The Family Over All: An Interview with Dr. Allan Carlson
Dr. Allan C. Carlson is one of the leading experts on family and marriage in the United States. Currently, he is the President of the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society and a Director of the Family in America Studies Center. He is also Editor of the journal, The Family in America. He earned his Ph.D. in Modern European History and is the author of numerous books such as Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis, The Swedish Experiment in Family Politics: The Myrdals and the Interwar Population Crisis, From Cottage to Work Station: The Family’s Search for Social Harmony in the Industrial Age, Family and Community in the Shaping of the American Identity, and Society, Family, Person. He latest work is The Natural Family: A Manifesto and was co-written with Paul T. Mero.
BC: First off, let me ask about your manifesto itself. The language is colored by phrases such as “we affirm” and “we will transform” but how can you, I or any other citizen defy the wishes and laws of the Leviathan in this area? Isn’t what “Senators Kennedy and Senator Biden affirm” most important?
Dr. Allan Carlson: We have to recognize that the family is something older, more natural, and innate than government. Yes, the government can persecute and undermine the family in the short-term, but, in the long run, it will triumph as it is the more enduring institution. In the manifesto our assertions and arguments are defined within the context of human nature and our history. Governments come and go as the Nazis did, and as communism basically has but, in the long run, the family will always be victorious. As G.K. Chesterton argued, the family is the one truly anarchical institution. He used this term in the positive sense as the family existed prior to the state and functions independent of it.
BC: Why does mass schooling equate with a decline in fertility? Wasn’t it put into place before the baby boom of the fifties and the Second World War?
Dr. Allan Carlson: The assertion in the book comes from the work of demographer John C. Caldwell. By examining evidence in Australia he came to the strong conclusion that mass schooling is one of the major forces behind a decline in societal fertility rates. The public schools separate children from their families, and they transfer moral authority from the state to the family. The state then becomes the architect of a child’s future. The Caldwell thesis also shows a close correlation in the United States between public schooling and declining fertility. With the baby boom, yes there was a brief surge in the birthrate but that was a product both of good social policy and the unique psychology of those people who came of age during the Great Depression and the Second World War. It was a unique phenomenon in American life and was a fascinating era but did not last. After the 1960s, our society resumed its previous course.
BC: Why is it, for those unfamiliar with your book, that no country holding individualism to be its strongest value can survive? I mean, of course, individualism within limits such as by the type we have in the United States.
Dr. Allan Carlson: It ultimately relates to what is the fundamental unit in human society which is the family and not the individual. Individualism is an expression of the selfish ego; a reflection of the radically autonomous person which leaves no room for the family and the corresponding virtues of society. My co-author and I disagree with the conclusion that self-interest has been the deciding force in human affairs. It isn’t but altruism and the willingness to create a family and rear children is. The family provides citizens with a commitment to the future, and a method to overcome the troubles and pains that come from raising children. The society which celebrates the individual over the family is a society in decay—it is overwhelmed by aggressive selfishness.
BC: You restate part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,” which is a most noble sentiment, but couldn’t one make a convincing argument that the United States government currently interferes in our privacy to a massive degree (particularly in regards to marriage)?
Dr. Allan Carlson: I think there has been a change in the laws over the course of the past few decades and it’s been a negative development. This has paved the way for government’s invasion of the home. We have seen, particularly in domestic violence laws and child custody decisions, laws which have harmed the family. Remember that fewer cases of abuse occur in married homes for all concerned, and by this I mean for women, men and children. If the government really was serious about helping its citizens then it would put all of its energy into strengthening the natural family which would be best for everyone. Due to the influence of feminism and socialism, the government has set up laws that view parents as being the problem, but regardless, just because it happened it does not diminish the deeper truth which is that the family is a positive influence upon society.
An important question to ask here is why do we have marriage? Why of all possible relationships is the heterosexual relationship between man and woman the only one that the state is interested in? Property concerns originate any time a child appears and the state has a huge interest in the offspring of marriages. Children are the citizens of the future and are the future. Without procreation the state would not be involved at all. So yes, producing children is the most important purpose behind marriage. Even in our age, the child’s greatest chance of being happy and healthy is to be raised by two natural parents; having a mother and a father increase the chances of a child’s success dramatically. Ideally, that’s why government gets involved. They should encourage reproduction. That’s what a wise state would do and such a government would be a limited one. The state must protect the home as a healthy society is built upon healthy homes.
BC: It seems to me that men face far more risks in marriage than do women—a biased court system, legal concepts like “equitable paternity” and marital rape, and severe punishment for those males who get divorced—so, given the nature of our misandric society—why isn’t cohabitation a better decision for men than marriage?
Dr. Allan Carlson: Well, I won’t say that it is because ultimately cohabitation is a wrong and immoral choice, but, for the reasons you just cited, it may have certain advantages. The key though is for us to change the laws to benefit marriage and the family. Men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law, but family autonomy must be taken into account. There are important differences between the sexes which have to be acknowledged in our law and public policy. People do things differently and they do different things well. Unfortunately, the law has become corrupted so we must restore its legitimacy.
BC: You argue that socialism gains greatly from the denigration of the family. I agree but don’t you find it ironic that so many women, even traditional women, vote for candidates who promise more and more government despite its eroding the foundation of marriage?
Dr. Allan Carlson: Well, the socialist movement plays very effectively on a deep historical problem that many do not recognize. Changes brought about by the industrial revolution have forever complicated family life and the rearing of children. This was a radically new change based on our history before 1800 when the majority of people worked and lived in the same place during their lifespan. Now that’s changed completely. Who will take care of the children is an important question in our times. Socialism promises a solution to the problem on everyone’s mind. It tells people that the state will ease their burden and take over childrearing and this appeals to many women and some men as well. Of course the joke here, the supreme irony, is that in Scandinavia feminism turned this into a very odd development. Women’s work became socialized and transferred to the state. The government then took on the traditional function of the home and family with the state providing child care. Then women, in turn, rejected the private sector and largely took jobs within the government. They continued to do what has traditionally been women’s work except now they provide child care for other people’s children. Their role has not changed but now they’re married to the state.
BC: I noticed that you mentioned body dimorphism in relation to the sexes in Chapter 2 which brings me to ask, what is your position on evolutionary psychology? Would you agree that there is a biological basis for human behavior?
Dr. Allan Carlson: Yes, there is a biological basis for human behavior, but what I find so fascinating is not the differences between the creationist and the social-biological views but, rather, the similarities between them. What’s so striking is the way in which they agree with one another. The Biblical view can be found in Genesis I and II where it states that man needs woman, a helpmate, and that together they should become fruitful, multiply and inherit the earth. Well, most of what you need to know about marriage is right there in Genesis. The paleo-anthropologists astonishingly tell the same story. C. Owen Lovejoy writing in the journal Science argued that from the very moment humans emerged on the African savannah the pairing off of males and females emerged as a unique feature of the species and provided the basis for our success. What distinguishes humans from other creatures is our long-term monogamous relationships which focus upon childrearing. A commitment to this bond and marriage is what has given us an edge in regards to the other species. It defines us. Both accounts show that marriage is not an arbitrary construct but instead our defining characteristic.
BC: I’m assuming that most readers are unfamiliar with your book, so would you please clarify your position on gay marriage? What do you make of the theory that it will result in the decline of heterosexual marriage due to its alienation of straight men?
Dr. Allan Carlson: I think that’s a probable consequence but back up here a little bit. The problem with marriage today isn’t just gay marriage. The problem we face is a revolution in marriage law that’s been going on for three or four decades. Radicals want to deinstitutionalize marriage. They want to take the marriage contract and strip it of its contractual language. Marriage is far weaker today than any business contract as one party can easily get out of it and there’s no recourse for the party who wishes to maintain it. Look at illegitimacy, a term that used to be well-known, now out-of-wedlock births are treated no differently than legitimate ones. This has been a revolution in the law. Gay marriage comes in at the end of this long process. Nowadays marriage carries few obligations and has more penalties than it does obligations. There are a few benefits as well such as health care and social security advantages which, understandably, are very attractive to gay couples. The thing is though that if all we do is stop gay marriage then we won’t be doing very much to revitalize marriage itself and preserve it as the core unit of society.
BC: I liked a phrase you had very much, “the violence of androgyny.” You define it as the negation of woman and man. How would you respond to those who claim that androgyny is the basis of equality due to each sex acting just like the other?
Dr. Allan Carlson: Those people have grossly misunderstood the meaning of equality. The nature of equality is to set up a legal system allowing men to be men and women to be women. The sexes should be able to fulfill their biological destiny as a marital pair. It comes down to another saying of G.K. Chesterton’s in which he describes a human being as a quadruped with four legs in two different bodies. This is based on the biblical message of two becoming one flesh. That’s the nature of our species. Androgyny denies our complementary nature. Men and women differ biologically in matters of human reproduction so the law must protect and cherish those differences.
BC: Thank you very much for your time, Dr. Carlson.
Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Stumble It!
Posted in: Conservatism, Culture, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Vox Populi | 312 views
Trackbacks & Pingbacks • comment feed
[...] Chapin The Family Over All: An Interview with Dr. Allan Carlson 2008-10-28 at 11:32 pm · Filed under Conservatism, Culture, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Vox [...]
Comments • comment feed
Awesome stuff, BC. Thanks very much. I feel bad for the men who won’t accept the consequences of this message, but their refusal isn’t my problem.
October 30th, 2008
I concur that this article is awesome.
I can’t help but wonder what people who think the family is great want to do about the population issue.
As a mother I can say that having one child makes you share 50% of you time. When I had my second child that changed. Then I had to be a full time mother. Other mothers who had more than 2 children told me that having more is better.
It is true. Love is so special when you have a real family.
But just look to China where they can only have one. Being selfish is on the cards whether we like it or not. We cannot over populate this world and I have heard elders say that war is what keeps us in check.
But then the social way is to not have war. So no-one dies. No-one is replaced either by our elders living longer and working longer.
What can we do? How do we deal with this?
I would be happy with people promoting families if we were less populated but we can’t ignore reality.
October 30th, 2008
Over-population is a myth created by socialists to justify socialist policies.
Quoting this article directly, “The public schools separate children from their families, and they transfer moral authority from the family to the state. THE STATE THEN BECOMES THE ARCHITECT OF THE CHILD’S FUTURE.”
I declare that a PARENT knows best where a child’s potential lies than does the state. So, when the STATE tells all of its children how to conduct their futures, the children themselves become mismatched and inefficient.
The inefficiency leads to diminished wealth which is FALSELY INTERPRETED as “overpopulation”.
Did you follow any of that, or did I waste my time trying to explain math to a chick?
October 31st, 2008
lol MMX, I do understand what you are saying. Yes, population has created much of what we have in policies.
6,747,476,350 people alive today in the world and counting.
# Earth’s population is increasing by over 140 people every minute … equivalent to another Los Angeles plus another Chicago every month.
# Right now, with “only” 6.4 billion of us: (1) We are driving over 50 species of plants and animals to extinction per day! (2) We are destroying rain forests many times faster than they can regenerate. (3) We are consuming stored solar energy (fossil fuels) at rates thousands of times faster than it is regenerating. (4) There are regions in the U.S. where we are consuming fresh water at least 10 times faster than it is being replenished. (5) We are causing soil salinization and erosion several-fold faster than rates of restoration. (6) We are over-fishing our oceans, radically changing the species balance in many places.
I know, I know, this is leftist thinking. But I do think the right should care too.
http://worldpopulationbalance.org/pop/stats.php
In many parts of the world where this population growth is the fastest they are not able to add food, fuel, hospitals, schools, doctors, teachers and other social infrastructure fast enough to keep up! So, as population continues to rise rapidly, they are falling further and further behind.
Two thousand years ago it took about four and a half minutes to add another person to the population of the world, net gain. Now we are adding 630 people in that same span of four and a half minutes! This is not sustainable. The sooner we humanely stop the increase, the better for everyone on the planet.
October 31st, 2008
Someone said: Did you follow any of that, or did I waste my time trying to explain math to a chick?
Ad hominum attacks are rude.
There are only so many resources to go around and the demand for them is rapidly increasing so overpopulation is not a myth. Unless mankind intelligently plans out his future in a sustainable way sooner or later we will run out of something because right now we are on a collision course.
Example: Our agricultural system is not sustainable. Only 2/3 of oil is used for fuel. A lot of it is used for fertilizer and plastic. When we run out of oil we will run out of oil-based fertilizer. Food production will drop and people will starve.
November 1st, 2008
Funny…what you call “ad hominem attacks” I call “harmless flirting”. (Oh right…when I talk to someone else I have to adhere to YOUR definitions.) *eyeroll*
Overpopulation happens when the number of organisms in an area exceeds its CARRYING CAPACITY. Every animal and plant has only ONE carrying capacity, what I call the “natural carrying capacity”. But humanity has TWO carrying capacities, the natural and the “manmade”. Thankfully, the manmade carrying capacity is higher than the artificial one, because humanity can produce resoruces at a faster pace than can nature alone.
The MYTH of overpopulation is that government involvement can help cure overpopulation. And to sell this myth, they argue for the NATURAL carrying capacity. But this argument ignores the fact that human ingenuity can stretch the carrying capacity to unheard of levels. One invention here or there, and suddenly the planet can produce far more people than before.
The TRUTH over overpopulation is that government involvement creates the problem of overpopulation. When government limits human ingenuity by forcing people to do inefficient things, then humanity can’t produce enough goods at a fast enough pace. The government then blames this outcome on humanity, rather than on government.
November 1st, 2008
“The sooner we humanely stop the increase, the better for everyone on the planet.”
Again, you’ve fallen for the MYTH. The myth says that the only solution is to stop adding people to the planet. Which means some GOVERNMENT has to tell some PEOPLE that they’re not allowed to do X, Y, and Z because of “overpopulation”.
Didnt you read the best quote of the article? “The public schools separate children from their families, and they transfer moral authority from the family to the state. THE STATE THEN BECOMES THE ARCHITECT OF THE CHILD’S FUTURE.”
The STATE has been the architect of our children’s futures for the past fifty years. So any major crisis that has developed in the last fifty years should be first ASSUMED to be blamed on the STATE. When people realize that the STATE creates most of the problems that people fear, they’ll begin to rely on themselves more. But right now we want the government to do everything – even the things it can’t possibly do, like “humanely stop the increase of people”.
November 1st, 2008
MMX, you make a fine point on what can be man-made.
Unfortunately people like myself are not too keen on genetically engineered foods. I seriously consider nature to know what is best. That is hard for me to change.
But then there is positive over some man-made creations. Some could argue that nature provided and man perfected.
I think the reason why Government needs to take this on board is because we will be arguing over what is right and what is wrong. We all come from a different angle with opinion.
The problem with the state IMO is it’s corruption. One of the things that comes up in business study is how to stop lobby groups from deciding what is best.
November 1st, 2008
MMX (#3) wrote: “Over-population is a myth created by socialists to justify socialist policies.”
So first he says overpopulation ITSELF is a myth.
Then (apparently because he could not refute the next post by Julie) he changes it to this: “The MYTH of overpopulation is that government involvement can help cure overpopulation”
Then he contradicts himself again with this: “The myth says that the only solution is to stop adding people to the planet.”
MMX, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. I respectfully suggest that you think more before you write.
November 1st, 2008
MMX, I find it hard to believe you were flirting. I can’t imagine any guy walking up to a girl in a bar and saying “I bet you’re really dumb at math because you are a woman”. Try it and see if it makes a good impression.
November 1st, 2008
julie – Hilariously enough, I’m one of those people, too.
However, I also know that 90% of the people who are alive right now ought not to be. You see, if humanity worshipped nature with 100% devotion, then we would’ve never expanded to the 6 billion people we have now. So the next time you see a crowd of people, remember that 90% of them exist only because of human ingenuity – our inventions, our infrastructures, our civilization made their lives possible.
“The problem with the state IMO is it’s corruption.”
Nope, it’s much deeper than that. The state simply isn’t capable of thinking as intelligently as the most intelligent person. If a state allows these intelligent individuals to think and act freely, then the state thrives. But if it doesnt, then the state fails.
The state simply can’t help but be STUPID and severely lacking in vision. That’s why I’m waiting for enough people to realize how limited the state will always be, so they’ll stop asking it to do the impossible.
November 1st, 2008
MMX, nice comment @11. I agree with all of it.
November 1st, 2008
Julie, what a lot of codswallop. “However, I also know that 90% of the people who are alive right now ought not to be. You see, if humanity worshipped nature with 100% devotion, then we would’ve never expanded to the 6 billion people we have now.”
There are 6 billion people, naturally. It is nature that put them here. How do you know that it isn’t nature’s plan – the nature you want us to worship – that we grow to 10 billion or 15b? Have you read the Book of the Word of Nature? Had a revelation direct from a cabbage? Ot is it just the ramblings of the Prophet Julie?
But fear not. Not just 90%, but every darned one of us will be dead in 100 years or so. That’s natural too. Unless you want to go now.
As for losing species, there have been occasions before when as much as 95% of every living thing died out and guess what – nature has a way of clearing the decks and doing it all over again. I reckon that worshiping a fruit cake might be more up your street. With the greatest of respect and a doff of the hat to a lady, of course.
Tell you what, with so many due to cark it in a century, how about having another baby and pushing the timeframe out a bit. You can name it No 1.
November 2nd, 2008
“There are 6 billion people, naturally. It is nature that put them here.”
Nope, the natural carrying capacity for human beings is far less than 6 billion. We only hvae 6 billion people because of our technology – oil, machines, pharmaceuticals, and public health based infrastructures i.e. sewers.
Did you want to comment on the article, amfortas? Especially the part about “The STATE then becomes the architect of the child’s future.”
November 2nd, 2008
Mankind is part of nature, MMX. We are not ‘outside of’ or ‘apart from’ nature like some picture hanging on a wall or alien presence. The fruit of our minds is all part of nature, just as is the architectural brilliance of the Termite. The technology, the machines, the pharmaceuticles, even society itself. All part of nature. The noosphere arose out of the biosphere.
Show otherwise. Show also the ‘carrying capacity’. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Group put a case for carrying capacity in ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’. A good read.
The Chapin interview was very clear in bringing us Dr Carlson’s views. Thank you Bernie. There is little to argue with in what Carlson says although I am sure one could pick holes in the ‘Savannah’ monogamy ideas. C. Owen Lovejoy draws a long bow, as do most of his discipline, assuming much from meagre chipping of bones. But the thesis on the importance of families is sound and pretty obvious by now to most of us. It is good to see there are still some sound men in our Universities. One less to defenestrate when you elect me as President. (you are going to vote for me, aten’t you). Maybe he could get together with Prof. Baskerville.
I understand Carlson’s insistence that the family is the best unit, especially the anarchic part, but its survival is in grave doubt in our Western Civilisation. Unless radical action is taken soon to reverse the damage, the family will not survive except in pockets. And our civil systems will disintegrate. It will be for a new Phoenix Civilisation to restore Family and that is doubtful with Asia awaiting its turn.
November 2nd, 2008
Amfortas, you sound like one of thsoe people who insists to play now and consider the consequense tomorrow.
But get this … It is tomorrow.
November 2nd, 2008
“Mankind is part of nature, MMX. We are not ‘outside of’ or ‘apart from’ nature like some picture hanging on a wall or alien presence.”
Oh. so nuclear power is natural – even though it’s manmade. Why? Because amfortas wants to make a point – that man isn’t separate from nature. Hmm, what else is natural? Rocket ships, internal combustion engines, manmade chemicals like PCBs and DDT. Yup, all of it natural. Simply cuz amfortas says so?
“Unless radical action is taken soon to reverse the damage, the family will not survive except in pockets.”
Give me three examples of “radical action” that will “reverse the damage”.
November 2nd, 2008
MMX, don’t be a silly bugger all your life. Take a day off. Are you contending that nuclear power isn’t natural? I suppose you will be claiming next that the Sun is really a hay wagon on fire drawn across the sky by horses.
All ‘machinery’ and invention is an expression of mind. They all start as an idea. Matter is put to use to give physical expression to those ideas. All that we create is an expression of mind. Mind itself is an expression of Nature. If it does not conform to nature’s laws, it simply will not be.
You want examples of radical action ideas to reverse the damage of the virus of radical feminism/cultural marxism?
Surgery. Anti-mind-viral medication. A Mental/Spiritual/Character health regime.
I have already laid out the necessary actions (more than three) in my Presidential Candidacy Interview, conducted on this very MND site by Joy Adams some time ago. Catch up.
The Character and Integrity of Mankind needs attention. Currently it is sick. Ill. Dis-eased.
Amfortas says so.
It is an observation, MMX. Not a determination.
Julie – “Amfortas, you sound like one of those people who insists to play now and consider the consequense tomorrow. But get this … It is tomorrow.”
No Jools, I have no idea what brings you to say that. Today is today. Tomorrow is the next day to come. I have a firm eye on possible tomorrows and rarely play. And I have a firm grasp of the principle that tomorrow is built upon today but not bought and paid for. Our ongoing labour, now and then, does that.
The consequence of failing to bring health back to Western Civilisation is that it will die. Mankind won’t. I would rather it live and grow.
November 2nd, 2008
“MMX, don’t be a silly bugger all your life. Take a day off. Are you contending that nuclear power isn’t natural?”
Nope. I’m asking you HOW FAR you’re willing to take your, “Everything is Nature.” assertion. When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, did Edison invent the light bulb, or did Nature? When a person votes for Barack Obama, does the person actually vote, or does Nature?
“The Character and Integrity of Mankind needs attention.”
Indeed they do. However, one crucial aspect of Character and Integrity is playing by the rules. So. What is the RULE for determining whether Belief System A is better than Belief System B? If you don’t know the rule, you can’t possibly play by it…
November 2nd, 2008
Julie. I was thinking about this comment I made.
“The state simply isn’t capable of thinking as intelligently as the most intelligent person. If a state allows these intelligent individuals to think and act freely, then the state thrives. But if it doesnt, then the state fails.”
You mentioned the possibility that we might run out of oil. Well, suppose the state discovered this problem in 1970. WHat could they have done?
If they had FAITH in individual ingenuity, they could’ve disclosed the problem to the public and revamped the educational system to focus on science, math, and technology. That would’ve given us 38 years to allow the entire populace to ponder a solution. And who knows what awesome ideas would’ve been proposed?
Instead, though, the state assumes that the populace is full of blithering idiots who can’t be trusted with such bad news. So the state buries the information. Which means that the populace isn’t given a chance to ponder the problem. Which means that the populace can’t develop a solution.
So, you see, the state’s assumption that “we’re all idiots” actually CAUSES the very problems that you’re currently afraid of. That’s why I said that a state can only survive when it has faith in its brightest individuals and in its general populace.
November 2nd, 2008
That’s a good question, MMX and I am glad you take my humourous dig with such good grace. How far do we take it? Hmmmm. It is a basic issue so I could take it to the extremes but that would run into an ‘absolution’ problem and I firmly believe in man taking responsibility for his own progress, despite his legacy and heritage and internal – natural – drives.
I give man credit. I also place man in context.
You are looking at and from a particular level and I am looking at and from a different one. Not everything in nature is immediately beneficial. Nature has dark aspects as well as light ones and we are barely grasping the differences. Belladonna is pretty neat stuff but can kill us. This leads right into the conundrum you mention – How do we distinguish one belief from another. Hindsight is a great teacher, of course, but is achieved at a cost.
You say “one crucial aspect of Character and Integrity is playing by the rules.”. Right. But not only. The rules, as set down by nature are to be known and understood before they can be deliberately tinkered with. We tend to make our own rules, sometimes contrary to the ‘natural’ ones. We run up against such inflexibles a ‘Truth’. We often prefer the ‘Lie’ and wither at the rsult. Feminism is a case in point. As David Bohm pointed out, the interaction between the Explicate and the Implicate is a two-way street, not simply a time-bound cause and effect with the Implicate acting upon the Explicate. It is through the development of Character and Integrity that we impact on the Laws of nature.
This is getting a bit deep for even MND’s level of commentary. It requires a well developed essay along the lines of Mike LaSalle’s encouraging attempts to stimulate a ‘long view’.
Maybe one day I will take a day off from being a silly bugger and put one together. I would welcome you tearing into it.
November 2nd, 2008
“You are looking at and from a particular level and I am looking at and from a different one.”
This again brings up my question. What is the RULE for determining which of our levels is better? Since you don’t know the rule, you can’t possibly play by it. And since you can’t play by the rule, then you can’t display Character nor Integrity.
It’s okay, though. I’m an expert at separating “People Who Talk Solely For The Sake of Talking” (the Preventers, the Shiftless, the Destructive) from “People Who Talk With a Purpose in Mind” (the Leaders, the Visionaries, the Geniuses).
My purpose is to point out that the State’s perception of the populace as morons makes them be poor teachers. This is similar to those now-abolished schools for retarded kids from the 50s and 60s. These institutions simply assumed that retarded kids couldnt learn, so they taught a highly watered-down, completely useless, and thoroughly insulting curriculum. Then they blamed the kids’ lack of education on the kids’ “feeble-mindedness”.
So, to disarm the State, one needs to change one’s perception of the State. We think of the State as powerful and capable, when it’s really powerful and incapable. It’s too scared, too stupid, and too arrogant in its assumptions to do anything complex and important.
November 2nd, 2008
“Instead, though, the state assumes that the populace is full of blithering idiots who can’t be trusted”… and from which it recruits as many as possible.
November 2nd, 2008
“What is the RULE for determining which of our levels is better?”
If you want to look over the fence, stand on the taller box.
November 2nd, 2008
Okay amfortas. As I figured, you don’t know the rule. It’s okay, though. Most people I meet don’t know it. So you’ll at least never lack for company.
But since you don’t know the rule, you don’t know how to keep score. This is like playing tennis against someone who rockets every ball into the stands over my head, and then claims “victory”.
Such games are ultimately pointless, and serve only to make the rule-breaker feel like a winner.
I visit this site only to take the temperature of the men who post. A thread like this is an opportunity for men to revise their perceptions and work to make truly effective change. But since this change requires a lot of personal introspection, (much of which would reveal deeply flawed assumptions about the state, about women, and about the role of men in relationships and society), the change didn’t register with the members.
The message was sounded, but the men weren’t ready. This event is surely disappointing, but definitely not surprising.
Oh well…until the next opportunity then, if there is one.
November 2nd, 2008
You sound resigned, MMX. Me too. Yes, I am in the dark as far as the ‘Rules’ go, as most people are, and the company here at MND is as fine as it gets. Find a taller box and let us all know.
As for keeping score, there is more to the rules than that and far, far more to life, I have learned. When the final whistle blows, you will die. What matter the score then?
Into this Universe, and WHY not knowing,
Nor WHENCE, like water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as wind along the Waste,
I know not WHITHER, willy-nilly blowing.
Now if you can answer that, Sir, maybe you can be my teacher, even my soul’s Doctor. I try hard to forge a direction against the willy-willy. (That’s an Australian name for a small tornado, by the way). I might even let you take my temperature openly rather than serruptitiously.
Chin up, son.
November 2nd, 2008
I am no longer concerned for any man who refuses to live by higher standards. If a man is not ready to either assume a higher position or to live more closely aligned with his nature, then he is out of my mind completely.
There is always a place for such men. So I let them inhabit that place without a twinge of doubt or sadness.
November 3rd, 2008
2+2=4 except when it equals 5
“Men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law, but family autonomy must be taken into account. There are important differences between the sexes which have to be acknowledged in our law and public policy.”
It always boils down to equality between the genders except when women need to be treated differently. In other words, equality via treating someone “more” than equal to the other.
November 3rd, 2008