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.
But so what? He can say whatever he wants, she has equal rights as him (RIGHT MELLERBERTARIAN?) and there’s no law or government to force her to do something different b/c of what HE says (RIGHT MELLERBERTARIAN?) xD
Women don’t need rights! They need loving owners to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong! Or, alternatively, loving parents!
Peace and angry, long drawn out, bitter fault-based divorce*!!!
*Actually I’m beginning to suspect that Meller had one of those, at leas the divorce part.
Also what the hell do you mean paleo-European culture? Are you building mounds or raising frickin’ Megaliths to measure time?
This gives me a way awesomer image of Mellerland.
MENHIRS AND DOLMENS! XD XD XD
The funny thing is that Meller seems to truly believe that if women were given the choice they’d opt to be fluffy housepets like he wants them to be, as long as they were raised to see that as a good kind of life to have. The problem with which is twofold. Firstly, the women who created feminism in the first place were raised in a culture that attempted to tailor them to Meller’s preferences, and apparently they weren’t too happy with the idea, as we can tell because of the fact that the created feminism. Secondly, the option to live a traditional life focused on fulfilling your man’s every need exists right now. There are plenty of conservative relgious communities that a woman who wanted that kind of life for herself could join if she wanted to. And yet we do not in fact see very many women joining those communities.
Sorry, Meller. Most women are not naturally inclined to want to be fluffy housepets, no matter how much you want that to be the case.
Also, anyone who has ever had kids, been a kid, etc knows that, at some point, it doesn’t matter what you tell a kid, they’ll still end up doing whatever they want.
Cassandra; We’ve been pointing that (the existence of places where he can find traditionally minded [even kinky and traditional, if he looks in the right places] women).
That’s not good enough for the Mellertarian. It has to be that women only do it his way; and like it.
Dude, I so do not want to bring up the VERY UGLY circumstances that led to your last banning, but as someone who remembers the disgusting things you said about a woman being killed by her ex-husband, and how little information you had to base your assessment on, and yet your totally willingness to defend that violence even though you had no basis for that defense, I feel compelled to say to you …
Lie better, Meller, you odious, lying binliner.
Bee: yeah, he said that lots of abuse is because women take advantage of knowing what sets their men off, and then pushed those buttons intentionally.
But you know, if the abuse wasn’t warranted, her male relatives can take care of it.
Libertarian and all, freedom for everyone, where freedom means from taxes. White men are more free than everyone else, and women are least free.
That’s not good enough for the Mellertarian. It has to be that women only do it his way; and like it.
And let’s face it, there’s a particularly icky subset of people into BDSM who find “safe, sane and consensual” a turn-off; they don’t like it if their partner is getting beaten or is submitting because they’ve chosen to be there and can leave at any time. People like DKM get a chubby at the idea of a mileu where women have no choice but to submit to them.
I perfer RACK (risk aware consensual kink) as a phrasing over SSC, because the latter is ablist and also eliminates any behavior with any risk, even when both parties are fully aware and fully prepared to take it.
I don’t know how it ‘eliminates any behavior with any risk’, in that *all* of it has some risk, but RACK is fine too. In either case, it’s something that the DKMs of the world don’t like, precisely because it’s consensual. The vanilla equivalent would be the polyamorous person who, despite having an open relationship, cheats because it’s the deception that gets them off.
The ‘polis’ environment that I suggested is certainly not the only one possible in libertarian “private-law” based societies! There are, I should think, almost as many that are possible as there are people.Your criticism of my libertopia would have valid points (lack of specific agreed upon rights for women in arranged marriages; the questions that AmiAngelwings asked in her post Nov12 @ 11:29pm, citing zhinxi– (in exceedingly bad faith, to put it mildly, but, for the most part, I suppose valid questions nevertheless), are questions that should be asked–although it would be nice if her–and youall–questions were asked in the context of a failing and obviously flawed family, social, and sexual order characteristic of the existing world we all live in–the world we have already–rather than femitopia, where my admittedly somewhat flawed model was compared with a world where all problems of domestic violence, rape, marital discord, premarital sex and illegitmacy, and so on were entirely things of the past, Maybe instead of comparing my clearly preliminary scenario of a libertarian non-feminist social order, you would be doing much better to compare YOUR feminism with the world as it is, because of it!
Feminists, and others like you, would, at least in principle, have private law polii of their own, I suppose with their own traditions, customs, folkways, rewards for compliance and punishemnts for deviance or sabotage.
I suppose that the experiences of such communities and societies, like mine, and like others, after a time, would accumulate where they could help answer these questions humanely and effectively. The long term effects of a feminist or gender egalitarian polis upon its participants may even be worse then their ideas being imposed upon a statist order, since they won’t have a large pool of male suckers, the way you have now, who would “Whiteknight” your kind of people out of the consequences of your mistakes, and youall would very quickly–and probably very traumatically–learn to live with the consequences of women and children having too much freedom!
You have given me things to think about, and I thank you for it. I’ll certainly do my best.
Answering a few small queries– “Paleo European” here refers to culture, not technology or politics. I was trying to related features of ancient and (perhaps mediaeval) societies, such as arranged marriages, marriages representing unions of households rather than two individuals, surety bonds to guarantee behavior, competing conflict resolution and arbitration agencies (or experienced and revered “lawsmiths” whose expertise and probity could be used to arbitrate disputes fairly between two parties—and their families–who may hate each other, etc. which could substitute for the inadaquacies, and even despotism of our existing government regulations, statute law, and and other barbarism!
I’ll be glad to give the questions raised here more thought, but just as you don’t have all the answers to the troubles you cite—and no, “there oughta be a law” is NOT an answer!–I haven’t either.
I don’t know if she would have “equal rights ” to his, as per AA’s snooty question in her post on Nov 11, 2011 @ 11:33pm. Rights, like everything else pertaining to men and women, would tend to be complementary and unifying, NOT “equal”. We have observed the effects of “equal rights” on gender and sex relations, marriage,and the larger society, and it leaves everything to be desired, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this dialogue right here. I am looking for what will enhance harmony, love, and joy between the sexes, not what will make the intrinically unequal, somehow ‘equal”!
I’ll get back to everyone when I can answer the points raised above truthfully and intelligently–assuming your queries are raised in the same spirit! I am as truthful as YOU deserve on this post. When you ask questions or make remarks that are thoughtful and well considered, I take you seriously, when you–along with the feminist hive on manboobz.–jabber on about my making women into “slaves” or “housepets” or talk about my wanting to “eradicate women from the human race”, I give such material the attention it deserves, just as you would, if I cited some of the more ridiculous posts many of you have printed over the past six months or so!
Feminists, and others like you, would, at least in principle, have private law polii of their own, I suppose with their own traditions, customs, folkways, rewards for compliance and punishemnts for deviance or sabotage.
o_O
Like what? What are you envisioning?
Also you finally figured out where the “i” key is when you type my name xD Maybe there’s hope for you yet! 😀
Btw, your argument seems to be “it’s okay that I’m a complete hypocrite because I’m pretty sure feminist Libertarians would be hypocrites too” xD
Whether you think I deserve the truth or not, the fact that you keep dodging these questions makes it hard to believe that you don’t envision using some sort of force.
Also, if a feminist “poli” were created which used force to compell rights violations, that would also be bad. And not libertarian.
How is the household subsuming the individual at all a libertarian concept?
Meller you’re being EXTREMELY dodgy about this xD You know, if you believe that women SHOULD be kept in line with some sort of coercive system or force or law or etc… just say so… I mean who are you trying to impress? And why do you care if a bunch of feminists think you’re a horrible person b/c OMFG your true thoughts revealed? xD
And if not, then why do you keep ranting as if it should be? If you believe that there shouldn’t be a specific place for women in society , and we should be able to do whatever we want and not be forced into a box, you can say that too 😀
Also, why exactly is it so important to you that women are a certain way, or that women are obedient (you once talked about wanting to breed women to be obedient)? o_O Is it just for your own personal tastes or something? Cuz you know, you’re not the everyman, you’re not even the mostman… xD
Meller opined: Feminists, and others like you, would, at least in principle, have private law polii of their own, I suppose with their own traditions, customs, folkways, rewards for compliance and punishmnts for deviance or sabotage.
Save that, in your libertopia, women who are unhappy can’t leave. They aren’t given liberty, they are slaves to the men who own them. You believe (one might say pretend) they shall be enlightened despots, but you argue that happiness is only, truly, possible, when men are the ruler and women the subjects.
Which isn’t what I’d call libertarian; as it requires half the population be stripped of rights.
Meller, you don’t get to define for yourself what “slave” means. What you want, expect, and indeed, would forcibly require of women if you had the power fits the actual definition. It’s dishonest to claim otherwise. If you keep lying, you’ll keep getting called a liar, no matter how unjust this might seem to you.
The critiques of egaliatarianism and “equality” made by libertarians such as Rothbard, are about equality of OUTCOMES, not about self-ownership. Again… Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy, founded on Enlightenment principles. How do you square that with the sort of family-law you describe?
http://mises.org/daily/804
Equality, the Unknown Ideal, by Roderick Long.
(Who isn’t, as you described him “My Friend” – But I wish he was, we could watch Doctor Who together and get ice cream!)
Meller, let’s be honest for a second.. xD Have you actually thought this out, or are you coming up with it as we’re asking you?
You do seem to be very Megatron like… “peace through tyranny” is his slogan, it might as well be yours too the way you’re describing your female-enslavementopia xD
zhinxy: From his, general, statements, I’d say his ideal society is closer to the Roman. He sees a, limited, state. That state (responsible only for the maintenance of the borders, and perhaps the roads) is inhabited by familia, and the re-establishment of the paterfamilias
With women’s families maintaining some authority over them after they marry and leave their father’s house, yes.
although it would be nice if her–and youall–questions were asked in the context of a failing and obviously flawed family, social, and sexual order characteristic of the existing world we all live in–the world we have already–rather than femitopia, where my admittedly somewhat flawed model was compared with a world where all problems of domestic violence, rape, marital discord, premarital sex and illegitmacy, and so on were entirely things of the past, –
My questions did not at all presume that. They remain extremely relevant in judging the libertarianism of your proposed society.
My questions did not at all presume that. They remain extremely relevant in judging the libertarianism of your proposed society.
Sure they did! 😀 And Meller will explain to us exactly how they presumed that! Right Meller? 😀
I love how he’s insisting that we start from the premise that he is 100% correct about the state of modern society. If we do not begin from the point of view that he’s right about the effects of feminism and we’re wrong, we’re not engaging in a fair and honest manner.
Narcissism is a hell of a drug.