Edited to point to the correct post.
In the previous post on wives and women to be in submission I noted that there is much more instruction in the Bible about the order of Christian households than there is about the administration of baptism or the Lord’s Supper. Six passages were listed within the post, but I left out one in particular; a bit of “meat on the bone” that I hoped a commenter might gnaw off.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
With this passage St. Paul blows out of the water the nonsense idea of “mutual submission” that so many pretend to glean from Ephesians 5:21.
My next post will probably be about my own error in applying 1 Cor. 11:15, but what is important in this post is:
 The ESV translators footnote that the words wife and husband used in the passage could be translated as woman and man, depending on the context, and that that word for angels could be translated as messengers or observers.
 The linked post of Sheila Gregoire’s blog would be hilarious if she represented only a fringe element of Christian culture. She actually writes of those who quote 1 Peter 3 on the submission of women that they are ignoring the entire rest of the Bible, and that Peter’s instruction that wives act like Sarah is only in reference to Sarah when she followed Abraham out of Ur!
My drive-by commenters believe this verse clearly says that women should always obey their husbands no matter what. However, the readers of Peter’s letter would never have thought that. First, they would have known that Peter didn’t think this; but second, even if Peter had wanted to tell his readers to do so, he would not have used Sarah as the example. Sarah’s life was hardly the picture of a wife obeying her husband in everything!
Instead, when contemporary Jewish readers encountered Peter’s command that women emulate Sarah, who obeyed Abraham “rather than giving way to fear”, that last part would have given them the context of what Peter meant. They would have known that it was not a command to obey in all circumstances. Instead, they would take that bit of the verse–“rather than giving way to fear”–and hearken back to to the time that Sarah DID obey, even when it was scary.
And that was the time that Sarah followed Abraham out of Ur, because God called him. That was a pivotal time in Jewish history (really the beginning of Jewish history). It would make sense that Peter would remind his readers of it. And the message they would take? When God is speaking, you follow by faith. It’s that simple.
They would never think that it meant that women should not confront their husbands’ sin, or that women should forget God’s will and only follow their husband’s will, because that would go against everything they knew of Sarah, and everything they knew of Peter. [Emphasis in original text]
“Ever since I was little I had two big goals,” says Noguchi, “One of them was to be a musician or an artist of some sort, and the other was to go to college in the States. That’s why I made the decision to go to Maine by myself when I was fourteen.”
Pretty impressive, right? I thought so.
I mean: A nation whose men made themselves so safe that girls from countries on its periphery can move here alone as children to do pretty much whatever they want unmolested. That’s who you thought were impressive, right? Especially when you consider that they did it for no profit to themselves.
 Infogalactic has no page on the band Superorganism.
Originally, cheerleaders were men.
That’s Jimmy Stewart and his cheer squad, third from the right. Notice the terms: “leader”, and, “team”, and “squad”. These are manly terms. Notice the dress: pants, shirts, sweaters, ties. Manly dress.
In 1923, at the University of Minnesota, women were admitted into cheerleading. I’m sure they asked themselves, “What could be the harm? Technically, women can cheer… I’m sure it will be fine.”
By 1960, cheerleading was seen as predominantly a girl thing, and for effeminate men. At the same time, the uniforms began to become less formal…and to shrink. Today, the “far-right moral position” on cheerleading is that it should be reserved for girls (who only pretend to be sluts) as nature intended. In the future, conservative won’t even notice this.
Over on the Fabius Maximus website, editor Larry Kummer has the tagline “Reigniting the spirit of a nation grown cold.” It has a nice ring to it, but it’s just wrongheaded. The spirit of the nation was embodied in an electorate of men, but our electorate is embodied by the hermaphroditic, and woofully cuckoo.
 Worth reading on occasion.
In English, the only word for “marriage sorting and arranging ritual” we have is courtship; even though the act is as old as people. That’s because the cuckoo’s egg of Courtly Love has hatched, and the nest of Christianity is overtaken with its progeny; the assumption of women’s moral superiority, Feminism, egalitarianism, and complementarianism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.