Follow by Email

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Apology to My Future Children


Dear Luke, Elizabeth, and Victoria

Sorry you will not be born. This is not my choice it is not of my doing. Your mother is problematic, and that is part of the cause. I will explain why. She has been corrupted by instructions that she must find herself, explore, and experience. She believes these concepts are somehow validating and will not lead her to endless licence and the squandering of her best years available to secure for herself a strong and stable husband. She does not realize that by the time she has explored and all the sin it entails, she will have made her personality and physicality untenable as a bargaining chip with me your father. Because I will not accept the notion that a promiscuous woman’s past is somehow divorced from her future, nor will I settle for being her second best once she has explored her options and decided I am ‘good enough’ like the good ‘Lean In’ feminists instruct her.

Not only the above, but also your mother is destined to be a narcissist with an entitlement complex because every since she hit puberty she has been exposed to the constant flirtations and flatteries of man who inhabit the dens of the internet. Couple this with the immense number of so called men who are supplicants to woman by virtue of the potential for sexual interaction and we have a problem. Though your mother may occasionally work for somethings, and indeed merit them, she will be provisioned for in such a fashion that she never ‘need’ do so: the next chump is just a phone call away. So when a man does finally call her on her bullshit, it will not be a chance to earn his respect, but rather he will be dismissed as a ‘misogynist’ a ‘prick’ an ‘asshole’ or some other banal epithet.

See children, your mother has been sold a lie: that her happiness and fulfillment is somehow disconnected from her relationship to a family, or rather that she may have it all, a career, children, an ideal husband, and an advanced education. Of course she believes she will be able to settle down with a ‘good man’ once she has been spurned by the lotharios and realizes her beauty is in decline somewhere in her thirties, but by then her capacity to have children will be irreparably damaged and you will likely be saddled with birth defects . . .  so I will stay away. Opportunity cost is lost on the modern woman who both does not understand the principle nor is aware that all her perceptions are coloured by liberalism and feminism.

I am hesitant to expand upon the difficulties with your mother. Instead I will continue onward to the main point, which is that I, your humble father, refuse to be a cog in the industrial divorce complex. The divorce complex eats men alive, ask your grandfather or perhaps your great-grandfather, and innumerable other men, who found themselves divorced when their wives filed under such nonsense terms as unhappiness. These men, your peers, relatives, friends, and family, find themselves threatened with imprisonment banished from interactions with their own children and pledged to support the maintenance of a wife’s standard of living, which she often did little to merit. This odious system does not stop there however, a man like your father could be forced to pay for children which are not his own by virtue of a wife’s infidelity, or he could be accused of battery or domestic violence simply for standing up for himself or accidentally making physical contact with his wife. It sounds far fetched I know! But many a woman has been known to threaten self-harm like a petulant child if a father did not follow instructions.

The fundamental problem of all this is not just the stacked legal deck my children, but that I as your father have no means to protect my family from the vicissitudes imparted by my emotive wife. Her feminine solipsistic reasoning will predispose her to rationalize any nefarious or duplicitous behavior on her own behalf, and therefore she needs checks upon such conduct, but those checks are gone.  Those checks disappeared with no-fault divorce, no longer will our family be kept whole by a legal system that enshrines its protection; instead I could be tossed divorce papers at any time and told to leave my own home and you children by virtue of state coercion. Now you see the evil. Women initiate approximately 70% of divorces and a large percentage of the 30% of husband initiated divorce may be a result of the wife’s neglect and coercion so odds are your mother will destroy our family: it is an unpleasant reality.

Finally, even if I were to become a good Christian man as I so want to do, so I can raise you in a proper God fearing household, you will not have that luxury either, and therefore I refuse to bring you into the world. This is because they Church rightly puts immense importance upon marriage, however or state has bastardized the institution to the extent that I would not consider it tenable to marry your mother even if she was a holy image of feminine virtue and grace. And it is for this reason I will not join the church because I cannot trust fallen women on their own to uphold the sanctity of their vows even in the light of divinity. The church cannot protect my children and therefore I will not join the church. This is the tragedy of the family I will never have and this is why I wrote to you.

With much love
Cole Dutton

Saturday, 19 March 2016

the Conservative Standpoint: A Brief Conclusion

Attribution Michael Ford Wikimedia Commons

Note: The Conservative Standpoint Book is done, the manuscript is under revision and updates will come from this blog. I am immensely happy to have worked on all these posts and I hope what is written on this blog will remain of interest to other conservatives and thinkers/learners like myself. It has been an immense exercise and a great deal of fun working on these posts and any errors and opinions are my own I hope you all have enjoyed what I have worked so hard to write. 


This is The Conclusion of the Conservative Standpoint by Cole Dutton

To conclude in general what positions and basic truths are necessary for the conservative to make decisions about what best constitutes their understanding of policy positions and politics in general? The conservative can propose three basic hypotheses that are the origin of conservative thinking in relation to what constitutes proper political decision making.

Firstly, that we cannot have autonomy without virtue, this is perhaps the key lesson of the American conservative tradition espoused by Kirk, Kristol, Madison, Et al. That despite our profession of liberal values being positive or having their origin in western societies these thinkers recognized that such positions had their foundation on a recognition of metaphysical and moral assumptions we no longer hold. These assumptions were largely embodied in understandings of Roman Republican Virtue and recognition of Biblical Authority. To have any sense of liberty as a conservative is to have a sense of positive self-government of knowing what your duties are not just your rights.  To the conservative good in the community must originate in good people and good people are built by timeless institutions.

Secondly, that human reason is fallible, limited, and perhaps broken: reason is thing upon which no one should rely. Additionally, conservatives should be skeptical of anyone who proposes answers to anything. Rather our best position is to recognize both the eternal or recurring problems of mankind and simultaneously do our best to draw from the “wisdom of the ages” in ameliorating their hardships. We cannot remedy the human condition, we cannot truly try, but we can do our best to live within the confines provided to us by the nature of our humanity recognizing the strength in the past conservatives can forge our own shelter from human frailty.

Thirdly, and lastly, the individual originates in the community. We are as Aristotle said, “political animals” and we direct ourselves toward the discovery of the “authoritative good.” The conservative knows that prior to our birth we are shaped by the past; the same past shaped our parents and their forefathers the great tradition in which we live is a cumulative gift not to be disposed of arbitrarily. Likewise, we cannot disconnect the decisions we make from social impact. Individuals may claim that they cause no great harm through their pursuit of misguided values and desires, but if one digs deeply enough long enough they will uncover that this is not so. The actions of individuals’ shape society in every conceivable way and society likewise shapes individuals the normative is inseparable from the descriptive and an amoral and undirected politics cannot exist.

If these various considerations are understood and applied to the analysis presented in the earlier chapters of the book it is my sincere hope that we can find valuable conservative positions that are intelligible and consistent and may guide us in moving beyond the various shallow interpretations of political conservatism.

Sunday, 13 March 2016

Analysis and Commentary on

This article was written as a summary project, but because it is related to pragmatism in foreign affairs, and coments upon an article authored by the brilliant Paul Kennedy of the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, I figured it would be worth posting here. 

The original article can be found online for those who have subscription to the The National Interest magazine, and the Weekly Standard also posted a strong rebuttal you may find here


Summary of Paul Kennedy's “A Time for Appeasement”

Writing in The National Interest Paul Kennedy suggest that the United States must re-evaluated the utility of appeasement by referring to historical context. He starts by suggesting that the definition of appeasement has been obscured and coloured by our interpretation of events leading up to the World War Two. He suggests that in order to successfully understand the relationship between appeasement and foreign affairs policy makers must look beyond just Munich and the interwar period and instead focus on the numerous examples of successful appeasement policies.

Kennedy refers the reader to Lloyd George and the peace settlement of 1919 when the term appeasement was first used in diplomatic discourse. The period between 1815 and 1914, to Kennedy, showed that appeasement could be effective, and mutual concessions was simply pragmatic. Furthermore, Kennedy suggests that the United States and Britain themselves furnished the most powerful example of the successful use of appeasement: The concessions at the Alaska boundary, the adjustment of the Venezuelan border, the surrender of claims over the isthmus of Panama serving as a handful of examples of significant concessions made by Britain to the new republic producing a rapprochement between the United States and its former colonial master.

Implicit in this analysis is that the nature of the belligerent was the key to the failure of the pre-world war two appeasement policy, but that his was only evident in hindsight; Hitler seemed sensible, until he was not, and the Japanese and Italians were operating on assumptions of colonial precedent made in the 19th century. Conversely, would it not be beneficial to placate the Japanese and Italians in order to secure a single front conflict?

Kennedy suggests that it is the curse of the Great Power that it cannot help but tie itself to a multitude of divergent and diverse investments and interests and in this way it must necessarily triage its commitments; a small place in the world, is simple not an option. A sense of exceptionalism makes this difficult however, and the global hegemon always seeks to preserve despite the inexorable tide of history pressing attempting to wash it from its perch. Kennedy, concludes that such a tide cannot be stopped, only diverted.