CoE III: The Opposite of Liberal was a Dirty Word to Me

Conservative is what I used to call myself, and then again later. But conservative isn’t the opposite of liberal. It’s just a descriptor of the kind of liberal who is sentimental and unprincipled.

Between those times “Libertarian” seemed like a good thing. It wasn’t. Potheads, usurers, sodomites, and a boatload of layabouts make terrible company, and worse government. For awhile now I’ve politically been ____________. “Something the opposite of Liberal.”

I’m not the only one. Do you ever wonder why many who are against Post-Modernism, Feminism, Cultural Marxism, Progressivism, Perversion, etc. call themselves and others who defiantly speak the truth: Conservatives, Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Revolutionaries, Barbarians, Deplorables, and even Shitlords?

Ever wonder why, at just the moment they should coalesce into a group, they instead disperse into atomized bits of powerless snark?

Because they hate the opposite of Liberal, the word itself. That word is authoritarian. Nasty thing! We hates it, my precccccioussss!

Well, Cane: Get over it, cupcake.

Bravely Ducking-Out

Last week I downloaded Brave and surfed around with it for a bit. It gave me trouble on some websites, so I returned to Google Chrome after a few hours of use. On my iPhone I used ChromeOS because it is faster than Safari, and better handles multiple tabs.

Yesterday I got a message from Google as I researched the facts around the Chasity Dawn Carey case. I wanted to see how popular a name is Chasity. It looked to me as if either her parents, the administrator was who filled out Chasity’s birth certificate, were morons. But perhaps chasity was a legitimate thing, and not a misspelled chastity. I typed “chasity” into Chrome for iOS on my iPhone, and this is what I received:


Note the picture which accompanies Wikipedia’s definition. I could not better define our society’s vision of chastity: A virtuous moral standard where technology is used and weaponized to lock up and humiliate men’s sexuality. After I took the screenshot, I typed in “chastity”, spelled correctly, and got this back:


The penis cage was gone, but so was the moral definition! In its place was a nothing-but-the-material definition of chastity; as if chastity correctly understood is merely one choice among many, and pretty lame to boot. Gone were the words about virtue and morals.

The thing making choices here isn’t me: It’s the search engine, Google, who also makes the Chrome browser. This is what Google thinks we should get: Either a message that, morally, chastity is best used to shame men, and that otherwise chastity is an outdated mechanic for…not much of anything.

I hadn’t yet downloaded Brave for iOS so I did; right after the above screenshot of Chrome for iOS. This is what I got when I typed “chasity” (intentionally misspelled) into Brave AFTER I changed the default search engine to duckduckgo:


Well, who do you elbow and did you see that? DuckDuckGo picked a short, positive definition for chastity as its default. Then I went straight-up crazy and goosed them for a response to “chastity” itself:


It’s the same text from Wikipedia as was returned when I searched for chasity in Google, but the picture is different. In fact (props to Wikipedia) that 15thC painting in the DDG results is from their article on chastity. Which means that the Google search engine isn’t simply regurgitating Wikipedia. Compare the format in the first screenshot and the last. Google is copying Wikipedia’s entry, but then substituting what it thinks is a better representation of chastity: a penis cage.

Now, let’s reflect on the power and authority Google wields in the world, and wonder how often our children will Google routine information.

I know nothing about the religion or politics the folks at DuckDuckGo, but they’re all right with me so far.


Getting Away with Divorce

Recently, Chasity Dawn Carey, a 42-year old bail bondswoman in Oklahoma was acquitted of first degree murder. Last year she lured her client Brandon Williams back to her office by offering to buy his car for her son. Here’s what happened.

Woman sets up shop to attract lawbreaking men. She gives them time and money in an attempt to extract the same at a later date, but with interest. This lawless man didn’t giver her what she wanted so under false pretenses she lured him into another agreement. Then she springs the trap to get him do surrender to her. She wants her child to actually put on the cuffs–to be the restraining factor–while she scolds away.

The lawless man, which she repeatedly set out to attract, was much bigger and stronger than her, but he didn’t use his superiority. Instead he tried to escape without harming her. While the man was utterly defenseless the woman shot him in the back and he died. Her son was the most traumatized by the violence, but the woman was convinced the justice system would hold her guiltless.

A jury of her peers (society) excused the killing as self-defense because the woman lied that she had been attacked, and because the man was bigger and stronger and so he could have hurt her. It seemed better to them that she shot him even though he didn’t actually abuse her.

It is like an interpretive film of divorce in America.

(Hat-tip: infowarrior1)

(Updated to better reflect the son’s role in this interpretive drama.)

(UPDATE II This post might be confusing. Hopefully this helps unlock the metaphor I mean to convey: I interpret the bail-jumper as a husband who sins in a typical, low-level, way; sinful, but he’s not “jumped bail” on murder charges before returning to his wife (a bail-bondswoman.))

Doing Evil so that Nothing May Come of Marriage

Repurposed from a comment here at Theology Like a Child.

I read Nathan’s Rinne’s post, “Addendum to the LCMS’s When Homes are Heartless: Another Problem from Another Angle”. Then I read,”When Homes are Heartless”. Then I read the post again.

First, the title: “When Homes are Heartless”. It is the beginning of an incomplete statement, the second half of which is, “then Divorce”. That sounds non-Christian, doesn’t it?

Throughout the essay a little game is played where divorce is equated to violence on the strength of Malachi 2:16. That is true: divorce is violence. But what the author(s) do is errantly reverse this truth to say that violence is divorce. That is not true in the same way that “2” is “a number” but “a number” is not “2”. But if one falsely says that violence is divorce, then he can blame the violent for the divorce instead of blaming the divorcer–the one who files for divorce–of committing violence.

This is made explicit when the author(s) writes: “Just as sin can kill a human person, it can also kill a marriage or permanently damage or destroy a family.” No! Divorce kills marriages. The knife in the heart of a marriage is the divorce decreed and nothing else. In the real world, you can punch the spouse, kick the magistrate, run over the bailiff’s dog and still not get married again until the divorce is decreed. In America more than 70% of the time it is the wife who murders her marriage. That’s just reality. Domestic violence is vicious and indefensible, but as despicable as domestic violence is, it does not kill marriage. It does no violence to marriage unless the violence actually stops a physical heart. To say that it does is to judge senselessly. Anyone who doubts this is living in a fantasy. They can test it by trying to marry another before the divorce is decreed.

Heartlessness in the essay is specifically epitomized as domestic violence, but heartlessness comes in many forms; often from women. In fact my observation of the churched (not just people, and not just Christians, but regular attenders) is that the wife is considerably more likely to be heartless towards her husband. Christian husbands I know have suffered through bouts, sometimes years long, when his wife denies him intercourse. I have heard wives publicly berate and shame their husbands for the smallest failures or infractions. I have known no husbands who have beat their wives for years, or even once. I’m sure they exist, but I will believe my eyes and say that whoever wrote “When the Home is Heartless” has acted foolishly and cowardly by wasting time on something that the “Left-hand Kingdom” goes out of its way to punish, but he ignores the weightier sins of fraud by wives within churches.

“But, but Cane! We haven’t stamped out every instance of domestic violence by every Christian husband. Therefore it is desirable that we focus on this irregular problem of domestic violence in the LCMS, and leave repentance for the common sins later. Besides, we will gain favor with the worldly; even the Feminists! They will see God’s glory in protecting women!”

“Their condemnation is just.” I mean: We do know that the general consensus of the worldly is that Christian men are pansies whose own ugly and cold wives don’t care to touch them, don’t we? Except they be hardcore Feminists or something else like San Francisco liberals–who live their lives without a white Christian (They indulge the non-whites with their “superstitions”) ever in physical sight–they do not believe Christian husbands beat their wives.

Be Positively Rich, Heathen, Coastal, and Elite Foreigners

In his latest edition of his newsletter, The Masculinist, Aaron Renn writes:

The real problem with the purely negative approach is that it’s just not pleasant to be around and tends to attract other unpleasant people. The commenter communities on these various “watch” sites have lots of angry, bitter people that you probably don’t want to hang out with. Who wants to be around all that negative energy all the time? Negativity is also self-limiting because eventually you exhaust your critique space and go into an endless repeat loop. That’s one reason Dalrock’s blog is essentially at a dead end.

Again, it’s also important to reiterate that Throckmorton and Dalrock were, in the main, right. And their work is important. Because of critics like them, the people they critique are without excuse. You can believe these big name pastors, though they seldom ever deign to respond to their critics, are well aware of what those critics are saying. So to the extent that the critics are right, and they frequently are, those pastors will ultimately have to give an account. They won’t be able to plead ignorance.

Contrast the Christian watch blogger with people like Jordan Peterson or Peter Thiel. Those two guys are happy strongly speak against things they believe are wrong. But they also have a positive agenda, like Peterson’s self-help mission and new book or Thiel’s Thiel Fellowships or “zero to one” startup model. Their agendas may not be right or to your liking, but they have them. That’s one reason they transcended the hater blog ghetto and had a much, much bigger impact than those who are limited to merely criticism.

Those two are:

  1. Non-Christians
  2. Rich
  3. Fundamentally Liberal
  4. Not American
  5. Coastal Elites

Dalrock is a random Christian man in Flyover Country raising a family. He’s fully under the crush of elitist anti-father fantasies; fantasies for which nearly every church pastor, priest, and leader gives false testimony. Peterson and Thiel are not Christian so they don’t have to contend with that.

Peterson is a Canadian psychologist and university professor; formerly of Harvard. This is the equivalent of a Cardinal in the Church of Modernism. Peter Thiel is a German citizen, a Big Tech founder, financier, sodomite, and a member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee. When they contend with elite doctrines of Liberalism, it is from a position of worldly power and respect.

None of these things should disqualify Peterson or Thiel from our admiration for whatever good things they say. (Some of the money in Peterson’s bank account belonged to me, and I’m happy to have put it there.) But it does disqualify them from comparison to Dalrock. Aaron Renn should have known better.

For the Record

Posted to Doug Wilson, here, in response to his post “Letters are Better than Fetters”, and about his post “Masculinity without Permission”. As of this moment the comment has been submitted. I’ll give it a minute or so. (EDIT: My comment posted.)

On “Masculinity without Permission” (Taken from my comment here [ ] and repurposed here to give you a chance to respond.

You did not have to write,“Now this is the point where, in normal times, if I were not writing in a culture that was not so well-advanced in its pathological condition, I would hasten to add that masculinity was not bluster, bullying, self-seeking aggrandizement, abusive behavior, and so forth. I would qualify against the counterfeits. All that is quite true, but I don’t want to emphasize it right now.”

You could have left it out altogether–as you left out fathers from the list of people hurt in fatherless families–but you didn’t. You must at least take a swipe at “toxic males” on your way to talk about all those other bad preachers out there who preached the wrong servant leadership and not the good servant leadership you really meant all along.

Whoops! Thought we were done with that, but here you are again, writing about the toxic males: “Now he would be a fool who said there was no such thing as a toxic, overdone masculinity—there certainly is. I myself have seen some remarkable specimens of it.”

Churches have one-hundredth of a problem with blustery, bullying men than they do with wimps cowed by their wives. Yet your posts are filled with recriminations against regular men, instead of encouragement to them to actually lead; as in give commands and have expectations…such as a pastor might do at his church, say.

Here is a lengthy quote from the first of three suggested posts marked “Related”, titled, “A Woman’s Body and Fatherlessness”, from 2011. I chose this post because I had confidence that I could take the first recommendation and find it loaded with servant leadership typical of most Christian preaching, and also some examples of weak men “screwing up feminism” (i.e., modern life). Here we go:

“What are fathers for? The biblical answer goes far beyond the answer provided by Darwin. Fathers are more than inseminating carbon units. God has established and ordered the world in a certain way. God commanded Adam, and all fathers after him, to provide and to protect (Gen. 2:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). That is what fathers are for. Provide for and protect whom? The answer is their wives and children. Unprotected children are fatherless children. Unwanted children are fatherless children. Aborted children are therefore the final word in fatherlessness.

Someone might interject and say that surely aborted children are motherless as well. This is true, and tragic. Motherlessness, the fierce suppression of the mothering instinct, is the immediate cause of an abortion. But that motherlessness is, in its own turn, a function of fatherlessness. This all happens because fathers have believed the lie that it is possible for them to opt out of the creation mandate. That mandate is assigned to every man who is ever given the tremendous privilege of making love to a woman. First the pleasure, then the provision and protection. The privilege of planting seed in a garden brings the necessary responsibility of tending that garden.

Apparently, neither fathers nor gardeners are actually in charge of families or gardens; just provide and protect them. Leading is left out of your post entirely except when a man leads a woman to commit motherlessness and kill his children. And where’s the mandate for a woman to provide a child for the tremendous privilege of making love to a man? I am forced to consider that perhaps you’ve never been confronted with that situation.

I’ll tell you one thing: If any of your male readers get the idea to be masculine and take his *tremendous privilege* without permission, he’s gonna hear about it from you!

You continue:

Any man who thinks that a wonderful time in bed must be necessarily linked to a lifetime of responsibility is written off as a hopeless dweeb. Faced with a choice between not being mocked and having a backbone, far too many men choose the option of not being mocked. But fathers who wilt in the face of such sneers and mockery are just sperm-delivery fathers. They have all the backbone of a wet napkin. They deserve the mockery, certainly, but from the other direction.

Of course, there is the problem of old-fashioned selfishness. Convincing men to take the sexual pleasure, and to not feel responsible for any resultant child, has therefore not been a difficult argument. It has been a downhill argument. The moral authority of Western civilization spent a number of centuries persuading and convincing males that they should take up responsibility for their progeny. That was the uphill part of the argument, and it was made possible by the growing influence of the gospel. Unfortunately, we have decided to all head back downhill again, and us with no brakes now.

So abortion happens for the following reasons:
1. men fail to provide
2. men fail to protect
3. causing motherlessness
4. men aren’t grateful enough for the “tremendous privilege” of sleeping with their wives
5. men are wet napkins who deserve to be mocked, especially by moral Christians
6. men are selfish
7. men are out of control

And here I thought abortions happened because mothers paid medical experts to skewer their babies. Turns out it has been toxic male Christian fathers all along.

Enough of that post. From here I’ll surf to the Related link, “Father Hunger”, from 2006. It is a defense of himself from a “local critic” who did not like your attitude towards homosexuals.

But how a call for Christians to stop demanding civil reform as a substitute for reformation in the family and the church can be read this way is a mystery to me. What we have called for is for Christian fathers to repent first, and for the church to get its own house in order first, instead of turning to politics as some kind of savior. Politics will be saved, but politics is no savior. We have argued that the current epidemic of homosexual activism is the result of disobedient Christian fathers, and so we have substantial work to do within out own ranks first. Our culture is in the grip of a profound and disorienting father hunger. This is no less true within the church.

No less true in the church? WOW! Christian fathers are so bad, so unrepentant, that they turn their children gay!

Father hunger is around us in countless ways, and results in far more than struggles with sexual perversion. Father hunger causes loneliness, aggression, rebellion against authority, hatred of kindness, lack of self-control, legalistic pietism, religion based on fear instead of love, and much, much more.

Father hunger isn’t caused by missing fathers ejected from their homes by their wives over 70% of the time. No, no: Bad Christian fathers even in the home (maybe especially in the home) cause pretty much every sin and every pit of the human condition. The word “mother” doesn’t appear once in the whole post.

These are your words, from you posts, which your site referred to me. How long could I go on, from one to the next, and find the same pattern of blaming men for everything, excusing women for anything, and always framing a father’s and husband’s job as service, but never command? I bet a long time.

UPDATE, Doug Wilson responds:

Cane, I distinguish responsibility and fault because I hold to covenant theology. When I tell men they must take responsibility, many hear me saying that they must take the blame. But these are different things entirely. We live in a man-hating age, which wants to blame men for everything. I believe that husbands are commanded to imitate the love of Christ, meaning that they take responsibility. This is because the man is the *head.* This is not running on a parallel track with feminism, but is rather the antithesis of it.

UPDATE II, My reply:

Doug, Yes, responsibility and blame are separate things, but you do blame Christian men. You do also say men are responsible, but you obscure the responsibility of women. A Christian hand and father’s assumption of responsibility over his family does not remove their responsibility. Nor do you blame Christian women. You may blame feminists–people “out there”–, and you take pains to make the two distinct. Your indictments of feminists are carefully parsed so that readers should never believe you have conflated the two groups. That charity is not extended to Christian men. The overlap of Christian men and toxic males is assumed and even emphasized. Then you shroud your use of false weights of judgment under the guise of covenant theology.

Moreover, when you write about the authority of Christian men over their families the words are only about responsibility, and never about command. Christ has responsibility and, and was given all power and authority. Christian men are to be Christlike, but we are not Christ so we shouldn’t assume all power. But you talk solely of a neutered authority that should never exercise power, or even uphold expectations. …Not to mention the dearth of praise here for Christian fathers doing their best amongst an enormous cohort of unruly and feral women who rebelled within, and also raised by, your generation; and under a government and legal system that is honesty, wholly, and truly out to get them.

Justin Parris says (in these comments) this is all because you are daunted by the prospect of feminist backlash, and fear what women and their sycophants will think. That strikes him as just good sense. I believe you darkly sense the error of Justin’s thinking and that’s why you wrote “Masculinity without Permission”. I do not believe you have grappled with your contribution to Justin’s folly.

Aside from men like Justin, (Hey, good luck with him!) younger Christian men out there cannot differentiate you from the other mealy-mouthed complementarians, egalitarians, and Duluth Model-loving high-heel lickers, except perhaps in style. In content and practice, your prescription is to avoid command and expectation. You are indistinguishable. Perhaps that is less true among the people who know you in the flesh, but I write to you about your blog and books.


Sure, Codpieces are Over the Top

Oscar wrote:

The more backwards and uncivilized the culture, the more peacockish the men.

I don’t know if causation exists between the two, but the correlation is too strong for me to ignore.
I’m not in favor of men dressing more flamboyantly. The cultures where men do are not cultures I want to emulate.

I see his point and it is very close to what I thought for a long time. However; it’s not as simple as that. For starters, there are a lot of pre-suppositions and contexts which are bundled up in those thoughts. One of which is the near total domination of world fashion by The West. For 200 years, any country or its leaders who wanted to be civilized, or seen as civilized, has followed our patterns. That (what we mean by civilization) is a huge topic, and The West has won a huge bias for a long time. Instead of arguing all that, I think it would be more productive to give some examples.

While I was writing that post, I had two specific social groups in mind as exemplars of men’s fashion; both of whom I chose to leave out for others to bring up. Dalrock claimed one of them, men’s western wear. Here are some examples. Notice the bright colored and patterned shirts, big hats, exaggerated footwear, exotic materials, and shiny accessories (buckles, buttons, etc.)

The second was military officers; specifically in their dress blues. There is no other reason for the shiny brass buttons, big white hat, white gloves, medals, and ribbons, braids, and a saber except to “peacock”. The effect is awesome; as it is intended to be. It’s tempting to dismiss this and say, “Well, yeah, but that is uniform, and everyone is doing it together. It’s no big deal.” That misses the point. The dress blues uniform is at its most iconic, striking, and militaristic when among civilians.

Hayley Geftman-Gold, a a liberal feminist Jewish journalist from New York, obviously thinks consumers of western wear are uncivilized and should be dead, but my experience (and I would bet Oscar’s) of life in the US is that Southerners and other country folk are more polite and better mannered than a great majority of those who are not. Likewise, all of the military officers I can recall to have met are nearly impeccable in their manners and similar measures of civilization.

I Should Dress Like Cyrus Paice

Caspar wrote:

Oh, and rock music. Rock musicians are effeminate (long hair, high voices, prancing and mincing on stage in flamboyant costumes or skinny jeans, singing love songs, stroking their phallic guitars), all designed to stoke women into a sexual frenzy.

This reminded me of a post I never got around to writing. One of the many things I’ve learned from The History of England Podcast was about a societal change called The Great Male Renunciation:

The Great Male Renunciation is the historical phenomenon at the end of the 18th century for menswear to stop using brilliant or refined forms, which were left to women’s clothing. Coined by psychoanalyst John Flügel in 1930, it is considered a major turning point in the history of clothing in which the men relinquish their claim to adornment and beauty. The Great Renunciation encouraged the establishment of the suit’s monopoly on male dress codes at the beginning of 19th century.

That’s it; That’s the whole article about one of the greatest shifts–if not the greatest shift–in the history of clothing culture in Western Civilization. Before the Great Male Renunciation: Men wear furs, patterns, embroidery, various hats, and all sorts of garments which are now called (or derided) as “peacocking”. Afterwards: Every man wears nothing but what is efficient and expedient.

When I talked to Mrs. Caldo about this post she said it reminded her of a scene from the PBS show Victoria. She told me (from memory, not verbatim) of a scene where the troops are parading or being inspected and Prince Albert says that the plumes on the uniforms aren’t practical. Victoria replies that may be, but they sure are magnificent.

All that was left for men to display was efficiency and competence in work; both of which are difficult to display sexually, and neither of which are terribly attractive to women of themselves. I don’t mean they are ugly traits: I mean they don’t make women weak in the knees. Women are enamored of beauty and adornment. They are drawn to it because it is part of their nature. That’s not a bad thing.

It was stupid of us to go down this road. The result is that today straight men wear baggy shirts, shorts, and flip-flops, while the women wander around in sweatpants, spandex and ponytails. Only homosexuals and pop stars take men’s beauty seriously. That’s a mistake.

From a tactile perspective, men: Nobody has a desire to feel wool, but velvet is one of those materials you just want to touch.

You Are Probably Alone at Church

Broadly speaking, men in churches go along with a woman-oriented religious practice and worldview for one of two reasons:

  1. They are Momma-boys. Either their mothers were (or are) the dominate people in their lives, or their mothers were (or are) missed in their lives and they try to recapture the experience.
  2. They attended formal education sometime after WWII. There these men learned that the most sure and peaceful path to doing what they want was to sit still, pretend to follow the lessons, and eventually–pleased with herself–the teacher will dismiss you from class.

The men in group one actually go out and buy Pink Christian books in an attempt to please their wives. These are the men who become house-husbands and SAHDs. And they cry a lot in comparison with other men.

There are a lot more men in group two. Their wives buy them the books which are thumbed through with a bit of Hmm-ing, and then put up on shelves in displays of fealty. These are the men who pretend to be house-husbands and SAHDs, but really they just nod at their wives while looking for a binge-watch.

These bastards are tricky not only to wives but also to you. It will seem, at times, as if they understand the perversion of women-led Christianity and that’s why they merely feign obedience to her desires. Nope. They actually don’t care all that much about anything outside their job and hobbies. It is comfortable for them to pretend to follow the nonsense lessons of servant leadership, send the wives out for GNOs, and make promises choreplay before turning on the Xbox while the kids eat chicken nuggets for dinner.

The Christian section of the Men’s Sphere often doesn’t like to discuss these guys because the sort of men who find the Men’s Sphere are often the sort of men who genuinely attempted to “lead” in housework and childcare, yet went unrewarded. But they do exist, and they are part of the problem in the same way as male employees who mouth corporate harassment and discrimination policies before they go back to surfing the web.

Driving Miss Crazy

A man is driving a car with a woman beside him when suddenly she grabs the wheel and tells him it’s dangerous for a passenger to drive at such high speed. A short time later she curses him for a weak right foot while she steers; the jerk was on the gas when his hands were on the wheel!

Who should be held responsible for the safe operation of the car?