ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 25, 2018

EXCERPT: Innocence & Intellect, 2001-2005

Githyankee was kind enough to say the following about my early columns: I wish everyone could read Vox's columns from about 2005. The second book of essays. That's what really let me know I was dealing with an intellect. Vox was calling out feminists and muslims as allies before Obama was President, ten years before Conservative Inc even noticed. Those columns hold up extremely well - if you've been on the fence, each essay is about a five minute read and contains the perfect mix of military news, sports comments, leftist lunacy, conservative bumbling. Really good.

WL added: Those are really extraordinary. It's very interesting discovering how any intellectual figure develops his thought over time, especially when it's derived from logic and history, which is a rarity at this phase of our decline. Wish I had known about them when they were new. 
There are a hundred different points you can make about those early essays, but I'll save that for my own blog in the future. Really, the intellectual development of this sector of the counter-culture is more impressive than anything being done in academia, at least in the humanities.

That's very flattering, and more importantly, it reminded me that I've been remiss in actually making some of them available to prospective readers. The first volume of my Collected Columns was previously not available directly on Amazon, or through Kindle Unlimited, due to our experiment with the ill-fated Pronoun service offered by Macmillan. Having rectified that today, I can report that both Vol. I: Innocence and Intellect, 2001-2005 and Vol. II: Crisis & Conceit, 2006-2009, are available for Kindle and KU. The first volume is also available as a 764-page hardcover, on Amazon as well as via Castalia Books Direct.

An excerpt from June 2, 2003:

In which we examine a few of feminism’s favorite fairy tales.

Feminism is about choice.

Feminism is actually about having your choices made for you. Feminism is nothing more than a gender-based form of fascism, which attempts to control the behavior of individuals through government fiat. Fortunately, feminists have not been able to amass the power required to send unrepentant males and recalcitrant gender-traitors to the pink gulag. In the words of feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such choice, too many women will make that one.

The reason that women have accomplished very little of note throughout history is primarily due to male oppression.

There is an element of truth to this, as the vast majority of women were denied access to the higher levels of education; then again, so were most men. However, it is also true that those women who did obtain excellent educations often chose to engage in light intellectual amusements instead of contributing anything of significance to the arts or sciences. There was nothing to stop the educated hetaerae of Greece from writing a “Metaphysics” or a “Republic”, nor anything preventing the mistresses of the famed Parisian salons from compiling, like Diderot, their own “Encyclopedia”; the fact remains they did not.

But the most damning argument against this myth is the appalling behavior of the leading female pseudo-intellectuals over the past 30 years. Instead of taking advantage of their intellectual freedom and unprecedented access to education, the feminist vanguard has embraced an anti-intellectual dogmatism that imprisons the current generation of young women in the academic convent of Women’s Studies, robbing them of both foundational knowledge and the capacity for rational linear thought, thus ensuring that this generation, like its foremothers, will also fail to accomplish anything worthy of historical regard.

Women entering the work force has been good for America.

The entry of women into the work force accomplished only one thing. It significantly lowered wages by doubling the size of the work force. According to the iron law of supply and demand, increasing the supply of X while demand remains constant means that the price of X will fall. The primary impact of women entering the work force in quantity has been to lower the price of labor so that two people must now work in order to maintain a household instead of one, as before.

While America does realize the benefit of the contributions of women whose talents might have otherwise been wasted, it pays a heavy price in terms of children who are abandoned to be raised by day-care centers, the state schools and television. And those many women who would like to make the choice to remain home with their children cannot, since their husband can’t earn enough money to support a family alone due to his wages having been lowered because of the increased supply of labor.

Anything men can do, women can do better.

This myth raises the question of how the nefarious Patriarchy could possibly have come to be established in the first place. Were the women of yore less intelligent, less aware, or otherwise less able than their modern counterparts? A lovely example of nonlinear fifth-stage thinking.

The Sexual Revolution liberated women.

It actually freed men from the responsibilities that traditionally accompanied access to sex. Whereas a man once needed to all but promise marriage before taking a lover, he now can freely expect a woman to satisfy his desires on the third date, if not the first. The real revolution was the wholesale transference of power in the male-female dynamic from women to men, and now any reasonably handsome young man can effortlessly rack up more sexual conquests in four years of college than did the legendary Casanova in a lifetime.

A woman has a right to control her own body.

This baseless assumption flies in the face of hundreds of long-standing American laws. A woman can be jailed for putting certain unapproved chemicals into her body, for failing to put certain required chemicals in her body (military vaccinations), for selling portions of her body or renting out her body on an hourly basis, or for displaying her body in public in an unapproved manner. The fact that some of these laws are, in my opinion, ill-founded, does not matter; they still serve to demonstrate the fallacy of this particular pro-abortion gynomyth.

Labels: , ,

31 Comments:

Blogger Lovekraft February 25, 2018 6:35 PM  

Great stuff written with the acuity and insight of one with a well-rounded knowledge.

For my benefit, I was wondering if you could offer a concise summary of how far one should go back in terms of source for ideologies like feminism. I.e. feminism is a branch of cultural marxism, which is an offshoot of communism, which is a product of tribal divide-and-conquer tactics, and so on.

I believe one can get lost in these debates and argue metaphysics, psychology, military tactics etc. So is it fair to simply proceed straight to Christianity and His message and go from there?

Blogger Johnny February 25, 2018 6:45 PM  

The character of intelligence in our human species is such that it requires a long adolescence period. This makes reproduction slow and difficult. The accomplishment of the female half of the population down through the ages was their willingness to bare the greater burden in accomplishing reproduction. While this has not traditionally been afforded a high status, it is non the less an essential social activity.

The feminist movement, instead of recognizing this contribution, actually affords it a lower status then the traditional patriarchy. Instead it seeks to lowers the status of women by giving them less respect than came from the patriarchy, and imagines that women can be accomplished only if they act more like men. Implicitly it ratifies the male viewpoint and doubles down on it. Thus it is more deprecating to women and their tendencies then men commonly are.

Blogger Bradley Reuhs February 25, 2018 7:06 PM  

What else could one expect from that woman (Simon the Beaver); she had Jean-Paul Sarte as a "life partner." I tried to read "the second sex" when I was in college and could not finish it.

Blogger Dave February 25, 2018 7:10 PM  

This is a good reminder. I purchased the first volume when it was released. Time to grab Vol. II.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora February 25, 2018 7:13 PM  

From what I've read recently, most mass shooters come from fatherless homes so we can thank feminism (not toxic masculinity) for mass shootings too.

Blogger The Observer February 25, 2018 7:15 PM  

While this has not traditionally been afforded a high status,

All right, this is not true. At least where western civilisation is concerned, motherhood was the highest calling a woman could aspire to, and the Christian faith reinforced that. Madonna and child was (and still is) one of the most powerful icons of Christendom.

There is the whole "in bearing children, she shall be saved" thing after all.

Blogger The Observer February 25, 2018 7:16 PM  

While this has not traditionally been afforded a high status,

All right, this is not true. At least where western civilisation is concerned, motherhood was the highest calling a woman could aspire to, and the Christian faith reinforced that. Madonna and child was (and still is) one of the most powerful icons of Christendom.

There is the whole "in bearing children, she shall be saved" thing after all.

Blogger BlowMe February 25, 2018 7:25 PM  

Worthy of lamination.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 25, 2018 7:51 PM  

Johnny wrote:The feminist movement, instead of recognizing this contribution can be accomplished only if they act more like men. ... it is more deprecating to women and their tendencies then men commonly are.

Men value descendants, women don't. Let women off leash and they start murdering each other's children, then their own.

The patriarchy forbade abortion, the gynarchy insists upon it.

Blogger rumpole5 February 25, 2018 8:02 PM  

I've been enjoying the delightful products of you and the ilk for at least a decade and a half. I do miss the Mohawk look though. Otherwise much of what you produce is as entertaining as ever God bless you all!

Blogger tublecane February 25, 2018 8:09 PM  

"Vox was calling out feminists and Muslims as allies before Obama was president, ten years before Conservatism Inc even noticed"

Kudos to Vox for making it explicit, but one of the major strategies of Conservatism, Inc. post-9/11 was to attempt to mobilize womyn against Muslims because stoning and so forth. Which implies that in the least they recognized feminists weren't and Muslims weren't enemies as you might assume they oughtta be. My guess would be that mainstream conservatives noticed these two groups were on the same side, if not allied. They just didn't know that the way to beat them wasn't by break them up with the "Muslims R the Real Misogynists" strategy.

Took me a while to realize what binds the Left Gang--a motley crew of mutually antagonistic identities and ideologies--is that they're all enemies of Heritage America and Western Civilization. Conservatism, Inc. tries to divide and conquer by saying "Hey, feminists, Muslims are American/Western enough." Which is doomed to fail.

Blogger tublecane February 25, 2018 8:33 PM  

@1-I've long been suspicious of the Wave Theory of Feminism. My sense is every radical movement has a feminist component or parallel feminist movement.

Let's forget about everything before modern times, for convenience's sake. The Enlightenment had its own woman's Enlightenment (smaller and less intelligent, naturally). Just as economic in addition to political equality was hit upon by Babeuf, many of the enlightened hit upon sex equality. David Stove had it that "free love" and birth control were secret doctrines of the Enlightenment, unable to brought into the light of day for another century.

There were socialist feminists and classical liberal feminists, and everything feminists up to current times. I'm not sure when exactly a separate feminist movement-proper started, but that's not the important thing in my opinion. Because they were never really independent.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd February 25, 2018 8:46 PM  

It's an honor to have my comment on a post.

It's much easier for us now to move forward with defending ourselves because of those essays. If the left couldn't stop the truth in 2006, when the establishment enjoyed complete and total mastery, then they certainly will not be able stop it from this point on. They can actively censor all they want, but it's an indirect admission of weakness in the overall scheme of things.

Blogger Damian February 25, 2018 8:52 PM  

"Githyankee"

I, too, like to slay the occasional dragon in a dungeon.

Blogger peter blandings February 25, 2018 9:09 PM  

i had read all three volumes of vox's collected works before he published them, as i have read each column as it was originally published, from his first column on WND to the present blog posts. i'm just curious, has anyone else here been around that long?

Blogger Damian February 25, 2018 9:45 PM  

I admittedly only got here as a result of trying to find alt right thought "leaders" in 2016. But this 2003 analysis is spot on and entirely relevant today.

Blogger SciVo February 25, 2018 10:02 PM  

Lovekraft wrote:For my benefit, I was wondering if you could offer a concise summary of how far one should go back in terms of source for ideologies like feminism. I.e. feminism is a branch of cultural marxism, which is an offshoot of communism, which is a product of tribal divide-and-conquer tactics, and so on.

I believe one can get lost in these debates and argue metaphysics, psychology, military tactics etc. So is it fair to simply proceed straight to Christianity and His message and go from there?


Not him but for the first, I would point you to The Fraud Of Feminism (1913) by the English socialist Ernest Belfort Bax, who was outraged by complacent men smiling and nodding at the slander of their grandfathers.

For the second, I would say that it is necessary but not sufficient, because we need to be as wise as serpents and beat our plowshares into swords.

Blogger Ben Cohen February 25, 2018 10:59 PM  

Found out about vox through Michael Savage who had wnd advertise on his show.

This was when John Madden was still relevant.

Blogger Ben Cohen February 25, 2018 11:01 PM  

This was back in 2005 when talking about the dangers of soy (from a wnd columnist) branded you a kook.

Blogger SciVo February 25, 2018 11:05 PM  

Damian wrote:"Githyankee"

I, too, like to slay the occasional dragon in a dungeon.


And if a spell gets jammed, well. That happens.

Blogger tublecane February 25, 2018 11:42 PM  

@15-Bear in mind Bax was an atheist socialist, though of course they're not always wrong all the time.

I was introduced to him by a book on the German Peasants' War, which is an obsession of socialists (and no one else), of the commie and Nazi variety alike.

Blogger SciVo February 26, 2018 12:10 AM  

tublecane wrote:@15-Bear in mind Bax was an atheist socialist, though of course they're not always wrong all the time.

The value is in seeing how it's literally the same fraud, 105 years later. Slandering our grandfathers in the same way they did his, always year zero and we need to make up for it.

Blogger tublecane February 26, 2018 12:29 AM  

@20-He also wrote a book called the Legal Subjection of Men as a sort of answer to Mill's the Subjection of Men. That was before male subjugation really revved up in the 20th century.

Blogger tublecane February 26, 2018 12:31 AM  

@21-Sorry, I meant Mill's Subjection of Women, obviously.

Blogger Thucydides February 26, 2018 1:35 AM  

"My sister Kate -- the destructive feminist legacy of Kate Millett":
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269251/my-sister-kate-destructive-feminist-legacy-kate-mark-tapson

The true tell in the article is where Kate Millett hosts a salon where the participants explicitly plan to use Mao's "Cultural Revolution" as their building blocks for Feminism. Mao killed between 40-60 million Chinese people in the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution", making him the greatest mass murderer in history, which should make everyone think twice when discussing feminism or any other ideas infused with Maoist influence.

Blogger LP999-16 February 26, 2018 3:04 AM  

Great post, thank you!

Old WND's Days where they did advertise WND in 1998 or 99 on Rush.

I recall looking forward to every Monday for Vox's op-ed, I was happy he began the blog in 2003.

Blogger Calgacus February 26, 2018 5:29 AM  

"gynomyth"

This is the best neologism I've seen in a long time. The fact you coined it years ago makes it all the more impressive.

I will purchase these collections and read with interest.

Blogger Peter Gent February 26, 2018 8:01 AM  

...and fairy tales they are. That might be a nice meme, "Feminist Fairy Tales and the subjugation of women to the fascist impulse in feminism."

Blogger 100% American February 26, 2018 2:56 PM  

As a Christian woman, I abhor feminism and what it has done to families and on a larger scale, our society. As far as I'm concerned, it's straight from the pit of hell.

Marx realized that a woman was the heart of a home, integral to the stability and strength of family. Because of this, it had to be destroyed.

Long ago, as I was praying, the following statement came to me: Feminism is women's attempt to control her life apart from God.

Deep spiritual topics such as submission and devotion to a husband and children are rejected in order to embrace self-centered and dangerous philosophies that ultimately leave a woman empty and directionless.

My mother passed away in 2007. She wasn't an intellectual or career woman, but she fiercely loved her family. She gave her heart to everyone and her most cherished moments were with her family. When she passed, she left a huge hole in our hearts. To me, that is the legacy of women -- not whether she broke a "glass ceiling." The world needs more loving women. And women who are sane and understand the difference between men and women.

One last comment: The point about women entering the workforce -- I've believed for years that the framework of the workplace is masculine and women have a difficult time adapting to it. I see it all the time.

The entire corporate structure is based either on military levels and/or a competitive team mentality. Most women grew up with games that required them to "take turns." Men, on the other hand, were raised on games that depended conquering someone.

It's true that the spirit of competition has influenced more women over the past fifty years or so, but still... I don't believe it's in women's nature to compete in the same way a man competes. The ego is different.

Anyway, I've observed that most women are more satisfied when they're expressing their creativity. And "home arts" was, for many years, the main way they did this. I don't believe for one second that women were unhappy about it, either.

http://www.sil.si.edu/ondisplay/making-homemaker/intro.htm

Blogger GithYankee February 27, 2018 7:37 PM  

It's a good thing you're banned on Twitter, or you would definitely not have publicized me on here. I'm solidly in the pocket of the Alt Reichtards, as you may say.
They in turn find me annoying because I needle them endlessly with the financial success of Arkhaven and Voxiversity. They can't give the doxxed a job, and that's where they could be so much more powerful. I wish they had a business model beyond podcasting, which some of them are excellent at. The smallpox blanket, although humorous, is a particularly enormous fail as compared to a disruptive comics company and wholesale license to boot.

Blogger budbrewer February 27, 2018 8:22 PM  

The late Aaron Russo said that David Rockefeller, in explaining the Great Paradigm, told him, "The Feminist Movement, and the ERA? That was one of ours!"

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts