What’s up my brothers? I just finished an interview with Dr. Allan Carlson regarding his new book, The Natural Family: A Manifesto, and cannot post it all here as Bobby Maddex accepted it for publication at Salvo where it will appear later in the year. Give it a click because he’s got some good essays up (no, none of them are written by me, lol). When the entire interview gets published I’ll post a link if he puts it online as not all Salvo articles go online. Anyway, I knew you guys would enjoy two of the questions which I’ve posted in below as they intimately concern the MND brethren.
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.
Good stuff! I’ll put a review of his book together in some form in the next week or two.
14 Responses
Per the second answer above, I wonder how good the “state” is in bed. Marc Rudov could teach it a thing or two.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Interesting article Mr. Chapin and thank you for the link to Dr. Carlson’s new book.
Dr. Carlson stated “Unfortunately, the law has become corrupted so we must restore its legitimacy.” I agree, and that was a powerful statement coming from a man as educated as Dr. Carlson.
Not only have the laws become “corrupted,” but the underlying jurisprudence to the laws seems to have been tainted. Instead of the “reasonable man standard,” we seem to have a “reasonable woman standard.” Also, instead of innocent until proven guilty we are moving towards guilty until proven innocent à la Duke rape case.
I’ve notice important legal concepts over the years corroding such as “intentionally and knowingly.” These are extremely important “elements of an offense,” and very dangerous when one tinkers with them.
corrupt
1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
jurisprudence
1. the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 8:36 am
You gotta be F’ing kidding me
It’s intersting how his assertion that the “industrial revolution” changed things irrevocably sounds familiar and similar to feminism’s claims that “equality” between the sexes is inevitable. Ditto for his “equality” under the law but “differences” argument: They sound remarkably similar to the “some animals are more equal than others” Animal Farm language of the feminists.
So in his view, it’s immoral for men to shack up so they should be sacrificial lambs until the laws get around to being changed. Why don’t I trust much of what he says after that? How about this? He can send me all his cash and when a law is created required me to give it all back to him, I’ll do so…
Bernard, this all ties into how many intelligent men are still teetering on the precipice (or on the fence) between acknowledging that the idea of “equality” for women in voting and employment rights isn’t working out but at the same time they don’t want to be a bad guy and say so.
One more thing: Who will take care of the children isn’t the ONLY issue (but it’s a big one nevermind that the ‘industrial revolution” didn’t do squat about this) but also: 2) What role will there be for men in a culture that declares work is secondary to them earning a living to support themselves and their children and co-opted to women having fun hobby jobs and 2a) what is to be done with the men who fall through the cracks?
The result is the welfare state and culture which has produced “bachelor lion” males who physically threaten women (and others) in suburbs of cities from Stockholm to New York to Paris. The interim solution has been to lock up blue collar minority men in gulag prisons which train them to be even more vicious when they are released.
Bleah! And all of this mess was created so that a few upper class women could be “equal” (seemingly) to men. How many inventions or innovations did these women produce as a result to this COMPARED to the HUGE COSTS we all have had to bear? Hmmm? Wherez my flying car? Where’s the 2001 Space Odyssey moon bases? Fusion energy? Oh, wait, we have a bunch of crazed leftist scientist priests whose energy and talent is focused upon terrifying the populace with global warming theories that will cause worldwide disaster in a century! Communism has killed 100 million people so far and starry eyed idealists are still saying: “Just give it another chance! It’s an experiment!”
Conclusion: When looking at it from the big picture, a couple shacking up would seem to be the least of the “immoral” things going on in our culture, yes?
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Sounds like a good interview. I notice special interest groups demanding and getting more government involvement into our personal, business and religious lives, however, I do not a reference point as I have not lived in a culture that does not have so many rules. Thanks for sharing.
“the law has become corrupted so we must restore its legitimacy. ”
A battle cry.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
“…feminism’s claims that “equality” between the sexes is inevitable”
Yes one day we will have special Extra-Constitutional Rights just like Women and Homosexual so we can be equal too!
Employment, hate crimes. enforcment of paternity fraud where the State can civilly prosecute for us. equal enforcment of Custody Orders.
Oh, just imagine!!
What a crock! If the Sate was not trying to be Socialist Marxist it would not be trying to fix everything and every situation. It would not be so big, and statutes would not keep piling extra-constitutional Rights of the State against Extra-Constitutional Rights of every individual on the planet, like the Extra-Constitutional Right of Illegal Aliens to Education and HEalth Care which I do not have as a free born child of Citizens.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 10:30 am
PK - you appear to be in prior agreement with me, or I have infected you with the substance of my confrontation with the not-so-ernest contrarian/Resident Hugo Chavez here on MND. (Hugo is shutting TV stations down right now.)
Oh! I am sorry, if it seeks uniformity of position, locked goose-step marching, and censorship of a Marxist Feminist, it is still not one because…? Yes that is it! Because the side of the issue and the Uniform is different! Silly me! Sorry to have bothered you all with my baseless distrust of leadership and questioning spirit.
Joi, don’t you mean that “unreasonably emotional woman” standard which seeks that national legislation to force life to be as fair as kindergarten (which was only to teach mercy in the heart of a child not reflect reality) even though there were only two litigants on an issue, and eliminates the judicial component of mens rea?
“the law has become corrupted so we must restore its legitimacy. ”
Two really important things here:
1. Is it not required that, before you can restore a Law to legitimacy, don’t you first have to IMPUGN the legitimacy of that law beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. In my studies with an Orthodox Rabbi it was disclosed to me that under the Hebrew Lw, which is the foundation of our law. All it takes for a Man and Woman to be married is that they set up house together. (Two men cannot be married for there is no concern of the heritage and inheritance of the children since they cannot have any, nor should possess extra constitutional rights to the children of others.) In Texas all it takes for a Man and woman to be married is to register at a Hotel as Mr. and Mrs. (Kind of protects out of State Marriages, and protects Men from False claims of Rape too.)
Since the Marriage license and the Court’s creation of Socialist Rights of the State to over-ride the natural Rights of Man in the Magna Carta, per the Declaration fo Independence, codified as the Organic Law of the Land at 1 U.S.C. §1, who is being IMMORAL?
Who is violating their Oath of Office?
Who is raping the Men of Society and destroying the independent Family for the GAIN of their Retirement fund?
In animal Farm the State got the Children. Just like Scandinavia.
The “best interest of the Children” is to be raised by the State according to the State who has fabricated Rights for itself and compulsory Education for the claim that is makes for better materialistic workers.
So we should keep getting Statist Marriage Licenses, to ….feed….the ….State?
That is seriously ILL-logic.
Money, Power, and Control.
The usual motives, just like the Pigs in Animal Farm.
Why feed the Animals?
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 11:11 am
MY Sister got Married at the beginning of the Month, at the tender young age of 38.
My father’s Public Toast and advice was Commitment. He and my mother went through all of the Catholic Marriage Encounter crud of Communication and Commitment.
I went through the Before you marry Book with my now Ex before we Married. I remembered my Parent’s Lessons. I was Committed, Faithful and Communicative. (Imagine that, me actually having words to say!)
Nevertheless, marriage failed because ONE. It takes only One to destroy what TWO can Build. It takes only ONE to keep the TWO from building.
So why does ONE claim and publicly vow to want to be TWO but does not? (For an advantage? Which leads to not habing their true nature and intent discovered?)
I called my Sister this weekend after her honeymoon.
I told her I kept silent for who am I to speak on marriage, especially in the presence of my Father who has ramained so for 50 years.
“Who am I to impugn the claim of commitment and communication as the keys to successful marraige?”
“But I assure that all of that is nothing with out one thing. “TRUTH”.
There will be times that a marriage does not feel like one. There will be times that a marraige does not live up to the unrealistic expecations that we also carry for our lives sold to us by the Media and Books.
If entered into in TRUTH, and abided within in TRUTH, and appreciation of one another is strong enough that TRUTH as ugly as it might ever be is the glue between two people, then fear, hiding, and withholding of TRUTH which is then replaced with LIES, and then there is no recovery of Trust in words for TRUTH to be recovered.
Since she is an airline pilot I used the analogy of the Truth of her instruments. in Zero Visibility you are in the palne, you are committed. In a spin or inversion you cannot tell anything except by the instruments (the altimeter and artificial horizon have to be correct). If the instruments are not true and speak Truth, then recovery is not possible in the tumult.
I told her the TRUTH between you TWO is that singular substance between you that will help you recover when the changes you both go through invariably come. Even a Liar has trouble loving the Liar.
I live this with my girlfriend. I accept all lie and tell themselves lies (denial). Even her. So I say, let’s go ahead and dispense with the lies by telling them, so we can get down to talking about the TRUTH.
She said she understood, that without the Turth there is not even a hope of going any direction together.
Yes Men, marraige is about Truth. Not the State, not a peice of paper, not a ceremony.
If you are like a friend of my brother who walks away from observing the and I interchange, astounded by the molecular analysis that we exchange on any subject, saying:
“Where are you guys from… me and my friends get together we just sit around and lie to each other about, Money, Sex, and Sports.”
Then you need to embrace hope by change, or accept your condition as you have made, that you wanted it this way.
Do not be like silly wymyn who think the State can take you from the misery that you created and chose for yourself, that you love so much.
I will agree with Mr. Usher that misery is an option. The Truth is just as miserable as Lies. But in Lies there is only lonliness, as a Liar is alone in his false world, and hates himself that none can ever know him to love him. Or HER.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
thurston861 your last post #6 was somewhat difficult to follow…
In regards to #2 on your post: Laws in the United States reflected “originally” the “spirit” of moral teachings found within biblical teachings, yes. Not necessarily drawn from as much Hebrew O.T., but drawn from the Hebrew N.T. As time has progressed society has changed and the laws have now reflected this change à la LAWRENCE V. TEXAS.
thurston861 “In Texas all it takes for a Man and woman to be married is to register at a Hotel as Mr. and Mrs.”
This is not a correct statement reflecting the Texas Family Code. Texas follows all other states in the union regarding marriage and the need for a marriage license.
The above quoted statement falls more along the lines of a “common law” marriage, but still would fall FAR short of a common law requirement within the state of Texas.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Joi,
Lawrence v Texas exploits the castle and age of majority doctrines to ignore the Health Standards of Human behavior. Anal sex is a risky endeavor, just as using the raw chicken cutting board for salads.
The point about the Texas law on Hotel Registration was probably found in the bigamy (sp) Statutes, probably lingering since teh Pioneers passing through.
It is not strange how it tracts in substance the Jews understanding of the limits of applicability of Law to the Gentiles.
Whether you choose to agree with me or not, the Tanauch is the Foundation of our Rights and Law, and even a point of that Law was the issue of schism between the Church in England and the Roman See.
The Origins of the Rights of Man coming from G-D cannot be and also deny the Whole law which Yeshua ben Yosef (AKA Jesus Christ) not only taught to the rebellious Northern House/Kingdom but fulfilled, and also commanded those who follow him to fulfill in spirit and in Truth. (There is that pesky “T” word again.)
Plainly in the Southern Kingdomthe Law was corrupt, and he taught them the truth about it that the spirit was lost. In the Northern Kingdom the law was not there at all, but there was a failing in fulfillment because there was nothing to guide the actions of the people any where near the purpose to fulfill it in spirit.
I care not for the Statutory Marriage Laws. I care not for the now Statutory common laws either. I am out on both of those because a Corrupt State is not the solution to the Corruption that it and its Judges have wrought upon us all.
So, I do not care to fall within, and have the specific goal of falling without any presumed and imposed Statist Authority. It is Evil and a plunderer of wealth and the minds of children.
Thus, I offer you the knowledge of the Orthodox Hebrews that is over 3000 years old.
The house here is no doubt collapsed.
I show you the foundation that the Master taught in the Hebrew N.T.
You reject the foundation.
Discussion over. YOU WIN. What you have won I have no clue, but I am sure time will tell. It will probably just be more of the same though.
Just remember, YOU WON.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
thurston861 said, “Just remember, YOU WON.”
Umm… Okay????
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Joi, you do not seem confident in your victory.
I suggest Genesis, the curse after being cast out of Eden where man must work the ground. Private Property comes from that Commandment. Not just merely the right to the fruits of ones labor, but also every aspect of the Endeavor.
The Harvest, the tending of the field, the sowing, the seeding, the plowing, the clearing of the land.
It is all there in substance. There is no other way.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Given the article is not favorable to socialism, MND is not helping much when the word in the story pops an ad that links to a book at amazon titled. “A Case FOR Socialism”….
Posted on May 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hello Thurston,
I’ve always tried to walk on the edge (you didn’t train me there) but at the same time, I avoid crossing the a line you ignore which is to take (or give) things personally. I agree more than not with most of the men here so I don’t feel a need to be hostile towards them in debate.
Posted on May 31st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
PK _ I was just telling the truth. Truth that the resident Chavez does not want men to think about.
That kind of behavior is not hostile, it is healthy. Censorship and calling names is hostile and unintelligent.
Now when the truth is hostility, it can only be because it is being spoken to a Feminist.
Posted on May 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Add A Comment