Stop Being Distracted

Taken (only slightly edited) from several comments on Dalrock’s post, “First They Came for the Bald Men”.


The movement of which Antifa, commies, Democrats, etc. all belong isn’t anymore essentially Left than its opponents are Nazis. The essence of the movement to which these groups belong–what they have in common–is a hatred of three things:

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

The order of hatred depends on with which faction of the movement one deals, but the three are essential. For example: Feminism hates men first, then Christianity, then whites. Black Lives Matter orders it Whites, Christianity, then men, I think. Sometimes, as in the case of Antifa, more than one plank is of equal weight. Antifa hates America as a whole because it recognizes that America is fundamentally a work of white Christian men.

It’s not autonomous vs. totalitarian, nor is it globalists vs. nationalists, nor is it politically correct speech vs. free speech. They are not FOR anything in particular. They exist to be AGAINST things. Specifically, they are against

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

Some are fine–and even for–capitalism in China, India, wherever–as long as the benefits are not for Christian white men. They love to welcome Muslim mid-easterners, but the Christian mid-easterners are served right to be killed and exiled. There is no rhyme or reason to these affiliated groups except what they are against. Leftism has nothing to do with this movement.

They don’t know or care what Left means.
They don’t know or care what Nazi means.
They don’t know or care what Globalism means.
They don’t know or care what Right means.
They don’t know or care what Fascist means.
They don’t know or care what Nationalism means.
They don’t know or care what Communist means.

The words, to them, contain no meaning whatsoever. Those things are just words that dead white oppressors made up to separate the real people of color from each other and their belongings. They appropriate and use these terms as various forms of subversive weaponry: dog whistles, cloaks, and diversions.

Most people, people who describe themselves as Conservative, or even merely “normal” just don’t accept what they actually see. And the self-styled Conservative press are trained to look for ideological underpinnings and try to perceive the “end game”. There aren’t any. It’s just envy and hatred. The average American refuses to believe that and so they theorize imaginary ideologies and end games for BLM, Antifa, Feminists, and so forth.

Envy and hate aren’t ideological points. They are of the spiritual realm. It’s a spiritual war; not an ideological war, nor an ethnic war.

Advertisements

Pro-Lifers’ Terrible Vision for Marriage

I closed the previous post by saying that the implications of Pro-Lifers pigheadedness to hold abortive mothers as not guilty by reason of: Life is Hard are even worse. Let’s consider marriage.

Lydia McGrew, PhD wrote:

A legal situation with harsh penalties for abortionists and zero penalties for the procuring woman would be just another such rough-cut distinction made by law, based on considerations like the difficulty of proving the woman’s state of knowledge or intent, information about the prevalence of mitigating pressure and even coercion on the woman, the widespread deception practiced upon pregnant women, the fact that the woman is not confronted with the humanity of the victim in the same way that the abortionist is, and so forth.(Abortion is unique in that the victim is physically hidden, and can remain hidden, from one of the people who is complicit in the victim’s destruction.)

Until thinking about this topic of abortion and women’s ability to choose, I have considered myself a strong supporter of marriage. That will continue, but I confess that it will do so under the powers of habit and will; yoked by conviction from the Word of God. If those (my efforts) fail, then only by the power of the Holy Spirit shall they be maintained. And only if He is so inclined.

She said that abortion is unique in that the victim is “physically” hidden, but this is a perversion of the truth. Pregnancy is visually hidden–not physically–and it is far from unique. Who has seen God? Who has seen Jesus? Who has seen the Holy Spirit? Who has seen a merely human spirit? Who has see the human heart as it is spoken of in the Bible? Who has seen Heaven? Who has seen Hell?

Who has seen marriage? Marriage, like pregnancy, is a good thing. Also like marriage it is surrounded by fears and anxieties and real sacrifice. We can see the evidence of it, but no one has put eyes on the mystery of two flesh become one. It must be accepted on faith. Under the Pro-Lifers’ terrible rule of eyeballs: If no woman has the moral agency to refrain from commitment to abortion, then no woman has the moral agency to commit to the good of marriage. There is not even a matri-gram to prevent women from becoming the puppets of divorce lawyers.

The Full and Fair Measuring of Adultery-by-Porn

You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God.

In response to my post on men’s refusal to divorce women over their porn habits, George Henty wrote:

“That’s a great point, Cane. It reminds me a bit of the old saying that women can forgive an affair that’s “just physical”, while men can forgive an emotional affair as long as “nothing happened”.”

Donal Graeme echoed that point (I believe) with his comment:

Yes, and that says a lot about men and how they think. Just as how women seeing it as adultery says a lot about women and how they think.

I think that it says something about almost everyone…or rather: About no one. Men’s tolerance of women’s porn use is strong evidence that no one actually believes porn use is adultery; as does the dearth of porn-use intervention programs directed specifically at women. Yet on these grounds men are punished with divorce by their wives, pastors, churches, and courts.

Committing adultery in one’s heart is a serious thing, but it’s not grounds for real divorce performed and recognized by human authority any more than thinking someone’s a fool is worthy of a real murder sentence from a court. The consequence of not making the distinction is to become an abomination.

Wiser Than I’d Like to Be

Tacomaster‘s and Jeff’s comments reminded me of something that I’d forgotten which I had previously remembered.

Over a decade after the comment she would bring it up. I remembered saying it. I remembered how I felt at the time. I remember thinking she would forget; she would blow it off and it would have no impact. I was wrong about that. She tried to blow it off, but when she recalled it to me there was no denying that she had remembered. We were young; twenty-one, maybe twenty-two. That would have been our fourth or fifth year of marriage.

“Do you remember,” she said, “when you said this day would come?”

“What day?” I have said a lot of days would come. Some less sagaciously than others.

“We were in the apartment at Green Glen, and one night, after we’d–you know–argued about stuff. You said that right now you were in your prime and I was wasting it, and that there would come a time when you were not in your prime, but I would be in my thirties and dying for it. Then I’d see how you felt.”

“Yeah, I remember.”

“You were right.” She got quieter. “I’m sorry.”

“I know.” 

[Updated to fuller conversation just after initial posting]

Donkey Prod: A Program to Help You Take the Next Step

“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.

Women love a new lifestyle fad. One after the other books and programs are produced, and one after the other women buy them. They talk about them to each other. They extoll the life-changing greatness of them. They praise them to everyone until the next one comes out. Then the new edition of brain-candy measurements, pledges, and securities are added to the sweet-tooth jumble already in their heads and hearts.

  • P90
  • P90-X
  • P90-XXXtreeeeeeeeeeeeeme
  • Insanity
  • Yoga
  • Pilates
  • Cardio-kickboxing
  • Vegetarian diets
  • Pescetarian diets
  • The South Beach Diet
  • The Paleo diet
  • Organic diets
  • Vegan diets
  • Gluten-free diets
  • Fat detox
  • Cleansings
  • Colon cleansings
  • Impurity purging
  • Closet purging
  • Organization projects

I keep this in mind whenever women comment on my blog because the chances are that I am a passing spiritual fad. Because of this phenomenon, I limit myself to the idea that this is a table that I set for current and future husbands and fathers. Women may eat what falls from here. They may even enjoy it. I hope they do, and words to that effect are most welcome. Some of them come around regularly, and I do my best to accidentally-on-purpose knock some of the good stuff onto the floor.

The trouble starts (and it always does) when some poor beggaress starts criticizing what I’m serving, how I’m serving it, and to whom it is served. “Hey!”, they say, “Yesterday’s food was better. Today I do not like to eat these scraps. This one is too salty! Make me my preferred dish. Where is the sugar? And while I’m giving you a piece of my mind: I don’t like being served on the floor, either! Make room for me at your table!” Which is all wrong; least of which because she is flighty and rude. If she wants food that is served from the table, then her father or husband must come and be seated. She should go and tell him. Then he can serve her food that was not on the floor, and give it to her salted the way she likes.

But her flightiness and rudeness is her authority’s problem; not mine. My problems are:

  1. Her authority ain’t around, wouldn’t like me if he was, and has been serving crap so that she is in the habit of eating without satisfaction. Now she is fat with ignorance, and weighed down by fads.
  2. Either that weight’s got to come off, or I have to prompt some adrenaline for a flight-or-fight response because I have a responsibility to send this donkey back home, undo some baggage, or at least get her moving along with her burden.

I know and appreciate that a lot of women read here; probably more than men. The thing is: I have set this apart for men. If I can help I will give. But if you want to criticize then, lady, I have the program to get that ass moving!

They Want Differently: A Primer on Women’s Sin and Genius

It is well-known–at least among the blogs and commenters I read–that men and women want different things from the other. For example: Women tend to prioritize a man’s material resources, while men tend to prioritize a woman’s beauty. A man won’t care much about a woman’s resources, and women are less concerned with a man’s physique than the clothes and baubles upon it.

So far so good.

In line with this, these blogs and commenters recognize that one of the mistakes a man makes is thinking a women will like the same things men do, and thus will respond positively to the same behavior that he would prefer to receive. Men like respect, so the errant man breaks out the deference routine. He sits through the stupid rom-com; buys what she likes; lets her choose the restaurant; etc.

Still so far so good.

Further we go, and some of the same blogs and commenters will say that women make the same mistake. That–because women like authority and power–their headstrong and challenging behavior is a tactical blunder of the sort made by the man who unholsters deference to shoot himself in the foot.

This is wrong. Men and women are even more different than that. Women are headstrong and challenging because they want what they want and they don’t give a damn about the whys and whatfors. In the female soul desire is mainlined. They want differently than we men do. The typical desire of a typical man is weighed thus: “Can I get the goods without getting in trouble?” A woman says to herself, “How do I get the goods without getting in trouble?” While the difference in words is subtle to the ear; the meanings are widely separated. The thought of doing without is a secondary consideration at best. That’s just in the nature of a woman, and why they need a leader.

Now, try and imagine successive generations of women; each raised on more and more skewed diet of unmerited praise and affirmation, but without hearing “No” and without consequences. If you can’t imagine it, then go to the mall, or the office, or the DMV and open your bloody eyes.

So A power-play by a woman is not a misguided come-on. It’s a power-play. There could be a come-on mixed in, but the attempt at control is for its own sake; simply because she is driven to strive to be in control. The come-on (if there) is for him, but the power-play is for power.

Women who don’t want to be in control are a figment of the imagination. It’s their sin nature. The marriageable ones are those women who struggle against it. The honorable women are those who redirect their desires, and only ask themselves “How do I get The Good?”

So A Jew and an Assyrian Walk Into a Bar

Your king went forward with his plans to cooperate with the Assyrians because it seemed like the thing to do at the time. Now that error has come to fruition, and the Assyrians have taken control over Israel and Judea.

You’re a beat-down Jewish man living in Assyrian Israel. Every day you watch the troops of you occupier march by on their majestic destriers; with their fancy clothes, thick armor, and big muscles. More than once you’ve caught your wife looking at them. Sometimes she tries to hide it, but other times she just doesn’t care if you see her or not.

Yesterday, an Assyrian soldier was carousing around town with his friends, and his robe fell open; revealing himself. That was one of those moments you caught your wife biting her lip. You wonder to yourself: Besides armor, horses, fine clothes, a big ol’ swinging dick, and an army: What’s he got that I haven’t got?

You went to the Temple and sought advice from the rabbis, but they were busy convincing a group of curious invaders that they don’t have to change anything about themselves to become children of the Israelite God. They can stay as they are, live as they have as long as they keep their idolatry to a dull roar, and YHWH will accept them. He will make them profitable as long as they bring some riches to the temple like a good Jew. You don’t have much in the way of riches, and no way to go about getting them; especially with so many martial forces entrenched around you.

Sad and envious, you wander into the market to go about your work. Everywhere you look, you can see the men and women bustling around at their chores. You notice, whenever an Assyrian saunters by, the Jewish women giggle and titter to themselves; trading gossip on which Jewess has shupted the more Assyrians in her day.

You need a drink and some solace. You walk into a tavern and grab a drink. Sitting next to you is one of the occupiers. You recognize him as one of the Assyrians that the Yentas like to talk about. He’s not one of the masterminds of the invasions; he’s just a sergeant off-duty. He offers to buy you a drink.

Surprised, you accept, and a conversation begins. You get to talking and discover that he’s got a good sense of humor, and a quick tongue. You decide he’s not a bad sort of fellow for an occupier. Perhaps he can make sense of why Jewish women are so eager for guys like himself, and he agrees to tell you.

He says that they dig the power, and all the trappings that go with it: the horses, armor, and insignias–but most importantly the attitude; just the sheer belief that because you’re Assyrian your are destined to rule. Naturally the fact that they are occupiers is a big turn-on. There’s also the strangeness that goes with being foreign because women value novelty. Not to mention the fact that Assyrians do have bigger shvantzs than Jews.

You ask him how he found all this out, and he says, “Well, by shtupping a lot of Jewish daughters. Not your daughter perhaps, but a lot of them.”

As you leave, you thank him and his people for their occupation of Israel, and for revealing the truth to you by fucking all the Jewish women they can; even if they couldn’t yet make it to your own daughter. Now–with this new secret information–you set off to be the most Assyrian-looking Jew you can manage.

Take a Number

I want to examine a few sentiments that are often expressed by professing Christians in the Men’s Sphere; many of them in the comments of my last post.

1) “I can read Game blogs, and practice Game while retaining my Christianity and continuing to be sanctified because I can separate and ignore the bad stuff like fornication when I see it, and that part I simply don’t buy or perform.” (For this portion we’ll focus on the easy things. I won’t even discuss that Game is often an exercise in pride, effeminism, etc.)

The second is like it.

2) “I cannot go to church and serve because while that would in some ways benefit my spiritual growth and be helpful to others, I can’t separate their pedestalization of females from the decent things that I could otherwise do there.”

If you believe this of your own situation, or that these statement are compatible, then you’re admitting you actually have a very faulty filter, and so are not in a position to make a call about either.

3) “Not everything I need to know is in the Bible. It doesn’t tell me how to fix a carburetor, or how to paint.”

That knowledge is not needed to live a good life. If you think it is, then you don’t know what the word need means.

4) “Since my goal is to find a good Christian wife, I have to learn how to find and attract one. Since Game writers are the only ones giving advice on how to get a girl, I have to go to them. The Bible doesn’t teach the technique/system. If they are: Prove it.”

Sometimes I have to really power through these comments and requests, but this one’s easy, and I’ve written about it before. Here’s the Bible on: How to Get a Good Christian Wife:

House and riches are the inheritance of fathers:
and a prudent wife is from the Lord.

Good news: Your search is over. Bad news: You need patience, and you need to stop telling yourself you need a wife because you don’t.[1] Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 show how a husband can be part of this process, because a wedding is the beginning of a marriage (the beginning of a wife) not the end. (I was glad to see that Vox is now rhyming with me on this point.) The desire for a wife and sex is real and reasonable, but it is not like the desire for food. It is like the desire for wealth or knowledge; wholesome, but unnecessary.

5) “The Bible doesn’t tell you about how to deal with women; how women really are. It doesn’t tell you about shit-tests.”

Let’s back up one whole verse:

A foolish son is the calamity of his father:
and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping.

Contentions; as in she contends often, and often for no good reason. Several times in the book of Proverbs alone are we warned about contentious wives. We’re warned about contentious men, too, but the warning count on contentious wives outstrips them. The Latin root of the English word here is “tenere”; which means a shell, pot, or hard covering. The root of “test” is “testa” also a pot, brick, nut or other hard encasement. The word picture is a wife who will not open to her husband; who greets his presence with a defensive posture…a shit-test. It’s worth noting that the encouragements and warnings given in Proverbs are respectively for and against moments and choices that everyone will face.

How do you respond to this contesting? The same way you do anyone else:

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 neither give place to the devil.

Love them; as in do them good. We are instructed to love our wives, love our neighbors, and love our enemies. Sometimes wives are all three. It’s no sin to remain steadfast in your actions (love) while telling them that their contentions are bitter and wicked attempts to drive you away. Catch that? You be the rock, and you tell her the truth. What you don’t do is just take it and tell yourself you’re stoic.

6) “Watching porn and playing video games has nothing to do with attracting women. It’s a distraction from the real problem that girls don’t like good Beta men like me.”

You need to wake up. If you’re a nerd, that sentiment does not apply to you. No man gains points with a woman by the revelation (by design or otherwise) of watching porn, and if you’re not cool you will lose a lot of status. Video games–particularly RPGs, shooters, and other non-sport and non-casual video games–are nerd signals. If you’re cool: You will not be docked for it. If you’re a nerd, or display introverted nerd-like tendencies: You will be. Fairness and reason have nothing to do with it. It’s about the aesthetics and the correlations.

The same is true for trading card games, role-playing games, comics, anime, science fiction, and other frivolities of the introverted. If you have fantasy artwork for an avatar and you complain to me that girls don’t like you, the reasonable assumption is that you’re either displaying way too much nerdiness, or that you’re not selecting nerdy enough girls. There are nerdy women out there who like those sorts of things, and you can keep your hobbies and get one of them. They are often fat, unhygienic, shy, or otherwise aesthetically hobbled, but if you would make a good husband, perhaps she would make a good wife.

Limit yourself to a maximum of two of those nerdy hobbies, and over the course of a week spend less than one hour a day on them. So if you spend seven hours playing Call of Duty on a Saturday: No video games or other nerd hobbies for the rest of the week. Then put the rest of that time into more productive and attractive activities. Nobody gets docked by sane people for lifting weights, reading the Bible, taking walks, Sudoku, writing, cooking, painting, woodworking, or any number of other things. Here’s a generalization on how to know if a hobby is nerdy. If, at the end of the hobby’s endeavor, you don’t have a new product, life experience, or life skill: It’s probably nerdy. Collecting or buying baubles does not count as production.

[1]One of the ways a lot of pastors go wrong is that they tell men that if God hasn’t given them a wife that means they don’t deserve one yet. We can’t know that, and I think that is exactly the sort of disrespectful nonsense that drives our bust-to-bust Economy of Respect and miserliness. All we can know is that God hasn’t given them one, and that therefore he does not need one.

Harmful Risk Aversion: Example II

In Dalrock’s latest post, He Ruined the Surprise, we learn about Jenny. She’s a very typical smart-mouthed and vanity-crazed woman who is in dire need a of being told to sit-down, shut-up, and get to work. She divorced her husband because she was bored, and she’s bored because she’s been taught that she ought to be excited about everything; instead of being taught to bring excitement

10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

to everything she has to do

23 and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

including her husband.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take very long until the comments of Dalrock’s post were loused up with finger-wagging at the victimized husband and the pastor who tried to stand up for that husband, their congregation (which Jenny polluted with rumors, gossip, and divorce), and for Christ. You can’t do that and then wonder why pastors and husbands aren’t doing their job.

An Example of Harmful Risk-Aversion

In the comments of the previous post on why I will remain anonymous[1] SunshineMary asked:

Cane, I’m a little confused at the two things you are comparing. The liberal examples you gave are examples of corrupt cronyism. Why should conservatives emulate that?

Because if it’s not corrupt it’s not cronyism, and if we actually are correct, then it’s not corrupt. Let’s compare a couple of fictitious (but common) examples of what I’m talking about.

Libby Left Makes Good

Libby Left is in marketing, and pro-abortion. On Saturday she goes out to counter-protest a pro-life group picketing outside a Planned Parenthood. Enraged by their presence, Libby crosses the street to the pro-lifers to shout slurs directly in their faces. This is so invigorating to her that she completely loses her senses and begins to spit on them. A brawl ensues. The police and media are called, and Libby is among several arrested and makes the headlines of the local rags as the instigator.

Monday she returns to work, and Sindy–Libby’s boss–asks her all about the experience. Regretfully, for Sindy, public pressure mounts on their company, and she is forced to let Libby go for the sake of the company’s public image. Not only does Sindy give Libby a stellar recommendation, she calls a few friends for drinks and they find her a job at another marketing agency. A month later, no one remembers Libby was fired for acting like a barbarian, but the story of her arrest–spitting and all–makes her a hero at parties.

Connor Right Gets Isolated

Connor Right is a facilities manager for a chain of Christian bookstores. Saturday he and his wife participated in a pro-life protest against the opening of a new Planned Parenthood office in his city. While he was there, a crazed counter-protester raged at him for ten minutes; culminating when she purposefully splattered his wife’s face with the mucus her yelling had generated. Connor retaliates, and shoves her down onto the grass. The police, having been summoned, witness the spitting and Connor’s retort, and both he and the spitter are arrested. Connor makes bail, and the news.

The following Monday, Connor’s fellow church member and boss, Sinclair, has security meet Connor at the door. He is escorted off the property and told his belongings will be delivered to his house. Frantic for his family’s welfare, Connor calls his boss for an explanation. Sinclair simply says, “You can’t hit a girl, Connor.” He replies that he knows what he did was wrong, but Connor’s pleas only encourage his boss that he’s doing the right thing. Sinclair sums up his obligatory Christian charity with, “You should have known better. I’ll pray for you.”, and they never speak again.

Why?

In neither case did the involved party transgress the values of the associated groups, nor the relationships between themselves and their employers, nor the friendships. The difference is Sindy values Libby’s association, shared principles, and has no problem extending Libby mercy to re-cover from an error committed while upholding those principles.

Sinclair values his own sense of justice and order above all else; including Connor’s association and shared principles…and Connor’s family.[2] He abandons any actual charity or redemption for the appearance of holiness; that others will not think he is like Connor. More importantly: It’s really important to Sinclair that others don’t believe he is like Connor; whether he is or not, and whether they will think it or not simply because he helps Connor find a new job.

In this age, there is very little that can be done about the pressure the media puts on a company, and it’s not fair to shut down a whole company just to keep on one man (even for the sake of his family). Many of those other workers have families, too. But that’s not the issue. The problem isn’t that sometimes men get knocked down; it’s that conservatives don’t want to make it their business to help those men back up; not even those who are repentant. They offer nothing but wishes.

Further reading:

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

The Parable of the Wicked Servant

The Introduction to the Book of Job (specifically)

If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their after influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job. If the Jews could be saved from it, the Book of Job saved them. The Book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement.

But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what a high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job.

[1] I will say that I don’t fear being outed, or doxxed. This wasn’t always the case (I think I wrote about that incident somewhere before), but it’s ultimately in God’s hands. The point isn’t whether I have faith that God can or will preserve what He wants preserve, but how I do not believe we are actually willing to participate.

[2]That’s an important point because, generally speaking, those of the conservative mindset are more likely to be married and have children. A conservative, then, is objectively more valuable because he represents many more people than just himself. Sinclair’s arrogance is more valuable to him than 4.1 people!