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.
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”.
When did this happen? o: I don’t remember this meeting o_o Why wasn’t I invited? Does nebody else remember us getting together and saying this? o:
I really think Meller ate lead paint as a child. That would explain so much.
Ami, it happened. Otherwise we wouldn’t be a nation, with a government and with businesses to provide us the products we want.
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.
what is your point, exactly, then?
My point is libertarians say they have alternative to the current, but it is the exact same thing as what we already have. Small communities of like minded individuals are going to pay people to police them? Really? We’ve already got police.
Ami, it happened. Otherwise we wouldn’t be a nation, with a government and with businesses to provide us the products we want.
Um… no it didn’t xD I don’t remember sitting down with the other ppl here and creating a community and deciding on things xD
Oh, you mean OTHER people, a select group of white guys 200+ years ago? xD
THAT’S your Libertarianism? xD Have you ever met a certain David K. Meller? :3 He might be a Libertarian more your style 😀
I think we need to start dubbing this “Megatron Libertarianism”
My point is libertarians say they have alternative to the current, but it is the exact same thing as what we already have. Small communities of like minded individuals are going to pay people to police them? Really? We’ve already got police.
It is? o:
What do you believe a libertarian community society would look like? Specifically? 😀 And compare it to now.
Curious to see what you believe libertarians believe 😀
Where’s NWO lately? o_O
BRUTICUS WHERE ARE YOUUUUU? xD
Maybe he fell apart and the combaticons are busy arguing w/ each other and they can’t form him….
“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?”
“and I also am curious to know how libertarianism will stop corporations from doing whatever they want – ”
The short answer is that we’ll attack the systems of privilege that keep corporations afloat, and create such a power imbalance between bosses and “workers” –
As an anarchist and Wobbly-to-be, I’m a proponent of radical labor organization, wildcat unionism, and far left anti-corporate action. Yet, I think there’s a crucial mistake made in seeing goverment regulation and state action as the foe of the corporation or friend of labor –
The typical inclination of many statists and some libertarians is to reach for the excesses of the industrial revolution and robber baron era as an example of libertarianism in action. The leftist to use it as an example of the horrors that occur in an unregulated market, the libertarians to gloss over those same horrors and speak of rags to riches or whatever the hell they’re on about.
Yet I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to use as an example of any kind of free market in action, and the huge concentrations of wealth and power that occured could not have happened without a state-guaranteed system of privelege.
See:
http://radgeek.com/gt/2011/08/14/in-which-market-anarchists-are-sent-out-to-catch-the-wild-22/
-Charles Johnson comments on this tendency and it’s ability to make libertarian/non-libertarian discussions go round and round in circles
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/no-laissez-faire-there/
-Sheldon Richman on the tendency to see the Gilded Age as free market.
Yet out of this self-same supposedly libertarian gilded age system emerged a radically free-market and pro-labor ideology. The libertarianism of Tucker and Spooner, of Voltarine DeCleyre and Thomas Hodgkin, closely allied with and even embracing the label of socialist, and certainly not approving of the exploitation around them.
Without the state feeding the power of the “company store,” and with strong labor organizations and an economy of less artificial scarcity and with more options for workers, how could the system that the free market anarchists of the gilded age were protesting occur?
If we see the rise of the hungry, all powerful boss and the laying low of the workers as the normal outcome of a “free market,” then of course we must ask ourselves what legislation will contain it.
But as I very much do not believe that, I ask which statism and other privelege is propping it up, and how we can remove it, and how we can strengthen ourselves and diversify our economy and options so as not to be marks for exploitation, by business, priveleged class, or state.
Dang. This is all I can get out in the time I have. I recommend the Center for a Stateless Societies’ materials for poking around in when it comes to finding out what us lefty libertarians/ market anarchists think about stuff and how to fix it. Will bb.
http://c4ss.org/
For the labor side of things, please see especially Kevin Carson’s Labor Struggle: A Free Market Model.
http://c4ss.org/content/4163
Look what I found while poking around on Wikipedia…a psychological profile of Meller’s ideal woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_personality_disorder
The key diagnostic criteria – note how well thes match up with Meller’s fantasies about Sweet Old Fashioned Girls.
World Health Organization – The World Health Organization’s ICD-10 lists dependent personality disorder as F60.7 Dependent personality disorder[21]:
It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
1.encouraging or allowing others to make most of one’s important life decisions;
2.subordination of one’s own needs to those of others on whom one is dependent, and undue compliance with their wishes;
3.unwillingness to make even reasonable demands on the people one depends on;
4.feeling uncomfortable or helpless when alone, because of exaggerated fears of inability to care for oneself;
5.preoccupation with fears of being abandoned by a person with whom one has a close relationship, and of being left to care for oneself;
6.limited capacity to make everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others.
Meller seems to want to make all the criteria other than 4 and 5 not just desireable, but compulsary.
Meller said: I hope that his puts to rest any thoughts about an inconsistancy between my antifeminism and my love of libertarian anarchism! Your freedoms to embrace feminism and its “unisexism”, in whole or in part, are absolutely sacrosanct, but who would want to??
Everybody else would embrace something much better!
What it puts to rest is the idea you have any idea what women are like, or how gov’ts work, or what a lack of gov’t means.
Because, really, if the majority of women, and the majority of men, wanted a world that was built the way you think it should be (even in the limited sphere of interpersonal relations), then the world wouldn’t look so alien to you.
Because women (and men) would be doing just that.
So, Q.E.D., you are wrong on that.
And how does your anarcho-capitalist state work?
As I said before, what of the people who don’t trust the people who are appointed to hold the sureties of their good behavior?
What of the minorities (whatever sort) who have no reason to trust the evenhanded “law” of your polity?
I ask again,what would you do, if I (or Ami, or Rutee) were the person who was going to hold your bond, or arbitrate your case?
CassandraSays
I notice that there are no entries in wikipedia or in (DSM-4) for “Independent Woman personality disorder” or for “Feminist Superbitch personality disorder! What is sauce for the geese…
Why are those perfectly normal (and within reason) even highly desirable traits in women, somehow miscast as a psychiatric disorder? Has organized feminuttery taken over the psychiatric (and psychotherapeutic) professions? One can, and indeed I have, on other posts, cited obnoxious traits, personality characteristics, and observed behaviors of pushy, self-absorbed, over-educated (and miseducated) women, who are needlessly confrontational, needlessly argumetative, and always showing off at how much formal education that they have. Is this the result of a mental disease or defect? Is this the result of a genetic, hormonal, or chromosomal (too much male or too little female) abnormality? Simple fairness and accuracy calls for both extremes to be closely studied and analysed before one goes off half -cocked and prattles feminist paranoia about your so-called “dependent personality disorder”!
Are the lunatics in charge of the asylum?
The correct people are in charge of the asylum, Meller. We’re just too nice to lock you up there against your will.
We’re way nicer than he would be.
No, but since you haven’t actually acted on your sociopathic, narcissistic ranting, there’s been no reason to separate you from the general populous.
Now please return to your sticky copy of John Norman and let the adults have a conversation.
Not to worry, Pecunium, or Rutee, or Ami Angelwings–
I wouldn’t trust any agency that would handle arbitration of YOUR disputes to resolve problems of two alleycats fighting on a backyard fence much less any of you!
Answering the questions one at a time…
1) The disputants, or their sponsors, would NOT hold, or be responsible in any way for sureties, bonds, or any other commitment for good behavior! The sureties (for subscribers, customers, et al) would be held by the CR (Conflict Resolution)/Adjudication firms themselves, who would be responsible for disbursement after the conflict(s) in question had been resolved. the “guilty” client would then be responsible for repaying his debt, NOT to his victims, for that was already taken care of , but to his CR/Adjudicator who advanced the money for the judgement against him.
2) As stated previously, in very clear and simple language, these CR/Adjucators are resolving conflicts involving misbehavior, NOT race, religion, nationality, or other pishposh…Nonwhites, if they are parties to a conflict, have every right to subscribe to a CR/Adjudicator of his–or their–liking. Jews could (and probably would) subscribe to the services of “Jewish” ones, Blacks would probably subscribe to “black” ones, Chinese to “Chinese” ones, and so on and so on…
It may not be out of place to point out here that as it would be the misbehavior giving rise to the conflict that would be the issue being resolved, NOT the race etc. of the wrongdoer, the “black”,or “jewish” or “hispanic” CR/Arbitration firm could–and would–be just as firm in its rulings regarding compensation as any comparable ‘white” firm! They would compensate the victim(s) of the wrongdoer, and as stated above, the wrongdoer (and sponsor) would compensate them (complete with any interest payments, investigative services, appellate fees (if appealed), and anything else justly called for to remind troublemaker(s) that “crime doesn’t pay”!
All such agencies or firms would have written procedures to resolve differences in judgement if any two should disagree, and all clients or subscribers (regardless of race, religion, or whatever) would agree to the binding authority of the appeal as a condition of their subscription or being sponsored.
3) There will, in a free environment, be scores, perhaps even hundreds of separate and independent CR/Adjudicators, engaged in resolving disputes in as many ways as their customers want. Some will be concerned primarily with felony disputes, rape, arson, kidnapping, homicide, etc. some with misdemeanors and relatively “mild” wrongdoing. Some will rigorously uphold and apply the doctrine of “free will” and direct responsibility, some will perhaps allow a considerable amount of weight to “exigent circumstances” especially when so-called “diminished capacity’ is involved, some will emphasise voluntary mediation, others, binding and enforceable arbitration (although there certainly would be a considerable crossover between the two, as ‘customers’ may be quite lenient in one type of wrongdoing, and quite harsh in their dislike and denouncing of another). Some will attempt to apply religious law of various kinds to the disputes in question others will serve clients who subsribe to more secular approaches to law. All CR/Adjudicators will, on pain of loss of reputation, going out of business, and their decisions being reversed on a second level, will assuredly try very hard to be honest, impartial, and as well informed as the circumstances and ruling allow.
How does this differ from government.? Short list!
1) Government allows no independence to courts (arbitrators) or those whom are charged with any other aspect of its “law”! The State owns the courts, owns the police, owns the prisons, owns the prisoners, and in fact, through sovereign immunity, which guarantees the judges, police (at least at the higher levels) lawmakers, and Prison guards (at higher levels) complete immunity from any conflict resolution or damages resulting from misconduct or abuse, compared with the hapless lowborn subjects (guess who??) of State Statute! There would be NO government to impose it’s so-called law upon its subjects, there would be no immunity from accountability (“sovereign or otherwise), there would be constant and ongoing competition and innovation in the ceaseless quest for clients and subscribers, both both existing clientele and new members. Subscription to any one would be completely voluntary, although in order to do any sort of business, maintain a residence, hold a job, and otherwise show yourself of good character, you (or your sponsor) MUST subscribe to somebody!
2) If your trust of a CR/Arbitration service is justified, especially if it can be independently verified, e.g. by repeated reversals of rulings on appeal, inexplicable or irrational rulings, impropriety and ‘conflict-of-interest, then the newsmedia (who would have NO government distractions) go on the attack like a pack of hungry wolves! A victim (or better still, for purposes of corroboration, a number of victims) of a corrupt or incompetent CR/Adjudicator firm would be loved by a press–who would be just as addicted to scandal, yellow journalism, and gossipmongering in a free society as it is everywhere else–would quickly and completely bring the errant agency to heel–possibly to owing damages THEMSELVES to the victims of their irresponsibility or malfeasance! When was the last time you heard of a sitting Judge, Police Commissioner, or Prison warden not only removed from office in disgrace for life, but made to pay serious damages to his victims (or their heirs)?
Parenthetically, I hope that this answers a concern raised when I suggested that a woman in an abusive relationship could be protected by her family. An abusive and sadistic spouse could find himself not only paying damages to a newly “liberated’ wife, but also to any of her family members who have an interest in her well being. He would, in addition, be on the public record as a man who could not keep his wife without being cruel and brutal to him, and needless to say, this would make him a less likely, and less desirable husband (to HIS family’s disadvantage) for the rest of his life!
Does OUR society deal with these tragedies in ways that are strikingly and incomparably better? I didn’t think so!
Libertarian Legal Theorist Gary Chartrier has an upcoming book on Anarchist/Libertarian legal theory that I hope will be as enlightening and thought-provoking as whatever you just said was… Whatever it was.
I really can’t get past the appalling abuse of punctuation to figure out what the fuck Meller is saying. For the love of all things holy, quotation marks come in pairs, you can’t end a sentence with a period and a question mark, and the fewer commas the better. I’m not demanding perfection – really, I’m not, I know I fuck up as much as the next person – but if you want your… I’ll be charitable and call them ‘essays’ rather than ‘screeds’ (see what I did there?)… to be taken seriously, then please invest in a style guide.
DKM’s system sounds complicated; I’m just gonna keep paying my fees to the Thieves Guild and Assassins Guild and hope for the best. :p
KathleenB-
Even if I admit that I need some work in punctuation (just IF), would you ever take me seriously even if I had the literary skill of e.g. Oscar Wilde, John Milton or William Shakespeare? How do I know that this is not just one more anti-Meller kvetch from someone who barely reads what I say to begin with, and then distorts the hell out it to fit her preconceived, if not altogether misconceived, notions about feminuttery, etc.?
It alright, you can call ’em “screeds”. The above observation still stands!
Baglesan – I’m still just paying the shadowy figure who appears in the grove. I do contribute to Assassin’s Guild Auxiliary potlucks, though.
Meller wants to arbitrate his child raping?
Meller – I believe in adjucation and a libertarian polycentric law society. I was willing to see this as an area where you might have a good point or two. I could barely make any sense out of what you said.