Misunderstanding The Motive Force

I have thus far stayed away from the “flag controversy”, but with today’s post  I will touch on it a bit. [My next post might be even more on point.] Scott examines the so called “narrative collapse” over at his blog and notes that “Narrative collapse” is not working. The key part of his post is this here:

 Colin Kaepernick started this whole thing–based on his own comments on social media–as a solidarity gesture with folks like BLM and the whole “hands up, don’t shoot” crowd.

But that entire narrative has been shown over and over to be false. So exactly what “racism” was Colin Kaepernick “noticing?”

And this is why the latest rhetorical device of gentile mainstream “conservatives” pointing out “narrative collapse” is failing. It appeals to an objective standard of truth that can be known irrespective of race, ethnicity, etc. But the other side does not care about any of that. Therefore, there is no authoritative source of truth that can be appealed to show, definitively that there is no epidemic of “racist” white cops gunning down innocent black kids in the street while they surrender. “Hands up don’t shoot!” is impervious to reason and facts.

The last sentence is key. The reason that the narrative in question is immune to reason and facts is because it isn’t based on reason and facts. The motive force behind this burgeoning movement is not reason or logic, but rather emotions and feelings. Anger, fear, envy, etc.; those emotions drive the movement.

Unfortunately, this is something that so called “mainstream conservatives” fail to understand. Now, don’t get me wrong, conservatives and liberals alike are all caught in the gravity well of the black hole that is liberalism. However, from my experience (and those of others), conservatives tend to be more fact oriented. However, most conservatives (being clueless in ways beyond count) don’t grasp this. Perhaps they do intellectually, when they stop to consider it. But most of the time they don’t get it.

This is why the idea of a “narrative collapse” will not work. The “narrative” isn’t collapsing because while facts might be changing, the emotions and feelings are not. As long as people feel the way they do, facts won’t matter. If forced to confront them, people will simply call them lies and the product of deception. Because, after all, it isn’t facts which are real- it is emotions and feelings.

Sins Of The Father

Dalrock’s new  post, Why the blind spot matters, has proven to be fertile ground for a ton of great comments. I would encourage my readers to give it a look if they haven’t already. I have found that his comment threads have been very hit or miss as of late, but that post is definitely in the hit category.

 

Update: Now to present some of my own thoughts.

To begin with, part of the problem with “blaming women” or holding them to account in society right now draws itself from the nature of how men react to women. There are two natural impulses which men have towards women:

1. Have sex with them
2. Protect them

The second impulse is the problem here. Men have a natural desire to protect women, and unfortunately absent careful anchoring that protection impulse can go awry. For example, that protection impulse can lead men to protect women from being sad or upset. And guess what can make women sad or upset? If you guessed rebuking them for doing wrong, give yourself a pat on the back.

The key to solving this is to identify what is going on, and to actively work towards replacing unhealthy applications of this impulse with healthy ones. It needs to be drilled into men that rebuking women can in fact be the loving response. The response that actually protects them from the real harm to them- not that which threatens the body, bu the soul. And of course that is sin.

Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

(James 1:15)

Next, I want to address the issue of Adam’s responsibility over Eve. As other pointed out in that thread, God does not call Adam out for failing to “protect” or “stop” Eve. You would think that, if that were an issue, God would call him out for it. But He doesn’t. This fact, plus the wording of Genesis 3:16, led at least one Church Father to explain that Adam didn’t have headship before the Fall. Rather, headship came about as a result of the Fall. Assuming that is true (and I don’t believe it has been conclusively settled for either Catholics or Orthodox), then Adam wasn’t responsible for Eve. And thus couldn’t be held responsible for her sin.

But even if Adam had headship before the Fall (and I think there is a strong argument for this, although I’m not certain about it), that doesn’t mean he was responsible. Again, God was calling out sins there. And He didn’t mention that particular sin. Further, nowhere in Scripture is this argument to be found. And none of the Church Fathers mentioned it either. It is wholly a modern invention, a product of our misplaced attitude and understanding of women.

[More to come as I think on it]

 

 

Just How Universal Is the 80/20 Rule?

Deep Strength had a post up a few weeks ago where he looked at how Tinder reaffirmed the 80/20 rule. The post is short, so go there to read it in full. I was not surprised by this result, in fact I would have predicted it if asked given the OKCupid numbers.  What led me to create this separate post is the following comment by Deep Strength:

The ‘most attractive’ men have a disproportionate amount of female attention and can pretty much pick and choose who to bang (if secular) or to marry (if Christian).

I happen to agree with that statement. But it got me thinking about the assumptions involved in it. What I would like to know is this:

Is the 80/20 rule truly universal? That is, does it apply to every “market?”

Tinder and OKCupid are specific markets. They cater to specific (and somewhat different) crowds. Those crows would be secular in nature, and with Tinder especially, focused on those looking for casual sex. So I would expect people to argue that the numbers apply only to those markets.

But my own experiences back up the 80/20 rule. I see which men in Christian (specifically Catholic) circles the women crush on. And it is the same handful of men. I hear this same thing from other Christian men- especially here on the sphere.

Everything leads me to believe that the rule is universal one, and doesn’t depend on the particular market in question. I invite my readers to offer their own take on this. Am a right? Wrong? Somewhere in between?

 

Saturday Saints- #134

We are at Y now, and running low on saints with matching names. Today’s saint is Saint Ywi, also known as saint Iwig:

Iwig (alternatively, Iwi, Iwigius, or Ywi of Lindisfarne) was a saint venerated in Wiltshire in the Middle Ages. He was reputedly a Northumbrian monk, said to have died and to have been buried in Brittany. Historian David Dumville called him “the other principal saint of Wilton”, in reference to Saint Eadgyth. He was supposedly a follower (alumnus) of Saint Cuthbert.

He is listed in two 11th-century litanies. A narrative of this century claimed that his relics had been brought to Wilton Abbey by Breton monks in the 10th-century, and left for safe-keeping at the altar of Saint Eadgyth. The narrative claims that the relics subsequently became immovable [through the wish of the saint to reside there], though historian John Blair suspected that this story may have been invented to justify Wilton’s theft of the relics.

His feast day was celebrated on 8 October. The Priory of Ivychurch in Wiltshire is thought to have been named after him.

(Source)

The High Ground

I came to an epiphany recently, and I lay the blame at Cane Caldo’s feet. Three of his recent posts made something “CLICK” inside my head and I can’t let go of it. The three posts are the following:

Real Men Don’t Impede Her Desires

Her Buck Stops Here

A Caned Response to the Nashville StatementsA Caned Response to the Nashville Statements

Read all three (they aren’t that long) before continuing. The rest will make a lot more sense that way. Each one, in its own way, address the nature of men and women, and how we are to relate to each other. A (very) brief summary of them could be as follows:

• Men are no longer able to tell women No in any meaningful way
• Men can no longer enforce male spaces, and in fact none exist in any meaningful way
• Men in Christian leadership positions (and in general) won’t teach the truth about women in marriage in any meaningful way

The bit in particular which was the “light bulb” moment for me was this:

Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism.

Cane is right, these are more serious issues. And I think I understand why. Perhaps he has already figured this out, or maybe I am going beyond the scope of his original idea. But everything makes sense to me now. You see, you cannot win on issues like “gay marriage” or “transgenderism” after yielding up the high ground in this battle.

Let me explain.

To begin with, high ground often has two different common meanings. The first is a “safe place”, out of the reach of danger. The second is a height which has strategic military value. It is the second meaning I intend. After all, we are in a war- a spiritual war. Now, the war has already been won, thankfully. However, the fighting has yet to stop. In some respects it is like the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. It was fought after the war officially ended. And while it didn’t change the outcome of the war, it was still meaningful to the men who fought in it. And so it is today- we are fighting a battle in a war the enemy has already lost. But he can still inflict casualties- take souls – and so he fights on. No surprise, really- he was a murderer from the beginning.

The strategic high ground in this battle was twofold- the nature of men and women, and the rights, roles and responsibilities of men and women in marriage. Those two things were places to make a last stand- a metaphorical hill to die on. Unfortunately, they were yielded to the enemy generations ago. And when they were, the battle was lost at that point.

Why are they necessary positions to hold? To begin with, they lay the foundations for any defense of everything to come after. Lets start with “transgenderism.”

The whole point of that particular “theory” is that there are no fixed genders. Male and female, man and woman, are social constructs. They exist because society says they exist. Take that away, and people revert to whatever they want.  On an intellectual level, a strong, vigorous defense of the nature of the masculine and the feminine will over course reveal this to be the rubbish it is. But as is the case with so many things in life, personal experiences which shape someone will trump intellectual argument.

For transgenderism to succeed, people need to grow up where man and woman don’t really mean much. And how do you get that? Simple- you create a society with the following:

• No task or vocations or opportunities, and so on, which are the sole prerogative of men or women.
• Men and women are interchangeable in the various roles and positions which people occupy in life.
• You eliminate any spaces which are reserved for men or women.
• You eliminate any activities which are reserved for men or women.

And on and on.

When this is the society you have- the society we have today- then men and women essentially become interchangeable- fungible even. If that is the case, then the concepts of “man” and “woman” will lose any sense of meaning in the minds of those exposed to it. And this is what everyone is exposed to these days, especially youth. It should come as no surprise that “transgenderism” is on the rise right now. They don’t see any real difference between men and women, save minor biological differences, and those can be changed by surgery. The truth is, “transgenderism” was an inevitable byproduct of this organization of society. It was just a matter of time.

Let’s look now “gay marriage” in the context of the rights, roles and responsibilities of men and women in marriage. In the past they were clearly defined. Now, no one dares to defend any real difference whatsoever. At least, a meaningful difference. What is the end result of this? Well, when men and women have the same rights, roles and responsibilities, they become… you guessed it, fungible. They can be swapped out without changing the fundamental makeup of the marriage unit. After all, husband and wife are both equal, right? And since they are equal, they both can do whatever needs doing, right? And are deserving of equal, well, everything, right? In that context husband and wife are no longer meaningful terms.

Instead husband and wife are replaced in the minds of people with “spouse 1” and “spouse 2” [Update: Reader Lost Patrol suggests Partner 1 and Partner 2 work better, and I agree. I’m going to update the rest of the post to fit that.] And of course if mother and father are also essentially the same- equal- then they are likewise fungible. And so you get “parent 1″ and parent 2.” Well, if spouse/parent replaces husband/father and wife/mother, you get some interesting outcomes. Because, after all, if marriage in the eyes of people is Partner1 + Partner 2, then does it really matter who happens to be Partner 1 and Partner 2? Of course not! It is all about two people who love each other who decide to becomes spouses.

And when you think about it, there isn’t really any reason to restrict it to just two spouses together. After all, love is the important part, right? As long as you have that, the nature and number of spouses doesn’t really matter. Dwell on where that line of thinking will take you.

I could continue at length, but I think I’ve made my point. Without a viable, effective and vocal defense of those two principles, nothing else can be defended. The battle will be lost- guaranteed. And it isn’t merely about logic. In fact, I believe that logic takes a distant backseat compared to the way that people’s common experiences affect their perception of the issues. Those experiences shape their views to a degree that rational argument never does.

If Christians want to have any, and mean any chance of turning this battle around, then those two strategic positions must be re-taken. There is no other recourse.

 

Saturday Saints- #133

Time for this series to resume. Unfortunately, we are the end of the alphabet, specifically the letter “X.” Alas, not many saints have that letter for a first name. So we will borrow the last name, and get our saint for today: Francis Xavier:

Saint Francis Xavier, S.J. (born Francisco de Jasso y Azpilicueta, 7 April 1506 – 3 December 1552), was a Navarrese Basque Roman Catholic missionary, born in Javier (Xavier in Navarro-Aragonese or Xabier in Basque), Kingdom of Navarre (present day Spain), and a co-founder of the Society of Jesus. He was a companion of Saint Ignatius of Loyola and one of the first seven Jesuits who took vows of poverty and chastity at Montmartre, Paris in 1534. He led an extensive mission into Asia, mainly in the Portuguese Empire of the time and was influential in evangelization work, most notably in India. The Goa Inquisition was proposed by St. Francis Xavier. He also was the first Christian missionary to venture into Japan, Borneo, the Maluku Islands, and other areas. In those areas, struggling to learn the local languages and in the face of opposition, he had less success than he had enjoyed in India. Xavier was about to extend his missionary preaching to China but died in Shangchuan Island shortly before he could do so.

He was beatified by Pope Paul V on 25 October 1619 and canonized by Pope Gregory XV on 12 March 1622. In 1624 he was made co-patron of Navarre alongside Santiago. Known as the “Apostle of the Indies,” and the “Apostle of Japan”, he is considered to be one of the greatest missionaries since Saint Paul. In 1927, Pope Pius XI published the decree “Apostolicorum in Missionibus” naming Saint Francis Xavier, along with Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, co-patron of all foreign missions. He is now co-patron saint of Navarre with San Fermin. The Day of Navarre (Día de Navarra) in Spain marks the anniversary of Saint Francis Xavier’s death, on 3 December 1552.

More can be found out about his life at his wiki, located here.

 

Resuming Broadcasting

I have returned from my unofficial absence/sabbatical. I originally planned on only being gone for a week or two, but eventually stretched it to over a month. Partially because life kept getting in the way, and partially because I have felt for some time that this blog has become un-anchored.

My suspicion is that much of it is internal- I am trying to orient myself right now because I don’t feel that I am doing what I should. Deep Strength has a recent post where he talks about how you should “Do you job.” I found it timely, because I am less sure than I have been in a long time about what, exactly, my job is. Not my secular job- that is fine. Rather, it is my vocation- my calling to serve the Lord.

So much of my blogging energy will be directed towards examining that, in addition to my usual fare. In the meantime, I hope to get some regular posts up starting in the next few days.