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.
It’s just becoming more and more clear to me that along with all the other concepts he doesn’t understand, Meller has no idea what loving some one actually means.
Learn to read, Dracula!
Points 2,3,4 all very explicitly forbid violence in the home, and what the wife–and HER family-can do about it!
The objection to so-called ‘unhappiness” as an excuse for dissolution of marriage, is that it is just too damn vague, even for spoiled, self-absorbed, and narcissistic modern women! These are not teenagers on a first date, and we are not talking about Mr. Goodbar and one-night “bootycalls” here! We are talking about the unions of two adult individals, their respective households, and the future of their children! We have seen the results of so-called no-fault divorce since the late 1970’s, and I think that everyone, including feminists, have bettert things to do that fatten the wallets of divorce lawyers, marriage “counselors”, family court “judges”, and other such parasites feeding off the misery of countless couples, with the underlying prodding from modern women and ‘having-it-all feminists!
I only “defend” domestic violence when it seems to me that the entire mess is something that could have been prevented with the application of a little thoughtfulness and good judgement. Women are supposed to be better at social relationships then (most) men, more verbal and attuned to others’ feelings. There is no good reason why these aptitudes shouldn’t be used to strengthen families, especially when the marriage they save may be their own! As far as marrying the “wrong man”, this may be where parental advice comes in handy–VERY HANDY–especially since Motherdear, not to mention the other older women of her family, and perhaps her community generally, just MIGHT know more about marriage, domesiticity, and even sex(!!!) than little missy who, left to herself, falls in ‘love’ with the first stray tomcat who tells her he “loves” her, (and Shirley, and Laura, and Sarah-Jane, and Kathi, and …).
A fool learns not from mistakes, his own or others!
A normal person can learn at least from his (or her) own mistakes.
A wise man can learn from the mistakes of others, as well as his own!
We have made FAR too many mistakes, with marriages and households, with sex and pregnancy, and with separation and divorce, in the past half century or so! I think that the “free love” regime, both of the late XIX century, the “roaring 20’s” and the nightmare of countless families since the ’60s has been telling us something. It is time to listen!
I think he sees love between men and women as somewhat akin to having a pet, but without the bit where you genuinely care for the pet and have its best interests in mind. So maybe more like the way that some people feel attached to their cars – you like the object and enjoy having it around, but there’s no need to consider its feelings, since it is after all just an object, designed to fulfill your needs. You treat the object well not out of any goodwill but because treating it poorly is unproductive, kind of like kicking your TV, but much like kicking your TV, you don’t have to feel guilty if you do because again, it’s only an object.
I can read just fine, Meller. I can also tell when I’m obviously being lied to.
It’s simple, really. If you truly believed that domestic violence was wrong, then there wouldn’t be any excuse for it under any circumstances. And yet, you explain it away as “understandable” all the fucking time. And you expect me to take you at your word that you wouldn’t keep making these pathetic excuses in a world where women had significantly fewer legal protections than they do now? Find some other chump, ’cause I’m not buying it.
It really is funny when Meller’s misogyny runs smack into his libertarianism and he has to come up with all sorts of ridiculously convoluted ways to control women without using state intervension. I suspect that what he really wants is to just officially declare women non-citizens, but even he’s bright enough to realise how well that idea would go over.
Women are better at relationships than men? You’re telling this to a person who accidentally insults people ALL the time. (Apparently telling your girlfriend her fat rolls are pretty is offensive… who knew?)
Is there anything to be gained by making people stay in relationships in order to make each other, their children and everyone around them miserable? Some people should divorce.
What if Mother gives terrible advice? Not all families are perfect, you know, Meller. Mother might be abusive… or think her daughter ought to marry a rich man she hates… or think that physical attraction shouldn’t have anything to do with getting married… or not notice that Guy A is cruel in private when Guy B is kind… or or or.
@Dracula to DKM: 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.
Yep, and I haven’t forgotten that he believes that if women behave in any way men deem obnoxious, it’s perfectly undestandable if the men murder the women (and thus probably not punishable in any way, bond or no bond! “suppresses inevitable 007 licence to kill joke*
Honestly, it’s amazing to me how often Meller needs it explained to him that we understand what he’s trying to say, we just have no reason to believe that it’s true.
Repeat after me, Meller – a libertarian does not tell other people how to live their lives. If he does, he’s not a real libertarian, just a paranoid weirdo who doesn’t trust the government.
DKM:
The irony, it burns.
If it was, WOULD WE TELL YOU? :O
XD XD XD XD XD XD
Let’s imagine for a moment that a woman in Mellerland has petitioned for a divorce and been denied one. Unwilling to accept a life of unpaid, involuntary service to a man she does not love, she runs away. What happens then? Surely your system of mandatory domestic “bliss” must have some method of enforcement.
Tell me what you think it should be, Meller. Explain to me, in plain fucking English, how a peaceful, nonviolent, loving society goes about forcing a woman back into slavery. (Despite your protests, that is in fact what forced subservience is called. Pretending otherwise makes you a liar.)
I asked you this question, or one very much like it, before. You didn’t answer me then, so I’m giving you another chance to convince me you’re sincere, and you’ve actually thought this through.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery
Oh, I dunno, Dracula… a nice, non-violent combination of intense social pressure, hostage-taking and drug cocktails ought to do it! Once you get her properly indoctrinated from birth — and get a few kids on her to hold over her head if she steps out of line — she’ll most likely come crawling right back, and if she doesn’t then just humanely hit her with a tranquilizer dart and keep her sedated at home. (This latter option has the benefit of making her shut the hell up and renders her physically vulnerable for continued totally consensual baby-making.) PEACE AND FREEDOM!
Meller, libertarianism forbids the use of “wife correcting” force even if it’s not “vicious” in the eyes of the women’s family and could easily have been avoided if she’d used her emotional powers. Honestly, why on earth do you want to be one of us? You don’t even LIKE libertarianism. It does not mean, “I get to fence off the women and cause it’s my property aint nobody can stop me!”
“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.”
The women need the same right to self-ownership, self-determination, association, contract, and property as anybody else. Then it’s libertarian. Otherwise it’s not. Sorry, if that spoils your fun. There’s no way around this. There’s plenty of “good old-fashioned patriarchal” sorts in the libertarian world, men and women, who understand that point. If they live their lives in peace, and compell no-one to stay, or marry, or contract against their will, they can live as traditional and culture rich a life as they choose.
Also what the hell do you mean paleo-European culture? Are you building mounds or raising frickin’ Megaliths to measure time? What traditions are you even talking about? You claim no particular heritage or religion.
“White people stuff, and you know, let’s be… traditional and stuff… but not like, too religious or anything. Don’t wanna have any heavy dogma or anything. Just want the womenfolk inline. You know the drill?”
Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy. No-one is the property of their families. No-one is the property of anyone but themselves. This is core stuff. If you want something to keep women from marrying who they choose and going where they will, you do not want libertarianism.
Prove to us we’ve all got you wrong- Tell us what happens if a woman leaves. Tell us what happens if a woman does not defer to her husband. Tell us what contact a woman may have with the world outside her polii, Tell us if she has the right to travel. Tell us if she has the right to contract. Tell us what happens if she feels someone on the compound has committed a rights violation, and her family does not agree. Tell us what happens if she gets caught having premarital sex. Tell us what happens if she does not want to marry the man her family would prefer.
Tell us what contact a woman may have with the world outside her polii, – Also, singular “polis”, plural “poli.” http://en.allexperts.com/q/Greek-2004/2008/3/Ancient-Greek-POLI.htm
It’s kind of a paleo-European word.
Poleis poleis poleis, kinda roles off the tongue.
Meller is perfectly illustrating why many leftists assume that when someone calls themselves a libertarian they just mean that they’re a really selfish conservative who doesn’t want to pay taxes (and doesn’t understand economics).
Dude, I don’t even like your supposed philosophy and I still understand it’s core principles better than you do. Person who wants to compel others to do things against their wills as a general organizing principle of an ideal society = not a libertarian.
Meller: What I recall is that you have never repudiated it, merely qualified it.
“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!”
And so you lie, since there was a fair bit of comment I made about the attempts at substance you posted in those 2500 words.
Care to answer the questions about what you would do if I were the person to whom you had to post a bond of good behavior? What about the reasons a woman, or a black, would trust you to be a fair arbiter, as regards them?
Guess again! If women want out, they will need something MUCH better than I’m bored, dissatisfied, or unhappy”.
So, you think women should be denied the right of free association, in short marriage equals slavery; for women.
You have also said, repeatedly, that there are justifications for males abusing women (she pushed his buttons). What if her family doesn’t know about it? What if they live some distance from her family? What if the abuser is good at it, knows how to not leave marks. That makes it her word against his, and we know you believe that women are scatterbrained, and not to be believed if a man disagrees with her.
But we are to believe you are a libertarian.
What you are is an authoritarian, who believes in slavery, and the right of whites to oppress others.
In the last few decades, we have experimented with the feminist lunacy of “no-fault” divorce in all fifty states
What don’t you like about no-fault divorce? o:
How do you plan to NOT have no-fault divorce if you’re so anti-state? o_O Who is going to decide who’s “fault” it is? xD
zhinxy | November 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Prove to us we’ve all got you wrong- Tell us what happens if a woman leaves. Tell us what happens if a woman does not defer to her husband. Tell us what contact a woman may have with the world outside her polii, Tell us if she has the right to travel. Tell us if she has the right to contract. Tell us what happens if she feels someone on the compound has committed a rights violation, and her family does not agree. Tell us what happens if she gets caught having premarital sex. Tell us what happens if she does not want to marry the man her family would prefer.
Yes Devyd K Mallar 😀
Tell us! 😀
The husband. If he says the wife is at fault, then she is.