Is Donald Trump part werewolf? Perhaps so, according to a remarkable little paper published in 2017, “Donald Trump, Werewolf Spawn?”, by Kevin D. Pittle and Nicholas A. Hopkins. The authors speculate, on the basis of inconclusive but interesting evidence, that Trump may be descended from Peter Stumpf, one of the most famous victims of Europe’s 16th-century werewolf trials.
Connoisseurs of werewolf lore will doubtless remember that Stumpf, also known as Peter Stubbe, was tortured on the rack until he confessed to murder, cannibalism, rape, incest, bestiality, and pretty much every other crime the local inquisitors could think of. He was then broken on the wheel, beheaded, and burnt at the stake in Cologne on 31 October 1589. His daughter and a woman named Katharina Trump, both of whom were accused of having affairs with him, were also burnt at the same time. The latter, Pittle and Hopkins note, may well have been the same Katharina Trump who features in the family tree of Donald Trump. If this is true — and again, this is a speculative hypothesis — Donald Trump is descended from a werewolf’s love child.
By now, those readers who don’t happen to be connoisseurs of werewolf lore may be scratching their heads, so let me explain. Yes, there were werewolf trials in 16th-century Europe — quite a few of them, in fact, and more in the centuries immediately before and after. They were conducted in the same dubious fashion as the witch trials of those same years: that is to say, once an accusation was made, the accused was presumed to be guilty, tortured savagely in order to extract a confession, and then put to death, preferably after he’d implicated several other people who could then be subjected to the same treatment. It was an ugly chapter of history, though there are plenty of equivalents before and since.
Follow the track of the werewolf back into the mists of Eurasian antiquity and it’s possible to trace the outlines of an archaic set of traditions of the Indo-European peoples back when they were cattle-herding tribes on the plains of what are now Ukraine and southern Russia. In those days, boys who reached puberty left their home villages to dwell in the forest under the tutelage of elder shamans. For a period of several years, they spent the summers living like wild things, eating raw meat, sleeping in the open, and raiding neighbouring tribes to steal cattle. The winters, in turn, were devoted to harsh austerities and rituals of initiation.
The most important of those rituals centred on the mythic theme of casting off the participants’ identity as boys and becoming wolves: fierce, predatory, loyal, tough, attuned to the wilderness. Then, once their period in the forest was finished, they cast off their wolf-identity through another ritual process, became men, and returned to their villages to take up their social roles as husbands, fathers, providers, and warriors. For thousands of years, that was how the Indo-European tribes handled the turbulent transition from boyhood to manhood, and mythic echoes of these same customs remained in Indo-European societies from India to Ireland long after the original tradition had faded out.
Did these boys in the wilderness actually turn into wolves? Not in any biological sense, surely. That said, human consciousness is capable of strange things. Certain bands of Norse warriors in historic times were called Úlfhednar, “wolf coat wearers”; like their close equivalents the Berserkir, “bear shirt wearers”, they could enter into a battle-frenzy in which they behaved like wild beasts, possessing superhuman strength, insensibility to pain, and the ability to walk over burning coals unscathed. (A priestly clan among the Faliscans, an Italian people absorbed by the Romans, had the same firewalking reputation; they were called hirpi Sorani, “wolves of the god Soranus”.) Certain kinds of out-of-body experience, in which the participants experience themselves as taking on animal form, also seem to be caught up in the same tradition. It’s a heady mix of practices, more than enough to make its initiates fierce and effective warriors in an age of hand-to-hand combat.
The initiation rituals referenced above aren’t simply a matter of speculation. Archaeologists have dug up at least one site where they were performed: an isolated structure at Krasnosamarskoe in Russia, dating from around 1800BC, where dogs were ceremonially sacrificed and eaten in the midst of other ritual activities. Dogs are considered good eating in many cultures, but in societies descended from the Indo-European tribes, the thought of eating dog meat gets an immediate reaction of repulsion. That’s the last dim echo of an archaic taboo that once restricted eating the flesh of canids to the wolf-boys in the forests. The dog sacrifices took place during the winter ritual season — you can tell such things these days from skeletal remains. Combine that evidence with input from myth, legend, and folk tradition and you can glimpse a little of the ancient wolf-magic as it once existed.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI will admit that, at some level, I find it hard to take seriously anything written by a former “Grand Archdruid.” Now that my personal bias is on the table, I must admit I found this article both interesting and convincing.
Men, especially young men, are ridiculed and demonized in Western society (until, of course, they’re needed to fight and die in places such as Ukraine). In part this attitude is driven by a feminist agenda, but I believe it’s mostly driven by global corporatism that wants to neuter men who might resist the imposition of a global culture, market and political agenda.
But men’s fundamental nature hasn’t changed. They are built to respond positively, for example, to the types of initiation rituals described by the author, and then to provide for a family. I don’t know if there will be a huge, decisive blowback by men in the West. Perhaps the weight of a feminized society is now too great to resist. I suspect, however, those non-Western societies not in thrall to postmodernism, to misandry, and to transgenderism will slowly but surely outcompete the West if for no other reason than biological reality cannot be denied.
Well done to Unherd for finally publishing an article that highlights the situation of men in the West. I’ve been a subscriber for three years and, so far as I recall, there have been only a tiny handful of such articles.
If you like nerdy arcana followed by standard-issue drivel about how feminism is destroying young men, the archdruid is definitely your man.
Exactly.
see above Clare
see above Clare
How is feminism destroying young men?
Read the article.
This article might help https://helendale.substack.com/p/feminisation-has-consequences-iii.
It is destroying women too
Read the article.
This article might help https://helendale.substack.com/p/feminisation-has-consequences-iii.
It is destroying women too
So what he says is incorrect, is it? Any countervailing hypothesis of your own, or are you just going to screech and throw orange peel?
Geoff you need to say why you disagree or you will just get downvotes – that is how reasonable people discuss things 🙂
Exactly.
How is feminism destroying young men?
So what he says is incorrect, is it? Any countervailing hypothesis of your own, or are you just going to screech and throw orange peel?
Geoff you need to say why you disagree or you will just get downvotes – that is how reasonable people discuss things 🙂
The marketing director of a very large consumer products manufacturer remarked that the public may all be useless consumers, but men are even useless at that. Dispicable elitism* and misandry to boot. But it points to the reason why marketing departments might end up ridiculing males.
Your point about men resisting a global agenda is perhaps too grand. At a more simplistic level, her problem and the problem modern consumer goods and brand corporations have with typical** male behaviour is that their spending remains heavily focused on durables like cars, golf clubs, etc. And this is a problem because margins on these products are generally low, brand differentiation is increasingly difficult, there are objective quality and performance standards to meet, they are input (investment, resources, etc.) intensive, and the rate of re-purchasing is very slow. In contrast, typical** female consumer behaviour sees a much larger amount spent on beauty, fashion and other “fast” consumer products that cost beans to make, require no investment except for branding and marketing, can be endlessly repackaged and rebranded, and are repeatedly resold weekly.
For marketing departments around the world, the question is: how do we pursuade men to consume like women? They tried reformatting products and male consumer patterns didn’t shift. So the only other answers were: 1) ignore male consumers entirely, or 2) ridicule existing/current male consumer behaviour and hope peer pressure does the rest. Both these answers sail very close to simply demonising being male.
*Useless consumer is derived from the Nazi politics of useless eaters (unnütze Esser). You don’t get to be marketing director for several decades unless you’re ruthless, but paraphrasing Nazi political slogans seems a bit too ruthless for my liking.
**Typical as in average, I appreciate everyone is on a spectrum and many men outspend some women on consumer products.
Right. The frequent, inexpensive, highly visible consumption of lager is precisely how the public finally found a way to fight back against the dangers of transactivism.
Your stereotypes of feminism are uninformed–they’re as vague as saying “liberal” or “humanist.” Are the feminists who organized shelters for battered women or rape victims castrating monsters hell-bent on destroying society? Are they the same as the anti-woman, anti-lesbian, child-grooming, porn-addicted members of the trans movement? You’re describing people poles apart with the same term.
And the marketing industry doesn’t drive any grand uniform ideology–it’s full of a bunch of careerist midwits superficially reflecting what they perceive If there’s a deeper truth, they’re the last ones to articulate it. Yeesh.
I thought the subject was feminisation, not feminism.
I thought the subject was feminisation, not feminism.
…and estrogen mimics, part of the effluvia of industrialized nations, are a suspected cause of declining male fertility. So soon we may have “useless eaters with useless peters”… ; )
Interesting. That might go some way to explaining why adverts have become so absurdly effete, humourless, Eurovisiony and Woke.
Well stated. Marketers must hate men like me who shop infrequently, spend miserly and resist the latest fads. I also save some money for a rainy day and pay off my credit card bills monthly. How dreadful!
Indeed; don’t watch live TV and have ad-blockers on my PCs. I only get to read about these ‘Mulvaney Moments’ that must haunt the ad agencies and their ‘creatives’.
Indeed; don’t watch live TV and have ad-blockers on my PCs. I only get to read about these ‘Mulvaney Moments’ that must haunt the ad agencies and their ‘creatives’.
Rather unique take on the topic. OTOH, the failed Bud Light ad suggests that some have no clue about their customer.
Right. The frequent, inexpensive, highly visible consumption of lager is precisely how the public finally found a way to fight back against the dangers of transactivism.
Your stereotypes of feminism are uninformed–they’re as vague as saying “liberal” or “humanist.” Are the feminists who organized shelters for battered women or rape victims castrating monsters hell-bent on destroying society? Are they the same as the anti-woman, anti-lesbian, child-grooming, porn-addicted members of the trans movement? You’re describing people poles apart with the same term.
And the marketing industry doesn’t drive any grand uniform ideology–it’s full of a bunch of careerist midwits superficially reflecting what they perceive If there’s a deeper truth, they’re the last ones to articulate it. Yeesh.
…and estrogen mimics, part of the effluvia of industrialized nations, are a suspected cause of declining male fertility. So soon we may have “useless eaters with useless peters”… ; )
Interesting. That might go some way to explaining why adverts have become so absurdly effete, humourless, Eurovisiony and Woke.
Well stated. Marketers must hate men like me who shop infrequently, spend miserly and resist the latest fads. I also save some money for a rainy day and pay off my credit card bills monthly. How dreadful!
Rather unique take on the topic. OTOH, the failed Bud Light ad suggests that some have no clue about their customer.
There will not be a huge, decisive blowback by men in the West, because thank the “goddess”, most men are not Archdefenders of Mysoginy, of which you are obviously the Grand Patriarch.
Really? Why did J.Peterson become such a hero with young men. What does “Thank the Goddess” mean? Ah, you can‘t say Thank God anymore, and I guess in your world the prayer “Our Father” would change to “Our Mother”.
In my world, there are NO prayers, not affiliated with any religion that is. Ever heard of paganism? You would bring up the infamous J. Peterson who is making a shitload of money off gullible young men. I presume you also hold Andrew Tate in high esteem?!
In my world, there are NO prayers, not affiliated with any religion that is. Ever heard of paganism? You would bring up the infamous J. Peterson who is making a shitload of money off gullible young men. I presume you also hold Andrew Tate in high esteem?!
here you go another example of misandry
Another poor little man, oppressed by those horrible women who have the audacity to claim their EQUAL rights. Get used to it; they’re not going away.
Look at the hate and loathing in the language you use and tell me I am wrong
She most certainly has the right to be an utterly obnoxious and most unpleasant example of womanhood.
She most certainly has the right to be an utterly obnoxious and most unpleasant example of womanhood.
You really are a most unpleasant person! If you wish to be taken seriously then engage in respectful discussion.
Jeez, it’s Millie Tant from Viz: ‘Equal rights for ugly wimmin”
Neither are the unscrupulous, twisted males who want to identify as ‘women’ and outcompete you in your sports activities. Why more women aren’t exercised about that remains a mystery to me. I’m betting it’ll get worse before it gets better.
Look at the hate and loathing in the language you use and tell me I am wrong
You really are a most unpleasant person! If you wish to be taken seriously then engage in respectful discussion.
Jeez, it’s Millie Tant from Viz: ‘Equal rights for ugly wimmin”
Neither are the unscrupulous, twisted males who want to identify as ‘women’ and outcompete you in your sports activities. Why more women aren’t exercised about that remains a mystery to me. I’m betting it’ll get worse before it gets better.
Another poor little man, oppressed by those horrible women who have the audacity to claim their EQUAL rights. Get used to it; they’re not going away.
Watch Bud Light sales for decisive blow back to the woke transgender agenda. Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Newsflash: I hate the woke transgender agenda.
I can be brusque, too. To wit: you seem to hate everything, which probably includes yourself. My wolf nose smells a deeply unhappy person.
I can be brusque, too. To wit: you seem to hate everything, which probably includes yourself. My wolf nose smells a deeply unhappy person.
Newsflash: I hate the woke transgender agenda.
I think you’ve come to the wrong shop, Danielle. The Guardian or BBC will have what you’re after.
Really? Why did J.Peterson become such a hero with young men. What does “Thank the Goddess” mean? Ah, you can‘t say Thank God anymore, and I guess in your world the prayer “Our Father” would change to “Our Mother”.
here you go another example of misandry
Watch Bud Light sales for decisive blow back to the woke transgender agenda. Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
I think you’ve come to the wrong shop, Danielle. The Guardian or BBC will have what you’re after.
If you like nerdy arcana followed by standard-issue drivel about how feminism is destroying young men, the archdruid is definitely your man.
The marketing director of a very large consumer products manufacturer remarked that the public may all be useless consumers, but men are even useless at that. Dispicable elitism* and misandry to boot. But it points to the reason why marketing departments might end up ridiculing males.
Your point about men resisting a global agenda is perhaps too grand. At a more simplistic level, her problem and the problem modern consumer goods and brand corporations have with typical** male behaviour is that their spending remains heavily focused on durables like cars, golf clubs, etc. And this is a problem because margins on these products are generally low, brand differentiation is increasingly difficult, there are objective quality and performance standards to meet, they are input (investment, resources, etc.) intensive, and the rate of re-purchasing is very slow. In contrast, typical** female consumer behaviour sees a much larger amount spent on beauty, fashion and other “fast” consumer products that cost beans to make, require no investment except for branding and marketing, can be endlessly repackaged and rebranded, and are repeatedly resold weekly.
For marketing departments around the world, the question is: how do we pursuade men to consume like women? They tried reformatting products and male consumer patterns didn’t shift. So the only other answers were: 1) ignore male consumers entirely, or 2) ridicule existing/current male consumer behaviour and hope peer pressure does the rest. Both these answers sail very close to simply demonising being male.
*Useless consumer is derived from the Nazi politics of useless eaters (unnütze Esser). You don’t get to be marketing director for several decades unless you’re ruthless, but paraphrasing Nazi political slogans seems a bit too ruthless for my liking.
**Typical as in average, I appreciate everyone is on a spectrum and many men outspend some women on consumer products.
There will not be a huge, decisive blowback by men in the West, because thank the “goddess”, most men are not Archdefenders of Mysoginy, of which you are obviously the Grand Patriarch.
I will admit that, at some level, I find it hard to take seriously anything written by a former “Grand Archdruid.” Now that my personal bias is on the table, I must admit I found this article both interesting and convincing.
Men, especially young men, are ridiculed and demonized in Western society (until, of course, they’re needed to fight and die in places such as Ukraine). In part this attitude is driven by a feminist agenda, but I believe it’s mostly driven by global corporatism that wants to neuter men who might resist the imposition of a global culture, market and political agenda.
But men’s fundamental nature hasn’t changed. They are built to respond positively, for example, to the types of initiation rituals described by the author, and then to provide for a family. I don’t know if there will be a huge, decisive blowback by men in the West. Perhaps the weight of a feminized society is now too great to resist. I suspect, however, those non-Western societies not in thrall to postmodernism, to misandry, and to transgenderism will slowly but surely outcompete the West if for no other reason than biological reality cannot be denied.
Well done to Unherd for finally publishing an article that highlights the situation of men in the West. I’ve been a subscriber for three years and, so far as I recall, there have been only a tiny handful of such articles.
The great paradox of Trump: even if everything his critics say about him is true – and most of it clearly is – he was still the better candidate in 2016 and 2020 and probably in 2024 as well
That is, of course, unless your vision of the ideal future consists of borderless anarchy, endless proxy wars, poverty, industrial decline, rampant crime and addiction, collapsing cities and mutilated and abused children. All overseen by a brutal and corrupt plutocracy ensconced in fortress estates.
Nah.
It is good to see an intellectual in the comments section
Quite. She’s probably a PhD in Sociology or Gender Studies. No one could become as angry and self-righteous as that without a few years at a post-Blair Uni behind them.
Quite. She’s probably a PhD in Sociology or Gender Studies. No one could become as angry and self-righteous as that without a few years at a post-Blair Uni behind them.
Yeah
It is good to see an intellectual in the comments section
Yeah
Borders and the bizarre limitations they impose on the free movement of people are what cause the other ills in your list.
So the cure is entropy?
No. I believe in a process where a person who wants to travel and work in another country should be able to do so unless the state has a compelling reason to keep the person out.
No. I believe in a process where a person who wants to travel and work in another country should be able to do so unless the state has a compelling reason to keep the person out.
So the cure is entropy?
I think DeSantis straightened out a lot of those problems in his State. But he seems not to attract the majority of the Republican voters right now (lack of charisma?) , but some polls say that independents will prefer him over Trump. But so much can change till the primaries
Lack of Charisma? Lol I see the MSM fake narratives carry along ways.
So let me get this straight…Ron DeSantis lacks “charisma.” Next to which Democrat?
DeSantis’ problem is that he became the choice of never Trumpers and that’s the kiss of death in the Republican Party.
Lack of Charisma? Lol I see the MSM fake narratives carry along ways.
So let me get this straight…Ron DeSantis lacks “charisma.” Next to which Democrat?
DeSantis’ problem is that he became the choice of never Trumpers and that’s the kiss of death in the Republican Party.
like bubonic plague is better than terminal radiation?
Good luck with President Biden/ Harris till Jan 2029 then, Icky.
Good luck with President Biden/ Harris till Jan 2029 then, Icky.
Nah.
Borders and the bizarre limitations they impose on the free movement of people are what cause the other ills in your list.
I think DeSantis straightened out a lot of those problems in his State. But he seems not to attract the majority of the Republican voters right now (lack of charisma?) , but some polls say that independents will prefer him over Trump. But so much can change till the primaries
like bubonic plague is better than terminal radiation?
The great paradox of Trump: even if everything his critics say about him is true – and most of it clearly is – he was still the better candidate in 2016 and 2020 and probably in 2024 as well
That is, of course, unless your vision of the ideal future consists of borderless anarchy, endless proxy wars, poverty, industrial decline, rampant crime and addiction, collapsing cities and mutilated and abused children. All overseen by a brutal and corrupt plutocracy ensconced in fortress estates.
For all Trump’s faults the Establishment has been out for his blood. It’s not so much about Trump any more. It’s more about showing the little people that this is what happens to those who stand in their way, even to billionaires like Trump. And those who protested on January 6th.
Rubbish. Trump is about establishment as it gets. “Out for his blood”? Out to get him to take responsibility for his crimes, for once.
I agree with every word of that. And yet I have to acknowledge that his support is basically a howl of justifiable rage and frustration. The times call for a hero but he ain’t it.
More like a howl of stupidity and ignorance. I highly recommend a little visit to the Bible Belt/Midwest… Turn back your clocks to the Middle Ages.
Did you live there? I did for 4 years and at that time the clock didn’t turn back to the Middle Ages. Guess, you would put them all in one deplorable basket like Hilary. But I’ve got to disappoint you, things are more complex than that.
I live in the US Bible Belt. Like any other place it has its share of nice and not so nice people, mostly nice tho.
I’d rather live there than downtown Seattle, Missus. Turn your clock back to a Hobbesian state of nature if you go there.
Ah yes! There it is…stupidity and ignorance. Time to fire up the gas ovens for us stupid Christians, ey?
Did you live there? I did for 4 years and at that time the clock didn’t turn back to the Middle Ages. Guess, you would put them all in one deplorable basket like Hilary. But I’ve got to disappoint you, things are more complex than that.
I live in the US Bible Belt. Like any other place it has its share of nice and not so nice people, mostly nice tho.
I’d rather live there than downtown Seattle, Missus. Turn your clock back to a Hobbesian state of nature if you go there.
Ah yes! There it is…stupidity and ignorance. Time to fire up the gas ovens for us stupid Christians, ey?
Stop romanticising thick people.
More like a howl of stupidity and ignorance. I highly recommend a little visit to the Bible Belt/Midwest… Turn back your clocks to the Middle Ages.
Stop romanticising thick people.
Trump is feeding off the gullibility(I’m being kind…) of his followers. He’s very good at it, but he can’t fool all American voters which is why he lost in 2020, and most probably will again in 2024.
And the MSM and the Democrats are feeding off the gullibility of people like you
And the MSM and the Democrats are feeding off the gullibility of people like you
Can you outline his crimes?
But this does not apply to Biden, Clinton and the Democrats and what crimes do you have in mind?
It is beyond question that the recent actions of the NY DA was a naked attempt to pervert the justice system to attack a criminal opponent. When this happens say in Russia it is a cause for media outrage
When proving Trump’s crimes, remember that evidence has to meet federal criminal rules of evidence and criminal burden of proof. Civil cases where the jury found the plaintiff, Ms. Carroll, lied when she said she was raped sometime in the mid 1990’s, year unknown, but awarded her damages for sexual assault and defamation, didn’t meet federal rules of evidence for a criminal trial and didn’t meet beyond reasonable doubt standards either.
Otherwise, I can use a lower standard of evidence to show the Bidens are guilty of bribery, and the 2020 election was tainted.
I agree with every word of that. And yet I have to acknowledge that his support is basically a howl of justifiable rage and frustration. The times call for a hero but he ain’t it.
Trump is feeding off the gullibility(I’m being kind…) of his followers. He’s very good at it, but he can’t fool all American voters which is why he lost in 2020, and most probably will again in 2024.
Can you outline his crimes?
But this does not apply to Biden, Clinton and the Democrats and what crimes do you have in mind?
It is beyond question that the recent actions of the NY DA was a naked attempt to pervert the justice system to attack a criminal opponent. When this happens say in Russia it is a cause for media outrage
When proving Trump’s crimes, remember that evidence has to meet federal criminal rules of evidence and criminal burden of proof. Civil cases where the jury found the plaintiff, Ms. Carroll, lied when she said she was raped sometime in the mid 1990’s, year unknown, but awarded her damages for sexual assault and defamation, didn’t meet federal rules of evidence for a criminal trial and didn’t meet beyond reasonable doubt standards either.
Otherwise, I can use a lower standard of evidence to show the Bidens are guilty of bribery, and the 2020 election was tainted.
Is Joe Biden a Zombie? He would be the first Zombie president. He does move around, just like the living dead. We don’t know what he eats, besides ice cream, but he is certainly lacking in brains himself. Maybe he consumed his own brain internally before looking for brains to eat? His supporters don’t require him to do anything other than live in the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and mumble.
The main requirement for Biden is that he not be Trump. Since Trump has proven to be a Werewolf, if Biden is a Zombie, that’s proof he ain’t Trump. So it’s all good. As a Zombie, Biden is a moving, mumbling, hair sniffing Weekend at Bernie’s.
Before you down vote or “moderate” this comment, think about how serious this article is.
Rubbish. Trump is about establishment as it gets. “Out for his blood”? Out to get him to take responsibility for his crimes, for once.
Is Joe Biden a Zombie? He would be the first Zombie president. He does move around, just like the living dead. We don’t know what he eats, besides ice cream, but he is certainly lacking in brains himself. Maybe he consumed his own brain internally before looking for brains to eat? His supporters don’t require him to do anything other than live in the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and mumble.
The main requirement for Biden is that he not be Trump. Since Trump has proven to be a Werewolf, if Biden is a Zombie, that’s proof he ain’t Trump. So it’s all good. As a Zombie, Biden is a moving, mumbling, hair sniffing Weekend at Bernie’s.
Before you down vote or “moderate” this comment, think about how serious this article is.
For all Trump’s faults the Establishment has been out for his blood. It’s not so much about Trump any more. It’s more about showing the little people that this is what happens to those who stand in their way, even to billionaires like Trump. And those who protested on January 6th.
I do like this author’s articles. They always send me on some bizarre Google searches. Bet he’d be a top bloke to lift a pint with – if you could get a word in edgeways 😉
Agreed! A really good piece and definitely a man to have a pint with. So what if he’s a Druid? How does one become one? I might be tempted if he represents the leadership
Do you need a leader? Trump needs followers. If you’re a follower you’ll have no trouble finding a leader.
Could you stop chimping out for five minutes?
Could you stop chimping out for five minutes?
was he in The Welsh Guards?
Do you need a leader? Trump needs followers. If you’re a follower you’ll have no trouble finding a leader.
was he in The Welsh Guards?
Agreed! A really good piece and definitely a man to have a pint with. So what if he’s a Druid? How does one become one? I might be tempted if he represents the leadership
I do like this author’s articles. They always send me on some bizarre Google searches. Bet he’d be a top bloke to lift a pint with – if you could get a word in edgeways 😉
Part of the problem with this whole rape claim by this woman is, it’s just hard to believe. First off are the accusers, and this sort of machine that wants to get Trump on anything to keep him out of the Whitehouse. So, they’ll say or do anything, including withholding information and perspectives that would tend to make the story hard to believe.
First off, this woman is 3 years older than Trump. While she was not ugly, the man was and is a Billionaire, and unlike fat and disgusting Democrat politicians like Ted Kennedy and his “waitress sandwiches”, it’s hard to believe that he would ever have had to force any woman to do anything with him. The man had his pick of many super models in his day, and so it’s hard to believe that he would go into a dressing room in a department store and rape this woman.
Of course, he’s got a machine against him, the same machine that would have and tried to destroy Clinton’s accuser, until she was able to produce a DNA verifiable stain on a blue dress. It’s all selectve outrage to these people.
So, the whole deal of the need to destroy him with a silver bullet or otherwise is also part of the problem. The reality is that the media has worked overtime to shape opinion on him and on a lot of things recently including things like Covid, Environmentalism, and most recently the Ukraine war.
The whole “Trump Bad” mantra is part of mainstream orthodoxy just like there is an orthodoxy on those other issues, and you can’t go against it, or you are to be destroyed. So, they write stories about what is wrong with people who would vote for Trump, but the real issue themselves! The parts and pieces of the authoritarian thought police who themselves are shown again and again not to be honest with the truth.
So, the problem is the personal integrity and character of the whole cabal of media, politicians, educators, big-tech/big-business law enforcement, including the whole global racket of CIA/NGO globalist jerks.
Trump is simply attractive to many because he is effective. He is part of the tip of the spear of everything they hate, including things like ending wars, peaceful trade, energy independence, traditional (non-woke) culture, economic nationalism, and protecting the border. He doesn’t just talk about those things the way the phonys do, but actually works towards them and accomplishes things, and they simply can’t stand that! Because they don’t want it, and this again shines a spotlight what kind of people they really are.
No one likes being exposed as a liar, a creep, a narcissistic user of people. It makes them feel bad about themselves, which is why they never admit that they are wrong about anything. They chose to focus on the faults of others, which is why nothing ever gets better under these people. They lack the personal character to think and say and do what is right.
You shouldn’t be able to get away with pretending to be a good person with everyone’s best interests at heart when you withhold or dismiss facts as if you are just some sort of slimy lawyer trying to win a case rather than a person who is simply looking for the honest truth about things.
This is the real problem with the world today, people don’t really want the truth, but they want some true things to support what they want to be true. Things don’t work that way, and that is why everything is breaking down, and is not going to last. We talk about stupid things, and focus on stupid things when Rome is burning. Thats one good thing about Unherd is sometimes a few things get talked about and looked at that the powers that be don’t want us to look at or talk about..
As far as young men, part of the destruction of young men was the commitment to globalism itself. Young men in China were valued for what they could produce, and young men in America, for example, were no longer valued at all. They were to be deminished, reshaped into voting the right way. This is all part of the problem, this is what narcisists do, they use. People are useful to them.
Couldn’t be bothered to read that whole Steve thing past the first paragraph about Trump not needing to rape. Trump mistook Caroll for his second wife, in a photo, so she was his type. And he’s heard on tape saying if a man is a star he can just grab any woman by the crotch and they’ll let him. Rape is about power and control and misogyny, not sex.
Funny, my reaction was rather opposite. I started off feeling that this was a rant by a Druid, but gradually found myself feeling pulled into a quite interesting article.
As if the casting couch didn’t exist. Apparently Trump’s female employees never felt uncomfortable. I can’t accept that in the heat of the moment, he was swept off his feet by this woman.
Funny, my reaction was rather opposite. I started off feeling that this was a rant by a Druid, but gradually found myself feeling pulled into a quite interesting article.
As if the casting couch didn’t exist. Apparently Trump’s female employees never felt uncomfortable. I can’t accept that in the heat of the moment, he was swept off his feet by this woman.
“The man had his pick of many super models in his day, and so it’s hard to believe that he would go into a dressing room in a department store and rape this woman.”
First, you’re exaggerating. He was found to have committed sexual assault, not rape. Second, only a gold-digger (such as his current wife, or supermodels, who are only a couple of clicks away from being hookers anyway) would put out for Trump. Most women are not gold diggers. What normal woman would ever genuinely fancy Trump? With his little hands, his dead, whiney voice, his vanity about his appearance, and his little pouting mouth, he’s weirdly effeminate.
Third, a known bully such as Trump actually gets off on abusing people. Of course he could easily have found a willing gold-digger, but what you miss is that a certain type bloke gets off on the power-play.
If you think that a boorish oaf like Trump wouldn’t have gotten handsy with an unwilling woman, you’re exceptionally naive.
What a superb description of the inept, vacuous and dim, who so attracts those of his intellectual level… He is the US equivalent of some heome ceounties saloon bar pub bore
What a superb description of the inept, vacuous and dim, who so attracts those of his intellectual level… He is the US equivalent of some heome ceounties saloon bar pub bore
There were lots of things wrong with the so-called ‘rape trial’. Lawyer Dershowitz pointed out that the defense was not allowed to know the background of the jurors which is highly unusual. This alone would easily trigger an appeal. Also, being tried in NYC which voted 86% for Biden is on the Face ID it unfair and the outcome seemingly political.
Trump’s personality has many flaws but we always knew his thoughts. He wasn’t at all fake and did have serious ideas about reforming government. That latter part threatened a lot of jobs, sinecures, so he had to be destroyed. It’s remarkable that he has withstood all the flak. A strong ego, for sure.
Couldn’t be bothered to read that whole Steve thing past the first paragraph about Trump not needing to rape. Trump mistook Caroll for his second wife, in a photo, so she was his type. And he’s heard on tape saying if a man is a star he can just grab any woman by the crotch and they’ll let him. Rape is about power and control and misogyny, not sex.
“The man had his pick of many super models in his day, and so it’s hard to believe that he would go into a dressing room in a department store and rape this woman.”
First, you’re exaggerating. He was found to have committed sexual assault, not rape. Second, only a gold-digger (such as his current wife, or supermodels, who are only a couple of clicks away from being hookers anyway) would put out for Trump. Most women are not gold diggers. What normal woman would ever genuinely fancy Trump? With his little hands, his dead, whiney voice, his vanity about his appearance, and his little pouting mouth, he’s weirdly effeminate.
Third, a known bully such as Trump actually gets off on abusing people. Of course he could easily have found a willing gold-digger, but what you miss is that a certain type bloke gets off on the power-play.
If you think that a boorish oaf like Trump wouldn’t have gotten handsy with an unwilling woman, you’re exceptionally naive.
There were lots of things wrong with the so-called ‘rape trial’. Lawyer Dershowitz pointed out that the defense was not allowed to know the background of the jurors which is highly unusual. This alone would easily trigger an appeal. Also, being tried in NYC which voted 86% for Biden is on the Face ID it unfair and the outcome seemingly political.
Trump’s personality has many flaws but we always knew his thoughts. He wasn’t at all fake and did have serious ideas about reforming government. That latter part threatened a lot of jobs, sinecures, so he had to be destroyed. It’s remarkable that he has withstood all the flak. A strong ego, for sure.
Part of the problem with this whole rape claim by this woman is, it’s just hard to believe. First off are the accusers, and this sort of machine that wants to get Trump on anything to keep him out of the Whitehouse. So, they’ll say or do anything, including withholding information and perspectives that would tend to make the story hard to believe.
First off, this woman is 3 years older than Trump. While she was not ugly, the man was and is a Billionaire, and unlike fat and disgusting Democrat politicians like Ted Kennedy and his “waitress sandwiches”, it’s hard to believe that he would ever have had to force any woman to do anything with him. The man had his pick of many super models in his day, and so it’s hard to believe that he would go into a dressing room in a department store and rape this woman.
Of course, he’s got a machine against him, the same machine that would have and tried to destroy Clinton’s accuser, until she was able to produce a DNA verifiable stain on a blue dress. It’s all selectve outrage to these people.
So, the whole deal of the need to destroy him with a silver bullet or otherwise is also part of the problem. The reality is that the media has worked overtime to shape opinion on him and on a lot of things recently including things like Covid, Environmentalism, and most recently the Ukraine war.
The whole “Trump Bad” mantra is part of mainstream orthodoxy just like there is an orthodoxy on those other issues, and you can’t go against it, or you are to be destroyed. So, they write stories about what is wrong with people who would vote for Trump, but the real issue themselves! The parts and pieces of the authoritarian thought police who themselves are shown again and again not to be honest with the truth.
So, the problem is the personal integrity and character of the whole cabal of media, politicians, educators, big-tech/big-business law enforcement, including the whole global racket of CIA/NGO globalist jerks.
Trump is simply attractive to many because he is effective. He is part of the tip of the spear of everything they hate, including things like ending wars, peaceful trade, energy independence, traditional (non-woke) culture, economic nationalism, and protecting the border. He doesn’t just talk about those things the way the phonys do, but actually works towards them and accomplishes things, and they simply can’t stand that! Because they don’t want it, and this again shines a spotlight what kind of people they really are.
No one likes being exposed as a liar, a creep, a narcissistic user of people. It makes them feel bad about themselves, which is why they never admit that they are wrong about anything. They chose to focus on the faults of others, which is why nothing ever gets better under these people. They lack the personal character to think and say and do what is right.
You shouldn’t be able to get away with pretending to be a good person with everyone’s best interests at heart when you withhold or dismiss facts as if you are just some sort of slimy lawyer trying to win a case rather than a person who is simply looking for the honest truth about things.
This is the real problem with the world today, people don’t really want the truth, but they want some true things to support what they want to be true. Things don’t work that way, and that is why everything is breaking down, and is not going to last. We talk about stupid things, and focus on stupid things when Rome is burning. Thats one good thing about Unherd is sometimes a few things get talked about and looked at that the powers that be don’t want us to look at or talk about..
As far as young men, part of the destruction of young men was the commitment to globalism itself. Young men in China were valued for what they could produce, and young men in America, for example, were no longer valued at all. They were to be deminished, reshaped into voting the right way. This is all part of the problem, this is what narcisists do, they use. People are useful to them.
I’d break Biden on the wheel but suspect tiptoeing up behind him and bursting an inflated paper bag would suffice. Besides you’d never get any sensible information out of him.
Re feral youth. I read once that young Vikings were sent off in ships to spend their energy because the Norsemen, naturally farmers, were wholeheartedly as sick of them as we are of 30 year olds living with parents, football louts and JSO protesters now.
Trump’s not a werewolf, he’s the bogueyman for wet democrats to scare their impressionable children into staying in line. To normal people he’s just a rogue, a loose cannon. Look at the state of USA now, it’s sliding over the edge thanks to liberal policies and mismanagement.
What a load of rubbish. Just a lovable rogue to the unsophisticated, to the rest of us he’s a dangerous, narcissistic, anti-social personality.
His four years as President was probably the finest four years the USA has experienced.
Against rather feeble competition it must be said.
How so? Facts and figures please.
-lowest unemployment rate for blacks since the 1970’s
-low inflation rate of 1 to 1.6%
– no wars started
– reduction of hundreds of regulations which set the economy on fire
– a repeal of rules that unjustly went after students accused of rape in universities settings; the accused under Obama had no recourse
– the USA had reached energy independence
– trade agreement on China which put them on notice for unfair practices as well as attempted to undo unfavorable outcomes brought in by Clinton’s NAFTA agreement which sent many jobs abroad, terribly hurting the middle class
– effectively dealt with the southern border migration via agreements with Mexico and Central American countries…and so much more.
Biden reversed all of Trumps work with 50 plus spiteful and counterproductive Executive Orders during his first month being President
Today, the USA is is mess – high inflation, high gas prices etc etc
And you left out the middle east.
Fact don’t matter anymore.
And you left out the middle east.
Fact don’t matter anymore.
-lowest unemployment rate for blacks since the 1970’s
-low inflation rate of 1 to 1.6%
– no wars started
– reduction of hundreds of regulations which set the economy on fire
– a repeal of rules that unjustly went after students accused of rape in universities settings; the accused under Obama had no recourse
– the USA had reached energy independence
– trade agreement on China which put them on notice for unfair practices as well as attempted to undo unfavorable outcomes brought in by Clinton’s NAFTA agreement which sent many jobs abroad, terribly hurting the middle class
– effectively dealt with the southern border migration via agreements with Mexico and Central American countries…and so much more.
Biden reversed all of Trumps work with 50 plus spiteful and counterproductive Executive Orders during his first month being President
Today, the USA is is mess – high inflation, high gas prices etc etc
a joke worthy of Larry David!! well said!
Since Eisenhower, maybe.
Against rather feeble competition it must be said.
How so? Facts and figures please.
a joke worthy of Larry David!! well said!
Since Eisenhower, maybe.
You think you’re ‘sophisticated’, do you?
His four years as President was probably the finest four years the USA has experienced.
You think you’re ‘sophisticated’, do you?
What a load of rubbish. Just a lovable rogue to the unsophisticated, to the rest of us he’s a dangerous, narcissistic, anti-social personality.
I’d break Biden on the wheel but suspect tiptoeing up behind him and bursting an inflated paper bag would suffice. Besides you’d never get any sensible information out of him.
Re feral youth. I read once that young Vikings were sent off in ships to spend their energy because the Norsemen, naturally farmers, were wholeheartedly as sick of them as we are of 30 year olds living with parents, football louts and JSO protesters now.
Trump’s not a werewolf, he’s the bogueyman for wet democrats to scare their impressionable children into staying in line. To normal people he’s just a rogue, a loose cannon. Look at the state of USA now, it’s sliding over the edge thanks to liberal policies and mismanagement.
Speaking from the British perspective, I find the entire attitude of MSM to this latest Trump trial quite absurd. They ask questions like “can Trump ever become president after this?” As though he’s being found guilty in a civil court and having to pay damages make the slightest difference to his electoral chances. I don’t know, maybe it’s a comment on British attitudes as opposed to American. We seem to rush to judge everything that ever happens through the lens of morality, whereas many Americans as far as I can see, continue to care only for what will Trump do if elected. Look at the recent goings on in our parliament, where so many scandals occur which are basically matters of ethical triviality. Should I really care whether Johnson had a party or whether Starmer had a few beers with friends whether Raab bullied a few lazy civil servants?
I really do hope that Americans continue to shrug off this absurd, obsession about moral triviality in favour of caring about what a person can actually do for the country.
The progressives are banking on the fact that the average person is too dim to work out the difference beyond a civil court case and a criminal trial.
The criminal/civil distinction is irrelevant.
However, I don’t think this verdict will change many people’s minds about Trump.
The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt. The burden in a civil trial in the US is preponderance of evidence, as in more evidence than not.
Further, the law that changed the statute of limitations on the civil trial, which was 20 years, was passed after the alleged rape occurred. The Constitutional provision against ex post facto laws would have prevented a retroactive change to a criminal statute of limitations. However, since 1798, the Supreme Court has held that ex post facto doesn’t apply to civil laws, so the change to the statute of limitations for civil cases was legal.
The alleged rape occurred 30 years ago. It could not have been charged crminally, because of the statute of limitations.
An excellent statement. People should understand that the burden of proof in a civil action is very low: “more likely than not” (however slight that might be). It is not at all as stringent as the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As my old torts professor used to put it: “50% plus a teense” is enough in a civil suit.
In a criminal trial you have to be certain he did it. In a civil case like this where the jurors are only expected to decide between two different stories of events 39 years ago there can be no certainty and the juror is free to indulge his prejudice as to who lied or who lied most. In the civil case they decided, probably because of Trump’s boorish bluster that she was not his type when he couldn’t tell the difference between her and a former wife in a photo, that maybe on balance she might have been assaulted although on balance she lied when she claimed to be raped. Voters in the circumstances are free to form their own prejudiced views on the matter and whether to give it any weight.
In a criminal trial you have to be certain he did it. In a civil case like this where the jurors are only expected to decide between two different stories of events 39 years ago there can be no certainty and the juror is free to indulge his prejudice as to who lied or who lied most. In the civil case they decided, probably because of Trump’s boorish bluster that she was not his type when he couldn’t tell the difference between her and a former wife in a photo, that maybe on balance she might have been assaulted although on balance she lied when she claimed to be raped. Voters in the circumstances are free to form their own prejudiced views on the matter and whether to give it any weight.
An excellent statement. People should understand that the burden of proof in a civil action is very low: “more likely than not” (however slight that might be). It is not at all as stringent as the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As my old torts professor used to put it: “50% plus a teense” is enough in a civil suit.
Always assuming that Trumpoids are in posession of a mind?
Oh please, a comment straight out of the MSM playbook. A suggestion that many tens of millions of Americans should be called Trumpoids and may not possess a mind is worthy only of derision.
Oh please, a comment straight out of the MSM playbook. A suggestion that many tens of millions of Americans should be called Trumpoids and may not possess a mind is worthy only of derision.
The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt. The burden in a civil trial in the US is preponderance of evidence, as in more evidence than not.
Further, the law that changed the statute of limitations on the civil trial, which was 20 years, was passed after the alleged rape occurred. The Constitutional provision against ex post facto laws would have prevented a retroactive change to a criminal statute of limitations. However, since 1798, the Supreme Court has held that ex post facto doesn’t apply to civil laws, so the change to the statute of limitations for civil cases was legal.
The alleged rape occurred 30 years ago. It could not have been charged crminally, because of the statute of limitations.
Always assuming that Trumpoids are in posession of a mind?
Well, they seem unable.
The criminal/civil distinction is irrelevant.
However, I don’t think this verdict will change many people’s minds about Trump.
Well, they seem unable.
You describe the main difference between Republicrats and Demicans. The red team pays attention to what candidates do. The blue team pays attention to what candidates say.
The progressives are banking on the fact that the average person is too dim to work out the difference beyond a civil court case and a criminal trial.
You describe the main difference between Republicrats and Demicans. The red team pays attention to what candidates do. The blue team pays attention to what candidates say.
Speaking from the British perspective, I find the entire attitude of MSM to this latest Trump trial quite absurd. They ask questions like “can Trump ever become president after this?” As though he’s being found guilty in a civil court and having to pay damages make the slightest difference to his electoral chances. I don’t know, maybe it’s a comment on British attitudes as opposed to American. We seem to rush to judge everything that ever happens through the lens of morality, whereas many Americans as far as I can see, continue to care only for what will Trump do if elected. Look at the recent goings on in our parliament, where so many scandals occur which are basically matters of ethical triviality. Should I really care whether Johnson had a party or whether Starmer had a few beers with friends whether Raab bullied a few lazy civil servants?
I really do hope that Americans continue to shrug off this absurd, obsession about moral triviality in favour of caring about what a person can actually do for the country.
One article about men for several dozens on feminism. Thank you Unheard. To quote great, late Christopher Hitchens – That’s progress of a kind.
One article about men for several dozens on feminism. Thank you Unheard. To quote great, late Christopher Hitchens – That’s progress of a kind.
And this is one reason why ‘depth psychology’ is so thoroughly loathed by many psychologists of other schools. If by ‘repression’ you mean something extremely technical and as a part of some flavour of psychoanalysis, then this insight may have some truth to it. But this is not how this is popularly understood. In the popular imagination, this is ‘you must act on your impluses, however base, because if you attempt to control yourself it will just mean that when you eventually lose control things will be much worse’.
And that one is completely false. Most people can and do learn to repress, control and inhibit one’s impulses, and there are all sorts of therapists who can help you with precisely this, should that be something you want to do. But first you have to want to inhibit yourself, which will be hard if you believe that it will turn you into some sort of monster.
Repression applies to those aspects of the self that are not acknowledged by the individual, the sum of which, in Jungian terminology, constitute the shadow. Self control is not repression. Recognising and acknowledging one’s true motives is not easy, the ancient Greeks recognised it to be almost impossible to ‘know thyself’. Contemporary ideas of being true to oneself don’t bother with the lifetime effort of knowing oneself. It’s the usual problem a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
‘Know thyself“[1] is an Ancient Greek aphorism.[2] According to the Greek writer Pausanias,[3] it was the first of three Delphic maxims inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.[4] The two maxims that follow “know thyself” were “nothing too much” and “give a pledge (or give security) and trouble is at hand”.[5]’
I agree, it’s called “civilisation”. Feral young men no longer “go into the forest” but live among us. We do need to find a way to deploy their energies, but in the interests of civilisation not through the glorification of violence, except in self-defence (both as individuals and as nations).
Those who rail against the “feminisation” of society should consider why it’s happening (i don’t disagree that it is.) After two horrendous world wars fought by the deployment of young men to satisfy male dreams of conquest with the increasing use of technology, isn’t a move away from that model of “civilisation” something we should be proud of? Yes, males or society as a whole will have to find ways to channel all our energies, but the introduction of much greater numbers of women into the workforce and positions of power simply can’t be seen as a negative – unless we want to start sending our young men to ritualised slaughter on a regular basis again?
Moving towards a less violent mode of civilisation will take centuries, if we can survive that long. How we do so, without reverting back to the warlike past, now enhanced with the potential for complete destruction, is the task we’re all faced with. Hankering after old ways, for both men and women, is neither helpful or acheivable.
See my Vikings above. Idle young men with no prospects or discipline turn against their own societies. There are no New Worlds left for them and no new .factories being built
I agree there are no New Worlds for Vikings or their modern equivalent to conquer, apart from space but that’s going to be far into the future.
However, should we as a species make it into the wider cosmos, if we do so on a warlike “conquering” footing we’ll be wiped out by the first more advanced civilisation we encounter. So the move towards a less belligerent stance is very much needed, and what’s being negatively described as “feminisation” is simply part of that process. Of course it’ll cause ructions in the short term until young men in particular learn to adapt. I see no downside to trying to do so.
I agree there are no New Worlds for Vikings or their modern equivalent to conquer, apart from space but that’s going to be far into the future.
However, should we as a species make it into the wider cosmos, if we do so on a warlike “conquering” footing we’ll be wiped out by the first more advanced civilisation we encounter. So the move towards a less belligerent stance is very much needed, and what’s being negatively described as “feminisation” is simply part of that process. Of course it’ll cause ructions in the short term until young men in particular learn to adapt. I see no downside to trying to do so.
Patriachy has not served us well.
And the alternative is? The Matriarchy as now with women in charge of schooling, universities and, generally, the Culture?
The opposite of a Patriarchy is not a Matriarchy but a Fraternity. Germaine Greer may not have coined that observation but she was making it as far back as the Female Eunuch.
In the transition to a matriarchy, we merely change the identity of those at the top of the pyramid, leaving the structure unaltered. In moving to a fraternity, we must create more egalitarian structures.
The opposite of a Patriarchy is not a Matriarchy but a Fraternity. Germaine Greer may not have coined that observation but she was making it as far back as the Female Eunuch.
In the transition to a matriarchy, we merely change the identity of those at the top of the pyramid, leaving the structure unaltered. In moving to a fraternity, we must create more egalitarian structures.
Could you please explain further?
There is no such thing.
Not sure such ever existed. The partnerships between the man up front with a woman behind him pushing or guiding has worked quite well. The combination of a male and female mind have served us well.
And the alternative is? The Matriarchy as now with women in charge of schooling, universities and, generally, the Culture?
Could you please explain further?
There is no such thing.
Not sure such ever existed. The partnerships between the man up front with a woman behind him pushing or guiding has worked quite well. The combination of a male and female mind have served us well.
Neither of the wars you mention would have kicked off without the support of women
Even Adolph WON on the women’s vote!
Even Adolph WON on the women’s vote!
See my Vikings above. Idle young men with no prospects or discipline turn against their own societies. There are no New Worlds left for them and no new .factories being built
Patriachy has not served us well.
Neither of the wars you mention would have kicked off without the support of women
I replied to your comment but my reply has not appeared. I have no idea why. Self indulgence is not the same as acting out of the self in the Jungian sense. Self control is not repression. Repression refers to aspects of self which are not acknowledged and are confined to the unconscious. True motives are denied and the denier is unaware of the duplicity. To actually know oneself as the Delphic oracle advised takes a lifetime. To be true to oneself, one must first know oneself. Aspects of self which are repressed form the shadow. A whole person is one who has incorporated their shadow into consciousness and acknowledges their true motives. Jung believed those who acknowledge their own shadow would be less likely to support a regime like the one in Germany in the 1930s. Strange wording I know but I am trying to ensure the comment appears.
Well said, and I know what you mean about comments disappearing!! That and the confusing voting. Why it can’t just be a simple up and own vote only Unheard knows.
The comment reappeared briefly twice which means it was probably flagged twice as well as initially censored. It is a form of censorship exercised by certain Unherd readers. I did email Unherd months ago and suggest upvotes and downvotes be recorded separately rather than subtracting downvotes from upvotes. I think it would be interesting to identify the most controversial comment. Your comment has been downvoted so I will cancel it with an upvote.
Thank you for explaining the Jungian perspective, which is actually the underlying theme of the article. No idea, why something so insightful is flagged.
I agree with you that there should be two categories under the comments : up and down votes, and no flagging, as this beats the purpose of free speech. Please #UnHerd note!
Thank you for explaining the Jungian perspective, which is actually the underlying theme of the article. No idea, why something so insightful is flagged.
I agree with you that there should be two categories under the comments : up and down votes, and no flagging, as this beats the purpose of free speech. Please #UnHerd note!
Agreed. That was well put
The comment reappeared briefly twice which means it was probably flagged twice as well as initially censored. It is a form of censorship exercised by certain Unherd readers. I did email Unherd months ago and suggest upvotes and downvotes be recorded separately rather than subtracting downvotes from upvotes. I think it would be interesting to identify the most controversial comment. Your comment has been downvoted so I will cancel it with an upvote.
Agreed. That was well put
I have no idea why your comments would disappear. Seems entirely germane to the discussion. And I agree that what ‘repression’ means to a Jungian is very different than self-indulgence. But it is one of those terms which have escaped the narrow confines of its original technical usage … and done a lot of harm in consequence. Which is why I think using this term needs extreme care …. it is so easy to end up misleading people.
I wrote a comment which was dismissive of the writer of the article, and it has now disappeared. Perhaps Unherd has a Don’t-Criticise-Us policy?
I wrote a comment which was dismissive of the writer of the article, and it has now disappeared. Perhaps Unherd has a Don’t-Criticise-Us policy?
Jung obviously failed to notice the 6-7 million unemployed and the attendant legions of nagging wives in 1933.
Jung’s aim was to reduce collaboration with evil and increase individual responsibility.
When you start by telling an individual that he or she carries the burden of ‘original sin’ you have a problem.
Responsibility has to be earned, as for example it was with the grant of Roman Citizenship.
Any ‘evil’ was dealt with by a Magistrate holding the Fasces.
Original sin is just human nature. To sin was to miss the mark, to fall short. The Ten Commandments are a set of rules created so people can to a certain extent live in harmony. There are still cannibals in PNG. The Jews are rather successful despite the Holocaust? In fact their success may contribute to their persecution.
Again sorry Aphrodite but you cannot seriously compare the Ten Commandments* with something as sophisticated as say the: ‘lex Calpurnia de repetundis’?
(*aka Ethics for Dummies.)
It’s not just the Ten Commandments though is it? It’s the whole of the Torah.
I think the ‘Codex Justinianus’ trumps that.
I think the ‘Codex Justinianus’ trumps that.
It’s not just the Ten Commandments though is it? It’s the whole of the Torah.
Again sorry Aphrodite but you cannot seriously compare the Ten Commandments* with something as sophisticated as say the: ‘lex Calpurnia de repetundis’?
(*aka Ethics for Dummies.)
Original sin is just human nature. To sin was to miss the mark, to fall short. The Ten Commandments are a set of rules created so people can to a certain extent live in harmony. There are still cannibals in PNG. The Jews are rather successful despite the Holocaust? In fact their success may contribute to their persecution.
When you start by telling an individual that he or she carries the burden of ‘original sin’ you have a problem.
Responsibility has to be earned, as for example it was with the grant of Roman Citizenship.
Any ‘evil’ was dealt with by a Magistrate holding the Fasces.
Jung was continuously employed.
Jung’s aim was to reduce collaboration with evil and increase individual responsibility.
Jung was continuously employed.
Well said, and I know what you mean about comments disappearing!! That and the confusing voting. Why it can’t just be a simple up and own vote only Unheard knows.
I have no idea why your comments would disappear. Seems entirely germane to the discussion. And I agree that what ‘repression’ means to a Jungian is very different than self-indulgence. But it is one of those terms which have escaped the narrow confines of its original technical usage … and done a lot of harm in consequence. Which is why I think using this term needs extreme care …. it is so easy to end up misleading people.
Jung obviously failed to notice the 6-7 million unemployed and the attendant legions of nagging wives in 1933.
It’s hard to get in touch with the unconscious by yourself because it means facing the disowned parts of yourself, which, unless exposed to the light will continue to run your life,and continue to be projected onto others. The impulses one needs to inhibit are the ones that may harm ourselves or others, because the only difference between being impulsive or spontaneous is the outcome.
Where did you discover that?
Pseud’s Corner perhaps?
I know you are very anti-religion Charles but the idea of extreme suffering when the true self is encountered is in Dante’s Divine Comedy, though it is couched in terms of sin and Dante has Beatrice (divine love) to comfort him. Even then, he cannot bear to look upon his sinfulness for long. Fortunately, he doesn’t have to as Beatrice guides him into paradise where all sin is forgotten/ forgiven. it is the role of Virgil (reason) to bring repressed aspects into consciousness, into the light. It could be you fully acknowledge all your darker aspects and are not a repressor/ projector.
What a great pity we no longer have Basil Chamberlain our Dante scholar as a commentator on UnHerd.
However it is not religion per se, but organised religion, and in particular state funded religion* that I find irksome.
I’m not sure I have any “darker aspects”, to either repress or project. I follow the the classical maxim of “know thyself” and thus the old adage “conscience doth make cowards of us all” doesn’t really apply to me, nor probably ever will.
Your cognomen indicates that despite your Christian faith you feel the inexorable presence of the Classical World in everything we do, or is it just a reference to Botticelli?
(* Such as the CoE.)
I am not sure about my relationship with institutionalised religion. I was once preached at as if I were evil incarnate by an Anglican priest. I am not really sure why, but I think it was because I wrote the New Covenant is so alien to human nature, it had to be delivered by God in person. I have also learnt that if you argue with a priest and win, the devout will turn on you. I couldn’t understand it at the time. I now realise by undermining the priest, the supposed authority, I threatened their faith.
I am interested in ideas and enjoy following their development through history. The Greeks were the greatest thinkers and the greatest of the Greek thinkers was Plato. Pretty much all ideas can be traced back to antiquity. I see in Christianity the continuation of Greek philosophy. Great minds and great learning used to be found within the church.
I admire and appreciate genius and learning. I would have liked to have read what Basil Chamberlain had to write about Dante.
A man without darkness is pretty much the definition of Christ.
I doubt very much that if any of the corpus of great Greek philosophers would have had much time for an ‘eastern’ mystic cult such a Christianity. It is/was the very antithesis of their world of logos/reason.
As most of them were active between three and five centuries BEFORE the arrival of Christ, it is a moot point. As far as we know they were not impressed by contemporary Judaism, or similar quasi monotheistic Semitic cults.
However we do know what Pliny (the Younger)* thought about Christianity at the beginning of the second century AD. Granted he wasn’t a philosopher but he was a highly educated man at the peak of his career.As you probably know he was NOT impressed, nor it seems was his CEO, Trajan.
(*Pliny, Letters 10.96-97.)
I am sure we have had this discussion before. I think your understanding of Christianity is limited. There is a direct link between Christian theology, Plotinus and Plato. Two traditions are rooted in Plato science via Aristotle and Christian theology and mysticism through Plotinus. Plus of course Virgil represents reason in the Divine Comedy.
I am sorry Aphrodite but that just won’t do!
Plotinus, writing some five centuries after Plato is sometimes described as a Neoplatonist, but was, to use a pejorative Christian term a Pagan, writing in the tradition of Plato. He had NOTHING to do with Christianity whatsoever.
However, very much parvenu contemporary Christianity attempted to appropriate both Plato and Plotinus in an attempt to validate its almost non existent philosophical credentials. It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.
As for Virgil, are we talking about plagiarism by Dante? I cannot see why Virgil can be shoehorned into any of this.
https://plato.stanford.edu/index.htmlStanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Entry for Plotinus. InfluencePorphyry’s edition of Plotinus’ Enneads preserved for posterity the works of the leading Platonic interpreter of antiquity. Through these works as well as through the writings of Porphyry himself (234 – c. 305 C.E.) and Iamblichus (c. 245–325 C.E.), Plotinus shaped the entire subsequent history of philosophy. Until well into the 19th century, Platonism was in large part understood, appropriated or rejected based on its Plotinian expression and in adumbrations of this.
The theological traditions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all, in their formative periods, looked to ancient Greek philosophy for the language and arguments with which to articulate their religious visions. For all of these, Platonism expressed the philosophy that seemed closest to their own theologies. Plotinus was the principal source for their understanding of Platonism.
Through the Latin translation of Plotinus by Marsilio Ficino published in 1492, Plotinus became available to the West. The first English translation, by Thomas Taylor, appeared in the late 18th century. Plotinus was, once again, recognized as the most authoritative interpreter of Platonism. In the writings of the Italian Renaissance philosophers, the 15th and 16th century humanists John Colet, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Thomas More, the 17thcentury Cambridge Platonists, and German idealists, especially Hegel, Plotinus’ thought was the (sometimes unacknowledged) basis for opposition to the competing and increasingly influential tradition of scientific philosophy. This influence continued in the 20th century flowering of Christian imaginative literature in England, including the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams.
I recommend you read the divine comedy. The best translation in my opinion is by Dorothy L Sayers.
I see the Censor has allowed us to get away with this rather off piste discussion!
Thanks for a most enjoyable chat Aphrodite.
Always a pleasure. I think they are becoming more lenient.
Always a pleasure. I think they are becoming more lenient.
I see the Censor has allowed us to get away with this rather off piste discussion!
Thanks for a most enjoyable chat Aphrodite.
Exactly the ideas of Plato and Plotinus both fully paid up PAGANS* were stolen to validate the almost intellectually bankrupt cult of Christianity.
Nothing new here off course!
(*The frankly rude and pejorative term for a non believer!)
Or maybe they all connect with truth. Dante left Plato in the ante room because his philosophy only takes you so far. Platonism was a language which sought truth and was used to express ideas that don’t exist in platonism.
You will have to ask the famed Prefect of Judea about that.
I will do my best to if you read Dante translated by Dorothy L Sayers and genuinely try to understand the allegory. At least I don’t set you a Sisyphean task.
I see it is still in Penguin paperback so it shall be done!
Perhaps you might reciprocate with “The Fall of Rome and the end of Civilisation “ by Bryan Ward-Perkins?
Will do.
Will do.
I see it is still in Penguin paperback so it shall be done!
Perhaps you might reciprocate with “The Fall of Rome and the end of Civilisation “ by Bryan Ward-Perkins?
I will do my best to if you read Dante translated by Dorothy L Sayers and genuinely try to understand the allegory. At least I don’t set you a Sisyphean task.
You will have to ask the famed Prefect of Judea about that.
When asked about the subject Trump said ” Phil 0′ Sophy.. yeh, he’s an Irish guy”…
Or maybe they all connect with truth. Dante left Plato in the ante room because his philosophy only takes you so far. Platonism was a language which sought truth and was used to express ideas that don’t exist in platonism.
When asked about the subject Trump said ” Phil 0′ Sophy.. yeh, he’s an Irish guy”…
I recommend you read the divine comedy. The best translation in my opinion is by Dorothy L Sayers.
Exactly the ideas of Plato and Plotinus both fully paid up PAGANS* were stolen to validate the almost intellectually bankrupt cult of Christianity.
Nothing new here off course!
(*The frankly rude and pejorative term for a non believer!)
https://plato.stanford.edu/index.htmlStanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Entry for Plotinus. InfluencePorphyry’s edition of Plotinus’ Enneads preserved for posterity the works of the leading Platonic interpreter of antiquity. Through these works as well as through the writings of Porphyry himself (234 – c. 305 C.E.) and Iamblichus (c. 245–325 C.E.), Plotinus shaped the entire subsequent history of philosophy. Until well into the 19th century, Platonism was in large part understood, appropriated or rejected based on its Plotinian expression and in adumbrations of this.
The theological traditions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all, in their formative periods, looked to ancient Greek philosophy for the language and arguments with which to articulate their religious visions. For all of these, Platonism expressed the philosophy that seemed closest to their own theologies. Plotinus was the principal source for their understanding of Platonism.
Through the Latin translation of Plotinus by Marsilio Ficino published in 1492, Plotinus became available to the West. The first English translation, by Thomas Taylor, appeared in the late 18th century. Plotinus was, once again, recognized as the most authoritative interpreter of Platonism. In the writings of the Italian Renaissance philosophers, the 15th and 16th century humanists John Colet, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Thomas More, the 17thcentury Cambridge Platonists, and German idealists, especially Hegel, Plotinus’ thought was the (sometimes unacknowledged) basis for opposition to the competing and increasingly influential tradition of scientific philosophy. This influence continued in the 20th century flowering of Christian imaginative literature in England, including the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams.
I am sorry Aphrodite but that just won’t do!
Plotinus, writing some five centuries after Plato is sometimes described as a Neoplatonist, but was, to use a pejorative Christian term a Pagan, writing in the tradition of Plato. He had NOTHING to do with Christianity whatsoever.
However, very much parvenu contemporary Christianity attempted to appropriate both Plato and Plotinus in an attempt to validate its almost non existent philosophical credentials. It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.
As for Virgil, are we talking about plagiarism by Dante? I cannot see why Virgil can be shoehorned into any of this.
I am sure we have had this discussion before. I think your understanding of Christianity is limited. There is a direct link between Christian theology, Plotinus and Plato. Two traditions are rooted in Plato science via Aristotle and Christian theology and mysticism through Plotinus. Plus of course Virgil represents reason in the Divine Comedy.
I doubt very much that if any of the corpus of great Greek philosophers would have had much time for an ‘eastern’ mystic cult such a Christianity. It is/was the very antithesis of their world of logos/reason.
As most of them were active between three and five centuries BEFORE the arrival of Christ, it is a moot point. As far as we know they were not impressed by contemporary Judaism, or similar quasi monotheistic Semitic cults.
However we do know what Pliny (the Younger)* thought about Christianity at the beginning of the second century AD. Granted he wasn’t a philosopher but he was a highly educated man at the peak of his career.As you probably know he was NOT impressed, nor it seems was his CEO, Trajan.
(*Pliny, Letters 10.96-97.)
I thought that Bottijelli was an LGBT lubricant?
I am not sure about my relationship with institutionalised religion. I was once preached at as if I were evil incarnate by an Anglican priest. I am not really sure why, but I think it was because I wrote the New Covenant is so alien to human nature, it had to be delivered by God in person. I have also learnt that if you argue with a priest and win, the devout will turn on you. I couldn’t understand it at the time. I now realise by undermining the priest, the supposed authority, I threatened their faith.
I am interested in ideas and enjoy following their development through history. The Greeks were the greatest thinkers and the greatest of the Greek thinkers was Plato. Pretty much all ideas can be traced back to antiquity. I see in Christianity the continuation of Greek philosophy. Great minds and great learning used to be found within the church.
I admire and appreciate genius and learning. I would have liked to have read what Basil Chamberlain had to write about Dante.
A man without darkness is pretty much the definition of Christ.
I thought that Bottijelli was an LGBT lubricant?
I forgot to include it is the role of Virgil (reason) to bring repressed aspects into consciousness, into the light.
What a great pity we no longer have Basil Chamberlain our Dante scholar as a commentator on UnHerd.
However it is not religion per se, but organised religion, and in particular state funded religion* that I find irksome.
I’m not sure I have any “darker aspects”, to either repress or project. I follow the the classical maxim of “know thyself” and thus the old adage “conscience doth make cowards of us all” doesn’t really apply to me, nor probably ever will.
Your cognomen indicates that despite your Christian faith you feel the inexorable presence of the Classical World in everything we do, or is it just a reference to Botticelli?
(* Such as the CoE.)
I forgot to include it is the role of Virgil (reason) to bring repressed aspects into consciousness, into the light.
I know you are very anti-religion Charles but the idea of extreme suffering when the true self is encountered is in Dante’s Divine Comedy, though it is couched in terms of sin and Dante has Beatrice (divine love) to comfort him. Even then, he cannot bear to look upon his sinfulness for long. Fortunately, he doesn’t have to as Beatrice guides him into paradise where all sin is forgotten/ forgiven. it is the role of Virgil (reason) to bring repressed aspects into consciousness, into the light. It could be you fully acknowledge all your darker aspects and are not a repressor/ projector.
Where did you discover that?
Pseud’s Corner perhaps?
Just because something is twisted by politicians to their advantage doesn’t mean it should be throw away. Repression is harmful, and the healthy response to an urge is to deal with it in a responsible way, such as sublimation. This is why sports are so popular among young men. They allow for a healthy expression of non-repressed aggression. Repression of these aggressive instincts leads to school shootings. Lets not kill a good idea because some people misinterpret it in order to indulge themselves.s
Repression applies to those aspects of the self that are not acknowledged by the individual, the sum of which, in Jungian terminology, constitute the shadow. Self control is not repression. Recognising and acknowledging one’s true motives is not easy, the ancient Greeks recognised it to be almost impossible to ‘know thyself’. Contemporary ideas of being true to oneself don’t bother with the lifetime effort of knowing oneself. It’s the usual problem a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
‘Know thyself“[1] is an Ancient Greek aphorism.[2] According to the Greek writer Pausanias,[3] it was the first of three Delphic maxims inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.[4] The two maxims that follow “know thyself” were “nothing too much” and “give a pledge (or give security) and trouble is at hand”.[5]’
I agree, it’s called “civilisation”. Feral young men no longer “go into the forest” but live among us. We do need to find a way to deploy their energies, but in the interests of civilisation not through the glorification of violence, except in self-defence (both as individuals and as nations).
Those who rail against the “feminisation” of society should consider why it’s happening (i don’t disagree that it is.) After two horrendous world wars fought by the deployment of young men to satisfy male dreams of conquest with the increasing use of technology, isn’t a move away from that model of “civilisation” something we should be proud of? Yes, males or society as a whole will have to find ways to channel all our energies, but the introduction of much greater numbers of women into the workforce and positions of power simply can’t be seen as a negative – unless we want to start sending our young men to ritualised slaughter on a regular basis again?
Moving towards a less violent mode of civilisation will take centuries, if we can survive that long. How we do so, without reverting back to the warlike past, now enhanced with the potential for complete destruction, is the task we’re all faced with. Hankering after old ways, for both men and women, is neither helpful or acheivable.
I replied to your comment but my reply has not appeared. I have no idea why. Self indulgence is not the same as acting out of the self in the Jungian sense. Self control is not repression. Repression refers to aspects of self which are not acknowledged and are confined to the unconscious. True motives are denied and the denier is unaware of the duplicity. To actually know oneself as the Delphic oracle advised takes a lifetime. To be true to oneself, one must first know oneself. Aspects of self which are repressed form the shadow. A whole person is one who has incorporated their shadow into consciousness and acknowledges their true motives. Jung believed those who acknowledge their own shadow would be less likely to support a regime like the one in Germany in the 1930s. Strange wording I know but I am trying to ensure the comment appears.
It’s hard to get in touch with the unconscious by yourself because it means facing the disowned parts of yourself, which, unless exposed to the light will continue to run your life,and continue to be projected onto others. The impulses one needs to inhibit are the ones that may harm ourselves or others, because the only difference between being impulsive or spontaneous is the outcome.
Just because something is twisted by politicians to their advantage doesn’t mean it should be throw away. Repression is harmful, and the healthy response to an urge is to deal with it in a responsible way, such as sublimation. This is why sports are so popular among young men. They allow for a healthy expression of non-repressed aggression. Repression of these aggressive instincts leads to school shootings. Lets not kill a good idea because some people misinterpret it in order to indulge themselves.s
And this is one reason why ‘depth psychology’ is so thoroughly loathed by many psychologists of other schools. If by ‘repression’ you mean something extremely technical and as a part of some flavour of psychoanalysis, then this insight may have some truth to it. But this is not how this is popularly understood. In the popular imagination, this is ‘you must act on your impluses, however base, because if you attempt to control yourself it will just mean that when you eventually lose control things will be much worse’.
And that one is completely false. Most people can and do learn to repress, control and inhibit one’s impulses, and there are all sorts of therapists who can help you with precisely this, should that be something you want to do. But first you have to want to inhibit yourself, which will be hard if you believe that it will turn you into some sort of monster.
So it’s worse that I thought. The attack on Trump is not just upon the leader of those that all right — er, left-thinking — people know to be deplorable. It is an attack in the good old tradition of witch-burning and “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
Don’t forget the ‘comfy chair’: “Not the comfy chair, Ahhh!”
Don’t forget the ‘comfy chair’: “Not the comfy chair, Ahhh!”
So it’s worse that I thought. The attack on Trump is not just upon the leader of those that all right — er, left-thinking — people know to be deplorable. It is an attack in the good old tradition of witch-burning and “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
Excellent article.
Excellent article.
“ Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll,.”
– Kipling
“ Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll,.”
– Kipling
His four years as President was probably the finest four years the USA has experienced. No wars, finest economy, energy independence, lowest unemployment particular among the low paid and minority workers but the most corrupt and despicable Democratic Party seen in a century (from which I doubt the country will recover).
Sadly sabotaged, as was most of the West by the great COVID scam.
Hey ho! And we shall be ‘paying the bill for this catastrophe’ for at least a generation, as long as Armageddon doesn’t get us first.
Sadly sabotaged, as was most of the West by the great COVID scam.
Hey ho! And we shall be ‘paying the bill for this catastrophe’ for at least a generation, as long as Armageddon doesn’t get us first.
His four years as President was probably the finest four years the USA has experienced. No wars, finest economy, energy independence, lowest unemployment particular among the low paid and minority workers but the most corrupt and despicable Democratic Party seen in a century (from which I doubt the country will recover).
Good angle! In a wider context, there are other voices, such as Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, and Carl Benjamin, who have something to say that appeals to alienated young men. David Goodhart has written about the wider social issues here, as has Peter Hitchens.
I suspect part of this lies behind recent articles I have read here and there talking about bringing about national service. To preserve the technocracies, something like this will happen sooner or later because the risks of not finding a place for young men will prove too dangerous for governments as poverty really begins to bite.
As for Trump … it seems to me from across the pond that the US is close to a civil war, and I fear what will happen if either he or Biden becomes president again. There is only one candidate with any chance of healing the division in the US, which matters for the future of us all.
Tulsi Gabbard?
And that is………..?
I think he is referring to RFK Jr, who to my mind, is not the best candidate BUT has the advantage of being an anti-Deep State Democrat who could possibly heal much of the huge rift by being tolerable to many Trumpers.
Trump or De Santis would be better but may well not make it. If we had RFK Jr as a candidate against Trump or De Santis then things would surely get a lot better whichever ‘side’ won.
He is 🙂
RFK Jr also had his sexuell shenanigans and huge drug problems, which will be dug out, as soon as he would run. His family thinks he is a kook, but then the Kennedy Clan has lots of skeletons in their cupboard.
I have seen him admit them in a recent interview. No attempt at concealment.
I have seen him admit them in a recent interview. No attempt at concealment.
He is 🙂
RFK Jr also had his sexuell shenanigans and huge drug problems, which will be dug out, as soon as he would run. His family thinks he is a kook, but then the Kennedy Clan has lots of skeletons in their cupboard.
I wouldn’t put Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson in the same category.
Couldn’t agree more.
Tate is a criminal grifter taking advantage of lost boys.
Jordan Peterson is a thoughtful intellectual, rising to the challenge of being a healing influence for disposessed responsible masculinity. His recent interview with feminist Naomi Wolf showcases his qualities to an extraordinary degree.
The only category I am placing them is as I stated. Their individual views diverge considerably. Agree about Peterson- one of my few regular podcasts.
The only category I am placing them is as I stated. Their individual views diverge considerably. Agree about Peterson- one of my few regular podcasts.
Hear hear. Tate is a lout. Peterson is an intelligent bloke.
Tate IS a lout. Peterson in an intelligent con artist spouting “pricey” rubbish in a Kermit voice (Twelve Rules for Life: Stand straight with your shoulders straight and ash your p***s… Seriously?). Who had to be put in a coma because of his benzo addiction… GREAT role model for “distraught” young men!
Tate IS a lout. Peterson in an intelligent con artist spouting “pricey” rubbish in a Kermit voice (Twelve Rules for Life: Stand straight with your shoulders straight and ash your p***s… Seriously?). Who had to be put in a coma because of his benzo addiction… GREAT role model for “distraught” young men!
Couldn’t agree more.
Tate is a criminal grifter taking advantage of lost boys.
Jordan Peterson is a thoughtful intellectual, rising to the challenge of being a healing influence for disposessed responsible masculinity. His recent interview with feminist Naomi Wolf showcases his qualities to an extraordinary degree.
Hear hear. Tate is a lout. Peterson is an intelligent bloke.
If they did bring back national service I suspect many people would simply refuse to serve. Beyond those that choose a career in the army how many would accept gibing up 2 years to defend this society particularly when the underlying message that is fed to young people is that the only thing that matters is what you want.
For sure. I am not supporting saving our technocracies as they stand.
It wouldn’t resemble old style National service. It would be a cunning way to feminise and indoctrinate young men to an even greater extent .
For sure. I am not supporting saving our technocracies as they stand.
It wouldn’t resemble old style National service. It would be a cunning way to feminise and indoctrinate young men to an even greater extent .
Tulsi Gabbard?
And that is………..?
I think he is referring to RFK Jr, who to my mind, is not the best candidate BUT has the advantage of being an anti-Deep State Democrat who could possibly heal much of the huge rift by being tolerable to many Trumpers.
Trump or De Santis would be better but may well not make it. If we had RFK Jr as a candidate against Trump or De Santis then things would surely get a lot better whichever ‘side’ won.
I wouldn’t put Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson in the same category.
If they did bring back national service I suspect many people would simply refuse to serve. Beyond those that choose a career in the army how many would accept gibing up 2 years to defend this society particularly when the underlying message that is fed to young people is that the only thing that matters is what you want.
Good angle! In a wider context, there are other voices, such as Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, and Carl Benjamin, who have something to say that appeals to alienated young men. David Goodhart has written about the wider social issues here, as has Peter Hitchens.
I suspect part of this lies behind recent articles I have read here and there talking about bringing about national service. To preserve the technocracies, something like this will happen sooner or later because the risks of not finding a place for young men will prove too dangerous for governments as poverty really begins to bite.
As for Trump … it seems to me from across the pond that the US is close to a civil war, and I fear what will happen if either he or Biden becomes president again. There is only one candidate with any chance of healing the division in the US, which matters for the future of us all.
Weird, but interesting. The author asserts as known facts some interpretations that are in dispute among archaeologists, but it’s still quite interesting, because speculation about our prehistoric past says something about the past but quite a bit about our perceptions of ourselves in the present.
Weird, but interesting. The author asserts as known facts some interpretations that are in dispute among archaeologists, but it’s still quite interesting, because speculation about our prehistoric past says something about the past but quite a bit about our perceptions of ourselves in the present.
Donald Trump may be the anti-Christ but sometimes an anti-Christ is just what you need
I am inclined to agree with your sentiment but not the expression. I don’t think Donald Trump is anymore anti-Christ than the incumbent powers (probably less) than those who actually rule, of whom Biden is an appropriate figurehead. It requires a thick skinned outsider to both recognise the problem and act.
But was the anti-Christ really the anti-Christ or just an angel who was demonised for refusing to go along with God’s woke agenda
But was the anti-Christ really the anti-Christ or just an angel who was demonised for refusing to go along with God’s woke agenda
I am inclined to agree with your sentiment but not the expression. I don’t think Donald Trump is anymore anti-Christ than the incumbent powers (probably less) than those who actually rule, of whom Biden is an appropriate figurehead. It requires a thick skinned outsider to both recognise the problem and act.
Donald Trump may be the anti-Christ but sometimes an anti-Christ is just what you need
Look the author and piece are brilliant but it’s a fantastically speculative narrative and I disagree with the assumptions about Christianity.
First off, the “Christianity” as described historically was not an “ideology” as much as a subculture that evolved adjacent to neighborly, pious Christian communities. The fact that initiate Gnostic-Hermetic “change agents” attach themselves to any functioning institution including the Christian Church to promote “Christ-Like heresies” that appear biblical and lead people astray is something the Bible very clearly states will happen. The greatest threat to the Church comes from within the Church. Public Criticism of Christianity generally makes zero attempt to distinguish between Bible believing Christians and “Christ-Like” mutations that have and still do spin off it including Gnosticism.
That people would leverage the positive public perception of Christians and imitate Christ-like behavior through secular projects like Socialism is to be expected. It’s Human Nature to seek personal power, influence and advantage. Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally religions of Logos (unlike Marxism which is a religion of Pathos, Alchemy and Gnosis masquerading as rationality).
The Holy Bible unlike the Gnostic Gospels does not disregard the material world or find it secondary to the metaphysical spirit realm. The Bible does not ascribe to Mind over Matter. The Bible does indicate the Metaphysical Spiritual realm (God) can interact with the Material World in personal ways but at no point is an individual’s Humanity elevated to a higher or lower plane due to these direct or indirect interactions.
In initiate societies (such as the Masons or Templars) the Humanity of the Individual is either elevated or downgraded based on compliance with doctrine. Biblical Christianity does not downgrade anyone’s humanity because they’re non-compliant or fallen sinners. Society might throw people away but Christianity is about human redemption. A Christian may hate the individual’s behavior but not the individual. No one is lost. Initiate Societies are the opposite. Everyone that’s not found is lost. Its an “Otherizing” Lens. It’s inherently competitive and divisive by design.
Every country has been dramatically influenced by these fraternal orders in both good and bad ways. Super talented individuals have come out of them. Numerous American Presidents were part of initiate orders including both Roosevelts’ and a few framers for ex. But like Trump they were confined by an American system upheld by a set of practical values rooted in the Bible.
The US Constitution is held up by the Separation of Powers. It’s now faltering because the Executive Branch and its Agencies found a loophole around the checks and balances. In a country socially guided by an uncoerced biblical framework, these checks and balances tend to be adequate. When a country moves away from that framework, it tends to fall apart. The American Constitution simply wasn’t designed to deal with the values of an atheistic secular progressivism. America’s freedom of religion assumed at worst people would be Deists or Contrarian Atheists that hung around on the peripherary and challenged unnecessary dogma.
The framers did not envision that Atheists hostile to Christianity like Darwin, Hunter, Marx, Engels and Scopes would unequivocally prove the “Myth of God” through clear evidence of a transitional species. Or that origin of life researchers would convincingly prove Abiogenesis through the Miller-Urey experiment that life evolved from a primordial pool of Amino Acids. Or that Carl Sagan would silence the dogmatic Christian zealots by demonstrating the Universe has always existed.
Except none of that is true. There’s zero evidence of a transitional species in the fossil record. The Scopes trial was an elaborate publicity stunt that’s been distorted into a demonstrably false myth. The Miller-Urey experiment didn’t come close to proving Abiogenesis nor has any research since and belief in a steady state universe is looking less likely every day with our ability to see rapid expansion of the universe.
The entire concept of “Werewolves” is incompatible with the Bible as are Witches. Anywhere you see historical evidence of Witch Burning and Transitional Species allegations you will find a society overtaken at its core by some initiate society that discretely attached itself to the Church and creates a Simacrulum of Reality. IE an artificial Simulation of the Church.
Fascinating article but I think the general narrative takes liberty with some inaccurate perceptions.
“When a country moves away from that framework, it tends to fall apart.” – As we watch.
“When a country moves away from that framework, it tends to fall apart.” – As we watch.
Look the author and piece are brilliant but it’s a fantastically speculative narrative and I disagree with the assumptions about Christianity.
First off, the “Christianity” as described historically was not an “ideology” as much as a subculture that evolved adjacent to neighborly, pious Christian communities. The fact that initiate Gnostic-Hermetic “change agents” attach themselves to any functioning institution including the Christian Church to promote “Christ-Like heresies” that appear biblical and lead people astray is something the Bible very clearly states will happen. The greatest threat to the Church comes from within the Church. Public Criticism of Christianity generally makes zero attempt to distinguish between Bible believing Christians and “Christ-Like” mutations that have and still do spin off it including Gnosticism.
That people would leverage the positive public perception of Christians and imitate Christ-like behavior through secular projects like Socialism is to be expected. It’s Human Nature to seek personal power, influence and advantage. Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally religions of Logos (unlike Marxism which is a religion of Pathos, Alchemy and Gnosis masquerading as rationality).
The Holy Bible unlike the Gnostic Gospels does not disregard the material world or find it secondary to the metaphysical spirit realm. The Bible does not ascribe to Mind over Matter. The Bible does indicate the Metaphysical Spiritual realm (God) can interact with the Material World in personal ways but at no point is an individual’s Humanity elevated to a higher or lower plane due to these direct or indirect interactions.
In initiate societies (such as the Masons or Templars) the Humanity of the Individual is either elevated or downgraded based on compliance with doctrine. Biblical Christianity does not downgrade anyone’s humanity because they’re non-compliant or fallen sinners. Society might throw people away but Christianity is about human redemption. A Christian may hate the individual’s behavior but not the individual. No one is lost. Initiate Societies are the opposite. Everyone that’s not found is lost. Its an “Otherizing” Lens. It’s inherently competitive and divisive by design.
Every country has been dramatically influenced by these fraternal orders in both good and bad ways. Super talented individuals have come out of them. Numerous American Presidents were part of initiate orders including both Roosevelts’ and a few framers for ex. But like Trump they were confined by an American system upheld by a set of practical values rooted in the Bible.
The US Constitution is held up by the Separation of Powers. It’s now faltering because the Executive Branch and its Agencies found a loophole around the checks and balances. In a country socially guided by an uncoerced biblical framework, these checks and balances tend to be adequate. When a country moves away from that framework, it tends to fall apart. The American Constitution simply wasn’t designed to deal with the values of an atheistic secular progressivism. America’s freedom of religion assumed at worst people would be Deists or Contrarian Atheists that hung around on the peripherary and challenged unnecessary dogma.
The framers did not envision that Atheists hostile to Christianity like Darwin, Hunter, Marx, Engels and Scopes would unequivocally prove the “Myth of God” through clear evidence of a transitional species. Or that origin of life researchers would convincingly prove Abiogenesis through the Miller-Urey experiment that life evolved from a primordial pool of Amino Acids. Or that Carl Sagan would silence the dogmatic Christian zealots by demonstrating the Universe has always existed.
Except none of that is true. There’s zero evidence of a transitional species in the fossil record. The Scopes trial was an elaborate publicity stunt that’s been distorted into a demonstrably false myth. The Miller-Urey experiment didn’t come close to proving Abiogenesis nor has any research since and belief in a steady state universe is looking less likely every day with our ability to see rapid expansion of the universe.
The entire concept of “Werewolves” is incompatible with the Bible as are Witches. Anywhere you see historical evidence of Witch Burning and Transitional Species allegations you will find a society overtaken at its core by some initiate society that discretely attached itself to the Church and creates a Simacrulum of Reality. IE an artificial Simulation of the Church.
Fascinating article but I think the general narrative takes liberty with some inaccurate perceptions.
I can’t wait for the brits to allow men to self-id as werewolves and for zookeepers to start agitating for safe spaces for the animals in their charge as the self-identified werewolves insist on sharing cages with them. Hair transplants for men will take on a whole new meaning and become a multi-million-dollar industry. Hair transplant practitioners and trans wolf activists will clamor for affirmative care for the trans-wolf community. Men who detransition will complain about having to shave five times a day. And people will argue endlessly about whether you can choose your species.
Werewolves of London, draw blood.
I can’t wait for the brits to allow men to self-id as werewolves and for zookeepers to start agitating for safe spaces for the animals in their charge as the self-identified werewolves insist on sharing cages with them. Hair transplants for men will take on a whole new meaning and become a multi-million-dollar industry. Hair transplant practitioners and trans wolf activists will clamor for affirmative care for the trans-wolf community. Men who detransition will complain about having to shave five times a day. And people will argue endlessly about whether you can choose your species.
Werewolves of London, draw blood.
The old druid bit immediately gets you thinking this is a spoof, but as regards the thesis Author conveys regarding men – we have to recognise this ‘woe is me’ stuff a bit snowflakey and frankly if the world is no longer letting one be an ignorant misogynistic oaf get with it and don’t be so pathetic.
I mentioned this a week or so ago – went to a Premier League football match – 50k, overwhelmingly male, although not as much as used to be the case. Pretty tribal and pretty male, but in a more ‘modern’ sense perhaps – no racist chanting like one can remember de rigeur in the 80s, less post match violence but plenty of ‘bantz’.
Not as sighted on the situation over the Atlantic but I would contend the inability to buy your own home, the fate currently of so many of our UK younger – male & female, much more psychologically debilitating than half of this anti-woke cobblers. How about we focus on that?
The “woe is me” is from geeky, white men.
You don’t let up on the misandry do you
As I have said before an irredeemable old scold.*
(* Some might prefer shrew.)
I was thinking “harpy”: flapping around and crapping on everything.
I was thinking “harpy”: flapping around and crapping on everything.
As I have said before an irredeemable old scold.*
(* Some might prefer shrew.)
You don’t let up on the misandry do you
The “woe is me” is from geeky, white men.
The old druid bit immediately gets you thinking this is a spoof, but as regards the thesis Author conveys regarding men – we have to recognise this ‘woe is me’ stuff a bit snowflakey and frankly if the world is no longer letting one be an ignorant misogynistic oaf get with it and don’t be so pathetic.
I mentioned this a week or so ago – went to a Premier League football match – 50k, overwhelmingly male, although not as much as used to be the case. Pretty tribal and pretty male, but in a more ‘modern’ sense perhaps – no racist chanting like one can remember de rigeur in the 80s, less post match violence but plenty of ‘bantz’.
Not as sighted on the situation over the Atlantic but I would contend the inability to buy your own home, the fate currently of so many of our UK younger – male & female, much more psychologically debilitating than half of this anti-woke cobblers. How about we focus on that?
An excellent essay that cuts to the heart of something essential that has been lost in western feminised society.
The famously-macho wodka-swilling Rooskies aren’t doing as well as they expected against the feminised West.
The famously-macho wodka-swilling Rooskies aren’t doing as well as they expected against the feminised West.
An excellent essay that cuts to the heart of something essential that has been lost in western feminised society.
A bit of a drawn out introduction but I wolfed down the second part of the article. More from this writer please.
A bit of a drawn out introduction but I wolfed down the second part of the article. More from this writer please.
Oustanding article, as were many of the reader comments it provoked. Might have been even better if the article acknowledged how by some metrics modern life is even harder for a substantial portion of young women & girls.
Oustanding article, as were many of the reader comments it provoked. Might have been even better if the article acknowledged how by some metrics modern life is even harder for a substantial portion of young women & girls.
Actually had my werewolf closely examined during a prostate test….
Actually had my werewolf closely examined during a prostate test….
The idea that there is a general ‘young male malaise’ is incorrect. As is the idea that any young male disaffection that does exist is due to a lack of whack-job initiation rituals. The single biggest reason for all the feral, whiny, useless young males is a lack of dedicated fathers, especially in black communities. Single mothers can rear blokes until about age 11, at which point they lose all control of them. Women try to “talk to their sons”. Waste of time. Often, all that is needed is for someone to fart on their heads and boot them up the arfe. Bring back national service. A little less understanding, please.
The idea that there is a general ‘young male malaise’ is incorrect. As is the idea that any young male disaffection that does exist is due to a lack of whack-job initiation rituals. The single biggest reason for all the feral, whiny, useless young males is a lack of dedicated fathers, especially in black communities. Single mothers can rear blokes until about age 11, at which point they lose all control of them. Women try to “talk to their sons”. Waste of time. Often, all that is needed is for someone to fart on their heads and boot them up the arfe. Bring back national service. A little less understanding, please.
For those who liked this article the author has done a podcast this week along similar lines..’John Michael Greer on Magic and the Re-enchantment of Daily Lifehttps://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-377-john-michael-greer-on-magic-and-the-reenchantment-of-daily-life/
For those who liked this article the author has done a podcast this week along similar lines..’John Michael Greer on Magic and the Re-enchantment of Daily Lifehttps://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-377-john-michael-greer-on-magic-and-the-reenchantment-of-daily-life/
Trump remains Robin Hood versus Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham. John’s dull-witted corrupted entourage scheme and plot and misuse the law to bring their enemy to heel, but every time the outlaw escapes fleet-footed to cheers from the gallery.
The outlaws exist because of the regime. Even if they catch Robin Hood, someone else will step up – Maid Marrion – whoever, because the sentiment and stench will remain until the bad prince and his lackeys are cleaned up – a new Magna Carta reasserting the primacy of popular control over public administration.
Trump remains Robin Hood versus Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham. John’s dull-witted corrupted entourage scheme and plot and misuse the law to bring their enemy to heel, but every time the outlaw escapes fleet-footed to cheers from the gallery.
The outlaws exist because of the regime. Even if they catch Robin Hood, someone else will step up – Maid Marrion – whoever, because the sentiment and stench will remain until the bad prince and his lackeys are cleaned up – a new Magna Carta reasserting the primacy of popular control over public administration.
“The most important of those rituals centred on the mythic theme of casting off the participants’ identity as boys and becoming wolves:”
A trans wolf is a wolf!
Also, the priestly clan of Italian fire walkers called hirpi Sorani “wolves of the god Soranus” has to be a joke. If they didn’t contract herpes from their strange behavior, they most certainly had a sore a**s.
I enjoy your articles a lot. Much more than the usual misandry this platform spews out. I regret paying £49, for most of the content is skew.
“The first round of blowback from this repression of American masculinity helped to put Donald Trump in the White House.”
No it didn’t. Hillary Clinton won nearly three million more votes than Trump did. So she was far more popular than the winner in the farcical Electoral College.
Just in case you’re an ignorant foreigner, I will spell it out for you. The Constitution, as originally written in 1787 and ratified in 1790, has always had the Electoral College. Everybody knows that the Electoral College chooses the President. It’s been that way since the 1st presidential election of George Washington. It ain’t some last minute surprise Hillary didn’t know about. Well run campaigns, like Trump’s in 2016, focus on the Electoral College, not the popular vote, to get elected.
Does the Prime Minister get elected by popular vote, or by Parliament? If one party gets more popular votes, but fewer seats in Parliament, who is elected Prime Minister? Do foreigners get to take pot shots at your silly Parlimetary system, because it has no checks and balances? How does your “unwritten Constitution” protect you from government abuse, like the surveillance state?
Are the rules of Cricket the same as American Baseball? Do people complain if somebody would have won a Crcket game if the rules of Baseball applied?
We know about the electoral college system, mate:
“At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.”
See: https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
With respect Mr. McCusker, while you know all about it, Mr. Walker seems to have missed the lesson.
Not to forget that each state was sovereign and had to give up certain powers to form a union. Thus the states wanted that increment of power in a republic not the rabble of majority rule.
With respect Mr. McCusker, while you know all about it, Mr. Walker seems to have missed the lesson.
Not to forget that each state was sovereign and had to give up certain powers to form a union. Thus the states wanted that increment of power in a republic not the rabble of majority rule.
We know about the electoral college system, mate:
“At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.”
See: https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
Good thing the US is not controlled by CA or NY, both are losing population because of awful policies.
Just in case you’re an ignorant foreigner, I will spell it out for you. The Constitution, as originally written in 1787 and ratified in 1790, has always had the Electoral College. Everybody knows that the Electoral College chooses the President. It’s been that way since the 1st presidential election of George Washington. It ain’t some last minute surprise Hillary didn’t know about. Well run campaigns, like Trump’s in 2016, focus on the Electoral College, not the popular vote, to get elected.
Does the Prime Minister get elected by popular vote, or by Parliament? If one party gets more popular votes, but fewer seats in Parliament, who is elected Prime Minister? Do foreigners get to take pot shots at your silly Parlimetary system, because it has no checks and balances? How does your “unwritten Constitution” protect you from government abuse, like the surveillance state?
Are the rules of Cricket the same as American Baseball? Do people complain if somebody would have won a Crcket game if the rules of Baseball applied?
Good thing the US is not controlled by CA or NY, both are losing population because of awful policies.
“The first round of blowback from this repression of American masculinity helped to put Donald Trump in the White House.”
No it didn’t. Hillary Clinton won nearly three million more votes than Trump did. So she was far more popular than the winner in the farcical Electoral College.
Greer is obviously speaking of disgruntled white males who blame women for their plight, whatever that might be.
Hell hath no fury…
“Than Clare Knight scorned “!
In America Clare means ” Something of the”….
Bit personal, no?
“What’s good for the goose etc…………….”
“What’s good for the goose etc…………….”
In America Clare means ” Something of the”….
Bit personal, no?
“Than Clare Knight scorned “!
Hell hath no fury…
Greer is obviously speaking of disgruntled white males who blame women for their plight, whatever that might be.