Fabulous disasters and the men who love them

February 27, 2014 § 25 Comments

Real hierarchy with real authority isn’t allowed by liberalism. A modern corporation, for example, is not a real hierarchy. The relationship between employer and employee is at least formally one of mutual convenience, severable at any time by either party. That isn’t hierarchy: it is equality, hierarchy’s opposite.

Human beings are naturally hierarchical creatures, but because liberalism defines what is socially acceptable the only real hierarchy that emerges is sociopathic. Folks who don’t understand why sociopathic rock stars are sexy to women but respectable Bill Gates isn’t, when men determine the hierarchy that in significant part drives who women find attractive, have not grasped the nature of the situation.

That leads me to another common phenomenon, which is that many men seem to deliberately seek out and choose basket case women with lots of problems. You know you have seen it too: the girl with daddy issues and a troubled past, and the white knight who rides in to the rescue. Why do men do this when they must know that they are asking for trouble?

The short answer is that many men find themselves attracted to fabulous disasters for the same reason that many women find themselves attracted to sociopathic bad boys. Because feminine vulnerability is not socially acceptable under liberalism, the only real vulnerability that exists is sociopathic vulnerability.

§ 25 Responses to Fabulous disasters and the men who love them

  • Donna Sposata diMaria says:

    Isn’t there a whole book of the bible dedicated to this — Hosea, I think? I don’t think it was meant as relationship advice, exactly. More like, Fabulous Disasters and the God who loves them.

    But I digress.

    There’s just no substitute for choosing well in the first place. That current culture makes that harder than it should be is significant, but not really an excuse.

    Struggling to figure out what God requires is hard, and … kind of boring, after all. Game, by focusing on how what we do influences the *other person,* promises an easy fix.

    But, human nature being what it is, there probably isn’t one.

  • victoria says:

    “Human beings are naturally hierarchical creatures, but because liberalism defines what is socially acceptable the only real hierarchy that emerges is sociopathic.”

    *Moral Origins* by Christopher Boehm makes a very, very strong case that humans are in fact by nature strongly egalitarian and have evolved highly sophisticated methods to tamp down aggression and dominance in their societies (which can be seen clearly in anthropological investigations of modern-day hunter-gatherer societies around the world).

  • Martin T says:

    I had to laugh, “evolved highly sophisticated methods to tamp down aggression and dominance in their societies”.

    So as the dominant egalitarian I will stomp on your aggression until you agree we are equal.

  • Patrick says:

    Boehm is probably right. Take this for example: http://history-world.org/Civilization,%20women_in_patriarchal_societies.htm

    The problem is they don’t quite start at the beginning of the story, though. They say patriarchy existed with societies that became agricultural, which is technically true. Since they’re looking through a feminist lens at everything, what they don’t say clearly is that patriarchy really brought about the agricultural societies–and ultimately history itself, via written language, and all the innovations since. The reason we’re flying around in outer space and not just collecting acorns still, is patriarchy. So the vehicle of civilization is flying down the road and feminism thinks since we’ve been moving along so well, we should be able to essentially turn off the motor and just keep rolling. The motor being a legal connection between a man and his children, rights to a certain woman or women, that moves him to work and create, rather than just hang out poolside like he did as a hunter/gatherer, when he would bang whatever woman he could as much as possible, work as he deemed necessary, and she figured out how to provide for her kids. It was totally egalitarian. When people say egalitarian today, they mean that men should continue to work just as hard as under patriarchy–only without the patriarchy. The car should keep driving, but with the motor turned off or the gas tank empty.

  • Patrick says:

    Boehm is also obviously wrong though, too, since patriarchy exists. And so does hierarchy even in hunter/gatherer societies.

  • Zippy says:

    Martin T:

    So as the dominant egalitarian I will stomp on your aggression until you agree we are equal.

    That reminded me of the protests of an infamous modern politician who attempted to ‘rescue’ authentic freedom and equality from the liberals of his own time:

    Within a few decades the Trades Union Movement was transformed, by the expert hand of Social Democracy, from an instrument which had been originally fashioned for the defense of human rights into an instrument for the destruction of the national economic structure. The interests of the working class were not allowed for a moment to cross the path of this purpose …

    … Above all, it was the ‘Free Trades Union’ that turned democracy into a ridiculous and scorned phrase, insulted the idea of liberty and stigmatized that of fraternity with the slogan ‘If you will not become our comerade we shall crack your skull’.

    A virtual scotch to the first person who knows who said that without accessing the Googoracle.

  • Zippy says:

    (My own point being, to be clear, that we should not attempt to ‘rescue’ some ‘good’ form of liberalism. There is no good form of liberalism. Heck, there isn’t even a rationally coherent form of liberalism).

  • Mike T says:

    When people say egalitarian today, they mean that men should continue to work just as hard as under patriarchy–only without the patriarchy.

    In other words, Christian men should be like Christ to the church without ever expecting the Church to honor and obey them.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Above all, it was the ‘Free Trades Union’ that turned democracy into a ridiculous and scorned phrase…

    Then the Free Trades Union was Neo-Reactionary?

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    When people say egalitarian today, they mean that men should continue to work just as hard as under patriarchy–only without the patriarchy.

    The problem with those kinds of characterizations of liberalism is that you are attempting to make sense of something that is rationally incoherent. Feminists really do want equal rights for both men and women. The problem is that equal rights – situated in any actual reality – is an incoherent concept.

    So turning men into slaves isn’t something that feminists think of themselves as doing. It is just an unprincipled exception. Every form of liberalism has to have its unprincipled exceptions, just as every form of liberalism necessarily has its understanding of who is the implicit or explicit oppressor untermensch.

    But — and it is very important to understand this — feminism is in fact completely committed to absolute equality. Folks need to wrap their heads around what it means to have an entire society utterly committed to a rationally incoherent political doctrine, because that is our actual situation. In our case that rationally incoherent political doctrine is liberalism.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:

    Then the Free Trades Union was Neo-Reactionary?

    I don’t know enough to make that comparison (I never made it through all of Shirer’s “Rise and Fall”, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on the era).

    It is important for people to know though that Hitler was an egalitarian. He was just slightly more rational (or perhaps just more honest) than most egalitarians, because he realized and expressly acknowledged that in order to achieve egalitarian goals it was necessary to exterminate the oppressor-untermensch.

  • Gavrila says:

    Zippy,

    What are your thoughts if any on pre-liberal economic systems, e.g. the guild system in pre-Reformation Catholic Europe?

    Whenever I ask a nonservative market-liberal, they dismiss anything pre- or anti- capitalist as “socialism” and end the discussion.

  • Zippy says:

    Gavrila,

    I don’t have an overarching economic theory: all the major ones issue promissory notes that reality don’t cash out, as far as I’ve been able to tell.

    Economic libertarians tend to think I’m one of the bad guys when I write stuff like this, this, and this, for example.

    I am also one of rather few modern people you will encounter who actually knows what usury is (I researched it relatively recently myself after the 2008 financial crisis), let alone takes it seriously, assuming of course that I am not mistaken in my views.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I don’t think the FTU was Neo-Reactionary, but discrediting democracy by practicing it seems a built-in feature of reality. So the Neo-Reaction would approve.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:
    Discrediting democracy by practicing it is a great line. It would even fit on a bumper sticker or a T-shirt.

  • Patrick says:

    It can’t work ultimately because it naturally produces people like me who end up skeptical of marriage and people a lot worse than me, de facto psychopaths.

    This is why I don’t understand why the Church leadership doesn’t just come out strongly in support of male supremacy (or whatever it would be called, applied patriarchy). Unless it’s just PR thing and they don’t want bad press. They dance around the subject, talking about the “family.” But the family in essence is nothing other than patriarchy.

  • Martin T says:

    This is why I don’t understand why the Church leadership doesn’t just come out strongly in support of male supremacy (or whatever it would be called, applied patriarchy). Unless it’s just PR thing and they don’t want bad press. They dance around the subject, talking about the “family.” But the family in essence is nothing other than patriarchy.

    Because “patriarchy” has been interpreted in so many different ways as to lack concise meaning. Too many would interpret such a statement as, “keep the woman pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen”.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    Almost everyone in modern society, including most of the clergy, are one sort of liberal or another. People are not going to preach against their own cherished beliefs.

    That’s why I sometimes liken our current situation to the Arian crisis, when most of the clergy were heretics. It isn’t the same kind of situation strictly speaking but I don’t think it is too far off as an analogy.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: usury etc “yet it is lawful to make use of another’s sin for a good end”.

  • […] When real hierarchy and vulnerability aren’t allowed, people will pursue soiciopaths. […]

  • Opus says:

    Fabulous Disasters – tell me about it! The male instinct to nurture and protect played on by the Sociopath as to whom there seem to be an increasing number, many of whom think that they are indeed perfect for marriage. We have to kill or at least damp-down our dangerous instinct.

  • […] a kind of realpolitik adaptation to practical realities; and since society is being deliberately (though futilely) reconstructed by liberalism to be ever more androgynous this traditionally difficult area for […]

  • […] hierarchy – morally compulsive loyalty to crown, blood, soil, and cross – isn’t allowed. So once again we have a situation where, because real patriotism (morally compulsive loyalty to a particular […]

  • […] Blood made the clever quip “discrediting democracy by practicing it” in a comment thread a while back.  A discussion at Dalrock (my first comment is here) got me thinking that […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Fabulous disasters and the men who love them at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: