Edited to point to the correct post.
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.
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.]
Modified slightly from a comment I made at Scott’s American Dad Web.
I am convinced that if a man wants his sons to enjoy exclusively male spaces and times, then he must set them now in a way which will seem arbitrary and even unfair to his modern and permissive self who just wants to be loved by his little girl.
And he needs to learn to be fine with his decisions as just and good; despite his feelings, or the feelings of others. He needs to accept that sometimes he must just say, “Nope, sorry honey, but that is a man’s business. It’s not because you might get hurt, or because you’re incapable, or because you’ll be frightened. It’s simply that you aren’t a man.” This will need to be done at relatively mundane times and events if he is to teach his children to respect and honor each sex, without rancor, according to their different natures.
We have tried the other way, and now females are on submarines, on the front lines, in football locker rooms, in the hunting party, and everywhere. These pressures are still out there in the world, and will sometimes effect our children, and we’ll have to respond to them. If your son grows up and complains that his hunting buddy wants to bring his girlfriend, what can you say? If your son asks to bring his own wife on your hunting trip, what will you say?
Will he reply, “Well, you took my sister hunting. What’s the big deal? It’s no different.”
The answer–the right warfare against Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Feminists, Democrats–is to put Christ first. The wrong answer is to put anything else first. I said that these groups are against:
and that is true. But there are several reasons not to put energy into pro-white movements, or even pro-male movements. The first and most important reason is that Christ is king and lord of all. We are to serve Him in all things we do, and (amazingly, I think) Christ has provided ways for us to serve Him first in all things we do.
The second reason is that we should never let the enemy choose the terrain of the battles; especially when our combatants are so outnumbered. That is when choice of terrain is most vital for victory. So we rightly should counter invasions on whiteness or manhood with counterattacks from Christ; not because we don’t care about whites or men, but because we need to attack from a position of strength. Nothing is stronger than Christ, whose victory is assured. Not only that, but they neither believe nor understand their own motivations and their own spiritual state–or even nature. This makes an attack launched from a Christ-centered force powerful because it is their weak spot.
So what does this look like in practice? That means to put Christians first for Christian reasons. This is something we have taken for granted. The strength of early America wasn’t “Americanism”. The goodness and truth of the founding documents, to the extent that they are good and true, don’t make appeal to their own goodness, but to the goodness of God and His natural order. The rights of freedom of speech, association, etc. are not predicated on either blood or soil, but on the belief that they are God-given.
So, for example: We should counter pagan attacks on Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, Catholic hospitals, bakers, and florists not on the defensive grounds of freedom of speech, nor freedom of association, nor freedom of religion, nor the whiteness of the staff; but on the counter-offensive terms that they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are upholding the God-ordained natural order. We don’t “pray those poor people are ok” (though we do pray for them), we make it our business to help them be victorious even at our own cost, and that we offer up those sacrifices for Christ’s glory. We do not offer them for freedom of speech or even religion.
This doesn’t mean we “forget” that we are American, our political traditions, or forget our ethnicity. It means we put them into submission into their rightful place, and by so doing make them worthy. It means we volunteer to suffer in the earthly and unworthy things–whether it is money, glory, status, or even blood–as Christ volunteered to suffer all those things for us so that we could inherit eternal riches and glory, and that we do so for the same reasons.
 I do believe these freedoms are real, God-given, and should be protected by a just and wise government. Perhaps I’ll write about that in another post.
I originally posted this as a comment under Scott’s post “The Christo-Rational-Consensus Approach” at his recently revived blog, American Dad Web. I think it’s coherent enough to stand as a post on its own; though I’m often my own worst critic.
Because we are mostly the sociological descendants of Anglo-Saxons, here’s something to think about:
Before the Norman Conquest of England, the accepted premise was that the land was owned by the people; more specifically by the person who was on it; whether male or female. A king rules over the people, but he doesn’t rule their lands directly. With William the Conqueror comes the French idea that the land belongs to the king, and that the people belong to the land. That is very different. So, for example, peasants couldn’t just up and move to another lord’s land because they belong to a defined space. But a king (as ruler of the land) could give peasants to another land, or his peasants could be another king’s by that second’s conquer of the land. Really, a peasant wasn’t of the king. He was of the land. Kings though are not tied to a land. They are something else; something above. Hence: Rigid class structures. That’s a problem because it fundamentally divides the people from its leader.
Nation states are an attempt to correct that. It says that the people and the nobility (the leaders, regardless of nomenclature) both belong to the land. That’s why Marx saw nation states as an obstruction to class struggle; because it gave an excuse to unite the leaders and the people. Marx saw that the actions of the nobility often belie their true allegiance: Like everyone they are prone to be allegiant to themselves first and to make common cause with other wealthy and privileged people from other nations, rather than with their own native peoples. Technology matters too: Marx lived in the time when the ship and the train raised the ability of the commoner to move across borders just like the nobles did.
Like Marx, I think nation states are a less-than-stable idea. Unlike Marx, I think that the problem is more fundamental than that of classes. I believe “class warfare” is a symptom of the sickness which places people under land instead of over it; of saying that people belong to a land instead of to a family and by extension to a nation of people–and that land belongs to them each, individually.
There’s a lot more that can be said about this. For example: In pre-feudal England, each free man (which were the great majority, only slaves weren’t free men) was required to own a spear and was subject to be summoned for war; usually on a rotation. Which makes sense: It’s your land, you defend it. Feudalism led directly to professional mercenary armies that worked anywhere and everywhere for the highest bidder while the inhabitants of the lands in contest got burned, pillaged, and raped–because it wasn’t the peasants place to fight.
Again, there are a lot of things to look at. Feudalism is like a softer Sparta where the 10% of Spartans ruled (brutally) over 90% Helots. Anglo-Saxon England was analogous to Athens. Early America was also in the vein of Athens (e.g. 2nd Amendment of weapons and militias), but we are rapidly moving towards a more feudal and Spartan model (e.g., civilians thanking warriors for their service of invading countries to the sole benefit of the leaders) instead of actually picking up a weapon and defending what they own.
Marx was a wicked and short-sighted man who weaponized envy on a multinational and multigenerational scale, but nation states don’t set the world in order, either.
Deep Strength says of finding a wife:
You’re pretty much on your own. Make it happen, if you want to be married.
If I understand his own story (It’s the second half of his post, check it out.): Two women connected him with the woman to whom he is now engaged. It’s catchier than “make it more likely” but the truth is that others play key roles in making it happen. Making and keeping friends is time well-spent.
This isn’t to denigrate the specific advice he gives to “make it happen”. It’s actually pretty good. But I want to add that cultivating a group of friends–with whom you are seen by women–not only improves one’s chances and one’s choices, and it not only speeds the whole process along: Friends and their respect also help maintain a wife’s attraction even when one is not on his A game.
I saw this video linked on a couple sporting news websites as evidence that NFL Fan Fights season has kicked-off. Language warning for the faint.
Did you see what I did? Because what I saw was:
I wonder if he knows that, in her mind, contract negotiations are never over and every day is the right day to disrespect him if she can get her way.
According to the satanic interpretation of Just War Theory: Rebellion is the only and evergreen ground for initiating violence. Since, by definition, an authority cannot rebel against its subordinates, it follows that the merest use of violence by an authority–even for discipleship and administered in love–is fundamentally unjust according to the satanic interpretation.
Keep this in mind whenever you find yourself supporting an overthrow of some kind. And if you have an unshakeable aversion to the use of violence by legitimate authority regardless of the circumstances, then you should know that part of yourself is in cahoots with the Devil.
If, on the other hand, you revel in the truth that Our Lord Christ will return with overwhelming and unstoppable violence, then you can know that part of you has been redeemed from the bondage of lies.
I took a trip over to Matt Walsh’s blog today. His most recent post is about the scourge of male adultery in the form of pornography. Actually, that’s not quite right. It’s a condemnation of married men as adulterers if they’ve ever used porn. What follows here is my comment there.
The most likely explanation for the author’s post is that the author struggles with porn use, and his heavy-handed attack here is an attempt to convince himself take his desire for porn more seriously; that–deep down–he isn’t one of Those Guys. And, it is heavy-handed to throw the word adultery out there when women are chomping at the bit to rule over their husbands–as the Bible says they are. Once they’ve got the adultery bit in their mouths grace and forgiveness are thrown completely off.
It’s very true that in many households the husband is illicitly storing highly explosive porn. He keeps it tucked away; that’s why we have to “catch” them using porn, like A Girl reported above. He knows its wrong. He probably hates himself after he uses it. A single match like that can really scar a man.
Forget Fifty Shades of Grey. There are gallons of incendiary Downton Abbey, sticks of Cosmo, molotovs of Teen Mom; gases of Maroon 5, and bricks of The Housewives of Wherever…and they’re thrown causally around the house. Really, it’s stacked to the ceiling.
Here’s come Matt Walsh to throw the bomb of adultery into the house. When it goes up like Hiroshima, what will he say? “Well, that guy shouldn’t have had a drawer-ful of TNT. Serves him right!” Where is the word against the pro-snark, pro-loud, ungentle, envy-raising, emotional porn (Not just “trash”, but trash meant explicitly to titillate the sexual senses. I’m looking at you, Crawley dynasty) that FILLED the house that Matt threw the bomb of adultery into?
Not a peep, Matt?
In the comments, someone calling themselves “A Girl” wrote about walking in on her father viewing porn. I left the following remark addressed to her:
You need to read your Bible before you get on the Internet and retell stories about your father.
<i>Genesis9: 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.</i>
And it was so.