This video is definitely worth watching. More importantly, though, it is completely worth sharing with your nice white friends since it features an intelligent, honest black man stating what should be a rather obvious truth. This means that white people no longer have to feel racial guilt for wanting to defend themselves from random "youfs" who go about causing trouble since a black man says it's okay.
More to the point, it's a little troubling that this black has to encourage whites to defend themselves. If you're too much of a coward to do what is obviously right, maybe you do deserve to have the shit kicked out of you.
27 November 2013
10 November 2013
But the American social conservatives who advocate for women to spend less time in the workforce and more time in the home rarely advocate for the creation or expansion of programs that would support their goals. They operate in a fantasy world in which it’s possible to turn back the clock to the middle of the 20th century – or a television version of it, anyway. But in the real world, poverty and inequality militate powerfully against family life, rendering marriage an unattractive option and child rearing stressful and financially perilous. Anyone interested in promoting participation in family life should thus look to the nations that have managed to do just that. [Emphasis added.]
While trying to keep track of multiple variables in economic analyses is often quite tricky, and should thus not be attempted by amateurs, particularly those who are stupid enough to be both feminist and leftist, it should be fairly clear that the existence of technology, the division of labor, and the law of supply and demand basically render the bolded assertion false.
In the first place, cutting back on the labor supply will necessarily increase the price of labor, which means that men will earn more. Thus, household income need not necessarily decline, as long as women remain part of a household with an employed male (husband) since the husband’s increased income will compensate for a wife’s decreased income.
In the second place, demand for homemaker substitutes will decrease since there will be actual homemakers to do the homemaking. Since most homemaker substitute fields are dominated by women (education and day care, for example), it stands to reason that a lot of women will find that they are doing the same work as before, but they aren’t getting paid directly (and therefore are not getting taxed) for the work they’re performing.
In the third place, some of the work currently performed by women could be automated. If economic conditions encouraged this development (like making forms easier/faster to fill out), it would undoubtedly occur.
Thus, if all married women were to hypothetically quit their jobs, what would happen is that more men would be employed, those men would earn more, and the demand for what essentially amounts to substitute wives/mothers would crater to the point that those working in such professions could shift to other professions without there necessarily being any slack in childcare/homemaking. In the event that there were not enough men and single women to take care of the current market demand for labor, technology and/or illegal immigrants could pick up the slack without too much of a problem. Thus, there is no reason to think that an expansion of programs designed to facilitate women staying at home would be necessary, as basic economic laws would take care of the matter. The traditional family household structure would help too, but I guess that’s just not acceptable to cultural Marxists.
As an addendum, I do find it terribly amusing that feminists are blaming conservatives for the problem brought on by feminism. In the first place, women just wanted to work, but the evil conservative patriarchy held them back. Then women just wanted to stay home, but the evil conservative patriarchy just won’t let them. Of course, once women are all back at home, they’ll probably just want to go back to work. Naturally, the evil conservative patriarchy will be there to frustrate their dreams and suppress them.
09 November 2013
This definition ignores women’s generally more responsive sexuality. A lot of women are sexual and want sex, but when forced into a dating drought, they kind of go into “convent mode.” And most churches teach convent mode behavior to women when they keep telling women not to make marriage an idol, to find their true fulfillment in Jesus, to wait on the Lord, and to stop reading romance novels (sexless Christian romance novels are a thing, so it’s not just “Don’t read 50 Shades,” guys) or watching romantic movies or soap operas or whatever will exacerbate their “discontentment” with singleness. Often women in convent mode start spending more of their time with female friends, and this just reinforces the conventing because new guys aren’t entering their social spheres. So you end up with all these women who “want” marriage, but it’s just not happening, but until someone comes along for that, they need to guard their hearts and focus on the Lord and not make marriage or sex an idol. You can see how this is a self-perpetuating cycle. [Emphasis added.]
This reminds me of something I wrote a while ago:
In [I Corinthians 11], Paul says that, “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” From this I gather that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. But maybe I’m just simple.
In another passage, Paul would say “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Going back to the beginning, we find that God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Then we find that “the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.”
Really, the notion that Woman (or women) answers to God is simply unbiblical. There is a natural order to this world, and a natural hierarchy within it. The Natural Hierarchy, as given by God through the apostle Paul is as follows: God rules over Christ, who rules over Man who rules over Woman.
One of the larger, albeit more subtle failures of nominally Christian teaching over the last several decades has been the doctrine that women need to focus on serving Jesus. This sounds like a wonderful doctrine, and passes the sniff test, but this is unbiblical. Scratch that, this doctrine is anti-biblical since it teaches the exact opposite of what’s actually found in the Bible. The doctrine of women serving Christ directly is implicitly feministic and egalitarian, and neither of these concepts are intrinsically Biblical.
As such, a lot of church leaders spend a lot of time encouraging women to do things for which they are not particularly well-suited, like leadership, and being single. Women were designed by God to by helpers for men, which is why men are given headship over women, and why women desire to be wives and mothers. It’s their role, and anyone who tells women that they are wrong for wanting to be a wife or mother, or that they are committing idolatry by wanting to be a wife and mother, is simply evil and a servant of Satan.
While it might be tempting to say that women should know better, the truth is that most women, like most men, will defer to other authorities on matters like these. Thus, the sad state of marriage and dating in the church can be laid most squarely upon Satanic church leaders and weak parents, for they are the ones who have done the most to handicap this generation.
What I’ve observed is that the notion that women should want to be wives and mothers is so passé and unfashionable that few single women under the age of twenty are even willing to admit they want such a thing, unless its accompanied by the caveat that this is something they will attain once they’re established in their career.
In fact, I can only recall one girl who simply straight-up told me that she simply wanted to be a wife and mother when she got older (we were in high school at the time). I was very impressed by this admission, especially since all the girls I went to church with always made a point of sharing their collegiate and professional aspirations. Anyhow, the point I’m getting at is that of all the girls I’ve ever known over the course of the past eight years, only one had the guts to admit that she really just wanted to be a wife and mother.
And for this sad state of affairs, I blame church leaders. They should be the one holding fast to God’s word, they should be the ones encouraging women and men alike to fulfill their God-given roles, and they should be the ones telling men and women not lose heart in working to fulfill their roles. Instead, leaders have bought into the Satanic lies of equality and feminism, and those who have placed their faith in these men have been led into a miserable web of falsehood.
Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?
The great Reason magazine is a wonderful publication filled with great articles, solid journalism you won’t find elsewhere…and a voice that does little more than complain.
Reason is great at highlighting abuses by every level of government, stories ignored by other media outlets. But you won’t find much in the way of philosophy or solutions. (There’s some, it just doesn’t seem to be a focus.) They preach to the choir, and it ends there.
I love the Cato Institute and have a lot of good friends who work there, and they do offer some good solutions. They just refuse to do anything about them. Cato has a deserved reputation for refusing to play nice with anyone else. When was the last legislative “victory” spearheaded or introduced by Cato?
What Libertarians do exceedingly well is sit on the sidelines, arms folded, and complain. No idea was ever put into action by complaining that it wasn’t so, yet that seems to be the Libertarian modus operandi.
This is all true enough, but I think it’s worth pointing out, in the words of Mencken, that “the fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary” and that “it takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty.” Or, to state it another way, there’s a reason the Tea Party came to naught.
The Tea Party, started in large part by Karl Denninger was supposed to be a libertarian response to government tyranny and excess. It turned into a neo-conservative bitch-fest wherein most participants expressed their hatred for Obama, some nebulous concept of big government, and a lot of petty trivialities. As I noted on at least two occasions, the Tea Party movement loves itself some big government. Thus, one of the largest attempts at a proper libertarian movement ended up getting co-opted by big government neo-cons.
The current open borders movement—a libertarian movement if there ever was one—is basically in the process of getting co-opted by politically connected big businesses that want to use the movement to pressure the government into expanding the labor base to drive down the price of American labor. Instead of leading to more liberty, the open borders movement, if it is successful, will lead to oligopolistic tyranny.
Thus, there is little reason to do anything but sit on the sidelines. Every time a couple of libertarians start to advance the cause of liberty in a major way, their movements get co-opted by supporters of big government. As a result, only those who simply want to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, like paid sex and drugs, continue to speak out, in part because they are the only ones who can’t be co-opted by big political blocs.
From a practical standpoint, what sort of political victories could CATO have achieved that would have, on net, advanced the cause of liberties? The whole point of political deals is to get some nice things for your constituents at public expense by approving of nice things for other politicians’ constituents at public expense. That’s how deals are brokered in politics. So what could CATO have accomplished without putting taxpayers on the hook? And how can increasing spending to score a political victory really be considered working for the cause of liberty?
The world will blow itself up, as it has done many times before. It is inevitable and fighting back—at least in the political arena—is a waste of time. It would be far better to focus on changing the culture, one person at a time, but this is a time-consuming and rather unglamorous work, and its fruit may not even be seen, if at all, for centuries if not millennia. It’s fun to say that libertarian is stupid since it can‘t fix the government in any way, but the truth is that few people want to have liberty. And it’s damned difficult to impose a minority view on a majority.