latest

John C. Wright #fundie johncwright.livejournal.com

I note that the links between Nazism and modern Jihad, both in tone and approach, are numerous enough to be noteworthy. The Jihadist approach to the West is informed and influenced by agitprop victimology street-thuggery tactics developed and perfected by Hitler and other leftists.

You are correct that the Left regards Hitler as Right, and that the Left regards the Right as a bigger threat than the Jihad, and so is happy to combine with them against a mutual foe. I am not so condescending as to attribute to stupidity what can be with fewer assumptions be ascribed to sin. The desire to be God is pride -- and, no, the Left may lack a metaphysic to define and justify this desire, but neither do they place any weight on definitions and justice, only in the desire. The fact that there is no God in a materialist universe does not stop materialists from wanting to be Gods, or, at least, superhumans who live beyond good and evil and ergo are allowed to continue to visit their whores.

Speaking as an intelligent man who intellect is corrupted by pride myself, let me affirm that the appeal of reckless, self-destructive pride as a temptation is not one I would underestimate.

John C. Wright #fundie johncwright.livejournal.com

Personally, I think part of the problem is semantic. "Date Rape" is a common term used to express the outrage and horror of a drunk woman waking up to find she has been violated while semi-conscious, but also to express the regret of a woman who gave in to a semiviolent seduction. The word "rape" is here more for emotional effect than legal meaning: legally the word means intercourse without consent.

In the older and saner days, the real words used for this kind of behavior, words like "seduction" and "violation" had this kind of horror and this kind of emotional nuance we associate with rape. The Sexual Revolution (as organized, no doubt, by Asmodeus, the archdemon of Lust) deliberately denatured such words, until to modern ears they seem quaint or even alluring. "Seduction" was the word used to describe the crime of getting consent from a woman who was not old enough or sober enough to give consent.

Since the old words have been sucked dry of meaning, we use new words, and they are soon to be sucked dry of meaning. All that will happen is that real rape victims will be assumed to be like "Date rape" victims, that is, victims of seduction.

the_deuce #fundie johncwright.livejournal.com

I'll assume for the moment that women's suffrage is a good thing. It's still possible to do good things for the wrong reasons.

If you ask your typical leftist or liberal what the reason was for women's suffrage, they'll say "equality" - precisely the same reason they'll give for gay marriage, income redistribution, affirmative action, capitulation to Islam, multiculturalism, and all the various feminist abuses you've complained about in this entry.

But what do they mean by "equality"? Do they mean that women are, in general, equally prone to being politically and economically informed as men? Or perhaps liberals thought that womens' tendency to be less politically informed was simply a result of them not being allowed to vote, and that letting them vote would remedy that situation? If so, they were mistaken. Did they think that women are, in general, equally rational and capable of putting aside their emotions when considering abstract political issues as men? If so, again, they were mistaken. The greater emotionality is intrinsic to women (they couldn't perform the essential role that men can't - nurturing - without it).

Why do you think it is that women were not included in suffrage in the first place? Was it because of male oppression? Was it because our Founding Fathers were sexist jerks who didn't believe in equality?

In my opinion, no. It was primarily the result of the fact that women typically aren't naturally as interested in, or informed about, abstract political issues as men are, as demonstrated in that link above. Nearly all of the political philosophy and theory, rhetoric, political passion, energy, and manpower driving the American Revolution came from men, so it made perfect sense that they placed the responsibility of safeguarding what they had worked for on themselves once they had won it. That women weren't also placed in charge of guarding it at first was simply a reflection of the fact that, with few exceptions, they weren't the ones who had created and fought for it, intellectually or physically.

Later expanding the franchise to women was an act of generosity, not the overdue recognition of some natural and intrinsic political equality that had always existed but which had been suppressed by selfish and brutish patriarchal sexists. A person expecting some sort of material parity between the sexes to manifest itself in the wake of womens' suffrage would be sorely disappointed, and would likely move on to the next mad scheme to achieve it.

So it's not that women's suffrage itself necessarily leads to the many abuses of feminism we see today. It's the rationale typically behind it. If your rationale for suffrage is "equality", then you need to think hard about what you mean by that. It could be that you're using the same logic that has been used to justify all the atrocities of feminism, but that you just haven't (out of basic sanity) been willing to push it as far as they have.

John C. Wright #fundie johncwright.livejournal.com

I would be delighted to see the overthrow, perhaps with lynchings, of the teaching establishment, and the return of all their power into private hands. Public schooling, historically, was an attempt by the secular Protestant governments to remove the influence of the Catholic Church over the education of the young, which we have been doing successfully since before the Fall of Rome.