Skip to comments.

Decline of the Warrior Male: Is Ann Coulter the Last of the Real Men on the Intellectual Right?

Men's News Daily ^ | 11 June 2006 | Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D.

Posted on by Lorianne

In a widely discussed article in the prestigious journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1995), the late Linda Mealy addressed the issue of what makes a sociopath versus a psychopath. She argued that there are two basic types of sociopathy- the primary type which is genetically-based, extremely dangerous, and almost impossible to treat (the psychopath) and the secondary type which can emerge in most highly masculine males when under stress or provocation (the sociopath in common terms). That is, there is a small number of persistently dangerous psychopaths out there motivated by their own inner demons (e. g., the monstrous Jerry Inman who brutally raped and murdered Clemson student Tiffany Sauers), and a substantially large number of sociopaths ready to be set off under elicitative conditions such as natural disasters, social breakdown, group conflict and war, and even a soccer match that goes the wrong way.

I was one of 30 or so discussants of the Mealy article, and my emphasis was on the warrior hawk aspects of primary and secondary sociopathy. In my view, most of the world is populated by peaceful doves who can go about their daily tasks of eating well and living well, producing and rearing offspring, producing and maintaining a particular culture, and enjoying a modicum of liberty and freedom when- and only when- their particular warrior class (hawks) provides protection against the tribe down the river or against some foreign power threatening to invade. If the Ogboos over the mountain have a core group of six warrior hawks and your tribe has merely two or even none, then do not plan on a good nights sleep until the balance of power slips in your favor.

The warrior hawk is typically male, large and muscular, prone to recklessness and excess, fearless and brave by nature, easily aroused to fighting and combat, and is extremely loyal to band and tribe. In light of Harvey Mansfields new book on Manliness, he is not very sensitive or empathic and is manly to the core. Moreover, he is great defender of cultural order and propriety but not a very good practitioner. While these warriors are away on the hunt or on what Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham calls the lethal raid against neighboring groups, they are lionized and worshipped by the home tribe much as our star athletes are today. But when they come home their presence is problematic they become what I called warriors without portfolio in the Mealy article. They may bully, force themselves on females, fight among themselves, and simply be a threat to life and limb to everyone around them. They may compromise the freedom and liberty of others, but without them there is no freedom and liberty. They are all that stands between you and the warrior hawks of a strange and foreign entity that at minimum will subvert and alter your way of life, or, at maximum, will destroy you and your group altogether.

In my various commentaries in MND (see archives), I have argued that traditional American life, Christianity, and conservative ways of thinking were given up with little or no fight in the cultural revolution of the sixties as the warrior hawks of the left marched unopposed into the universities, law schools, the news and entertainment media, the churches, and every other important nook and cranny of our culture. The fact that these new brand of warriors were skinny nerds and dweebs with high IQs who could not whip my granny in a fistfight makes their complete and total victory even more puzzling. When the traditional American wears T-shirts that say my country is for the taking or we whipped Hitler and there is no fight left in us or occupation of mind, body, and soul is really not that bad when you get used to it can we blame the intellectual termites for invading our grand mansion of democracy?

The attack was not the problem, but the failure to mount any kind of defense. Now we are trying to defend marriage, the church, the borders, and what is left of our culture, but we will never again fully recover what was lost. All we can do now is negotiate with the invader and hope it will be generous in victory e. g., you can keep marriage but the recently ratified Treaty of New York requires that you accept civil unions as the law of the land. Could anyone living in the fifties even imagine such an assault on tradition?

Where on earth was the intellectual right while all of this was going on? Where was our core of warrior hawks that was ready to march against the Marxist, communist, socialist, and liberal invaders? Were we so paralyzed by white guilt (see Shelby Steeles new book) that we allowed the radical left to shape our behavior through the clever use of words and concepts that all revolve around the notion that Christians of European descent are racist and sexist bigots to the core and deserve to be relegated to the margins of society. With the clever phrase sir have you no shame the personally flawed warrior hawk Tailgunner Joe was transformed into the personification of evil and, indeed, was hounded to his death at age 48. Seeing that a mere five words could annihilate its relentless foe and simultaneously stop the anti-communism movement in its tracks was exhilarating to the radical left and set the stage for their attack on traditional society.

The great and definitive victory over McCarthy set into motion a kind of linguistic sweepstakes where radicals on the left competed with one another for the most indignant, the most colorful, and most inflammatory verbal attacks on the majority that their devious minds could manufacture. It started with accusations of Commie baiting, then racism, then sexism, then homophobia, then right wing Christianity, and now we epitomize evil nativism for trying to stave off an alien influx that will re-define the majority and transform our country forever. The radical left has a well-stocked armory of conceptual firebombs that it routinely tosses at the majority with impunity.

How, then, does the intellectual right routinely respond to one personal attack after another? It prostrates itself, it tearfully apologizes, and it resigns from one important and powerful governmental position to another, and it begs forgiveness from the radical termites that rule the country. Trent Lott comes to mind here. It has been a shameful performance for the past 50 years. The intellectual right has been so out-maneuvered in the war of words and concepts that one can only feel pity and contempt.

The intellectual left has one firebomb after another that it uses to maintain the occupation of minds and souls, but what does the intellectual right have to fight back? What great and innovative ideas, what commanding rhetorical flourishes, and what logical arguments do we have to preserve what was once ours? None not even conceptual and rhetorical popguns to set against their firebombs. They have white guilt, racism, mean-spiritedness, Afrocentrism, multiculturalism, diversity, affirmative action, feminism, intolerance, and so on, ad infinitum, but aside from Falwellian Christian traditionalism, we are defenseless in the war of ideas, concepts, words and phrases. And then into this swamp of defeatism rode the skinny, blonde, acerbic, irreverent (to the occupying forces), intellectually brilliant, verbal and conceptual, unabashedly religious, and in-your-face warrior hawk that we have come to love and admire. She knows what is going on, she knows who the enemy is, she resists the occupation with every cell of her body and- as her book sales will show- she speaks for the people of the heartland. She knows that the intellectual elite of the New York city- blue state nexus are the true movers and shakers of the country and it is no surprise that the most violent and hysterical response to her new book Godless has come almost entirely from guess where. Matt Lauer, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Mike Barnicle, Hilary, Chucky, and the rest of the Manhattan elite are simply beside themselves and their hatred and vituperation know no bounds. She has done the unthinkable she has resisted the occupation she has played their own game even better than they and she has cleverly set them back on their heels.

Like all members of the warrior class, Ann Coulter may be brutal and harsh in the din of battle and her attacks on the opposition are not always pretty. Yet, who else is willing to call the termites of the left exactly what they are- slanderous, treasonous, and godless radicals who are committed to the goal of first subverting and then re-defining American culture in the Marxist image. Aside from a precious few on the religious right, Ann is the only real man in the fight for our side, and the least the rest of us can do is provide moral and spiritual support and leave the criticism to the opposing side.



TOPICS:

Constitution/Conservatism

Culture/Society

Politics/Elections

KEYWORDS:

anncoulter

coulter

manhood





To: Lorianne

Beg to differ. There's lots of us right here!



by 2 posted onby farlander (Strategery - sure beats liberalism!)

To: Lorianne

I think any Republican that wears a bow tie should be made an outcast and tarred and feathered.



by 3 posted onby Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)

To: Lorianne

Many of them became obsessed with material wealth. But I believe God is beginning to shake things up, and a combination of political, physical, economic, and personal calamities is starting to knock reality back into the American conscience.



by 4 posted onby HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (Jesus always reads His knee-mail. (Hall of Fame Hit-N-Run poster))

To: Lorianne

bttt



by 5 posted onby Christian4Bush (The Rat Party's goal is to END the conflict, not WIN the conflict...should be the other way around.)

To: Lorianne

ping



To: Lorianne

4 morning bump



by 7 posted onby youngjim ("This is the business we've chosen")

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Lorianne

No, because real men don't mock widows, even if they deserve it. Flame away, Annbots.



Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Lorianne

1. Ann Coulter is not a man. She is an outspoken woman. 2. The author is a stereotyping ass masquerading as a psychologist. 3. If I hear one more chest-pounding keyboard commando pontificating on what it is to be a man I'll happily geld the sumbitch.



To: Darkwolf377

You're right, real men would tell the truth about widows...which is far worse than calling them harpies.



To: Pukin Dog

LOL, conservopussy.



How about PCbot?



To: Def Conservative

I coined the term Conservopussy yesterday. I want it to take hold.



It describes Conservatives who are afraid to attack Liberals because they fear that the attack will give Liberals something to complain about.



To: Pukin Dog

There is nothing dumber then those of you slinging that bot term around. It shows you cant fight or argue or debate, only characterize from your weak position. Wow, take a chill pill. It's just a jab at all those maroons who toss around "Bushbot" all the time. I will mock any widow who also uses her victim status to forward a political cause. Just because you buy into the very nonsense that Coulter describes doesn't mean we all should. I've got a name for YOU! Conservopussy! There is nothing dumber then those of you slinging insults around. It shows you cant fight or argue or debate, only characterize from your weak position.



To: Darkwolf377

I've debated Coulter for days. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but cower from the bleacher seats. Get it the fight, or get in the back with the women and children. Others will fight this fight for you.



To: Pukin Dog

I will mock any widow who also uses her victim status to forward a political cause. Just because you buy into the very nonsense that Coulter describes doesn't mean we all should. Since you say "political cause," I suppose you would even if they were using that status to forward a CONSERVATIVE political cause, right? Yeah. Sure you would. I have a word for those of you "men" who quite obviously enjoy bashing women, and making up excuses for it. But it probably has too many letters for a pukin dog to figure out on his own.



To: Pukin Dog

I've debated Coulter for days. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but cower from the bleacher seats. Get it the fight, or get in the back with the women and children. Others will fight this fight for you. What in the name of God are you babbling about? You're actually expecting applause for posting on an internet board? Pathetic. No wonder you start shrieking when the subject of being a real man comes up. LOL



To: Darkwolf377

You wouldn't know a real man. It is you who is pathetic. You think you are defending women? You think you are defending Conservatism? You are a worm. A Conservopussy. Who wants applause, I would be thrilled to get a moments common sense from you. Go to bed, worm. I'm done with you and your bot-slinging stupidity.



To: Pukin Dog

You wouldn't know a real man. It is you who is pathetic. You think you are defending women? You think you are defending Conservatism? You are a worm. A Conservopussy. Who wants applause, I would be thrilled to get a moments common sense from you. Go to bed, worm. I'm done with you and your bot-slinging stupidity. What in the name of God are you babbling about?



Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson