22 April 2014

Conservatives Need to Stop Supporting the GOP

Kurt Schlichter laments that the GOP needs to stop attacking conservatives:

Here’s a cool trick I learned at Ft. Benning’s Infantry School a few hundred years ago. Attack your enemies, not your allies. That helpful hint totally increases your odds of victory.
Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Dave Camp (Republicanish - MI) never learned that lesson. He just had to release his own tax reform plan, no doubt in response to a groundswell of enthusiasm among his K Street sycophants.
His plan cuts the home mortgage and charitable deductions while slapping a surtax on the earnings of successful people. Good thinking. Shaft the folks who saved up to buy homes, give money to conservative causes, and worked hard all their lives – and who vote for GOP candidates. You couldn’t screw Republicans more effectively if you put a special surtax on people who own guns, support themselves and love America.

Here’s how representative democracy works:  You vote for people who represent your views and beliefs.  It really is that simple.  The fundamental assumption of representative democracy is that you vote for someone who generally represents your beliefs and views.  If you don’t vote for someone who doesn’t share your beliefs and views, the problem isn’t with the person you voted for; it’s you.

More to the point, conservatives need to realize that if the GOP isn’t going to actually vote in a way that reflects their belief and views, then there is absolutely no point in voting for them.  The Democrats aren’t actually worse than the GOP when both parties act and vote the exact same way.  Both parties are functionally the same.  Therefore, if the GOP is attacking conservatives, conservatives would do well to leave the GOP and vote for another party.  If they keep voting for people that vote like Democrats, they will have no one but themselves to blame if the country becomes increasingly Democratic.

A Bad Bargain

Often, people will say that a husband should only be respected if he “earns” it. This attitude is precisely the problem. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised them, even when they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.
This doesn’t mean that a man has a license to be lazy, or abusive, or uncaring. He is challenged to live up to the respect his wife affords him. If his wife parcels out her respect on some sort of reward system basis, the husband has nothing for which to strive. As the respect diminishes, so too does his motivation to behave respectably. Respect is wielded like a ransom against him, and he grows more isolated and distant all the while. [Emphasis added.]

While it is true that marriage is a sacred covenant used to illustrate divine truths about the greatest gift—Love—the practical application of marriage in day-to-day life is much more akin to contract law.  This is not to say that there need not be any attempt to elevate marriage to something more sacred and spiritually meaningful, but it is a little foolish to ignore the contractual side of marriage when discussing how to deal with the problems that inevitably arise.

Marriage, as it has been traditionally understood, is fundamentally a covenant (or contract, if you will) between a man and a woman.  Both parties promise certain things to the other in mutual exchange.  The woman promises submission in exchange for the man’s leadership.  They promise sexual exclusivity to each other.  The man promises to take provide for the woman in exchange for her trust.  The woman promises respect in exchange for his love.  And so on.

Consequently, a failure to hold up one’s end of the bargain is generally considered a breach of contract, and thus nullifies the contract.  A man who refuses to remain sexually exclusive or lead as he ought is in breach of contract, as would be a woman who is disrespectful or sexually unfaithful.  From a contractual perspective, any breach of contract renders the contract null and void, and open to arbitration or dissolution.

This is not said to justify female disrespect, or male philandering, or any other sort marital mischievousness , but rather to point out that a contract that is adhered to by only one party is not a contract.  It is simply a license for abuse.

The growth of this marital abuse is quite troubling, and suggests that there are greater issues at hand.  Indeed,  two greater underlying problems spring readily to mind.  Namely, that most men don’t merit respect from their wives, and that women are marrying men they don’t respect.

The pussification of American males in recent decades is well-documented.  The causes, though wide-ranging, are fairly straightforward, and need not be repeated ad nauseum at this esteemed blog.  However, it is truly puzzling why women are marrying and continuing to marry men they do not respect.

It truly is puzzling why women are encouraged to disrespect men and then marry them, even though their disrespect precludes a foundation for a healthy marriage.  I blame the church for this, as feminism usually encourages women to either ignore men altogether or simply abuse them for personal gain.  It is generally not the case that feminists lambast men for being pieces of shit which women should be eager to marry. No, this particularly vapid advice is administered by pastors.

Many pastors, particularly those of a progressive sort (which is to say nearly all) set before themselves the impossible task of reconciling feminist theology, which is but a modern form of goddess worship, with traditional Christian family hierarchy.  Consequently, most pastors preach that women are superior to men, but most also enter in to marriage with them.  Since most women, particularly the religious kind, wish to get married, this appeal to marriage is partly capitulation.  However, reality always wins in the end, and so women who marry the men who place them on pedestals find themselves incapable of respecting such egregiously poor examples of masculinity.  Their preacher tells them that marriage is noble, though husbands are not, and so women, contra their nature, are morally bullied into marrying down, which drives against the core of their God-given nature.

So, we end up with pastors who do a great disservice to men and women alike.  They tell the men to man up and marry sluts.  They tell the women to marry down.  They make men and women alike miserable with their commands.  In short, these pastors have done more for the cause of Satan and his misanthropic minions than his declared allies, the feminists, could have ever dreamed of doing.

These pastors take God’s most sacred human relationship and make it into a shadow of what it once was.  They make love a grotesque burden, something shameful and ignoble.  They berate the male desire for respect, and supplant the female desire to serve a superior man with fantastic lies, and render each miserable in the other’s arms.

May these pastors rot in hell.


Sometime ago, The American Conservative and, shortly thereafter, Mangan had posts about addiction. The former suggested that addiction was too broad a term to be scientifically useful while the latter questioned whether the recent denial of porn addiction was serious.

The heart of the problem is that of the English language; it is a fluid, dynamic language crafted and manipulated by poets for the sake of their poetry. It doesn’t have the rigidity of a dead language, like Greek or Latin, and so its uses and meanings fluctuate over time. This is particularly true of the field of psychology, and its purely nonsensical subset, social psychology.

Psychology draws on a lot of modernist thinking and uses English to describe its paradigms and assumptions, which generally means that psychological research generally follows a predictable pattern: some researcher notices a very obvious thing, uses big words to describe it, systematically proves the observation, and then followers pursue the paradigm and alter the definitions and parameters of the concept until the whole concept is rendered either trivial or useless.

This point was reinforced for me this past Sunday when I was writing a paper for a girl who was pursuing her Master’s degree in social work. I researched and wrote a four-page paper on Cognitive Theory, which basically stipulates that people learn from observing social interactions. This is a fairly trivial observation, though it was, at the time, a necessary counterbalance to the dominant theory of operant conditioning. The problem with Cognitive Theory, though, is that it has become so broadly defined so as to be trivial. It also can’t be easily falsified, which makes it worthless as a scientific theory.

In a roundabout way, this is essentially the problem with trying to discuss addiction, or virtually anything related to modern psychology. Since the terms of use are derived from a rather fluid language, and the discipline doesn’t really adhere to the strictures of the scientific method to begin with, what happens is that people often latch on to a neat or clever description of a common problem (binge-drinking, say, or watching tons of porn) but don’ clarify what, precisely, they mean. As a result, you have people arguing that anyone who bows towards certain inclinations (say, drinking) is an addict while others argue that one could engage in a repetitious activity all day every day without it really being a form of addiction.

The problem, then, is that the word, and subsequently the thinking that stems from said word, are completely muddled. The language used to describe the phenomenon is not precise enough.

Incidentally, this helps to explain why neurology has made leaps and bounds beyond psychology and will ultimately replace it as a hard science. Unlike psychology, neurological theories are falsifiable. Also unlike psychology, neurology turns to dead languages to come up with considerably more stable and precise concepts and definitions.

To bring this full circle, the ultimate issue with addiction is the concept and meaning of the word itself. Does addiction imply that one is incapable of making decisions for oneself? Or, does it imply that is merely strongly limited? What does “strongly limited” even mean? Is the term relative? Or does addiction simply refer to strong feelings of desire? How strong? Is addiction even bad?

The limits of the concept and the word should be clear. Having strong desires isn’t wrong or problematic. It is generally a good thing for a man to have strong feelings for his wife; it is generally bad to have strong feelings about porn. So, then, is the problem of addiction really the impulse? Or is it the object? The word is too muddled, and thus useless. The entire concept needs to be abolished in favor of something more precise and easily applied.