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.
“Women’s sphere being “home” and men’s being “business” – Where business means leaving the home and engaging in wage-labor, is hardly “the way of the world” naturally.”
Women have always worked outside the home, the exceptions being those who could afford not too.
Also, if feminism and, well, all of modern culture came about because the evil feminist government promoted them, where did the evil feminist government come from? Why would the normal, happy, traditional human race have created something so self-evidently abhorrent to all of them?
So-called right-wing libertarianism isn’t anti-state because it is individualist, it is anti-state because it is tribalist. The entire social purpose of the state was that it arose as a more efficient form of government than tribal forms of government, because (in theory at least) it is based on impersonal rule of law and a meritocratic bureaucracy where more primitive forms of government are based around graft and favoritism for one’s social ‘tribe’ (in the past, around familial clans). Governments where officials are chosen based on familial ties or other irrational reasons tend to be less stable (and thus not as good at self-perpetuating themselves).
This is why the so-called libertarian right can become this hodge-podge of self-interested tribal groups (Christian dominionists, white supremacists, MRAs) whose entire purpose is dominance, and entire grievance against the state is that the state forces them to play fair (by, for instance, making it so that women aren’t chattel property anymore). In theory, the modern state is less easy to turn into an instrument of domination for those groups (the state in general is more suited to be an instrument of class domination, because social classes themselves are, ultimately, impersonal and meritocratic forms of social organisation, so they fit better within the state’s narrative) than the form of populist, weak state they seek.
@BlackBloc, that’s how I see it.
It’s why “libertarian” because a dirty word to me.
Most libertarians I’ve met have been atheist, agnostic or neutral to the concept of God and certainly uninterested in organized religion.
Christian dominionist “libertarian” – now that’s an interesting phenomena. How does “dominian” and “libertarian” fit together being that libertarian is supposed mean “freedom and individuality”.
How do Christian dominionist libertarians feel about the freedom of their kids to reject their religion and lifestyle? How do they feel about the freedom and individuality of non-Christians?
The same way Meller is promoting female chattel slavery as a form of freedom. Apparently when the state isn’t in the way to teach us all sorts of nonsense, all of us are going to figure out that our natural inclinations are towards being submissive women/good Bible believers, and thus we’ll be *free* to be submissive wives/fundamentalist Christians, and we won’t be ‘forced’ to be, you know, feminists, or atheists, or gays/lesbians, etc… like we are cursed to be right now.
The same way Meller is promoting female chattel slavery as a form of freedom. Apparently when the state isn’t in the way to teach us all sorts of nonsense, all of us are going to figure out that our natural inclinations are towards being submissive women/good Bible believers, and thus we’ll be *free* to be submissive wives/fundamentalist Christians, and we won’t be ‘forced’ to be, you know, feminists, or atheists, or gays/lesbians, etc… like we are cursed to be right now.
-Bingo. And when you point out that they seem to have some forcing and controlling in mind… they suddenly do! But it’s not the same! But then they don’t. See Meller arguing that women don’t have the same rights and freedoms as men, and then arguing that they’ll be completely free, and just naturally choose to be traditional! Like Meller, they often seem to describe a walled in compound mini-state run by them and others like them, rather than a free or anarchist society of any kind, even a traditionalist one.
How do Christian dominionist libertarians feel about the freedom of their kids to reject their religion and lifestyle? How do they feel about the freedom and individuality of non-Christians?
Dominionists don’t, almost by definition, but I would be amiss if I didn’t say that I do know some more traditionalist christian libertarians that are all right with individual freedom for others. The society they envision isn’t (though they wouldn’t necessarily reject technology) far from the example of the Amish, who allow their children to choose their lifestyle and don’t interfere with others, for example, as traditional as they are.
I have honestly come to believe that libertarianism taken to it’s logical conclusion is a form of free market voluntary socialism that logically insists upon the liberation of women, queers, poc, and all marginalized people.
http://radgeek.com/gt/2010/03/02/liberty-equality-solidarity-toward-a-dialectical-anarchism/
LIberty, Equality, Solidarity, and all of that.
However, I am willing to compromise with and work together with more “traditional” libertarians, as long as they do embrace individual freedom. However, many are just the sort of tribalists blacbloc describes.
I would disagree that the Amish allow choice. They have vehemently campaigned for the “right” to deny children education and access to information. Having no skills to live in a modern world, having to be disowned by ones kin, and going into the world with a sixth grade (at best in many cases) education, no diploma, often little or none of the documentation required to access social benefits, etc. does not give people the ability to choose. It is coercion by another name.
Zhinxi–
There could well be room for more home-based businesses in a laissez-faire environment. I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. The artificiality of statist wage labor that you cite, arising from e.g. enclosure laws driving yeomen and free peasants off the land (which was then taken over by Crown-favored landlords in England, Ireland, France, Spain, etc. where the displaced laborers were either worked in factory workhouses in Europe or send overseas under indentured arrangements (and you thought that slavery only applied to Africans) did indeed occur through state monarchial intervention, and had little to do with actual market processes.
Some, perhaps even most, of these home businesses, may even originate through and from married couples. There would still be a distinction between home and office/farm/factory as the business grew. How would The Ford Motor Company–at its height in the early 1960’s, or Microsoft, Apple, or Intel function or a major energy and fuel supplier, for that matter function, if managed from a private household? To ask the question is to answer it.
It is impossible to see, no matter how sophisticated the production processes, sales and delivery systems (lots of room for improvement there), troubleshooting and customer relations (even more so) and storage and maintainance (merchandise for customers of a worldwide business (stored in a home garage???). I could go on, Zhinxi,but I think that you get the idea!
However, a laissez-faire economy allows for wage labor without any State (or church) legal intervention. An employer (entrepreneur) earns money by buying factors of production–including labor, skills and the time of employees–along with land, insurance, raw materials, machinery, etc. all of which will be realized some time in the future. Employees, however, like the owners who sell or rent other factors of production, want THEIR money now! What is the most beneficial and profitable arrangement for everybody concerned? Employees trade their skill, time, and labor for PRESENT goods–money now–in exchange for the employer’s source of profit–FUTURE MONEY. There is no exploitation, no dispossession, and, as in all honest trade, both sides benefit from that exchange.
We have no ideas how particulars of production and distribution (to say nothing of the areas of marketing, storage, sales, liability and responsibility for defective property, etc) of sundry goods and services will take place in a libertarian society, but, in contrast to the experiences of early capitalism (late feudalism?) there would never be anything associated with the dreadful wage slavery common to Europe–and the New World–in that earlyperiod. Wage seeking, per se, is just as “free market” (properly understood) as entrepreneurial “profit seeking” and for the same reason,.
Well, I am also strongly against those diplomas and that documentation being required to access social benefits, considering it a form of coercion itself, but that’s neither here nor there –
However, living up near Amish country I do know some born-Amish who chose to leave the society and are still welcomed back for visits – The Amish that practice shunning tend to do so to adults who have chosen the life and “broken the rules” I note, however, that instead of specifially Amish, I meant to say Mennonites in general – Some practice shunning, some do not. Again, this isn’t a stamp of endorsement on their policies, and most Amish are apolitical and not libertarian in any sense. What I meant was that just as most feminists and queer activists are non-libertarians, and I work together with them, many libertarians are in some ways reactionary. It’s an imperfect world, and I have to have a lot of strange bedfellows.
mmm kinky.
“How would The Ford Motor Company–at its height in the early 1960′s, or Microsoft, Apple, or Intel function or a major energy and fuel supplier, for that matter function, if managed from a private household? To ask the question is to answer it.”
And how will it function without a state? Without transportation and industry subsidies?
“It is impossible to see, no matter how sophisticated the production processes, sales and delivery systems (lots of room for improvement there), troubleshooting and customer relations (even more so) and storage and maintainance (merchandise for customers of a worldwide business (stored in a home garage???). ”
These questions are raised and answered very well in Kevin Carson’s Homebrew Industrial Revolution
http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/
The rise of technology is allowing micromanufacturing of a sort that equals or outstrips Sloanist mass-production
There may very well still BE wage labor, and still be large companies, but to simply take them for granted as the only form a techological society can create shows lack of imagination and awareness of current technology.
I’m not opposed to wage labor in pure principle, I simply argue that most people are coerced into wage labor by an artificial statist market.
All you Christian dominionist fans out there, be sure to get your flags. Note that they do NOT have a fringe and will not transform your front porch into an admiralty court.
OOOH, only 49.95!
There was a fabulous online site about dominionism and it’s politics but this is a new computer and I lost all my bookmarks! grarrrgh!
I also notice that Meller has recently begun to argue that older women will play a vital role in his planned dystopia, in that they will assist in the indocrination of young women and girls into their designated roles as complaint little helpmeets.
The problem with this is that, generally, speaking, older women love their younger family members and want them to be happy. Given that, they’re unlikely to go along with Meller’s plan. I know that he’s assuming that most people secretely agree with him, and that once freed from the feminist/state yoke older women will be delighted to ensure that the life options of their daughters/granddaughters/nieces/etc. are as limited as he’d like them to be, but evidence does not support this hypothesis.
My grandmother is in her 80s, and she would have no patience with his ideas at all. Even the most conservative older women who I know would be horrified by what he has in mind.
RE zhinxy’s comments about closed compounds, that’s exactly what would be required to enforce what Meller has in mind. Given that…why can’t he just move to the Jessop compound and have done with it? Is he worried that they’re going to make him pay taxes?
zhinxy, and I ask you this sincerely as our local intelligent libertarian, how do libertarians intend to prevent corporations from doing whatever they want? How do you stop, say, companies paying their employees in scrip to an overpriced company store while forcing them to live in company-owned housing, preventing them from leaving because they have no real money and no assets?
“How would The Ford Motor Company–at its height in the early 1960′s, or Microsoft, Apple, or Intel function or a major energy and fuel supplier, for that matter function, if managed from a private household? To ask the question is to answer it.”
“And how will it function without a state? Without transportation and industry subsidies? ”
Libertarians say small communities of “like-minded” individuals and families will gather together to create neighborhoods and they will hire people (presumably each other) to create infrastrure and even to “police” the area. Well, that’s already happened and that’s why we have a nation with a government and corporations. They seem to miss that point.
I know that he’s assuming that most people secretely agree with him, and that once freed from the feminist/state yoke older women will be delighted to ensure that the life options of their daughters/granddaughters/nieces/etc. are as limited as he’d like them to be, but evidence does not support this hypothesis.
yeah, that disparity pretty much explains everything. dkms model of society only makes sense if you accept the proposition that women are sub-human. dkm doesnt think you have to prove this proposition, because he considers the truth to be self-evident. Everything else is just a narrative to explain why nobody else sees the truth. he can’t accept that anyone would disagree with him is lying or being lied to. and hee cant describe how or why, so he points to all sources of power and control- the government, the schools, the media- as equal culpable in this deception. remember, this is a global, all-powerful conspiracy; theres no length it wont go to in order to suppress the opposition.
Meller is a terrifying individual. Knowing people like him exist is one of the reasons I will never renounce feminism. The radicals I renounce, but the core message of feminism stands- women have every right to the same individual freedoms, bodily autonomy and choices that men do.
and I also am curious to know how libertarianism will stop corporations from doing whatever they want.
Following a link from the NPD wiki page led me to something funny. From the wiki on hubris.
In ancient Greece, hubris (ancient Greek ὕβρις) referred to actions that shamed and humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser.[1] The term had a strong sexual connotation, and the shame reflected on the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist’s fall.
Hubris, though not specifically defined, was a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens[2]. It was also considered the greatest crime of ancient Greek society.[3] The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to mutilation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, or irreverent “outrageous treatment” in general. It often resulted in fatal retribution or Nemesis. Atë, ancient Greek for “ruin, folly, delusion,” is the action performed by the hero or heroine, usually because of his or her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his or her death or down-fall.
Violations of the law against hubris included what might today be termed assault and battery; sexual crimes ranging from rape of women or children to consensual but improper activity, in particular anal sex with a free man or with an unconsenting and/or under-aged boy;[4][5][6] or the theft of public or sacred property. Two well-known cases are found in the speeches of Demosthenes, a prominent statesman and orator in ancient Greece. These two examples occurred when first, Midias punched Demosthenes in the face in the theatre (Against Midias), and second when (in Against Conon) a defendant allegedly assaulted a man and crowed over the victim. Yet another example of hubris appears in Aeschines “Against Timarchus,” where the defendant, Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse. Aeschines brought this suit against Timarchus to bar him from the rights of political office and his case succeeded.[7]
Hmm, it seems like the ancient Greeks who Meller finds so compelling wouldn’t have looked too kindly on his blatant refusal to go along with common community standards, and his belief that he has a right to impose his own instead.
The bit about sex crimes being considered to be a manifestation of hubris is particularly interesting in reference to various things that the MRM has to say about sexuality.
Darksidekat,
Was it you who earlier raised your hand as a Marxist and quoted Engles on the family? Its been years since I read any of Engles but IIRC he sacrificed his time to worked to financially support Marx for many years. Marx had a wife and kids. I remember at the time reading Engles that I sense a bitterness in his writings and thinking this must be fueled by his resentment towards Marx enjoying love and a family while he himself toiled to support them.
The group marriage proposal was curious and suspicious, considering.
Anyway, if you could bring me up to date, what were, in short, the group marriage principles that Engles put forth as a solution to the problems of monogamous marriage. What did he say about the affects of such a situation of the kids?
Re: CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIANS,
In my circle of experience the fundamentalist Christians who yell the loudest about “freedom” and especially “religious freedom” only extend that religious freedom to other Christians, and at most, possibly, kind of – Jews. They certainly do not wish to see any non-Abrahmic religion flourish, especially not wherever they live, and they go on aggressive missions to convert us.
Libertarians say small communities of “like-minded” individuals and families will gather together to create neighborhoods and they will hire people (presumably each other) to create infrastrure and even to “police” the area. Well, that’s already happened and that’s why we have a nation with a government and corporations. They seem to miss that point.
i’m not sure what point you were trying to get at, but this is a really backwards history of cthe corporate form. corporations were invented because infrastructure projects were seen as too risky of an investment without a state subsidy (in the form of limited liability for the investors). small corporations dont start to pop up until the middle of the 20th century, and theyre on the decline now that you can get the same protections as a limited liability company and avoid the hassle of being a corporation (in my opinion, incorporation absolutely terrible framwork for a small business)
Sharculese, my point is, all the things that libertarians say will be accomplished by “small communities of life minded individuals who decide to pay each other for xyz services” has already been accomplished in much the same way – people of like mind getting together and saying “we will be a nation, with a government and police force and business to provide the products we want”.
Their vision of “less is more” will result in the same thing that they are supposedly against.
thats a nice middle-school civics class lesson on what government is but it doesnt really say all that much about the history of the state. you could just as easily spin it to support libertarianism if you wanted to. (this is something right libertarians do all the time)
Well that’s ok if I could spin it to support libertarianism as I’m not particularly for or against it. The more things “change” they more they stay the same.