Power And Control

Zippy has a new post up which demands a follow-up: With great power comes great incontinence. Short and to the point, I am tempted to repeat all of it. Instead I will merely quote what I see as the key parts. They are:

 

• The most primal power of men is violence

• The most primal power of women is sex

• [O]ur society is willing to punish crimes of violence but is not willing to punish crimes of sex

I think it should be readily apparent to all my readers, but I will repeat it all the same-

Society and Civilization can only exist when there are structures in place which control the base, primal natures of human beings. Failure to control that primal nature leads to savagery in the end, and that means chaos. Towards that end, the building and the maintenance of civilization requires that the primal nature of both men and women alike must be strictly controlled and regulated.

For men our most primal power is violence. Thus, to control our primal nature requires the strict regulation of male violent tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

For women, their most primal power is sex. Thus, to control their primal nature requires the strict regulation of female sexual tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

The problem right now is what Zippy notes- we regulate violence extensively, but not sexuality. The result is that women are now the primary source of disorder in the “Civilized West.” This will not change until sexuality is regulated with the same fierceness as violence is.

Unfortunately, what we see now is that efforts are being made to double down on the regulation of the male capacity for violence. And further efforts are being made to double down on the deregulation of female sexual tendencies. Rollo has a new post  where this is discussed in the context of The War on Paternity. While most previous efforts to ensure paternity in the past have been dismantled, new technology has changed the field. DNA testing means that a man really can be certain, for the first time in history, that a child is truly his. That naturally conflicts with female sexual power. Thus, it has to go. Hence we are seeing increased efforts to limit when paternity testing can take place, and when it can be used to change a man’s situation (legally, at least).

I have some more thoughts I may add to this post as I develop them. In the meantime feel free to comment below.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #134

So I guess there was something of a debate over at Dalrock because of this post. Scott wrote his own thoughts about it over here. I’ve got a few thoughts of my own, but they are tied to scripture- hence why they are in this post. Reading through Dalrock’s post, I immediately saw the apparent “shallowness” of Mrs. Stone’s approach. At the same time, I was reminded of this:

He also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a steward, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. ² And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’ ³ And the steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. ⁴ I have decided what to do, so that people may receive me into their houses when I am put out of the stewardship.’ ⁵ So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ ⁶ He said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ ⁷ Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ ⁸ The master commended the dishonest steward for his prudence; for the sons of this world are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light ⁹ And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.

(Luke 16:1-9)

I also got to thinking of this passage from First Timothy:

⁸ Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, ⁹ understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ¹⁰ immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, ¹¹ in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

(1 Timothy 1:8-11)

The way I look at it is this:

Those who are truly good – or at least aspiring towards it- won’t need the kind of admonishment that Heidi provides. They will want to honor their vows, they will want to be loyal and faithful, etc. However, not everyone is like that. Some wives will not be like that- either because they never truly were, or because they are going through a time of personal weakness. Whatever the cause, they are not necessarily inclined to seek righteousness at that point. However, those who weak in that way might be persuaded by Heidi. She will appeal to their lesser nature- their cunning. And that is something that we as Christians should understand, and acknowledge as perhaps helpful. After all, that is the point of the first passage above- cunning has its use. And we as Christians should recognize it. Even if “lowly” methods are what is needed at the time, we can always appeal to the higher nature later.

Der Kommissar

Scott is once again lamenting the current state of affairs in our society, in particular the madness of the “Watermelon purge.” The part that caught my attention is this:

They have no idea the purging pogrom that is coming if this stuff is not stopped. No one will escape it. If you have ever posted something online that looked like a watermelon, smelled like a watermelon or had the word “black” in it, you will be dismissed from polite society. It’s just not your turn yet.

Scott is correct- the new Commissars are indeed coming. The West is in for a series of purges, the likes of which haven’t been seen for a very long time. I use the word Commissar because the allusion to Communist enforces of “orthodoxy” is quite apparent. The same level of viciousness is to be expected, although perhaps not the same level of violence. Rather, I predict that social, political and economic sanctions will be the primary means of enforcement. All the same, it won’t be pretty.

Watermelons are far from the beginning, and far from the end. I’ve written on this many times before. Sadly, I will be writing on it in the future- at least, until I am forced to abandon this blog… or it is shut down.

 

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #133

Its has been a few months since I’ve written one of these posts, and so this continuation is long past overdue. I’ve selected two passages from the Old Testament today, as part of a compare/contrast method. Some recent discussions I’ve had about female moral agency and the role of wives led me to choose these two passages, for each showcases a particular kind of woman. To be specific, we have an example of a righteous woman and an unrighteous woman. We start with the righteous woman (although she came later in time):

⁸ One day Eli′sha went on to Shunem, where a wealthy woman lived, who urged him to eat some food. So whenever he passed that way, he would turn in there to eat food. ⁹ And she said to her husband, “Behold now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God, who is continually passing our way. ¹⁰ Let us make a small roof chamber with walls, and put there for him a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp, so that whenever he comes to us, he can go in there.”

¹¹ One day he came there, and he turned into the chamber and rested there. ¹² And he said to Geha′zi his servant, “Call this Shu′nammite.” When he had called her, she stood before him. ¹³ And he said to him, “Say now to her, See, you have taken all this trouble for us; what is to be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?” She answered, “I dwell among my own people.” ¹⁴ And he said, “What then is to be done for her?” Geha′zi answered, “Well, she has no son, and her husband is old.” ¹⁵ He said, “Call her.” And when he had called her, she stood in the doorway. ¹⁶ And he said, “At this season, when the time comes round, you shall embrace a son.” And she said, “No, my lord, O man of God; do not lie to your maidservant.” ¹⁷ But the woman conceived, and she bore a son about that time the following spring, as Eli′sha had said to her.

¹⁸ When the child had grown, he went out one day to his father among the reapers. ¹⁹ And he said to his father, “Oh, my head, my head!” The father said to his servant, “Carry him to his mother.” ²⁰ And when he had lifted him, and brought him to his mother, the child sat on her lap till noon, and then he died. ²¹ And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out. ²² Then she called to her husband, and said, “Send me one of the servants and one of the asses, that I may quickly go to the man of God, and come back again.” ²³ And he said, “Why will you go to him today? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” She said, “It will be well.” ²⁴ Then she saddled the ass, and she said to her servant, “Urge the beast on; do not slacken the pace for me unless I tell you.” ²⁵ So she set out, and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel.

(2 Kings 4:8-25)

Next we move to a very unrighteous woman indeed:

Now Naboth the Jezre′elite had a vineyard in Jezre′el, beside the palace of Ahab king of Samar′ia. ² And after this Ahab said to Naboth, “Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house; and I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.” ³ But Naboth said to Ahab, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.” ⁴ And Ahab went into his house vexed and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezre′elite had said to him; for he had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.” And he lay down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no food.

⁵ But Jez′ebel his wife came to him, and said to him, “Why is your spirit so vexed that you eat no food?” ⁶ And he said to her, “Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezre′elite, and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it please you, I will give you another vineyard for it’; and he answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’” ⁷ And Jez′ebel his wife said to him, “Do you now govern Israel? Arise, and eat bread, and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezre′elite.”

⁸ So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who dwelt with Naboth in his city. ⁹ And she wrote in the letters, “Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people; ¹⁰ and set two^[a] base fellows opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out, and stone him to death.” ¹¹ And the men of his city, the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Jez′ebel had sent word to them. As it was written in the letters which she had sent to them, ¹² they proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. ¹³ And the two base fellows came in and sat opposite him; and the base fellows brought a charge against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, “Naboth cursed God and the king.” So they took him outside the city, and stoned him to death with stones. ¹⁴ Then they sent to Jez′ebel, saying, “Naboth has been stoned; he is dead.”

¹⁵ As soon as Jez′ebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead, Jez′ebel said to Ahab, “Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezre′elite, which he refused to give you for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead.” ¹⁶ And as soon as Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab arose to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezre′elite, to take possession of it.

(1 Kings 21: 1-16)

There are many things to note in these two passages. The first and most obvious is of course their behavior: the Shunammite woman is righteous and Jezebel is clearly not.

But also look at the role of the men in the passage. The Shunammite woman’s husband persuaded her husband into whatever course of action was taken. She persuaded him to set aside a room for the prophet, and for her to seek him out after their son’s untimely death. Compare that to Ahad- he is passive and basically lets Jezebel do all the hard (and depraved work). Then he moves in afterwards to benefit from her misdeeds.

One wife offers counsel and advice, the other essentially takes headship away from her husband. Not an accident, that. I think every married Christian should ask themselves which role they would play in this story. There is a lot to be learned from that kind of self-reflection.

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.