So yesterday I quoted some random Spearheader who described women (well, white women in particular) as “complete parasitical whores roaming the landscape spreading VD like Johnny Appleseed and fucking men over.”
One reader wondered if Mr. Appleseed really went about spreading VD. So I did a little research, and it turns out that it is exceedingly unlikely that Mr. Appleseed – who actually was a real person — spread anything other than the magic of apples. And his Swedenborgian beliefs.
Why? Because Mr. Appleseed – real name John Chapman – was what these days we might call a Man Going His Own Way. Seems he didn’t have much truck with the ladies, according to one contemporary account quoted in his Wikipedia entry:
On one occasion Miss PRICE’s mother asked Johnny if he would not be a happier man, if he were settled in a home of his own, and had a family to love him. He opened his eyes very wide–they were remarkably keen, penetrating grey eyes, almost black–and replied that all women were not what they professed to be; that some of them were deceivers; and a man might not marry the amiable woman that he thought he was getting, after all.
So what led poor Mr. Appleseed to these dire thoughts about women? Apparently the underage girl he hoped to some day get with was more into dudes who weren’t him:
Now we had always heard that Johnny had loved once upon a time, and that his lady love had proven false to him. Then he said one time he saw a poor, friendless little girl, who had no one to care for her, and sent her to school, and meant to bring her up to suit himself, and when she was old enough he intended to marry her. He clothed her and watched over her; but when she was fifteen years old, he called to see her once unexpectedly, and found her sitting beside a young man, with her hand in his, listening to his silly twaddle.
That ungrateful little strumpet!
I peeped over at Johnny while he was telling this, and, young as I was, I saw his eyes grow dark as violets, and the pupils enlarge, and his voice rise up in denunciation, while his nostrils dilated and his thin lips worked with emotion. How angry he grew! He thought the girl was basely ungrateful. After that time she was no protegé of his.
But Appleseed, despite giving up on women in the real world, held out hope for the afterlife – explaining to others that he expected to have two spirit wives all his own after he died. Which I guess is the 19th century equivalent of the MGTOWers today who fantasize about the sexy robot ladies who will eventually, it is hoped, make actual human females – with their troubling “thoughts” and “needs” and “desires” of their own – obsolete.
Mr. Appleseed’s quest to remain alone was probably also helped by the fact that – if the illustration I found on Wikipedia is any indication – he looked a bit like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill. Only much, much sloppier, with long hair. Oh, and instead of wearing a baseball cap, he wore “a tin utensil which answered both as a cap and a mush pot.”
So, yeah, a creepy weirdo who hates women — definitely an MGTOWer all the way.
Oh, except that he actually did something with his life — you know, helping spread apple trees to a big portion of the midwest — instead of spending all his time going on about how all women are whores.
Pecunium – I think that’s a true-ish statement as regards some of the more aggressively capitalist “corporate-laissez-faire-conceptions,” and the constitutionalist/gold/mumbling of meller, but from a more “anti-capitalist free market” perspective you might be interested in reading the following, if you have time and want to add to your vast knowledge of many things. 😉
The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand – (Classic)
http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html
No Laissez Faire There.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/no-laissez-faire-there/
Note, meller: Pecunium can and almost certainly will disagree with me after being exposed to “the truth” – This is not a reason for me to throw insults at him or consider him morally deficient.
zhinxhy That the gilded age wasn’t truly l’aissez faire, in the modern sense, is true.
It’s also part of my point. Anarchy can’t work. Been there, seen that. Somalia isn’t flourishing, and Iraq was touch and go.
The things the businessmen Meller praises need (roads, railroads, enforceable contracts, fair dealing) require gov’t. I’ve seen all sorts of arguments against it, and they all founder on the idea of “The Rational Man”.
If,the actors are honest, and in possession of all they need to know, then they may enter into a fair deal. If everyone acts in the same way, with the same knowledge, then all is good and paradise will ensue.
Add a dishonest actor to the mix, and kiss it all goodbye.
That’s what the gov’t does, insomuch as it is allowed/enabled, it works to keep the playing field level. That, as much as anything else, is why an estate tax, and a progressive income tax are not only reasonable, but needed. They prevent the accumulation of power that a wealth of unneeded money creates. Even the feudal, and aristocratic states had this problem (and it was the way the pre-feudal proto-aristocrats worked. Get enough money to share it out, and you have people who will help you collect more. The king’s foeffings were just “ring-giving” write large.
Rome failed because it stopped being able to tax, which meant it couldn’t afford the administrative aspects which made both the legions, and the legio work. No taxes, no laws. No laws, no state. No state, “dark ages”.
I’d like to see a lot less state, but there is no way to do away with it completely, and the nature of the reductions I’d like to see aren’t in the way that Meller would like them (as he is a gender supremacist, and racial segregationist, and has no problem with making laws; albiet he will call them, “The right of association” when he forbids blacks to enter his town).
And I want to see a leveling of the playing field, which he would call, “confiscation”.
First of all, I freely admit that most of my arguments are based on a (so-far) nonexistent social and sexual order. You made the mistake of conflating the flaws of the badly defective status quo with the libertarian alternative! As far as libertarianism goes, nice try, Pecunium and Bagelson, but you goofed on several grounds:
1) Nowhere do I suggest legislation or regulation by any State or corporate/monopoly authority when I suggest traditional or theoretical arrangements of marriage, family, and household organization. I specifically rule out physical coercion there.
2) Woman has the right to discontinue her relationship if she (or her children) are in danger.
3) Women and children may NOT be bought or sold by either outsiders or the head of household.
4) Elders of the woman’s family have the right to intervene to protect their daughter(s) up to and including providing shelter to her, and abrogating marriage rights from an abusive or sadistic husband.
5) In all ways that don’t conflict with custom and tradition, the wife is to respect and uphold the authority of the head of household. The household is protected from feminist busybodies who are always seeking out opportunities to be the ‘serpent in the garden of eden’, creating conflict and dissention wherever and whenever they can in the name of “equality” and ‘fighting patriarchy”!
6) While this doesn’t forbid coercion by itself, as I mentioned before quite a few times, common sense informs us that the best results are obtained, with women and children, as with other living things, through his consistant application of love, patience, and generosity, NOT brutality, punishment, or beatings!
There is also little doubt that a man who could only get his way with the woman who should be his “nearest and dearest”,through a regime of pain and terror would be (even if he escaped retribution from outraged members of the wife’s family) considered the lowest form of brute and scoundrel,by everybody else, and honorable men would have as little to do with him as possible! That this is true in societies even as degenerate and violent as present day America suggests persuasively that this is far from a negligible objection.
Yes, Pecunium, you can see some Gor here, but there is a lot which men (and women) on Gor would find unrecognisable. I support patriarchy (sorry. Bagelson) but Patriarchy needn’t imply cruelty. Besides, do WE on civilized(?), egalitarian, gender equalized Earth have anything better today? There are people–a LOT of people, of both sexes–who would wonder!
Secondly, if there is a State or government at all, it would have no enforcement power to speak of and no geographic area to control. Authority comes from freely chosen, competitive, and often quite independent experts in law, tradition, religion, where applicable, along with understanding the customs of the families and communities concerned; those who are trusted by the parties to any dispute, and it is THEIR decision is what is undestood to be valid for all concerned. This surpasses the political hacks, so-called “judges” and prosecuting attorney thugs which characterise government to an almost infinite degree, both in wisdom and honesty.If the arbitration/conflict resolution authorities made bad or evil decisions, nobody would uphold them, and they would very soon go out of business, in utter disgrace! Ever here of this happening to government police, prosecutors, or courts? I know, when hell freezes over…
I suppose that everybody in a given ‘polis’, from birth onward, would also have had their family put up a surety bond for good behavior and this too, could be held upon pain of forfeiture upon disobedience (and/or subsequent exile). There is no coercion that I can see, it is entirely voluntary, self-enforcing, and self-perpetuating, and yet it still allows for considerable degrees of both personal and economic freedom!
Another good point is that there is NO government, and yet I think that you would be impressed to see how orderly, courteous, and efficiently that the people in such ‘polii’ (again, the Greek city-State word, which is misleading, but it is better than tribe, clan, or extended family.) managed their affairs.
Regarding the other point raised, blacks–or whites, yellows, browns, purples, polkadots, zebra stripes,or anybody else–would certainlyNOT be “allowed” in town unless and until they were invited; just as complete strangers, no matter what their race or religion, are not allowed in your living room without your invitation; and such invitations would be granted, or withheld, largely upon history of good behavior (OUCH) on the part of the sundry assorted hustlers, vandals, “homeless”, and other troublemakers! Their welcome would be considered, if at all, upon their offering a surity bond–like everyone else–and upon promise of good behavior, guaranteed by their family, employer, guild, church, or somebody who KNEW the stranger in question. Only then could he be welcomed with warmth and hospitality, again whatever his race, religion, or nationality, but nobody, including blacks, would ever have any ‘right” to go where they were not invited!
What if somebody was so stupid and shortsighted that he would NOT purchase a surety bond, and, upon being a party to dispute, would NOT submit to the authority of conflict resolution mediators and arbitrators? Why anybody in his right mind would wish to advertise himself as utterly untrustworthy and disreputable is beyond me, but I should think that, for starters, his welcome among decent people in anyand all such communities, (whose families, employers, or churches all HAVE surety bonds for them) would be VERY short lived, and he would be lucky to escape with his hide! Again, this is in complete agreement with anarchism, libertarianism, and private law arrangements, and NO government is needed, nor would people in Mellerworld know what government was, even if they had one!
See, no Somalia or Iraq, no Pinkertons, no Gor, no ‘robber barons’, no slaughter of, or enslavement of women and no feminists!. A set of peaceful,extremely prosperous, cohesive, humane, and highly civilized cultures where, hopefully, the benign forces of capitalism, religion, and custom (which caused such mischief in our government-ridded, State polluted world) were channeled toward constructive use for every honest person, rather than destruction and impoverishment, for a change!
Okay, out for the weekend, peeps. Got a mom to take care of. Meller, think, about the offer.
Pecunium –
“And I want to see a leveling of the playing field, which he would call, “confiscation”.”
bingo, though I think we’d go about it differently, but c’est la vie.
As for the dark ages bits, when I finish my dissertation someday, you’re so getting a copy. 😉 Great paperweight or beach read!
And thanks on Veterans day to you from a non-combat vet.
Ami Angelwings–
What is with the “xD” that you conclude every sentence in your posts here with? Is it an abbreviation of something? Is it female code of something? Is it an “emoticon”? Does it have any meaning at all?
Whatever it is, it makes your posts even more difficult to understand then they would otherwise be. Please discontinue unless there is an actual reason for them. xD
same questions about the o-Os.
XDXDXD
o_O and XD to you too, Meller.
Okay, I really will be off for the Weekend, but seriously, meller? Let me just point out one little thing –
6) While this doesn’t forbid coercion by itself –
Not libertarian. In this and… many other touches, actually… You’ve just described the NATION OF WHITEMANLANDIA. Libertarianism, even conservative libertarianism, does not allow coercion and containment of a subordinate class based on “but common sense says we’ll wanna cuddle them so they’re good instead”
Do not pass go. Non-aggression axiom violated.
Meller, okay, whether you will or wont’ debate me, come on? What do you think would happen if I politely emailed even conservative anarchistic libertarians like Professor Hans Herman-Hoppe, who you say you greatly admire, quoted the above lists of points, and asked him if he thought you were a representative of libertarianism? Do you really think that the best possible response would not be the simple answer that you had a right to believe what you did, even though you were a hateful loon? Do you REALLY think we, and by we I include a big broad swath of libertarians, even conservative religious sorts, think people like you are normal? Really?
There is more than enough room in anarchy or libertarian minarchism for people to form more “traditional” communities and live in peace with their neighbors. You think I don’t have some conservative Mormon ladies as comrades in the struggle? You have described a coercive mini-state compound of horrors. Again, please converse with me, and we’ll see if I’m wrong in the eyes of other libetarians. Out for the weekend! I hope it’s a peaceful one for you, Meller. I really do.
Ps – 0_o XD POMS AND FREEDOM!!!!
Hey Meller, you know you can just look these things up, right? Because you’re on the internet? Seriously, next time try Wikipedia before you make ass of yourself.
“Meller, okay, if you wont’ debate me, what do you think would
happen if I politely emailed even conservative anarchistic
libertarians like Professor Hans Herman-Hoppe, who you say you
greatly admire,quoted the above lists of points, and asked him if
he thought you were a representative of libertarianism? ”
I actually meant to say them, not “him” meaning specifically hans hermann-hoppe, who is the closest among libertarian thinkers to allowing for a society the likes of which you describe, but hey. So I can’t speak for Hermann-Hoppe, nor would I ever want to, but in my opinion, and Yes I am very aware of Hermann-Hoppes idea of “covenant groups” and fondness for “Family headship.” I am saying I think your ideas would be considered out of even that line.
No the car hasn’t come yet. Weekend leaving not commenced. pheh.
PS – The best thing about Hoppe I ever read, somewhere in comments on some blog or something, was that he was Anakin to Rothbard’s Obi-Wan. XD
Reading his latest wall o’text, I get the impression Meller thinks that feminists go door-to-door like Avon to recruit.
Meller opined: 1) Nowhere do I suggest legislation or regulation by any State or corporate/monopoly authority when I suggest traditional or theoretical arrangements of marriage, family, and household organization. I specifically rule out physical coercion there.
Except for the completely justifiable murders if women don’t do what you want.
That and denying them educations.
2) Woman has the right to discontinue her relationship if she (or her children) are in danger.
What if she’s just unhappy?
4) Elders of the woman’s family have the right to intervene to protect their daughter(s) up to and including providing shelter to her, and abrogating marriage rights from an abusive or sadistic husband.
What about her doing it herself?
5) In all ways that don’t conflict with custom and tradition, the wife is to respect and uphold the authority of the head of household. The household is protected from feminist busybodies who are always seeking out opportunities to be the ‘serpent in the garden of eden’, creating conflict and dissention wherever and whenever they can in the name of “equality” and ‘fighting patriarchy”!
Protected how? And why? People should be able to associate with whom they please, and discuss what they please. If you don’t like what they have to say, feel free to leave.
I suppose that everybody in a given ‘polis’, from birth onward, would also have had their family put up a surety bond for good behavior and this too, could be held upon pain of forfeiture upon disobedience (and/or subsequent exile). There is no coercion that I can see, it is entirely voluntary, self-enforcing, and self-perpetuating, and yet it still allows for considerable degrees of both personal and economic freedom!
With whom? Would you be willing to place a bond with me for your good behavior? And how does that equal non-coercive behavior? The bond is on the sufferance of others good opinions of me, which is coercion.
What if somebody was so stupid and shortsighted that he would NOT purchase a surety bond, and, upon being a party to dispute, would NOT submit to the authority of conflict resolution mediators and arbitrators
Gee… why would a black, or woman, not trust you to treat him/her fairly in arbitration?
XD
yeah you CAN look these things up… or you can just look these things sideways… xD
there’s always a purpose to everything I do DKM, you should know this by now xD
And yes it is female code 😀
>_>
And Zhinxy: YOU SHOULD! DO IT DO IT DO IT
Zhinxi–
In my 2500 or so word post, I nowhere mentioned “killing women”. “enslaving women”, or even “denying them education”. On the contrary, I even put in safeguards making spusal abuse, child abuse, or domestic rape far more difficult and easier to correct! Point 2,3,and 4 in paragraph 2. I also include an additional point in #6, reminding that the woman’s husband or “significant other” would achieve much better, longer-lasting, and more enjoyable results worth her if he treated her with gentleness, love, and patience, rather than with terror, brutality, and beatings! i admit it right there that the above point is not a surefire cure for cruelty, but it is a strong and enduring incentive for the man and the woman to be as nice to each other as possible!
This, of course, is meaningless to Pecunium, who faultlessly remembers the content of a paragraph written on one or two of my posts six months ago, but immediately forgets the material of something right there in from of him, as long as the old material makes me look bad…
“Oh, GOOD!! I can cite one of Meller’s more controversial posts from many months ago, and see my name in print at the same time, while really saying absolutely nothing!” xD. Way to go Pecunium and darksidecat! If you both were as intelligent as you think you are, at least you could come up with a little new material in the course of six months or more!
As I said, Mr. P.take another drink and go back to sleep! Libertarians are talking here.
Nowhere in my musings above is the non-aggression axiom violated. Strangers are vetted. People, regardless of their color, gender, nationality, religion, or anything else, have no right to univited access! If it makes you feel any better, these same people would have every right to insist upon vetting me, or people like me, and denying me access to their environment(s) as well. I assure you, however, I have NO interest, desire, or wish (however perverse and self-endangering) to be in one of their–or your–so-called polii! They probably wouldn’t last a year without white men, especially in a free market and sound money economy, but that would be THEIR problem,
wouldn’t it?
At any rate, you and yours would be welcome to enjoy your “sexism-free” and “non-racist” communes to your heart’s content! I’d even donate a few CDs of ’60s protest songs. Have fun!
what if the woman is “unhappy”? In the last few decades, we have experimented with the feminist lunacy of “no-fault” divorce in all fifty states. I believe that Canada’s provinces have something similar, but I am not certain. The result has been the growing and unrelenting breakdown of marriage as an institution, with tragic consequences to husbands, (many) wives, and children, and Billions of ill-gotten $$$$ for divorce lawyers, family “courts” so-called “therapists” and “marriage counselors” A very high percentage of these dissolutions are done at the behest of bored, “unhappy’, self-absorbed women! This is a looming disaster which we have waited far too long to deal with; its effects are beginning to altogether disintegrate the social bond of man, woman and children in the most fundamental way, and there is NO way I would imitate contemporary feminism’s worst mistake on my proposed libertarian improvement. Guess again! If women want out, they will need something MUCH better than I’m bored, dissatisfied, or unhappy”.
Professor Hermann-Hoppe is a very busy man, and I am sure that he is far too occupied with concerns that are far more important than the musings of sundry libertarians, even if some of them may have been inspired by some of his writings and observations! You are welcome to mail him what I have written here on libertarianism, as far as I am concerned. I would be interested in any improvements that he may suggest (at his convenience) regarding my speculative “libertopia”. There may indeed by instances of coercion, aggression, or threat thereof which can be cleaned out without substantially altering the result. If he (or anyone) has suggestions for doing this, I am respectfully willing to listen. I did my best to exclude government in all of its malign functions and distortions from libertopia, but in some ways, it may still resemble what you call a “hateful mini-state”. If it can be rendered less of a “mini-state”, and perhaps even less “hateful”, without losing its qualities of Patriarchal, paleo-European culture and tradition–which, I think, is your primary quarrel with it–I welcome suggestions.
As far as being a “mainstream” libertarian, if there is even such a person (or ideology), It would do you no harm to remember that you, and your feminist friends sound just as odd, irresponsible, and even “loony” or “hateful” to me as I do to you! You–and your feminist friends–may want to be more careful on the talk of “hateful loons”. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks, and in your case, like manboobz generally, even little pebbles may be more than you can handle!
As far as Ami Angelwings goes…o_O and xD to you too! And many more…
So, despite your claim that you don’t endorse enslaving women, you just stated outright that in your glorious future women will be held against their will, forced to remain in marriages they want no part of.
And really, coupled with your repeated defense of domestic abusers (or any man that commits violence against women really), this paints an interesting picture. In Melllerland if a man beats his wife, he must have had a good reason for it. (No need to ask what it was.) If a woman wishes to non-violently part ways with a husband she is not satisfied with, tough shit for her.
This is what you call “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!”? It sounds more like involuntary servitude, enforced by violence.
So you’re suggesting that “this relationship makes me unhappy” is not a good reason to leave a relationship? o.O
Meller appears to be speaking in Newspeak at this point. War is peace, slavery is freedom, and logic is completely unknown.
And seriously Meller, why the fuck would anyone, irrespective of gender, even want to stay in a relationship like that? How could you possibly be okay with forcing someone you’re supposed to care about to live in misery and despair until one of you dies? Your paradise sounds like a fucking nightmare.
Because women aren’t people, silly. We only exist in order to make men happy.
So do we finally have a translation for Meller’s idea of “fluffy” if “fluffybrained” means “stupid”?