I've written, since the inception of this blog, any number of favorable items about Lawrence Auster's VFR. I've also written several items critical of VFR. But I make no bones about the fact that I've written many more of the former than of the latter.
I don't comment as much at VFR as I used to, but it doesn't mean that I have some problem with Auster or his site. Nor does it mean that I neglect keeping up with VFR articles as they're posted. As you all know, there are a number of factors which govern whether we make a contribution to a site or not; opportunity, time, whether one is knowledgable enough (or, possesses humility enough to admit it) on a given subject to speak intelligently on that subject, etc., these are all factors which govern when and how, and to what extent one makes (or doesn't make) such contributions.
Mr. Auster often delves into subjects that are, quite frankly, beyond my personal ability to add anything of any real significance. In such cases, though I often find the articles interesting, informative, and intriguing (the three-I's?), I'm really not able to add anything comment-wise, so I just keep my proverbial trap shut like a good little reader. ;-) But here's the point...
I've often said of VFR (and Lawrence Auster), that it is, in my opinion, the Premier Trad-Con site on the internet, notwithstanding the naysayers, the critics, the Auster-skeptics and detractors (Yes, I'm aware of them and their arguments -- some of them have apparently made it their life's purpose to refute virtually anything and everything Auster has to say on any subject).
I maintain today that VFR is the Premier Trad-con site. And here is a good (singular) example of why I say so.
Update: I've been informed that the second link goes to VFR's main page, instead of to the VFR article I intended. I've tried to correct this, twice, but to no avail, so, the title of the article, posted May 22, 2009, 10:40pm, is: Tyrannical Atheism. Scroll down the main page to access the article. At present it is the fourth article listed.
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -Daniel Webster
Quite a few topics there are too "American" to catch my interest, but every now and then there is some really thought-provoking and revealing material that one won't find anywhere else in a hurry and certainly not discussed in that depth. The most recent example was, for me, Why has the female sex lost its mind?. A real eye-opener. As we are, in that respect, relatively far behind you, it revealed to a shocking extent what we are about to face here as well in a couple of years and the reason behind it.
ReplyDeleteYes, that was a great discussion (in its initial phases). Following your link I see that I've missed the second half of it. I must get back to it later.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, thanks for taking the time to add the link, Nora. Otherwise I would not have thought to return to the discussion and check its progress.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. I had to search for it myself and then I saw that Auster had discussed this and similar topics more than just once and I thought it would make sense to add the one that was so "epiphaneous" for me. Links are the backbone of the Internet, no?
ReplyDeleteThere's an interesting evolutionary reason behind it. It's just like the thing about human children expressing their fathers' genetics more strongly when they're very young.
ReplyDeleteBasically, in nature a male that kills a faithless female helps ensure the genetic security of related males, both by direct removal of a faithless woman and (at least with higher chordates) by establishing faithlessness as a dangerous behavior for a female. It's the same thing as how boyfriends are driven to conflict or homicide towards a woman's prior children. In genetic terms, such behavior makes sense.
Of course, it makes no sense at all if you look at the individual, rather than the genetic heritage, as being supreme. Society is fully justified in treating those driven by their groins as threats rather than fully developed sentient beings. But here we arrive at an interesting paradox.
Yes, a free society should punish genetic cheating in the form of domestic violence--but by that same logic a free society must punish the (genetically driven) lascivious behavior which often lays the provocation for such attacks. By discarding the idea that chastity (denial of the sexual impulse) was an important part of self-realization, modern society is left without an intellectually sound basis for rejecting the brutality which comes with concupiscence.
In other words, women (and men) should refrain from sexual promiscuity because it favors deciding things based on what your genes (which are not sentient) would 'like' you to do (based on geologically old experiences which have nothing to do with you), not because it happens to be dangerous. But a free society has no logical incentive to simply remove the danger, since that only encourages people to abandon their sentient development and regress into animal behavior.
In the end, one form of sexual brutality is pretty much the same as another. A woman using her body to gain material advantages at the expense of the other sex is not fundamentally different from a man who does the same, trying to treat them differently is unsustainable.
It also happens to diminish sentient potential, which is definitely wrong.
By the way, this post is "hotist".
"It's just like the thing about human children expressing their fathers' genetics more strongly when they're very young."
ReplyDeleteThere is no dependence of dominance on father or mother only on the gene itself, irrespectively of it being paternal or maternal. Or did I get something wrong?
And I am not sure about the entire point of your comment either. Should I've twigged it correctly, I'd put it somewhat more succinct, namely that we are currently experiencing a recurrence of primitive cultural forms. Sexual liberation means, in effect, the comeback of the mating and social habits of the baboon pack among humans. That is what is happening to us and it's typical for a decadent society.
Hmm...well yes.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in highlighting the fact that the "primitive" norms are rooted in genetic based decision making, while "civilized" norms are rooted in sentient decision making. To that end I summarized the genetic component of a number of the "primitive" norms.
The molecular basis of evident paternal expression in children isn't particularly well understood, but experiments with how humans perceive the phenotype demonstrate that the child really does tend to have a stronger physical resemblance to the father than to the mother during early childhood. It's a behavioral demonstration of genetic influence, just like the other things being discussed.
I suppose the deeper point is that these sorts of things encourage people to fundamentally view themselves as the servants of their genetics, rather than as sentient beings with a potential that transcends animal behaviors. But without explanation it comes across as a bit abstruse.
Though perhaps it does anyway.
"The molecular basis of evident paternal expression in children isn't particularly well understood, but experiments with how humans perceive the phenotype demonstrate that the child really does tend to have a stronger physical resemblance to the father than to the mother during early childhood."
ReplyDeleteFunny enough, while molecular biology goes over my head, when I started contemplating the concept you describe and comparerd it to all real life examples that crossed my mind, it turned out that almost all of those who DID change their looks did indeed switch from father to mother (or a different ancestor). I am myself a notable example. But, judging from my real life examples, that doesn't always happen in early childhood.