for miklos (continued):
Michael Anton replies to Bronze Age Pervert’s response to his review of Bronze Age Man
(the post is not as facetious as the title implies)

https://americanmind.org/post/which-way-jester-man/

There is a core of seriousness to Bronze Age Mindset which I am sure the author intended and which will be found by those who look for it. What will they make of what they find? This is the question that presently concerns me. The other important questions—What does BAP actually believe, and what is the real truth, or as close as we can discern it?—are important but can remain topics for another day, should BAP choose to keep the dialogue going. In both his book and response, BAP appears to predict a looming end to what he calls the “New World Order” (borrowing, presumably, from George H. W. Bush). Certainly, it has to end sometime, and given its brittleness, stridency, irrationality, consuming hatreds, and antipathy to nature and natural limits, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it may end sooner rather than later. What then? In the very last chapter of Bronze Age Mindset, BAP predicts (or should that be “calls for”?) the establishment of “fortresses on the edge of the civilized world” by “superior specimens” who will “wage war” and “offer the nations of the world defense in exchange for a price.” BAP refers to this as “high piracy” without specifying what distinguishes this particular form of piracy from the low kind. I am pretty sure BAP is not being strictly literal here, and I must admit that the whole seventy-seventh chapter constitutes a whiz-bang ending. In his reply to me, BAP notes—in order to endorse—my comparison of his rhetoric to Machiavelli’s and Nietzsche’s. But that comparison, in addition to explaining (and to some degree excusing) rhetorical excess, also cuts another way. What of those readers who don’t “get the joke”? How might they interpret these, and other, BAPian declamations? Or more to the point, what might they do?

Which is to say this is yet another instance of (1) the haut bourgeois attempting to punish someone for contravening what the haut bourgeois fancy is apposite which (2) incorporates violating status codes. Blacks are a mascot group of the haut bourgeois, and ordinary people are taking advantage when they insult blacks. Again, free speech is for peers in the minds of these people. The rest of us are merely deplorables under their tutelage. The only way this stops is if people like these UConn administrators are put firmly in their place (e.g. losing their house in a lawsuit). Of course, that would have to pass through gatekeepers (judges) who are usually of similar kidney. This will not end well.

for miklos:
Michael Anton reviews Bronze Age Manhood
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/are-the-kids-altright/

BAP replies to Anton
https://americanmind.org/essays/americas-delusional-elite-is-done/

Roundup of discussion
https://americanmind.org/features/conservatism-in-the-bronze-age/

I particularly liked this one
https://americanmind.org/features/conservatism-in-the-bronze-age/bronze-age-manhood/

Julie near Chicago: You’re very welcome!

Bruce is a tough case. He wasn’t Saint Lenny, as some back then made him out. But he doesn’t deserve to be forgotten either.

Merch by Amazon – Compliance Violation
Dear Content Creator,
Thank you for your recent design submission on Merch by Amazon – ISLAM is Right about Women T-Shirt. We are contacting you because your design appears to violate our Content Policy – 2.4 Promotion of Hate or Intolerance.

Content Policy applies to your designs, product names, keywords on the detail page and the brand name selected. If we find future instances where submitted content does not comply with our Content Policy and your Merch by Amazon Services Agreement with us, we may terminate your Merch by Amazon account.

We value your participation and appreciate your careful attention to this matter. To ensure that your Merch by Amazon account stays in good standing, please ensure you are fully compliant with all Content Policies in future submissions.

They are not required to explain how that sentence is hate speech or who it hates..
Can you?
You cant appeal.. and you can lose your ability to support yourself
You can lose your job, your blog, and be doxed…

So NEO.. you being one of those few women who think free speech is important.
Are you willing to risk it to fight? Honestly… are you willing to lose your income? Home? Maybe even your life if your swatted? If you were male, would you be wiling to be tarnished by a metoo claim?
Sorry.. my point stands… we are way past the point of doing something. Unless you have an idea that isn’t civil war, and can teach these kids and others in the next four years or so that took 40 years to establish – there is nothing to be done.
We have to lose our freedom, to know it was worth fighting for…
IF you wanted to save it, we had to fight harder back when it was more ambiguous and more people would have not believed… but that never happens, and by the time its obvious, its too late..

In your 6:03 PM comment you wrote, regarding the fact that women measure more anti-free-speech than men do, and that this needs to be recognized and investigated : “neo just gave us the answer on that..go back to sleep… nothing can be done.”
At no point have I indicated anything of the sort.
I believe it is true and I think it does bear investigation. My hypothesis is that the reason for this is the greater importance women tend to give to feelings as a measure of what’s good and bad, and right and wrong. I also pointed out that that is not true of all women.
In addition, there are plenty of men who now buy into this, particularly in academe. And there are many ways to fight it, including a court challenge as I mentioned in the post.

No, you didn’t outright say it… you have to work it out from conclusions based on what was said, what the reality is, and what has changed that your not including in it.
I hope I can do this in the space…

1) We both believe the point is true – but if you cant investigate race and IQ, your certainly not going to be allowed to investigate this!!
2) Your hypothesis is correct, that women give greater importance to feelings and more today than yesterday as the left validates feelings over thinking! This is because, like adorno and the drum primitivizing, feelings are a more primitive way of thinking and operating. Ie. Feelings are instincts! Feelings based thinking is more primitive, and so, women are now thinking more primitively, not more rationally
3) Your point of it not being true of all women, is a nothing point. Nothing is all true about everyone, short of everyone that is alive is alive. It means nothing in the discussion.
4) And men follow the women to have life. “men is the head, women is the neck”. The communist movement always used honey pots to get men involved. Not to mention that beta males have no place in a competitive society, but they think in a collective they are not beta.
5) There is no way to fight it and that’s the point I am making. However given I have no space to make an argument that takes in a lot of stuff to draw its conclusion, and your legal argument is short, I wont be able to debate… if I am too long, it gets cut, by the opposition

Your answer is a non-answer, its restating the facts, calling for a thing you cant do, and does not even try to understand me. it just says don’t disparage all women.. you did the same before when you would not conclude that in elections when there were fewer men, the women dominated the elections (they dominate even when there are more men). And in germany after WWI, the men who would vote were DEAD. The coverup in the books as I showed was using percentages, the SAME problem here! You have a problem with feelings (don’t like that you’re a woman and the majority is being labeled, so you stick up for them), and a problem with math and conclusions.
Now, we can start to address the point I am trying to make that your not refuting as you didn’t try to understand it… or we can have you run off and comment on the things you don’t like above and derail the point.. which is more comfortable than actually digging in to figure out i am right or wrong.

Next post I will try my best to lay it out based on what is actually going on, and why I am saying what I am saying based on that… and sorry, but we are going to have to convert the percentages to real numbers based on how many of X are in college and how many of Y are in college and how the Xs are leaving the political realm, and the Ys are dominating them and the schools, etc.

the main point is that we both agree on the facts as they stand separately
and you dont want to put them together, and i have…
and you dont FEEL my conclusion is right, and i have rationally computed based on numbers, the rules of the game, and the level of current gliechshaltung and the potential outcomes that suppress the few women and majority of men (who arent there)

We Can’t Let Them Get Away With This!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=x8Mc9bs7Mz4

I could not possibly agree with you more, in every word you said. In fact what you said was probably plagiarized word-for-word direct from the thoughts in my own head! Many +++++s! 😀

.

And huxley, thanks very much for the quote from Mr. Bruce!

Tom Grey: Well, I leave it to individuals to choose their issues, plural. There rarely is one issue at stake.

Besides Bruce didn’t choose “free speech” anymore than Stephen King chose horror. Bruce was a beatnik and a junkie, he moved in those circles and that’s how his humor worked. As he became more famous, his humor became an issue for authorities. They decided to make an example of Bruce and basically hounded him to death.

The “7 Words” skit was George Carlin’s. However, Carlin was all but a disciple of Bruce, so your attribution is an understandable mistake.

Funny you should mention the term, “dictator types.” One of Bruce’s best skits involved “dictator types”:
____________________________________

Bruce’s own most notorious ‘satire’ involved Hitler. The satire, however, was not directed at Hitler himself but at Hollywood. In Bruce’s skit, a group of impressarios call up ‘central casting’ to see if they can find the ‘dictator type.’ And after allowing three actors to do their Hitler impressions they discover the ‘schlob in the white uniform who is painting the wall.’ They sign him up, get together a rhythm section with some `tunes from Leonard Bernstein’ and give him an ‘armband’ (‘something lucky the squares will dig’) which has not been done ‘since Attila the Hun’.

What if state governments forced state universities to award credits via examination. They could be mixed with credits earned by sitting through the classes and would result in the same degree.

The instruction needed to pass these examinations would be provided by the free market. This would create an explosion of free market providers of educational services and end the current abused monopoly status of academia.

The credentialing exams should also allow retaking, with higher grade points reflecting life experience and added study. The tests should not be pass/fail, but actually indicate the test score. To stop indoctrination, an appeals procedure staffed by volunteer alumni should allow review of grades where other than multiple choice questions are part of the grade. Total transparency at the student’s option should be required.

Universities would become associations of scholars, who would set standards for degrees and courses, but would make their livings working for free market education providers, in industry, or by creating material that had a paying audience.

In the fast approaching world of the future, continual education will become the norm. It is time to open the provision of educational services to the free market in a truly meaningful way.