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.

Advertisements

Security Conference Seduction

Last Thursday the sun shone, the air was warm, and the apartment complex pool next to the sand volleyball court was clean. Swarmed in this space were a hundred or more men and women; college students with the day off. Nearly all the men had taken off their shirts. Most of the women wore bikinis. Each had a can or bottle of something, and they all laughed and touched and mooned. Trap boomed and screeched from overdriven speakers. To the untrained eye, it was something like a bacchanalian scene. But I–having been raised in church–knew that I witnessed the dark ritual seduction of innocent females seeking security.

The men faked good humor while the music hypnotized the women with its subtle lyrics of fornication and riches. They only did so because it was expected of them by the prospective papas at this impromptu security conference. The bumping propaganda lulled the women, and by this clever hypnosis and other unseen trickery the young men coerced the women to rub their bodies upon their oppressors. They only hung on the predators–as if each were a jungle gym–to see which man was strong enough to give a paternal hug, or some day hand his little girl an ice cream cone.

And so what about the beverages? What recourse had the poor, nearly naked, dears from this nightmare but to drink? How else to quell their fears of remaining unloved for who they were on the inside, or to drown their sorrows for having to pick from such a poor selection of future fathers who could not even manage a shirt?

Those women didn’t mean to wear bikinis around a bunch of sex-minded men instead of their dads. It was just bad luck.

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.

Liberty on the Fringes of Jane’s Books

Oscar writes:

Freedom – more correctly, liberty – is not the ability to do whatever one wants, which is what most people today think it is.

The ability to do whatever one wants is not liberty, it’s hedonism. Hedonism is what “liberals” want. They don’t actually want liberty.

Liberty is the ability to govern oneself. The implication being that one who does not govern himself must be governed by others.

To paraphrase Federalist 55, when men possess insufficient virtue to govern themselves, nothing short of the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Questions:

  1. Who decides what is virtue? Who really decides–leaving some alone but punishing others–whether or not a man governs himself? Whoever that person is, he is the authority under which the others live. Christians should not believe that the answer is only “God”. Our scriptures tell us that we are to obey not only God, but several authorities who He has given the mission to rule.
  2. What does the author of Federalist 55 mean by govern except to be under control; under authority? Does he think destroyers and devourers are not making their own choices?

What Oscar calls Liberty just is Authority; the permission to act within certain boundaries of responsibility. Liberty is the bit within the boundaries. Most of the world is outside those boundaries.

We can test this. Pick up one copy of each of the 77 Jane’s Information Group books. (Here is a list.) Separate them into two piles: one pile with the things an adult American citizen with no criminal history but without special licenses is allowed to own and use. Put the rest in another pile of the those which are forbidden him without special license. Those piles will contain 0 books, and 77 books, respectively.

Ok, now take those books, and tear out the pages. (This will take some time. There will be a lot of them.) Separate those pages into piles according to the same criteria. This will now put some pages in the Allowed pile, but the vast majority will be in the Forbidden pile.

Those piles constitute what is meant by: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

When I point out that what we want is Authoritarianism, there’s no reason for clear observers and thinkers to be scared. It’s what we have right now. We lie about it because we have been taught by Liberals to be afraid of it. But lying is utterly corrosive, and not at all manly or godly.

It gets even better: Liberals are afraid of it! Things that Liberals are afraid of should be go-to weapons.

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:

google_chasity

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:

google_chastity

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:

brave_chasity

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:

brave_chastity

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.

 

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.

Seen but not Preached

Ryder commented:

This [CC: women in bawdy forms of men’s dress] is one of those things that, once you see it, you see it everywhere.

How do we know the legs in this photo belong to kick-ass girls on the job site? Because they’re wearing skin-tight pants.

It brought me joy to read. To help men to observe what they have already and always seen is what I really like to do. It’s why the blog is called “Things We Have Heard and Known”.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

As far as I can tell, the sight that Christian men in America see but do not observe is that women (especially wives) are tempted to bring to heel men (especially their husbands) because of their sin nature. They are tempted to this like a man is tempted to avoid work.

Every day most men get up and say, “I wish I didn’t have to work today.”, or, “I hope work goes by fast”, or something like it. And every day women get up and say to themselves, “I wish everyone else would do what I say.”, or “I hope I get to prove to him wrong so he’ll see how right I am.”

Think about that. Every day. All day. As many times that you as a man are waiting for work to be over, or wishing that the work was more satisfying, or thinking about what you will do after work, or waiting for retirement: That’s how much and how often a woman is tempted to tell her husband to step the hell off and do what she says.

The desire of his to relax, and her to command, have not yet abated even though Christ has forgiven our sins. We still die and return to dust. Children are still born and reared in sorrow. Men still must labor for bread. Women still chomp at the bit to reign.

Her desire to rule is not hypergamy from an accident of natural selection; a wholesome sexual selection process that sometimes goes awry. No. Hypergamy is one strategy–of many–that women use to project power over men. Because in her mind it is always in question whether or not she can get him to obey.Likewise, women are not shit-testing to see if her man is “fit” to rule. “Shit-tests” are to see how much she can get away with, and how likely she is to get her way. Period. That’s it. That’s why she gets worse about it after marriage and she’s pledged to have and to hold until death. There’s no final test to pass. There will be no satiation for her hunger to rule until the Lord returns.

It’s just a misery that she has to fight against. There is no benefit just as there is no benefit to any sin.

Observe what you see.

A Primer of Practical Application

Regular posts will resume shortly. In the meantime, I wanted to recommend this essay by James Kalb at SydneyTrads, “Dissolving the Black Hole of Modernity“. It’s good.

I’m not sure of the author’s mind on this point, but I notice that the implicit audience for the essay is men, and not people. Something to ponder.

There’s No Way Around No

Tim Finnegan writes:

I think the question of what women ought not to wear will get answered when we answer the question of where women ought not to go. I think if we find a location/activity that is exclusive to men, then the clothing which is designed for that location/activity will be what women ought not to wear. It would be best if there were multiple such activities/locations (as there used to be).

Nope. Didn’t work. Doesn’t work. Won’t work. If it worked, women wouldn’t wear men’s clothes now. Anyways, such exclusive activities are always “solved” by inventing or repurposing men’s clothes as women’s.

There’s no way around learning to say No to women, and holding to it; even on totally subjective merits. Especially then.