Why People Choose Insanity

In a comment on yesterday’s post, Greenmantlehoyos wrote:

Man, thanks for being sane.

Hey man, my pleasure. It’s no sweat to be sane on the Internet while writing under a nom de guerre to a self-selected group of like-minded people . Sanity is a more difficult trick to pull in real life. It takes guts because there are risks. People–coworkers, friends, even family–might stop talking to you.

Or the reverse: Maybe you get surrounded by people (a group of coworkers, for example) who want to know why you have such wrong thoughts. Then you have to explain yourself, and then maybe also you find out that you don’t know how to explain yourself because you haven’t really thought these things through as far as you should have.

Maybe you were just going off intuition; which is another way of saying that you once had a glimpse of a true observation before you closed your eyes and went back to work; even though that glimpse has stuck with you. But a glimpse is no foundation for an argument. You’ve got to take a good hard look at the world in front of you to make an argument. Then you have to question yourself–take a good hard look at yourself–to try to know whether what you are now seeing for the first time is real, or if you have imagined it.

The latter–imagining things–becomes a real possibility. If what you see now is real, and if it conflicts with what you’ve always thought to be real, then you must accept that all your life up until now you have been imagining what you saw rather than really seeing it. At first this seems like a complication and a pain in the ass. But if you are brave then it’s an opportunity to elevate yourself above your peers. That’s a good thing. It’s also often lonesome.

Loneliness is tough. Years ago I was at a party. We were laughing and drinking and having a good time. Then my best friend said to me, laughing, “You are a lot more fun when you drink!” I got angry, but he was right. Later, looking at it with open eyes I understood that I got angry because he was right, and I had interpreted it as wholly derogatory of me. But it wasn’t. The thing about alcohol is that it slows down the brain. After a couple drinks I am within actual talking distance of others.

Excellence, by its nature, separates.

Half-Cocked Varitions

On the topic of “Shotgun Dads” trying to scare their daughters’ dates or boyfriends, Scott wrote:

Set aside all the stuff you tell yourself and probably your wife about “traditional values and gender roles” or whatever. You cannot, in todays world seriously plan on carrying out any of these threats. You are puffing out your chest to “scare” off the “bad” boys, who know you are full of crap.

He’s right. And if the date in question really is a bad boy this attitude is helpful to him for a couple reasons. First of all, any girl who is entertaining a bad boy is expressing to her father that his approval is meaningless. Attempts to warn off a bad boy heighten the stakes of the game she is playing. The most likely outcome is that she will do more with the bad boy, and sooner. Second, bad boys don’t want permission. They are planning to leave after they’ve had their fun any way. A father who falsely threatens is dancing to the same song as the bad boy.

The best foil to the plans of bad boys and the girls who want them is to trap them in forced commitment. If only someone had thought of that.

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

That is impossible in the modern world. However, the minds and desires and spirits of humans–including those of girls and bad boys–have not changed since that was written. A protective father could adopt the Lord’s strategy in the OT to our weakened and less manful times by introducing the topic of marriage every time a date/boyfriend’s name is raised, or whenever he is around. Girls perhaps don’t want to marry right now, but they all want to be marriageable right now.

A father could cajole or question a boy to express how he finds the daughter marriageable. This is sure to cause discomfort, but most girls will not be able to resist the temptation to inspect every nook and cranny of the boy’s hems and haws. Any resistance by either the girl or boy to such lines of inquiry ought to be met with the innocent and forthright truth that Christian sexual and romantic relations are always concerned with, and pointed towards, marriage.

Scott also wrote:

It feels good, because all the women around you pat you on the head and nod approvingly. You have earned your cookie.

This is incorrect. If any women pat a man on the head for this it’s because she think he’s a fool; like how a mother “Awwws” over and hugs a child who has done something stupid. It’s not a reward, but consolation.

Dalrock wrote a post commenting on Scott’s post and elaborated in a similar direction as one of my previous essays. While I agree with what both Scott and Dalrock are seeing–the foolishness and the empty posturing–I do wonder what we should expect of most men. I’m much smarter than the average guy, yet my blog isn’t brimming with answers. And it is by far average guys who say things like, “I’ll be cleaning my gun when my daughter’s date gets here.” They’re fantasizing. It’s a really stupid fantasy with contradictions and perversion, but its seed is a honorable desire to protect their daughters. That desire is wholly frustrated because we live in a really shitty culture. Dissolute elites and social science freaks have spent years undermining husbands and outlawing every embodiment of patriarchy. Fathers have been legally emasculated so that no man may truly say it was he who protected his family.

Until there is either an outbreak of sanity, or a breakdown of political entities, we have only one option: Be humble, brave, and truthful; any one of which cannot be done without the others.  Many will protest and question what good are such spiritual weapons against the materialist weapons of our enemies. They’ll put forward some scheme or system which pretends to be a psychological machine that produces Good Kids (or controlled women). They’ll say, “Look what I did. I did this and this and this, and I made my kids do that and that and that, and now they’re so awesome because I did it right.”  That’s as foolish as saying you’re going to scare away bad boys from the girls who love them.

If anyone did it right, then what he did was recognize the truth, told it to himself, told it to those around him, and then tried to live in obedience to it.

Stronger Together (for now), or: Make Weddings Great Again

I’ve been listening to more of Bill Kristol’s Conversations; especially those with Harvey Mansfield. The first effect of which has been to expand my list of classics; Tocqueville, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, J.S.Mills, Strauss, Mansfield himself…

Since those books yet remain for me in that classical state, I can only comment on what he briefly explains. There are over 12 hours of Mansfield speaking though, and he returns to the same topics over and again. So I have probably learned a few things which I will test as I remove titles from  my personal list of classics.

  • Zippy is right: I have been a right-liberal. I previously admitted to be a right-liberal before, but limited it to an accordance with his interpretation of things, i.e., “on his blog”. That was wrong. Modernity (a whole ‘nother thing which I’m only now seeing from outside) is what we live in, and it taught me that its (modernity’s) notions of right and left were true. They’re not. It turns out that there is a very long conversation about politics and the dichotomy was established a long time ago. The character, or spirit, of each side is probably beyond dispute: Democracy (Liberalism/Left) or Aristocracy (Authoritarianism/Right). There are several/many forms of each, but there are only two real philosophies (or principles). Every mixture of the two requires some kind of mental investment in a paradox. That’s in the best case. In the worst mixtures one requires doublethink. I like the former and hate the latter. My problem, and not just mine, is that the unstoppable force of democracy is crashing full-speed into the immovable object of reality. Unfortunately I’m between them, and quite squishable. Paradoxes are a kind of crash-cage protection, but fear causes one to grasp at doublethinks as a kind of insulation…but at some point enough pillows will smother you.
  • All these old guys (Kristol, Mansfield, Larry Summers, Charles Murray, etc.) are hesitant to say that men do good things too, and often at times and in ways that women can’t, and they take pains to say that women might do it, too. They really put men down. Mansfield at least makes the case that this is a problem (even as he does it) and makes snide comments that the powers-that-be are who muzzle us.
  • There’s this argument called the fact value distinction of which I did not know that I had picked a side (value). In modernity–because of modernity–democracy has elected fact. I am at odds again with the majority; though I confess that my preference was instinctual, subconscious, or in some other way less-than-consciously-reasoned. Irrational, but correct. A great deal of Right thought is irrational. It (knowledge or wisdom) can’t always be logically deduced, or logically consistent. I’m good with that, but then we get into accepting paradoxes, and also threatened by doublethinks.
  • One thing that I extracted from the spaces between Mansfield’s words is that No-Fault Divorce was probably an inevitable “innovation” of democracy. Democracy’s spirit is not just consent, but retractable consent, or arguable consent; a consent that is always up for debate. Here we get to one of those doublethinks because consent that is debatable is not really consent. If it is debatable, then it’s not real. So when some feminist (who is a kind of democrat/liberal/leftist) argues that she didn’t really consent to marriage, or sex, or whathaveyou: She is correct in the sense that she is more in-line with the spirit of liberalism. Her correctness matters and resonates because our society just is ruled by Liberalism. According to that spirit, No-Fault Divorce corrects an oversight of our forebears: The right of a wife (theoretically any spouse but effectually a wife) to hold a new election for Husband. A democracy with only one binding election does not keep with the spirit of democracy/liberalism. Binding isn’t what liberty does. No-Fault Divorce is a call to stand for election to office.

So, as I was saying, I was a right-liberal…I do not think I will stand for election again.

WAN Manual Discussion 3

Don Quixote wrote:

I was in a Sunday morning service a couple of years ago and the pastor made a joke about setting up an online database similar to trivago.com or tripadvisor.com but for churches. Members and visitors could log on and post their criticisms or accolades about the churches they had attended.
He was joking but I left that service and thought what a good idea, and I wanted to get started on such a thing. But its always the criteria that makes it very difficult, almost impossible. In fact the reason there are so many different protestant denominations is because of the splits over doctrines.

Perhaps. One thing that will help is that I have no interest in promoting non-denominational churches, or even cataloging them according to a doctrine. Those churches make up the largest chunk of problem cases when it comes to categorization. However; I will gladly put them on the bad list if they are found to support divorce, separation of children from a father for no reason, etc.

As for those churches in the denominations: It shouldn’t be too difficult to hold them to their own standards as documented in their own official literature; confessions, etc. There is one exception (of which I know) to this and that is the Roman Catholic Church; for reasons fit for another post. I am open to cataloging activities and discrete teaching of various RC churches, but…that will be a slog. More later.

Regardless of all those things: There are enough signs for us to concern ourselves with that the database needn’t get into theology. The focus will be on the facts. Does, or does not, First Baptist Nowhere encourage head coverings for women as they pray? Does, or does not, Second Street Lutheran Church allow its members to remarry and continue in fellowship? Does, or does not, Everywhere Presbyterian Church have a pastor or deacons with unruly children?[1]


[1] You can see already the quandry posed by the RCC. 1 Timothy 3 is clear that the main sign to know if a man is fit to lead a church is how he has led his family.

He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

It’s true that there are unmarried bishops, pastors, and deacons in the Early Church, and in the Bible. It is not true that the best solution to the problem of sinful men in positions of authority is to avoid the test altogether by making exceptions the rule.

Whore Mother May I

The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with Dalrock’s repeated skewering of theological cross-dressing. So they’re also aware that in Protestant teaching and churches this happened under the teaching of the theology of Complementarianism. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was formed in 1987 specifically to spread that theology. They have been widely and wildly successful.

But did you know that complementarianism first becomes a thing in a movement called New Feminism? New Feminism is a conservative feminist movement of the 1920s supposedly meant to combat radical feminism by swallowing the radical conceits under a dress. There are overlaps in leadership with the suffragettes. It was also a Roman Catholic movement. The writings of John Paul II are supportive of New Feminism, and I do not know of a retraction from either Benedict XVI, or Francis.

What I observe when I look at Protestant or Roman Catholic clergy is that they are far-and-away more likely to be sons of their mothers rather than sons of their fathers. In short: Clergy are a collection of Momma’s-boys. This makes sense once we realize that the organizing thought of New Feminism, and therefore Complementarianism is around the concept of Mother; not wife, or sister, or daughter. Those are viewed as larval stages. Full-grown woman is Mother. But the Bible, and most of the vastness of Christian theology, teaches men that we are to be imitators of Christ. Christ’s emphasis is on being a son of God; even when full-grown.

Let me say the overarching theology of Christian Complementarianism clearly: The vocation of men is to be Sons of God, and the vocation of women is to be Mothers of God.

What I have also observed of the women of Christian churches is that the majority of them both affirm and excuse the abuse of sex as a means to get what they want (attention, material objects, affection, status, etc.) rather than as the enjoyable work of marriage. They abuse sex by fornicating while unmarried to get what they want, and by refusing sex while married; to either display their unhappiness, or with the full-blown sexual refusal which is divorce. This is the essence of whoredom. The rumors about Catholic school-girls are not unfounded, nor are those about the daughters of Protestant preachers and deacons.

Proposed: Complementarianism just is matriarchy. It was smuggled into churches under the guise of the goodness of motherhood which scratched itchy conservative ears. It has delivered to us whores, and delivered us unto whores.

…Things I Didn’t Ask to Think About…

That’s a lot to think about. And I have been. In addition to listening to podcasts I’ve spent a lot of time with screens and speakers and voices off; just thinking. All the while praying for wisdom and discernment. What I want to find is big-picture understanding, but what I have found is a lot of conviction, and only a little bit of the larger scene.

A while back I wrote that I had come to the unavoidable and humiliatingly simple conclusion that the Sabbath ought to be kept.[1] Well–as I was listening to the History of English Podcast and thinking about Nationalism, the Alt-Right, and NRx–I came to similarly simple conclusion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. That was on a Wednesday. The following Sunday, our priest (I am Anglican) stopped me at the door and said “We need to train you to be a Lay Eucharistic Visitor so you can take Eucharist to Bob.” (Bob is homebound with sickness and injury.) We have never before spoken on the subject of LEV, or training me for anything. Of course I agreed. It was not a question.

Which naturally brings one to head-coverings for women. It did me, anyways. It’s been my habit to read 1 Corinthians 11 and then quickly cloud it–that men should never pray or prophesy with their heads covered, but women should only pray or prophesy with their heads covered–with what I have been taught all these years.. Though, it would be more true to say what I have been untaught all these years. Part of the trouble we Christian husbands and fathers have is underestimating how eroded are our churches and their habits.

Today I had the family together and I read to them I Corinthians 11:1-16; stopping ten or twelve times to ask them questions to see if they agreed with me–though I had not told them my interpretation. Then I asked “So, if St. Paul is an imitator of Christ, and he commends the Church in Corinth’s imitation of him, and if we are supposed to also imitate St. Paul and therefore Christ according to the traditions St. Paul delivered to them: Should women wear head coverings when they pray or prophesy?” They all answered in the affirmative and I told them, happily, that I agreed. Mrs. Caldo agreed, but then momentarily balked, and then agreed. I could in no way hold it against her: The balk was my words out of her mouth. I cannot hold it against her, and neither do I blame myself for listening to my elders on the matter. Though, we both would have to admit that no one forbid us head coverings.

Also: Thanks to Moose Norseman and Blake Law


[1] My habit is to look up links after I write the post. I see now I posted about my change of mind on the Sabbath just a few days from a year ago. I am slow.

An Aside On FCB’s: The Plague, Caveats, and The Caveat Plague

There is a plague. It has wiped out four-fifth’s of our people for the past three generations; perhaps more. This plague is spread by eating food fertilized by human feces. On a few occasions, our people have contracted it by men putting their boots–which have been walked in the feces-fertilized gardens–onto the table. Our people don’t know that our food is poisoned when it is fertilized by human excrement, but they have noticed those few occasions when men’s boots were on the table there was sometimes plague. That is because it is an abnormal occurrence. Conversely, they don’t notice the E.coli already in their food because it is reliably present.

If I were counseling these people, all my efforts would be to remove human feces from the fertilization process because I know how old wives’ tales get propagated, and I know how deeply people invest in their pet (and petty) superstitions. Therefore I would never mention shoes-on-the-table as a source of plague except in a known, specific, instance because–while five out of one hundred men put E.coli on the table with their boots–one hundred out of one hundred people are eating food poisoned in the field.

On Christian Female Bloggers II Addendum

I opened with “Prepare to be offended.”, and then I read a bunch of commentary here and abroad that no one was offended at my suggestion that kneeling was the gold standard of submission. I suspect that a lot of people lie to themselves. Obviously I would be wrong if it is the case that these people can look back into their own pasts at instances of a wife kneeling in submission to her husband; without embarrassment (which is a kind of being offended) or sex-play (though of a type of submission it is also a cover).

It is a mistake for one struggling with submission (either giving or accepting) to retreat into denial.

Poles Tell Us Confronting Women Ineffective

Pro-Lifers[1] tic neurotically about doing what is politically expedient. Namely, if a woman is heading into an abortion clinic then you shouldn’t warn her that she is about to solicit murder, or plead with her to reconsider the murder of her baby. They’ll tell you, if you do that, what will happen is that the woman will defiantly march into the clinic and have her baby murdered. In other words: The hostage-taker will bolt and kill the hostage. And, I am inclined to believe that this is true. But there are at least three big problems with taking this tack.

The first problem for the Pro-Lifer is that we’re not at a sidewalk demonstration. Whether it is me writing on the Internet, you talking amongst friends and family, or a politician’s answer to a talking head: There is no hostage-taking pregnant woman immediately on the scene to woo with soothing words. It’s not politically expedient here to say, as Ted Cruz did

Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.

As I said towards the end of my last post:

Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic.

Lies like that don’t save a single baby. Maybe, sometimes, such pandering to would-be murderesses just before they walk into a baby-slaughtering facility is effective in saving the hostage’s life. Outside of that context, such worshipful terms are only that: Worship. The worship is rendered lest some unknown goddess of life and murder out there feels insufficiently served.

The second problem is that giving in to hostage-takers’ demands is a very good way to incite the taking of more hostages. Everyone, including Pro-Lifers, knows that is true, but they do it anyway. WHY? If you want to stop the killing of hostages then the thing to do is make taking hostages at least unprofitable. Even better is to make is punishable. That they don’t (And when the stakes are so high!) leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that the real point of joining a Pro-Life group is that it is the sanctioned method for social-conservatives to bow before women as goddesses. It is a way to pretend to tradition while practicing feminism. As several commenters have rightly noted: They are bowing to the Asherah poles which have been erected in the Temple.

Here’s the biggest problem and here is where it is unavoidably a matter of worshipping the false idol of women: Pro-Lifers are blaming the Lord for abortion. If it were true that telling a woman not to do something–that it is a sin and a crime to commit sins and crimes for which breakers of the law should be and will be punished–pushes women to commit sins and crimes, then it would be the Lord’s fault for bringing sin into the world because He told Eve, through Adam, that if they eat of the Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge they would surely die.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Ten Commandment’s are broken because He gave them to us and warned us of sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites perpetually broke the laws that were given to them through Moses, and that they made and worshipped a golden calf.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites ignored, mocked, and killed the prophets He sent to warn them, and the Lord’s fault that the Israelites bowed to other gods.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many ignore the Bible because He gave it to us chock full of warnings against sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many shun the Holy Spirit because He sent Him to us, and bade us listen to Him lest we die forever.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many don’t accept Jesus Christ as their rightful King and Savior because He warned that Hell awaits those who don’t.

All this should sound familiar because it’s been said for a very long time.

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

It’s time to get up from among the Pro-Life goddess worshippers, you sleepers.

[1] Can I say too many times that I am anti-abortion?

The Shadows Cast by Goddess Idols

In my previous post I limited myself to the narrow and easily observable fact that Pro-Lifers view every woman as living fertility goddesses over their own little clans. But this worship has gone on for awhile now, and, like all, religions these idols have accreted spheres of influence under the ministrations of their devotees, as each one seeks to please the goddesses better than other rival worshippers. Zippy pointed out the obviously related sphere of sex itself fell under the shadow of women’s authority even though the centrality of sex belongs to men.

And not just babies, but children too. Before now there was the invention of the “Tender Years Doctrine” which provoked judges to deny the fruits of marriage from the farmer and leave them to the fields. (One eyes might perceive such a phenomenon as letting the fruit rot and the field go fallow.) Then there’s modern alimony and child support. The sacrament of No-Fault Divorce was key. It’s a ceremony of “pastoral exception” with two applications:

  1. Allow a goddess to discard her husband without refusal or compunction
  2. A husband can discard his goddess without publicly shaming her, and therefore avoid the offense of shaming a goddess

both of which pastorally except women from pondering consequences, repentance, or any other act that might anger her.

Now the cult’s shadow advances rapidly and we have passed quickly through the penumbral age of No-Means-No into the silent dark of Yes-Means-Yes and Marital Rape; when every man must first pray to his woman for sex, and then wait for an audible acceptance lest he trespass.

All that is just a broad (rimshot!) sketch to give you the lay of the land of where we are now so that I can talk about one little prayer to the goddesses that tires me.