and his mother, a foster-son and his foster-mother, a teacher and his pupil, a man and his wife.

Question: how many couples of cohabitation and procreation are there in Irish law? Answer: ten-(1) union of common contribution; (2) union of a woman on a man's contribution; (3) union of a man on a woman's contribution with service; (4) union of a woman who accepts a man's solicitation; (5) union of a man who visits the woman, without work, without solicitation, without provision, without material contribution; (6) union by abduction; (7) union of wandering mercenaries; (8) union by criminal seduction; (9) union by rape; (10) union of mockery.

Nilk said...

When feminists say "all men are rapists" it is a political statement...

Not entirely. There are some feminists out there who believe this to be a provable, unobjective truth. One Feminista, Biting Beaver has even produced of behaviours that demonstrate that men really are all rapists or rapists-in-waiting.

Civitas, over in the UK has been doing a lot of work over the years on fatherless families and the fallout for our society. A good place to start with them is their report on Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family. I've not linked directly to it here as it comes in either html or pdf form.

Nilk said...

One of these days I'm going to re-read my comments.

"unobjective" should be objective, and Biting Beaver has produced A LIST!

She is one seriously angry woman, and unfortunately, her blog is kept private. I did get to read some before she made it so, but as I never participated over there, I no longer have access.

Googling "biting beaver," however, will bring up some remarkable commentary on some of her postings, which make for an insight into the modern feminist's mind.

If we are to take back womanhood from these people, there's a lot of work to be done.

I'm speaking as a woman who used to label myself as a feminist. Gave that up a long time ago, though, and wouldn't be caught dead with that tag anymore.

Zenster said...

[open on Gates of Vienna blog, Whiskey and Ypp arguing]

Whiskey: New All-Men-Rape is a political statement!

Ypp: No, new All-Men-Rape is a feminist manifesto!

Whiskey: It’s a political statement!”

Ypp: It’s a feminist manifesto!

Whiskey: It’s a political statement, I’m telling you!

Ypp: It’s a feminist manifesto, ya idjit!

Zenster: [ enters quickly ] Hey, hey, hey, calm down, you two. New All-Men-Rape is both a political statement and a femenist manifesto! Here, I'll spray paint it across your picket. [sprays “All-Men-Rape” onto sign] ..and spell it out in your latest essay. [keys “All-Men-Rape into blog entry]

[whiskey marches while Ypp inputs text]

Whiskey: Wow, this is really persuasive!

Ypp: And just look at that hit count, but will it last?

Zenster: Hey, outlasts every other leading New Age ideological refutation, 2 to 1. It’s parseable and it’s snark resistant.

Whiskey: And its easy to spell!

Zenster: Sure is! Perks up anything from an outdoor rally to a neocon cocktail party!

Ypp: Composed from an exclusive anti-socialist formula.

Whiskey: I haven’t even put down my sign and I’m ready to march another ten miles!

Ypp: But what about complaints of misogyny?

Zenster: Charges of bias, discrimination, even flagged remarks are deleted with ease.

[Whiskey accidentally flashes picket in front of webcam]

Whiskey: Oh, sorry Ypp, I’ll edit that out.

Ypp: Oh, no problem, pal, not with new All-Men-Rape!

[Zenster laughs continuously as he approaches the web cam]

Zenster: New All-Men-Rape, for the best political statement that ever became a feminist manifesto.


Whiskey said...

Ypp I think you are not cynical enough. Communists merely desire to be a King, and a King in the Eastern mode, an absolute tyrant. A Darius or a Xerxes. Not say, a Louis Phillipe. Or even a Holy Roman emperor, forced to parade around in the snow after ticking off the Pope.

Thus women who proclaim "all men are rapists" don't mean that, exactly, since they have plenty of sex just the way Castro has plenty of private property, his landed estate the Island of Cuba and the people his slaves. The merely wish as a political aim to destroy any and all social mores that restrict them from being Paris Hilton. That's who they want to be. Without a taint of restriction. Just as all communists just want to hold the whip (and profit from it).

Jacksonsvillepat I am very wary of endorsing Chesteron's view. Both Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheik) and Ayman al-Zawahari have written extensively (no surprise, they are heavily influenced by Sayyid Qutb who wrote it first) that Western Freedom is an abomination since it prevents people from being properly as they understand it, the slaves of God. For them, "real freedom" is to be exactly like them, the "slave of God" doing exactly what he tells them to do in the Koran. Whereas for them, individual freedom in the Western Context puts human made laws above God. Both Rahman and al-Zawahari (you can read Wright's "The Looming Tower" yourself to confirm this) believe Western Freedom to be a Tyranny for this reason.

I am opposed to this view.

To my mind, Feminism is an utterly cynical game, played by utter cynics. Look at them: Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland, Germaine Greer. As utterly corrupt as Fidel Castro, lord and master of the People's Landed Republic Estate of Cuba.

I think the strength of Western Civilization compared to others has always come down to it's women. Who could largely walk free and unafraid, pursuing lives largely of their own choosing, with husbands they largely chose for love rather than being forced into some loveless bondage.

What has been broken is a combination of utter, total cynicism, among elites, along with total, vacuous consumerism in a profoundly invidualistic, socially isolated, lonely age. Compounded by anoymous urbanization. [As a practical matter, feminists don't have much influence in the US, where military demands and the sheer size of the nation have meant they just aren't listened too much, while paradoxically, women like Oprah wield the influence of king-makers.]

Whiskey said...

Fjordman, to my mind the issue of Fatherless Civilization comes from the way in which consumerist culture works.

TV is a female/gay ghetto. Dominated by women, made for women, with commercials and content aimed at women (for the most part, women make up 80% of sitcom viewers for example). There are some male havens, the Discovery and History Channel, for example. But much of it is aimed at women.

Because advertisers believe women make most purchasing decisions, and wish to reach them exclusively. It does not help that ad buyers are young women in their twenties with negative views on less than high-status men. Attractive and in urban areas, they get hit on a LOT and often by guys they detest, who have poor social skills and low status and who can be perceived as barriers to the guys they want, the A Listers.

So by default, fathers are perceived as either doofuses or idiots or simply not needed. Another factor of the youth culture.

One need only look at the NFL Network, if you have it, and compare it to HGTV. The first is full of tradition, father-son stuff, all sorts of gruff, father figures who loom not just large but LEGENDARY: Mike Ditka (crying last year over his former players hurt, and needing the League to fork over cash for medical help years after they played), the late Bill Walsh, Herm Edwards, Lovey Smith, the great Tony Dungee, heck even the big Tuna himself, Bill Parcells.

The coaches, father figures, are as big a draw as the players. Ironically, many of the Black players lacked fathers, and look up to these guys as substitute fathers. The late Bill Walsh was well known for filling this void, even well after the guys stopped playing for him.

Now look at HGTV. Not a father in sight. Amazing. Both niche cable channels, but one is very different in it's treatment of fathers than the other.

Ypp said...

2 Whiskey
"Communists merely desire to be a King... Castro has plenty of private property"

Many want to be a king, but not everyone can become the communist legend. Just like everyone can become a star or a millionaire in USA, but not everyone becomes. To become one, you must be sincere and must have something in your heart. People are not all fools, they see the fake. Castro may have some villas, but when he grabbed power he really believed what he said. No Whiskey, cynicism is too primitive a position, it is justification for those who does not want to admit that enemy is serious.

Zenster said...

whiskey_199: Now look at HGTV.

I'd rather not, but appropos of nothing I will vehemently agree with you about how vacuous, effete and generally emasculated the players are on HGTV.

Rarely have I seen such hideously garish and cheesey design esthetics. More than one woman I know has this show running continuously on her television.

I find HGTV to be revolting on so many levels that proper language is insufficient to the arduous task of detailing its numerous transgressions.

JacksonvillePat said...


Thanks for the reference to Wright's "The Looming Tower", I will take a closer look this afternoon.

I dusted off my copy of Sayyid Qutb's book "Milestones". Particularly disturbing is a section from Chapter VIII "Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is the a concrete example of the Divinely - ordained system of life, it has a God - given right to step forward and take control of the political authority, so it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience."

The Christian religion has struggled with a more complex interpretation of the role between religion and state. Christ's teaching to render onto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's became more complex with Caesar's claim of divinity. Although the separation between the Civil and Spiritual is sometimes complex, few Christians believe as Qutb, that there is a God given right to cease political authority.

You assessment that feminists have little influence may be evident by of Hillary Clinton's failed nomination bid.

I agree that the strength of Western Society is because of Women, interestingly Chesterton believed likewise.

“The woman controls the home, that fundamental unit of society. If you control the home, you control society. Chesterton says, "When I think of the power of woman, my knees knock under me." Ironically, the feminists, by giving up their power in the home, gave up all their power. When they moved into the workplace, most women certainly became like most men in that they became wage slaves, but they did not gain anything, and they certainly did not gain power."

If Chesterton is correct and the foundation of Western Civilization is based upon the influence of Women on the family; modern changes to our culture may have grave consequences.

Ypp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zenster said...

Ypp: probably gold is precious only because women like it

Ummm ... no. Gold's place as this world's universal standard of currency is due to some unique geological, mineralogical and chemical properties.

Manifesting as "jewellery rock", very pure gold could easily be hammered free of its quartz matrix and readily shaped into new forms with even the most primitive tools.

In combination with its chemical inertness, gold's relatively low melting point makes it an ideal choice compared to other low-melt-point metals like silver, lead, tin or bismuth. All of which tarnish easily or convey toxic skin contact properties.

Gold's malleability, especially in the form of gold leaf is nothing short of legendary. It is the most malleable metal. A single ounce can be hammered into a sheet 100 feet on each side. Pure gold can be hammered so thin that, at one molecule's thickness, it becomes semi-transparent to light. It is also the most ductile metal known and a single ounce can be drawn into an unbroken wire that would circle the earth more than once.

Among its many unique properties is gold's density. This makes it an ideal form of transportable wealth. It is one of the finest electrical conductors with almost zero resistance from -55C to +200C. It is unparallelled as a reflector, especially in the infra-red spectrum.

You would have been far better off and historically accurate to cite diamonds as a girl's best friend. The diamond market is one of the most elaborately contrived hoaxes of all time and women are the very worst accomplices in its perpetuation.

Ypp said...

Thanks Thenster, lots of information. However, how that all contradicts the point that its women who value gold most? I believe men would not give a s**t for a piece of metal. And of course you are right, diamonds is even bigger hoax.

Zenster said...

Ypp: However, how [does] that all contradicts the point that it's women who value gold most?

It is valuable, not due to how "gold is precious only because women like it", but because gold has many intrinsic practical and physical properties that makes it a valid standard of currency.

As I noted and you yourself admit, diamonds are a far more appropriate example of a relatively common substance whose supply and demand has been manipulated with total mastery by a tiny number of executives who possess the wealth to artificially control the market.

De Beers single handedly created the concept of a one carat diamond engagement ring. They have so skillfully injected this artifice into modern culture that Japan—a place where wedding rings once did not exist—is now a major market for the one carat engagement ring.

Ever wonder where the tennis bracelet
came from?

De Beers invented it specifically as a way to dispose of smaller sub-carat stones whose insufficient quality of clarity, color and cut rendered them unsuitable for a singleton setting.

Unless you are buying a diamond whose overall cost ranges in the six to seven digits, your money is largely being wasted. Natural—not color-enhanced thermally treated or neutron bombarded—emeralds and rubies represent vastly superior investments.

Diamonds—even of decent color, clarity and carat size—are rather common. Their greatest service to humanity is in their industrial and commercial applications. There awaits an entirely new generation of electronic microcircuitry that will utilize DLCs (Diamond Like Coatings) as the ultimate in thermally conductive yet electrically insulating layers. DLCs are also used to "lubricate" rigid disk drive platters so that head crashes will not stick down.

Flawless diamond optics also promise stupendous advances in thermally stable, impact resistant lenses. A diamond anvil cell can recreate pressures normally found at the earth's core (~12.6 BILLION TONS PER SQUARE INCH). They open new windows on how materials respond at pressures we have no other way of duplicating in ambient conditions.

The race to synthesize large jewellery quality diamonds is closing fast on its goal of competing with natural stones. For a decent update on diamond synthesis, watch Nova's "The Diamond Deception".

Ypp said...

2 zenster
"properties that make it..."

dont be fooled by materialists. properties are nothing, desire is everything

Zenster said...

Ypp: desire is everything

"Desire" didn't get us to the moon, but you can rest assured there probably were more than a few ounces of gold distributed throughout the Apollo 11 spacecraft. You exhibit a very superficial understanding of how human society and actual achievement operate. It is why I demonstrated to you how diamonds serve far more important industrial and scientific purposes than they fulfill in their role as ornaments.

Ypp said...

2 zenster

I did not want to make it personal, but if you started it yourself... You think copying a page from wikipedia makes you "serious". Actually, you did not even get the point. The point was not why gold is the standard, but why we have capital at all. Do you think, that if there were no gold on Earth, there would be no capital? My point was that capital is the materialized desire of women to have something precious. I don't care how it works, who bribed who or any other unnecessary details. You, vice versa, see only details but not the picture as a whole, and this fixation on details you call "seriousness".

Zenster said...

Ypp: I did not want to make it personal, but if you started it yourself... You think copying a page from wikipedia makes you "serious".

Please cite (with proper links and quotes), exactly which "page from wikipedia" that I supposedly copied or consider this an invitation to post a written retraction of your unfounded accusation. I avoid Wikipedia like the plague as it is a wholly unreliable source of information.

I also invite you to produce factual evidence which substantiates your puerile assertion that, "capital is the materialized desire of women to have something precious."

You continue to demonstrate exceptionally immature forensic skills and without a conclusive retraction for the foregoing unbased claim, further posts of yours will be ignored.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster --

Without getting into the use of gold as a commodity or medium of exchange (I'm not an expert on that), let me see if I can explain what I think Ypp is talking about.

Quoting Ted Hughes:

If there had been no hope she would not have come
And there would have been no crying in the city
(There would have been no city)

Women created civilzation through men. Men would not have been driven to create or amass wealth beyond what was necessary to live reasonably comfortably, were it not imperative to gain the approval of women.

To put it succinctly: civilization was created by guys who were trying to impress babes in order to score, or to placate the babes that they already had.

One more quote, from Robert Hunter via the Grateful Dead:

Well baby, baby wants a gold diamond ring
Wants it more than most any old thing
Well when I get those jelly roll blues
Why I'd go and get anything in this world for you.

Neither gold nor diamonds nor anything else would have any value without a monetized economy which includes a medium of exchange.

None of the above would exist without the desires of women, and without the desire of men to please women.

Afonso Henriques said...

Right on Baron!

This look exactly like the XIX century (really from beyond, but that's when it became fashionable) occultist tradition that stated that Civilisation was created through man for women, and according to (semi-God-like) women's desire.

And the my favourite of all, the notion that different cultures can be hierarchyzed. And that the most advanced cultures are only superior due to the more palpable divinity of that's culture's women.

If you look to Europe when compared to the rest of the world, it appears to make sense.

Zenster said...

Baron, one could just as easily argue that tool making and the exchange of related raw materials or finished goods (e.g., scrapers, points, unknapped flints, hardwood shafts, etc.), drove the development of civilization. Those tools enabled men to feed women and children, a rather attractive asset for any male. Far more attractive than inedible ornaments.

More over, a brief study of history shows that the bulk quantites of gold and jewels resided in royal treasuries or religious statuary and symbols. Most definitely not in the average woman's jewellery box. Even the earliest forms of beadwork were used as currency (e.g., puka and wampum).

As it stands, I'd need to see some fact-based anthropological evidence for Ypp's assertion before I'll accept it over the documentation that I provided. Something he has yet to do instead of merely posting anecdotal accounts.

None of this changes the extremely offensive nature of Ypp's accusation that I plagarized Wikipedia for use in my comment. He has yet to show where I engaged in "copying a page from wikipedia" and that certainly seems to be a breach of blog decorum.

Ypp said...

2 zenster

Sorry for having offended you. But if you wish to participate in the discussions, you should not be offended so easily, because its really hard to argue with you. OK, I can admit that the information you presented is not from Wikipedia but from Enciclopedia Britanica, or maybe you wrote it yourself. Hope, that will partially expiate my fault.

Regarding women, who are the most precious commodity. I agree completely. I believe, the capital, initially valued by women, than started to have value for men too, and actually started to symbolize women itself. I cannot present any material proof for this thesis. That's the advantage of materialists, they can always present some numbers, like density or resistance, to prove their point, but I cannot. My problem, must admit that.

Ethelred said...

I have long worried that if women ever REALLY understood the power that they have over men, that we (men) will be screwed.

Then again, women could use that power to force us men to make a better world by getting rid of the evil doers.

I am not just talking about sex, of course. We men will do ANYTHING for the woman who is our soul-mate.

Zenster said...

Ypp: Sorry for having offended you.

Apology accepted.

But if you wish to participate in the discussions, you should not be offended so easily, because its really hard to argue with you.

I am not "offended so easily". It takes something truly discourteous and rude like a charge of plagarism to get my hackles up.

OK, I can admit that the information you presented is not from Wikipedia but from Enciclopedia Britanica, or maybe you wrote it yourself.

Notice how you maintain the same insulting pretense but only manage to bump it up a respective notch by mentioning "Encyclopedia Britannica" instead of Wikipedia? BZZZZT! Thank you for playing, please try again.

If you wish to be properly respectful, please try the latter option and then you'll be on the right track. That post took over ONE HOUR to compose as I winnowed through many obscure and less-readable sources to locate readily digested information.

Hope, that will partially expiate my fault.

That is up to you and whether you can refrain from making libelous assertions in the future.

Regarding women, who are the most precious commodity.

While women are, indeed, "precious"—in more than one sense of the term—I find personal integrity and morality, in man or woman, to be of far greater value.

Consider this: How wonderful is it to have attracted a given woman if her fidelity to you is entirely dependent upon your ability to furnish this lady with non-essential trinkets and ornaments like gold or, even, diamonds?

(We'll disregard how diamonds would most likely be priced just like gold in an open and fair marketplace.)

Shouldn't a woman look more towards personal integrity, fidelity, loyalty, courage, productivity and decency instead of any ability to provide more tangible but less reliable demonstrations of personal affection?

I agree completely. I believe, the [that?] capital, initially valued by women, [then] started to have value for men too, and actually started to symbolize women itself.

So, where does this exclude my own observations about tool-making capabilities? I forcefully assert that a man's ability to barter for or manufacture tools (i.e., points, blades, scrapers, shafts, etc.), that kept his mate and children well-fed preceeded by far any allure which the offering of gold, diamonds or even shell beads might have obtained.

Millennia ago, sheer and simple SURVIVAL accounted for so much of a man's—or woman's—worth that including the more advanced notions of ornamentation, complex metallurgy and decorative arts is entirely misguided. Do you deny this?

I cannot present any material proof for this thesis.

That is more than abundantly clear.

That's the advantage of materialists, they can always present some numbers, like density or resistance, to prove their point, but I cannot.

To quote Homer Simpson, "You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

Is that my fault or yours?

My problem, must admit that.

The truth outs at last.

Please reply when you have more substantial evidence than libelous accusations or anecdotal evidence that is entirely unsupported by the historical record.

While I would like to show some appreciation for your eventual admission that the anecdotal evidence you presented was only just that, you've yet to provide anything remotely resembling factual material to support your assertions. Until you do, please understand that I am ethically bound to reject any such claims that you might make.