The absolute worst thing about this link is the question posed within the article’s picture. Over a CATHEDRAL, no less.
On Tuesday July 23rd, a day which will live in infamy, Lewrockwell.com published a piece by edgytarian Fred Reed, titled “Why Sexual Integration Is A Bad Idea.”
In response to Reed’s work, three “libertarian feminists” penned an amusing retort; amusing, because their collective hissy-fit does more to support Reed’s position than his own work (which I didn’t read).
This humble article will be the type of response I do not expect to be see published on either LRC or Fred’s blog. I’ll get around to explaining why I believe this to be the case. First things first, I must dissect the choicer bits of Borowski, Reisenwitz, and Kristian’s calumnious response to Reed, a concerted effort by three women to promote individuality and feminism (lol).
- \ˈärt, ərt\ noun: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.
From la wik:
The second and more recent sense of the word “art” is as an abbreviation for creative art or fine art, and emerged in the early 17th century.
Fine art means that a skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the finer things.
In response to Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries not wanting “not so cool” kids or women who wear size large to wear his company’s clothes, Greg Karber has come up with a funny and creative way to readjust the Abercrombie & Fitch brand.
He’s giving their clothes to the homeless. [Link]
It is a profoundly-sad reflection of our age that Greg Karber’s actions in the video are confused with actual human kindness. All I see is a man throwing clothes at some smelly human-shaped objects for the purpose of getting the librul wimminz moist.
…What, you didn’t notice that the focus is on the clothing, and not the human beings?
A few million psychopaths didn’t notice, either.
Guess what they vote for?
“The first Kings were Fathers of Families.” – Patriarcha, Sir Robert Filmer (1680)
As the diannihilect swept past for another spiraling lap, what was forgotten became profound once again.
In world of ceaseless and senseless deconstruction, it is both surprising and not surprising that a male’s innate ability to socialize with other humans has been repackaged and mythologized by spurious and slimy men as “game.”
Apparently, being able to talk to a woman without seeming a pathetic child needing mommy’s kiss for his little boo-boo is pivotal towards achieving Man’s biological goal. Apparently a boy must become a Man if he desires the company of a female in any pleasing capacity. Whodathunkit?
“There are a lot of smart people out there (that justify their success thus:) ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.” –President Barack Obama, July 13th 2012
Observation: In our day and age, it isn’t necessary to weave a coherent narrative or construct a logical system of belief. In fact, all one needs to do is simply spew specific words/phrases and create appealing sound bites; let the vulgar rabble fill in the blanks and vote.
In 1680, Sir Robert Filmer wrote that the first Kings were fathers of families. This makes sense to The Right Stuff on a visceral level.
At some point in human evolution, primitive man started valuing the particular being he dumped his sperm in more than the act itself (take note, PUAs). It was at this moment that man discovered qualifiers, that man first asserted that something was “his.” Indeed, women were the first human conceptions of “property.”
Property can therefore be seen as inherently oppressive, and the basis of human civilization. Shocked? Don’t be. Reality isn’t pretty, it never was.1
Patriarchy is defined hierarchy and authority based upon this foundation, this recognition of reality. Civilization cannot emerge from the alternative; it can merely enervate itself with lies otherwise.2