In for a Penny, In for a Pound

 

MKT pointed out a video celebration of J.D. Greear’s election as president of the SBC.

In his comment, MKT noted Russell Moore’s cameo, but Beth Moore is in there as well. If you watch both videos you’ll see that it’s a who’s-who of the SBC’s ascendant politburo.

But today I want to talk about the animating spirit behind J.D. Greear’s ascendence, and I want to do that by examining the message put out by one of his biggest fans, the producer of this video. Her name is Ashley Unzicker. [1] She is a member of The Summit Churches in NC where her husband Todd Unzicker [1] is a sort of pastor of the 10,000 plus church, according to this McClatchy article about how evil Trump is.

It turns out that the celebration video is a follow-up to this video from March 14, 2016 in which she pimps big for Greear to be president. [2]

The lyrics point out that Greear is accomplished, smart, well-travelled, has a full head of greying hair, runs a successful and growing corporation, pushes diversity, and handles loads of cash. She literally puts her whole being into service to joyfully sing and dance Greear’s praises.

Two and a half months after (May 30, 2016) “J.D. Greear for SBC President Rap”, Ashley released another video.

The video is titled “Husbands say ‘No’ to Cleaning”, but in the song it’s the wife saying no to her husband. It mocks her husband as a slobby and irresponsible man-child who isn’t allowed to go play until he finishes his chores, or else she will shame him on Facebook.

Her husband Todd helped her make the video by starring as one pathetic boob representative of all husbands. (It’s called “HusbandS say ‘No’ to Cleaning”.) Perhaps that’s not a fair reading of her intent. After all, this is a diversity-loving woman. Maybe she meant Todd to only represent boring, unsexy, white husbands.

With whom should we assume Ashley is infatuated?  J.D. Greear at whose feet Ashley devotes herself body and soul, or Todd whom she mothers, dominates, and shames online?


[1] Check out Ashley and Todd’s profile tags. 

Hers: Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

His: Follower of One, husband of one @AshleyUnzicker , dad of three, sender of many @Summitrdu

[2] Here’s a video of J.D. Greear withdrawing his 2016 candidacy for SBC president.  If that looks familiar, it might be because you read Greear’s January 30, 2018 post “Why I’m Accepting the Nomination for SBC’s president”. The post’s header image is taken from that 2016 withdrawal announcement. It was posted five months previous to the SBC women’s letter which led to the ignoble ouster of Paige Patterson; a political assassination which would frighten the sheep right into Greear’s woman-shaped arms. Spooky? Nah. That’s just good plans.

Advertisements

Have at Them

I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition. Despite my departure from them back in the mid-90s, I still have affection for them. They are how and why I, as a child, became a Texan, and I recall my father’s discussions with other men about the conservative pushback against the liberal SWBTS president Dilday; Dad being with the conservatives. So, as a literal child of the conservative takeover of the SBC, I was interested in the horrific character assassination of now-former SWBTS president Paige Patterson.

I can find reasons to dislike Patterson. He, along with many others, own the mess created by the extra-Biblical idea of Complementarianism. [1] But the fact is he was taken out because–even in his Complementarian error–he chose to skew closer to Biblical, traditional, and observably true judgments of men and women.

Anyway, that’s about all I have to say about Patterson the man. This post is about the 3,365 Southern Baptists who signed an open letter which rebuked Patterson for being reasonable and Godly in his teaching; even if his specific examples in those teachings were sometimes less than verifiable. I would want to know if the sort of person who would sign such a letter was teaching my kids, or influencing my wife. In fact, I’d want to talk to them about their Godless, views. I’d want my friends to know.

17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[f] and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. 19 For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

So I have copied the names into a spreadsheet and sorted them by state, city, and church. The data isn’t perfectly massaged, but it is easily searchable. The first tab has the whole list of signers. The rest of the tabs are a breakdown by state, provided the state had enough signers to warrant their own tab. Rhode Island info is only on the All States tab, for example. View the spreadsheet here.

[1] Even the word itself sounds weak. 

 

Anything Without a Head is Either Dead or a Monster

I am for fathers and fatherhood. That does not mean I am for any father for me, or for my kids. Nor am I for just anyone fathering, or claiming fatherhood. No one questions this. Everyone not an SJW understands it.

Likewise: Just because I am for authoritarianism, and just because I believe that authoritarianism is the reality of all political arrangements, and just because I see that it has been hidden under a garbage heap of lies in a contextual-less world of a long-overthrown and subjugated Europe: It does not follow that I am for just any kind of authoritarianism, or just any authoritarian. I’m not. I want good ones. We need them if we are going to defeat the post-modernists, cultural marxists, BLM, AntiFa, and the rest of the Eloist-Morlockian Alliance that Rules our Necropolis. What they have going for them, which we do not, are leaders. We don’t have leaders because the few with the gumption lack the resources. Those with the resources lack the gumption. And both can see that most of us aren’t worth leading since we categorically refuse to be under authority on the basis of a glamor of liberty which we do not actually possess. Above all, those with the gumption and resources do not themselves disbelieve the spell.

Whatever can’t go on forever, won’t; so the saying goes. But the things with a head go on longer, and get more done. Without a head, a thing can’t even make plans for the day. Two-headed bodies are either tragedies or abominations.

Or, How I Learned to Love the Boss

This is a dashed-off list of the main 10 thoughts that led me to recognize the sweet, sentimental affection for freedom I have inside me, reach deep down in there, and start choking that bitch out.

  • Zippy Catholic, in particular his idea of the “unprincipled exception”: rules and ruling that do not proceed from the principle of liberty, but from something else, like “good”, or “just”. As well as being repeatedly confronted with the idea that I find it preferable to have a “free government” over a “good government”. That is just dumb.

 

  • Thinking about the Men’s Sphere complaint of the conservative formulation of familial headship–authority is responsibility but no command–is not true authority.

 

  • The interchangeability of the words: power, liberty, command, freedom, etc. We play subtle but corrosive games with these words. We think we understand each other, but I doubt it.

 

  • Taking stock of what few freedoms I actually have (in contrast to the things that are restricted from me), and how I’m mostly ok with that. My problem isn’t a lack of freedom. My problem is that I can’t count on my authorities to uphold me in justice when I make a good decision.

 

  • Martial Law. When things get bad, real bad, so bad that we have to resort to violence, we enact martial law. That is, we become overtly authoritarian. Obviously then we think that is the best, must-have form of government. And that means that everything else is half-ass measures. We’re playing shadow games here with liberalism.

 

  • The Kingdom of God. I must admit that the government the Lord chooses is the best, wisest, and most just kind of government.

 

  • Contemplating “Alt-Right”. As a lifelong member of GenX, Alt-Right is a gay term. It reminds me of Third Eye Blind’s “pierced queer teens in cyberspace”. I don’t want an alternative right. I want the good right. I want the just right. And I want a legitimate place in it, with authority over my own domain. I don’t want to be free to own a weapon. I want to be authorized–expected–to be armed.

 

  • Recognition that love for authority doesn’t mean all authorities are to be loved. Some kings need to be fought, abandoned, or killed…but they should be replaced with good ones.

 

  • Recognition that authoritarianism isn’t a synonym for, tyranny, despotism, etc. As well as recognition that authoritarianism doesn’t necessarily mean monarchy, inherited aristocracy, etc. (As well as some recalculations of whether those are good or bad, and how.) Authoritarianism just means liberties and responsibilities descend from authority, for real.

 

  • Respect is impossible to derive from freedom itself. If we’re all merely free to do or say this or that, then from whence can respect come? It’s just, like, your opinion, man. This is a big one.

CoE IV: Leave

For a long time I maintained that men should continue to go to church. I still believe that for men in churches that aren’t hostile to men, who support and encourage him to take authority over his family, and who encourage wives and children to obey their husbands and fathers. Churches and pastors are bound to do and say silly things now and then. They will say things that you won’t like, or give different interpretations to Biblical text than you see.

But undermining a father’s authority–his right and responsibility to lead–by deed (example) and by voice (command)–is destructive of the whole organization.

You can’t fight the leadership of an organization. Even if you win, the organization will probably die when its leaders are gone. You see this in families. After a divorce families altogether fall apart. That’s why so many parents tell the lie to their kids that “The divorce isn’t about them (the children), and that Mommy and Daddy both still love them very much.” Children discover the lie when Mommy and/or Daddy remarry and have new children with their new spouse. The children of the new marriage are loved more. There’s simply more love to give because that fountain still flows. Or when the new couple go off to have fun together without the children from the old marriage. Or when unknown and untrusted adults are brought into the home of children to go off and make strange noises in the parent’s bedroom, and later sit, frighteningly, at the breakfast table. That is, if they don’t come and go in the night like a thief.

It can be a good thing for an organization to die, but you don’t want to be in it when it happens. And you don’t want to be a traitor. Treason hurts the traitor as much or more than the betrayed in the long run. No one should trust a traitor even if he claims to have acted for the right cause. It’s a worse thing to act in bad faith than it is make a wrong choice. That is disrespect and contempt for yourself, those around you, and those above you; for everyone. Those who make bad decisions can be convinced and even repent. They can change their minds and heal their souls. Those who act in bad faith lose both.

So if you find yourself at odds with the leadership, and they undermine your authority, and they don’t defend you as you carry out your God-appointed duty to have charge over your family: Leave.

[Edit: Edited to fix an editing error. Edit.]

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.

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.

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.