ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 04, 2015

How civilizations fall

John C. Wright explains the process of civilization decline, and in doing so demonstrates how far along the West has traveled down that dark path:
The first thing that can start the dissolution of civilization, and place our foot on the long, blood-soaked, sad path toward that aboriginal tribe that has forgotten how to make needles or sew, is the treason of the clerks.

One the king is convinced (or in these more degenerate and democratic times, the parliaments and congresscreatures who have kingly duties but no sense of a higher power to whom they are obligated) that he has authority to overrule the laws of civilization, perhaps to make the pathway clear to the alleged utopia that the priests said surely will arise once anarchy is unleashed, then the legitimacy of his state is gone, and he is merely a raving beast like a mad man-eating lion.

The first thing the lion eats is the sense of honor that keeps his fighting men in check. His fighting men includes what in the modern day is both the military and the police. The police are made more and more militaristic; they are cast as the enemy of the people; and the military is degenerated from its ancient precepts of honor and courage, and instead becomes sensitive and friendly to womenfolk or sodomites.

Now, to be clear, in a modern bureaucratic state, any one who has the power to enforce the law and harass the people is, for all practical purposes, a policeman, a soldier, a fighting man of the king. We would call these bureaucrats, everyone from the tax man to the clerk on a planning and zoning board enforcing an irrational eco-nutbag regulation.

The sense of honor needed to keep soldiers and civil servants in check evaporates as the lawlessness of the anarchic King spreads down the wall to the next row, and the soldiers, police, and civil servants become young lions, red in tooth and claw.

Once the fighting men are corrupted, next oldest support of civilization vanishes: the burghers, the townsmen, the bourgeoisie, the merchants, the shopkeeper and tradesman, and middle class. Their corruption is far easier and far quicker, because trade and possession depends on a faith in objective law and evenhanded enforcement of contracts, not to mention the soundness of coin or currency. The middle class can be taxed out of existence, as they were in ancient Rome, which collapsed the Western Empire in one generation, and kept the Eastern Empire in a state of servitude and poverty for the remainder of its millennium.

The merchants who turn to the King to make a sweetheart deal create crony capitalism, which is also, more correctly, called fascism. The industries, such as are left, become organs of the state and are protected by increasingly one-sided and nakedly unfair taxations and regulations.

The important point to note is that the treason of the merchants undermines the unspoken social contract which allows trade and manufacture, or even guilds and small shops, to exist: that is, namely, the unspoken social contract provides that spoken contracts shall be upheld, and trade be fair and free. This idea is laughed into nonexistence, and the merchants are no longer merchants, but become jackals slinking and slouching in the shadows of the lions consuming the people, greedy for scraps.

But no civilization of this is possible without the brotherhood of family and clan. And that is not possible without marriage and an institution of paternity.

So the final course of stones to go is the social contract, the bargain, between fathers and mothers, between male and female. The deal is that, in return for the bearing the burden of bearing children, the womanfolk will be protected and cherished. When the barbarians attack, the women and children go first to the stronghold, and the men man the walls; the iceberg strikes, the women and children go into the lifeboats, and the men go to death in the icy water. In return, the women preserve and reproduce the race.
To defend civilization, it is necessary for men and women to take the risks that modern society places upon us. Yes, there is risk of divorce. Yes, there is risk of missing out on something, whatever that something might be. But in the end, if even those who are civilizationists give in to the temptations and whispered promises of safety offered by modern society, civilization will fall.

It will most likely fall anyhow. But the important thing is to provide, like the monks of an earlier civilizational decline, a means of preserving that which will permit civilization to rise again.

The risk is worth it, because there is more to life than maximizing your number of sexual encounters and your bank account. So take the risk. Marry. Have children. Teach them right from wrong. And raise up a new generation that is not only civilized, but capable of defending the remnants of civilization.

Labels:

242 Comments:

1 – 200 of 242 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous HongKongCharlie January 04, 2015 8:22 AM  

Too far along. You cannot remain married if the state will dissolve it at the whim of either person. Unfortunately the state has become the parent of our women and most of the men below the alpha level.

HKC

HKC

Blogger Chris Mallory January 04, 2015 8:28 AM  

"once anarchy is unleashed,"

Most people live their lives in a state of anarchy, which is a good thing. We don't need some "authority" telling us how to live. We don't need one of the king's men standing over us with a whip to force us to live good lives. Order can and does spring from the voluntary actions of those living in such a state. In today's world, it is the king that brings chaos, not anarchy.

Blogger Salt January 04, 2015 8:28 AM  

capable of defending the remnants of civilization

Too bad we got here, to the remnants, better to have hung that ~do-gooder from the nearest tree when the first words of taking that path were uttered. But, of course, that would have been murder and unbecoming of a civilized society, wouldn't it?

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 04, 2015 8:32 AM  

Modern marriage is a risk increasing numbers of men will avoid. With good reason. It's just not worth it.

If civilisation is going to fall anyway, then it doesn't matter if our men and women get married, or not.

It's far better at this point for men to go poolside, to follow their own interests, to spend their money as they see fit, and to enjoy the company and favours of women without succumbing to the marriage trap.

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 04, 2015 8:43 AM  

Vox, see if you can write some in Dominic Flandry's universe on this topic, and the above responses to this.

Blogger JACIII January 04, 2015 8:45 AM  

I suspect marriage is still doable these days, but only with both parties desirous of being truly joined by God and irrespective of man's laws concerning it. Marriage as a secular institution is pure poison.

OpenID simplytimothy January 04, 2015 8:55 AM  

How old is this story? i.e. what other cultures have known this and how long ago? Greeks? Romans? Chinese?

What is different between then (if, per my question above) this story has been told before?

It is Christ, who is alive now and in the hearts of His people all over this earth.

What else is different between then and now?

Self rule--that in the course of human events should a form of government become destructive of (the things Christ has ordained are ours) then it is the right of the people to abolish that form of government and form a new one.

What are we Christians doing? Exactly that.

Look at the trendline. Per Lewis, the good are growing more like their Father and the bad are becoming more like their father.

He came not to unite but to divide.

I reject despair, for our nature is Hope.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 8:55 AM  

Too far along. You cannot remain married if the state will dissolve it at the whim of either person.

You completely missed the point.

Modern marriage is a risk increasing numbers of men will avoid. With good reason. It's just not worth it.

Which is precisely what the anti-civilizationists want you to do. It is still worth the risk, the risk is simply higher. What, precisely, do you fear losing?

And if you lose it all, are you not free in ways you never would have been before?

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 04, 2015 8:58 AM  

For men and women who want children and a genetic legacy, but don't want to fall into the modern marriage trap, there's a new service:

'Thousands of men and women are using dating-like websites to find a partner to have a baby with through artificial insemination.

The platonic couples then share the child without a binding legal agreement.

In 2008, Franz Sof began co-parents.co.uk in order to meet someone to bring up a child with, but since then his website has gained 10,000 members.
'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895485/Is-future-parenting-Thousands-men-women-using-internet-matching-site-platonic-partner-child-with.html

OpenID simplytimothy January 04, 2015 8:59 AM  

Doug Wilson has started work on reviving The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate

Call it the revolt of the clerks. I stand with them. I will not bow, I will not comply, I will defend my civilization, I will do my duty and it is NOT to the usurpers. Let them rot. We have a civilization to renew.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 04, 2015 9:08 AM  

What, precisely, do you fear losing?

My sanity, and then my life, I suppose. I've already been through a divorce; fortunately it was amicable, and no children involved. I was lucky. I've seen too many friends, clients, colleagues, and acquaintances have their lives ruined through divorce. The horror stories are common. It's just not worth it.

There's also the lifestyle. Like a lot of guys my own age I'm committed to a certain way of living. It's not just the expensive suits and fancy cars. Wealth provides a level of independence and security that is difficult to give up.

Anonymous Anonymous 13 January 04, 2015 9:11 AM  

In my view, at least in the West, and in this time in history, it comes down, in large part, to orthodox Christianity versus secularism (which includes so-called 'Morally Therapeutic Deism' as well as 'spirituality'). In essence, the genuine believer, in holding to the belief that this life is not primarily or exclusively meant for happiness or pleasure and also believing that there is a life to come, is willing to sacrifice aspects of his happiness and pleasure, and even his earthly life, in order to fulfill what he perceives to be God's commandments and instructions (like Christ did); and these, in turn, naturally build and aid the growth of civilization. The secularist, by contrast, either believing that this life is the only life or, if "spiritual", believing that his happiness and fulfillment is the most important thing, is not willing to sacrifice himself to any great extent for others if doing so impedes his only chance at being happy or gaining pleasure in this life. This, by-the-by, is also why conservatives religious individuals are much more charitable than secularists.

At least ancient pagans had ideas of honor and glory to motivate them to sacrifice for the good of the group, but today's secularists do not even have that.

Anyway, just a thought.

Anonymous 13.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 9:12 AM  

There's also the lifestyle. Like a lot of guys my own age I'm committed to a certain way of living.

There it is. You're committed to hedonism rather than civilization. Understandable, but neither praiseworthy nor useful.

My sanity, and then my life, I suppose.

How is that any different than, for example, a historical soldier who fought to defend civilization in a physical war? Yes, you might lose what you thought what your life would be. But so what? Those are merely expectations. Life is what you make of it.

Blogger Shimshon January 04, 2015 9:19 AM  

You can perhaps relocate to locale where feminism has made much less headway. It ain't easy, but certainly possible, more so today than ever. Mexico is sounds pretty nice, the way Fred describes it. Various Asian countries. Eastern Europe (even...Poland!). For Jews, Israel is a sensible (and extremely easy and accommodating) choice.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 9:29 AM  

So take the risk. Marry. Have children. Teach them right from wrong. And raise up a new generation that is not only civilized, but capable of defending the remnants of civilization.

Why? Why go through so much time and effort to preserve a ruin of a civilization that has already failed in just about every way possible? It sold out my interests as a young white male to shrieking feminist harpies and filthy sodomites before I was born. I owe it nothing, and certainly not my allegiance.

The risk is worth it, because there is more to life than maximizing your number of sexual encounters and your bank account.

By the same token, there is more to life than slaving away to provide for some ungrateful female (who is very likely to just take all your stuff anyway) and some brats. If society wants me to get married, it can damn well give me a sufficient reward for limiting myself so. In the meantime, I plan to continue living out the alpha motto: "Take what you can. Give nothing back."

Anonymous zen0 January 04, 2015 9:30 AM  

When the barbarians attack, the women and children go first to the stronghold,

But when it is clear the siege will be successful, the women go to the wall, bear their breasts and try to attract a more successful protector.

See The Conquest of Gaul - Julius Caesar.

Anonymous Porphyry January 04, 2015 9:38 AM  

These methods seem a little too late. The left as an entity (and the republican party is not far behind) has declared unlimited war on every virtue you will ever do or ever care about in your entire life. If you are unwilling to declare unlimited war against it (note this does not mean unlimited force). Then your life and your families life is going down the tubes eventually.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 9:39 AM  

Why? Why go through so much time and effort to preserve a ruin of a civilization that has already failed in just about every way possible?

You are confusing civilization with society. Our modern society is not very civilized. If you are going to abandon civilization, then for God's sake, be a barbarian! That is preferable to being a decadent post-civilizationist.

By the same token, there is more to life than slaving away to provide for some ungrateful female (who is very likely to just take all your stuff anyway) and some brats.

You are assuming failure. All I hear here is fear. And from whence comes fear?

Blogger Earl Thomas January 04, 2015 9:39 AM  

I'd be inclined to agree that marriage only works if it is a union before God and the idea that it can't be separated by man is known by both parties.

Most of what we got today is not a union before God and the laws of man are in charge of it.

Anonymous zen0 January 04, 2015 9:40 AM  

ZeroHedge has an article on the disappearing entrepreneur called "Peak Dream" - The Death Of The Young American Entrepreneur".

Why take risks? Why bother, when work is punished?

Sounds right on topic, just another example to add, I guess.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 9:41 AM  

These methods seem a little too late.

Not at all. The point is not to save civilization, but rather to save the seeds of civilization. Because today's society will collapse. There is no doubt about it whatsoever.

Anonymous PA January 04, 2015 9:44 AM  

How is that any different than, for example, a historical soldier who fought to defend civilization in a physical war?

Unlike physical-war soldiers, we have no leadership or support structure. Patriots in the West are a legion of peers. This does give us a grassroots vitality, but nothing or nobody tangible to rally around.

With a leader and a vision, you'd see a lot more willingness to take individual risks for the larger whole.

Anonymous Joe H January 04, 2015 9:46 AM  

I am married and have children and I wouldn't trade my family and the experiences we've had together for anything. Our civilization is disintegrating but my descendants will rebuild it.

Blogger Shimshon January 04, 2015 9:48 AM  

The defeatist attitude is strong here. Yes, AWALT, but still, there must be women who are not ungrateful feminist harpie bitches. If you aren't meeting them, you're perhaps hanging with the wrong crowd.

Further, why are YOU here? When I was younger, I could see myself falling into the trap...I don't want to do what everyone else has done throughout history blah blah blah. You know, marry, raise a family, etc. After having done exactly that, that is exactly the point of why we're here. There are extremely powerful lessons learned in doing exactly what every single one of your ancestors did.

There many reasons, even superficially justifiable ones, to avoid the effort. So? Especially if you consider yourself religious or devout in any way. Do you think you will avoid judgement on this when your time comes? You will be taken to task for not rising to the challenge.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 9:48 AM  

With a leader and a vision, you'd see a lot more willingness to take individual risks for the larger whole.

In my opinion, the real issue is that we are collectively too decadent, either to take the risks of building mini-civilizations or to act as barbarians. But that will likely change as the economic situation worsens.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 04, 2015 9:52 AM  

I would say civilization is in the past, to try and save it is to become a preservation society for old building and bargaining with savages and their enablers to not burn it down.

In Spenglarian terms I think its a time for Culture. Culture it seems can produce men who can bleed those savage and SJW sacks of meat and not wince, civilization produces custodians, and churchian sacks of waste.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 9:53 AM  

You are confusing civilization with society. Our modern society is not very civilized. If you are going to abandon civilization, then for God's sake, be a barbarian! That is preferable to being a decadent post-civilizationist.

Nah. I'm perfectly happy to exploit this wretched system until it collapses under the weight of its own filth. Getting gunned down by the cops for barbarianing it up has little appeal to me.

You are assuming failure. All I hear here is fear. And from whence comes fear?

Vox, I can hardly believe that a man of your intelligence in unfamiliar with a simple cost-benefit analysis. The simple reality is that I can get just about anything I want from our modern women without committing (or even telling them my name in some cases). To get married would be to give that up, and in return for... what, exactly? I have young nieces and nephews, and can honestly say I loathe children. Nasty little time-sucking things. I have no allegiance to a society that sold me out long ago to faggots and harpies, and therefore no interest in helping it perpetuate itself. What happens after I'm dead can be adequately summed up in my mind as "someone else's problem".

With those factors in mind, I'm curious to see what case can be made in favor of my marrying. If anyone could do it, I suppose you could.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 9:57 AM  

Vox, I can hardly believe that a man of your intelligence in unfamiliar with a simple cost-benefit analysis.

No need to. I'm not. Your analysis is simply flawed. The fact that you don't like other people's children is no indication about your feelings about your own. And you keep harping on about a society that I have already pointed out is not relevant.

What happens after I'm dead can be adequately summed up in my mind as "someone else's problem".

And there is the core of your argument. Are you a Christian, agnostic, atheist, or something else?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 10:00 AM  

We all know the red flags for finding wives. Use them and you'll be okay. I used them before I knew anything about game or red pill or that I was totally blue pill. It can be done.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 04, 2015 10:03 AM  

I personally don't know LBF but I know of the type, somewhat and its technically Alpha behavior from the Game perspective but from the Metacultural perspective its Beta behavior.

An Alpha in a larger perspective would be Lord of the Manor, a Warlord even but not basically just a gigalo.

Before I heard of Game I put men in some categories, one was loud shit talking Alpha and another one as Quiet Alpha. The loud Alphas being the shallow man of little depth, the QA like me being the one to look at their wives and give them the look that says, "I prefer my dinner at 6 with properly chilled glass of wine."

Blogger The Original Hermit January 04, 2015 10:10 AM  

"There's also the lifestyle. Like a lot of guys my own age I'm committed to a certain way of living."

Before we married, my wife and I were firmly against having kids. We definitely enjoyed the relative freedom and lower expenses. But we weren't particularly careful, and she wound up pregnant around our wedding date, she was 21, I was 23. We had a huge wake-up call that life isn't just about having fun and leisure. Ten years later and we're pregnant with our fourth.
Everything valuable in life has a price. Children are worth the price of time, wealth and energy.
10 years later and we're pregnant with our 4th.

Blogger The Original Hermit January 04, 2015 10:11 AM  

Um- scratch that last line...

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 10:13 AM  

It's worth saying again, except you're not pregnant. Your wife is.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 10:14 AM  

No need to. I'm not. Your analysis is simply flawed. The fact that you don't like other people's children is no indication about your feelings about your own. And you keep harping on about a society that I have already pointed out is not relevant.

The civilization produced this current society. Ergo, it failed in its primary duty. By my reckoning, that dissolves any weight of allegiance I might have had to it. And given the chance, a restored white Christian civilization would produce this same mess all over again with its nonsense about inviduality.

And there is the core of your argument. Are you a Christian, agnostic, atheist, or something else?

Agnostic. Though I've a private musing that if there is a God, He hates us. "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" after all.

In terms of social dynamics, and particularly women, I'm of the opinion that Muslims have it right. No usury, cut the hands off of thieves (like bankers), and relegate the women to where they belong: home, making babies. If they get too uppity, off with their heads. Certainly I can't imagine the feminist and faggot movements getting anywhere in an Islamic USA.

Anonymous takin' a look January 04, 2015 10:19 AM  

OT, looks like Noah Pozner, who died at Sandy Hook, learned the trick of resurrection, only to sadly die, again, at that Peshawar school shooting in Pakistan a couple of weeks ago. This time under the nom de plume of "Huzaifa Huxaifa"

Infowarslinky

Reactorbreachforumlinky

Must be true, 'cause it's the BBC!

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 10:20 AM  

Calvin,

Sounds like you need a plane ticket to the middle east. Go move to Iran. Lots of decadence there.

Blogger Salt January 04, 2015 10:24 AM  

but rather to save the seeds of civilization

Each successive iteration of Civilization(s), and yet here we are at post-peak of yet another, and demonstrably, the greatest the World has ever seen. I see no reason to think Man shall descend into such state as losing ~the needle or even the printing press.

A great purge is going to happen and it will most probably be quite bloody. But if Strouse and Howe (4th Turning) are to be believed, the next iteration might be rather surprising as each subsequent to that before.


Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 10:27 AM  

I agree, Salt. The difference now is knowledge is so wide spread. It isn't only in one library or monastery. It is world wide and anyone can preserve it. I'm excited about the future. God is still in charge. Duty is ours; results are God's.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 04, 2015 10:41 AM  

@ Calvin ~ The simple reality is that I can get just about anything I want from our modern women without committing (or even telling them my name in some cases). To get married would be to give that up, and in return for... what, exactly?

Yes, that really is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I sympathise with Vox and others who advocate for marriage, but I simply don't feel it.

Marriage is not for everyone. Not all of us are called to get hitched and have kids.

I like to think members of the warrior caste, the priesthood, and members of the Männerbund are going to contribute much more in preserving our civilisation than all of the married schlubs who work 24/7 to provide for their families.

Life is very good, and there is plenty of beauty and joy still to be found.

Blogger The Original Hermit January 04, 2015 10:41 AM  

"It's worth saying again, except you're not pregnant. Your wife is."

Fair enough. I try to keep my comments short and to the point. -My wife is pregnant with our fourth baby.-

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 10:46 AM  

To Vox If you have a view on what I say below, it would be welcome, critical or not.

Laguna beach fogey wrote:
"Modern marriage is a risk increasing numbers of men will avoid. With good reason. It's just not worth it."

To which VD responded

"Which is precisely what the anti-civilizationists want you to do. It is still worth the risk, the risk is simply higher. What, precisely, do you fear losing?

And if you lose it all, are you not free in ways you never would have been before?"

Allow me to respond:
Vox is right, but I also happen to be one of those who has "lost". My wife abducted our one and a half year old daughter back to her native Brazil. She is now three. I will never stop trying to get her back and am in the process of putting together a case that should be ironclad for her return. But the law is not justice and there has to date not been one successful return from Brazil, so who knows. But in the meantime my daughter is suffering the damage that her mother, totally (and increasingly) brainwashed by ever deepening cultural Marxism, is doing to my child. I would not wish this situation on anyone. My mistake was in not realising until it was way too late, that my wife's apparent femininity. Etc etc were a sham. That at her core she fits to a T the descriptions of a narcissist that Vox posted yesterday. And in not recognising that until after our daughter was born and the mask slipped. And in reacting to this unwelcome reality in a way that was more instinctive than well thought out. I could not have done differently of course, because my actual male drive IS instinctive, but that instinct is outdated now. I assumed that my woman would be as loyal to me in spirit as I was to her. That she would be willing to adapt as required for the sake of our child. As I did. I was wrong.
I do not regret my taking the risk. I regret not having had a deeper understanding of cultural Marxism (and indeed real Christianity) before I committed to that person. I have been in a way very fortunate in that I grew up as a basically wild, natural person, in truly wild Africa. And in many respects, like Tarzan, I am an apeman, ill suited to modern bullshit and metrosexual sensibilities. My contribution to Western Civilisation would be the reintroduction (and formalising by just rules) of the duel. Including the duel to the death. There is much power in being like Tarzan. Mostly all the modern attacks at your ego, id etc are almost irrelevant. The downside is that like a simple apeman, and because their bullshit always seemed inconsequential to me, I did not realise the harm it could do. Let me tell you, that harm is not anything you want to experience.
1/2 continued...

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 10:48 AM  

Part 2/2

I have been in a way very fortunate in that I grew up as a basically wild, natural person, in truly wild Africa. And in many respects, like Tarzan, I am an apeman, ill suited to modern bullshit and metrosexual sensibilities. My contribution to Western Civilisation would be the reintroduction (and formalising by just rules) of the duel. Including the duel to the death. There is much power in being like Tarzan. Mostly all the modern attacks at your ego, id etc are almost irrelevant. The downside is that like a simple apeman, and because their bullshit always seemed inconsequential to me, I did not realise the harm it could do. Let me tell you, that harm is not anything you want to experience.
The loss of a part of my heart, of a sense of unbounded freedom I always had until my daughter was kidnapped from me, at the crippling effect that knowing she will never have the kind of family I hoped for her, is very real. If I were a weaker person I would not have survived it. In fact, if I had not had a miracle happen to me, it is unlikely I would have survived it. I will never stop doing whatever needs doing to save my little girl, but damage to her has already been done and will be inevitable in her future too.
Knowing that, does damage to something inside me that seems unfixable. That is not to say I will, or even can, give up. I never will, and in my path I will cut down as many of these demonic fucks who instill the lies of cultural Marxism as I can. But there is a cost. And brothers, it is a heavy one. And I know that for every one of me that speaks out, there are a hundred, with crushed hearts, that look on with dead eyes, feeling their future too heavy, too crushing and too grey, too filled with despair to even raise up straight and walk, never mind fight. Well. If I can, so can you. Get up. You might never have the perfect little family opening presents under a Christmas tree together. You might have to literally cross continents, learn new languages and educate lawyers to just get to try to save your own child from an evil that I feel goes beyond merely human. I do not wish it on any of you. But if you are there, like me, then, for the love of God, for the love of Christ, for the love of your child, GET. THE. FUCK. UP!
And fight. Fight. Damn you!

So yes. There is a cost. This is what you can lose. So act wisely. But act anyway. Do get married. Just educate yourself first about the enemy. I only got caught because I was "too strong" I didn't pay attention to exactly what the forces of darkness really are. They are not what you think. Actual armed thugs would be welcome by me in comparison to the insidious, invisible corruption that rots at people around you from the inside without you even knowing it until it's too late.
So learn from people like me. But whether you are in the before or after of a situation like mine, the message is the same. Fight!

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 04, 2015 10:49 AM  

How is that any different than, for example, a historical soldier who fought to defend civilization in a physical war?

I prefer an heroic death in open battle.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 10:50 AM  

If one is a Christian, one's obligation to serve God comes before a perceived obligation to defend and extend civilization. Christians created Western civilization as a byproduct of their faith.

The atheist, agnostic, or believer in other religions has as his inspiration simply the sense of awe and grandeur that comes with taking part in a successful civilization. The Christian has it that there is really no other way to live and still be a believer in Christ at all.

Anonymous Observable Fact Man January 04, 2015 10:51 AM  

"Modern marriage is a risk increasing numbers of men will avoid. With good reason. It's just not worth it."

Risk aversion is a feminine trait, not a masculine one.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 10:52 AM  

Sorry for a paragraphbrepeating in part 2. Done it on a phone and it's painful to cut and paste accurately.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 10:52 AM  

Giuseppe,

I grieve for you and your daughter. I pray you will be reunited with her. This is why we fight. Are we going to lay down and die? No.

Anonymous PA January 04, 2015 10:56 AM  

-- I like to think members of the warrior caste, the priesthood, and members of the Männerbund are going to contribute much more in preserving our civilisation than all of the married schlubs who work 24/7 to provide for their families.

Both are needed. In final analysis, its not some abstract political ideal, or some disembodied 'civiliation' we want to see thrive 500 years from now. We want to see robust, confident nations of people who look like us. And anybody who raises strong sons and daughters would laugh his ass off at being called a schlub.

-- Life is very good, and there is plenty of beauty and joy still to be found.

You (LBF) provide an immensely valuable perspective as a commenter and on your own blog. When our attitudes degenerate to "I hate NAMs" or "things suck" grumbling, we lose lie force, in a sense. One time you wrote a memorable phrase face the sun," which I like to repeat in my mind on some occasions.

Anonymous PA January 04, 2015 10:58 AM  

"... LIFE force, in a sense"

Blogger John Wright January 04, 2015 11:00 AM  

@ Anyway, just a thought. -- Anonymous 13.

Sir, I had exactly the same thought. The moderns are less than pagans, and have not even the rough courage savages and barbarians often display.

Anonymous Ridip January 04, 2015 11:01 AM  

I've never come to the comments here and seen so many people completely miss the point. No we don't owe society or this current civilization anything. But it's not all about us.

It is about our heritage, our posterity, that which comes after. It's about something greater than ourselves. It's about nobility, courage, bravery, and virtue.

Build something that will last beyond your own life. Even if it's just a small seed of something, one which falls to the ground, and though trampled under foot and having no obvious life of its own, it germinates, breaks through the soil of this dying world, puts forth branch and leaf, flower and fruit, lifts up its face toward heaven and lightens the soul of man and glorifies the God of heaven.

I for one am very happy for quixotic nobility of John Wright. His writing impacts my heart and inspires the hope of God within me. I also like seeing it summon the lighter side of Vox.

We all need something worth serving, a thing worth doing. Forget the world, find your holy muse!

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 04, 2015 11:04 AM  

Thanks, PA, appreciate the kind words.

Both are needed.

Yes, agreed, I should have made it clear. I don't wish to denigrate those guys who marry and have children.

"Face the sun"...yes, I've seen it quoted around the interwebz. I wanted it to represent a life-affirming, assertive, virile, 'yes-saying' approach to life.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 11:09 AM  

CatholicAttack!

Anonymous The other skeptic January 04, 2015 11:09 AM  

People should let the restaurant know that they are personally offended that they have backed down to stupid mooselimb crap.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 04, 2015 11:11 AM  

People should let the restaurant know that they are personally offended that they have backed down to stupid mooselimb crap.

Let's see how well they do when all the white people leave their diverse clientele because next the mooselimbs will claim they are offended by bacon being served in the bistro.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 04, 2015 11:14 AM  

I think this is backward, ahistoric, and nonetheless valid and true in some sense.

Plainly, since we are where we are in the decline of civilisation, civilisation itself does not necessarily give rise to children capable of defending it. On the contrary, the very cyclic nature of history suggests strongly that something else gives rise to children capable of building and defending a civilisation, and civilisation gives rise to pampered useless savages.

That's not to say that we should not marry, raise children, and teach them to remember, defend, and build, a civilisation. But we shouldn't expect that we or they will necessarily succeed in reversing the current trend of decline. We shouldn't tie the two things so tightly together that we'll only "take the risk" of marriage, children, and passing on what we have learned, IF there is a civilisation at stake.

That seems to me rather a large part of the attitude that leads directly to where we are now.

Rather, we should be propagating and perpetuating the idea that we should do these things irrespective of where in that cycle we happen to be born and raised to our own maturity. They are good things in and of themselves, worth doing in and of themselves, no matter whether our children save the world or not.

"The world, Indy - it doesn't want to be saved."

No, it doesn't, and it cannot be by any art of men, but that is why he's a hero.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 11:16 AM  

Stg58 / Animal Mother,
Thank you for your prayers. They are much welcome.

My sense inside now, is that if I can just have perfect faith, which is an active, doing thing, not a passive "believe without evidence " thing, and move according to such and only such, somehow (I have no idea how) everything will work out for the glory of God.

My fear (which makes perfect faith difficult) my only fear, is that the glory of God may entail pain for my little girl.

I struggle with rule 1. Love God, coming before rule 2. Love my little girl.

Some part of me senses that in order to do what is best for her I need to love God first and foremost. But the animal side of me that has literally kept me alive and capable all my life, viscerally tells me that if I need to burn God and the world entire for her, then I will. And I know that such a result can not work in her favour. I know it with my mind. And some part of my heart, but I don't know it with my whole heart yet. And I need to.

So your prayers are very welcome. Thank you.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 04, 2015 11:20 AM  

On the contrary, the very cyclic nature of history suggests strongly that something else gives rise to children capable of building and defending a civilisation, and civilisation gives rise to pampered useless savages.

I agree and claim that it is genetics that gives rise to civilization.

When a great civilization arises due to the genetically-derived abilities of the builders, all sorts of people who could not build such a civilization immigrate and start freeloading.

Of course, civilizations are actually built and maintained by only about 10% (or maybe less) of the males in group that built it. When their number becomes too low, the civilization declines.

After the decline, the freeloaders either die off in large numbers or disperse and eventually, a group capable of building a new civilization reassembles somewhere.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 11:21 AM  

Mr. wright,
To this:
"@ Anyway, just a thought. -- Anonymous 13.

Sir, I had exactly the same thought. The moderns are less than pagans, and have not even the rough courage savages and barbarians often display."

THANK YOU!
I have just realised that is exactly what I have been all my life. A savage. A noble one I truly think, even if I say so myself, but yes. A savage. That is an enlightening perspective. Thank you both for your comments!

Anonymous The other skeptic January 04, 2015 11:23 AM  

That's not to say that we should not marry, raise children, and teach them to remember, defend, and build, a civilisation.

Indeed, because it is only when those who are capable of maintaining civilization marry and have children that civilization will prevail.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 04, 2015 11:23 AM  

Last I checked we are all "still in the fight".

To acquiesce to the fear instilled by a perceived stacked deck is to give in to that fear.

Commitment to attack the enemy head on in 2015 and beyond is the only answer in the face of the aggression unleashed on humanity by those whose goals at the end of the day are nothing more than raping underage boys and girls.

God will reward fearlessness in the shadow of hopelessness.

There is nothing more rewarding on planet earth than being the champion of your children, warts and all.

Subversion should be your mantra going forward. Don't make it easy on the NWO. Frustrate their grand design, their great game. Embrace the combat. It is opportunity.

Make this the year you turn off Sportscenter and reclaim your manhood.




Anonymous Joe H January 04, 2015 11:29 AM  

Tiny Tim, you mean superversion not subversion, right?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 11:33 AM  

Tiny Tim,

Why are you lying around commenting on the Internet? Aren't there some noble gangbangers you need to hire for a turnaround?

Blogger Tiny Tim January 04, 2015 11:34 AM  

The women turn to the men to defend the tribe only to find the man-boys have abdicated the natural order and are playing warrior vicariously through digital synthetic combat via video games and professional sports while getting their natural desire to procreate satisfied by the same digital image immersion into porn.

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 11:36 AM  

@Giuseppe
Some part of me senses that in order to do what is best for her I need to love God first and foremost. But the animal side of me that has literally kept me alive and capable all my life, viscerally tells me that if I need to burn God and the world entire for her, then I will. And I know that such a result can not work in her favour. I know it with my mind. And some part of my heart, but I don't know it with my whole heart yet. And I need to.

Maybe considering it this way will help:

Do not pedestalize your daughter. Much like you should not put any woman on a pedestal due to red pill knowledge (and in that case, lower yourself beneath them), do not put your daughter on a pedestal as well.

It seems to me that you are indeed doing this, as you are being tempted to raise your daughter above even God.

If you put your daughter above you, she will not obey you and will quickly lose her way.

Blogger pyrrhus January 04, 2015 11:37 AM  

Dr. Dalrymple on the reasons the bad is more prevalent than the good.http://takimag.com/article/credit_for_character_theodore_dalrymple/page_2#axzz3Ns31u9OL

Blogger Tiny Tim January 04, 2015 11:38 AM  

Stg 58, you are obviously a washed up weakling. Take a hike.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 11:43 AM  

Drop it, Tiny Tim. Stg 58, for crying out loud, when people finally start behaving in a civil manner, does it really make sense to bait them?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 11:44 AM  

Ahaha. Obviously. Have we ever met? Memories are long around here, TT.

Anonymous sawtooth January 04, 2015 11:44 AM  

If I were an atheist, all this hand wringing about preserving "civilization", "legacy", and "future generations" would be just bring a sardonic smirk of amusement to my mug. After all, as far as I would be concerned when I die, the universe dies.

My belief in God is the only thing that keeps me from thinking that way.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 11:45 AM  

VD,

The last time we went round with him he was absolutely full of shit. I have a hard time taking him at face value.

Anonymous lozozlo January 04, 2015 12:02 PM  

@VD

As you contend that we should persevere in building families and civilization even in the face of the collapse of the surrounding society, would it be accurate to say that you are advocating something along the lines of this Fred Reed article?

I guess we could call it FGTOW - families going their own way...

Anonymous lozozlo January 04, 2015 12:04 PM  

Whoops posted the link wrong sorry....

Hopefully it works this time.

Anonymous MrGreenMan January 04, 2015 12:05 PM  

The MGTOW movement, which is fundamentally a consumer boycott, would collapse tomorrow if there was a different kind of woman on offer.

Solomon said a lot about a virtuous wife and an unvirtuous wife; throw out all the goodies; throw out the idea of losing your property - so what, you lose big on one roll of the roulette wheel - these are fleeting. Who hasn't lost piles of money on some stupid investment idea? You haven't lived until you've called up a creditor explaining that the business has failed, the check won't be forthcoming. What a man cannot permit is that his children will be raised counter to his beliefs, and America will try at every single opportunity to execute Wilson's Dream and so pervert the views of the children away from their father, and it will so empower a wife that should be disciplined and shamed back into line in her rebellion to turn children away from them and call it emancipation and freedom.

It would be nice if we could eradicate that most pernicious of evils, the male feminist so-called conservative father of daughters, who feels the need to live out his lack of sons by demanding that every single thing his imaginary son would do is what his daughters would do. When you can't tell a good Southern Baptist girl from a New York atheist after the first semester, something is wrong with the life script being lived vicariously.

Anonymous lozozlo January 04, 2015 12:11 PM  

The MGTOW movement, which is fundamentally a consumer boycott, would collapse tomorrow if there was a different kind of woman on offer

As someone is not firmly in the MGTOW camp but is certainly leaning that way...I would have to agree.

The "If there was a different kind of woman on offer" is a very big "if", however.

I suspect that most MGTOWs or other marriage boycotters aren't even thinking that much of the insane divorce laws and other such stuff...more than anything else a lot of the single guys I know (myself included) are that way since the type of woman one would actually like to marry (a woman who even 10% Proverbs 31-ish) is indeed a very rare specimen.

There is likely 1 such woman for every 1000 Christian men looking to marry...so the odds are most of us are unlikely to even find such a woman, much less be the one to marry her.

And even if she is that way during marriage, relentless tradcon pressure from the modern mark driscoll churchianity could well end up changing her around 180 degrees anyway...

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 12:18 PM  

Tiny Tim, when I want your opinion about how things work here, I will ask for it. Learn to shut the fuck up when I tell you to do so. I don't warn people twice because I assume that anyone with sufficient intelligence to join the discourse here is capable of understanding a warning.

The last time we went round with him he was absolutely full of shit. I have a hard time taking him at face value.

I don't care. Have you truly failed to understand that I have absolutely zero interest in tolerating the various little pissing matches that erupt here?

If someone starts behaving, why would you ever think that I want them to revert? It would take less time to simply spam everyone who responds to them. I, or one of the moderators, will deal with those who are acting up. I understand they are irritating. That is often their purpose. The point is that piling on and pointing fingers serves no useful purpose.

OpenID cailcorishev January 04, 2015 12:18 PM  

Marriage is not for everyone. Not all of us are called to get hitched and have kids.

If you honestly don't feel the desire for that, you probably shouldn't. There's always been a place for celibate men, who can build or preserve civilization in other ways.

But the fact is, most men DO have the urge to procreate. If that man rejects marriage because of the legal risks, he's probably not going to redirect that energy into developing new technology or copying manuscripts like a medieval monk. He's more likely to be frustrated and spend that energy in harmful or wasteful ways, while he fights against his natural calling. He might even cave in eventually and end up marrying after all -- but to a wall-nearing divorcee out of desperation. That's a much more likely scenario than the sophisticated man-about-town that we're told is the alternative to the married chump.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 12:25 PM  

lozozlo January 04, 2015 12:02 PM

@VD

As you contend that we should persevere in building families and civilization even in the face of the collapse of the surrounding society, would it be accurate to say that you are advocating something along the lines of this Fred Reed article?

I guess we could call it FGTOW - families going their own way...


Indeed, I and many of the married Ilk here are doing just that, to whatever extent possible. We homeschool our children, grow our own garden, raise chickens, and in general hang around with similar families in our neck of north-central Florida. Most of us tend to be self-employed, or at least work for small businesses, attend small churches and our main goal is to be as disengaged from the American system as possible.

There is likely 1 such woman for every 1000 Christian men looking to marry...so the odds are most of us are unlikely to even find such a woman, much less be the one to marry her.

Well... I know I am 1 in a 1000, and am pleased to have a Proverbs 31 wife. But really, if you get out of the city, you will find a lot more women like that. Among our local circle of home-schooling families, you will be hard-pressed to meet a more charmingly feminine group of wives. If you are a young man, I'll give you a tip: find a way to hang around with homeschooling families. They tend to have large numbers of children, and as their daughters mature, they are very likely to choose a good family path, and be interested in old-school homesteading arts, such as baking, sewing, gardening, etc... This lifestyle and people do exist.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 12:29 PM  

VD,

Yep I get it, which is why I didn't respond to his last comment. I shouldn't have baited him in the first place. I apologize.

Blogger Josh January 04, 2015 12:39 PM  

But the important thing is to provide, like the monks of an earlier civilizational decline, a means of preserving that which will permit civilization to rise again.

Rod Dreher calls this the Benedict option.

Anonymous VD January 04, 2015 12:40 PM  

I shouldn't have baited him in the first place. I apologize.

No worries. Things are now running considerably smoother than they have in the past as the regulars develop better self-control.

Anonymous Eowyn January 04, 2015 12:45 PM  

@rycamor

One thing I've noticed with large homeschooling families here in the South as well: they marry young and start popping kiddos out ASAP. They are devoted, obedient women, as well as physically beautiful and strong.

They exist. Just get out of the city and the godforsaken North.

Blogger Cadders January 04, 2015 12:46 PM  

I believe it is a mistake to be dismissive of men who are choosing not to marry and 'preserve the seeds of civilization.'

Both those who seek to preserve those seeds and those who shun this path have a role to play. And IMO it is the MGTOW component who will be the real agents of change. Think about it - what do we, as men, do when our woman has spun completely out of control - when neither any of our words nor actions will get her to behave? Weak men may whine, lash out or have a meltdown - but for most of us, we simply walk away.

This is not weakness - it is an autonomic response. Indifference is men's nuclear option. It takes a lot for a man to disengage from a woman. And yet that is increasingly what men, as a group, are doing to women, as a group. It is this dynamic that will, in the end, get women to start controlling their behavior. Just as individual women quickly respond when the attention of their man is withdrawn, so to, will women as a group, respond when the attention of men, as a group, is withdrawn. And the tipping point for this hinges not just on the number of men GTOW, but also on the quality of such men.

I have noticed (judging by the increasing quality and articulation of posts on MGTOW forums) that increasing numbers of 'higher value' men seem to be adopting MGTOW - the ones women want.

IRL I see increasing numbers of men who are living MGTOW without even knowing it.

By all means encourage some men to follow a traditional path to preserve the seeds. But right now I think it is more important to keep the supply of such men limited to allow the MGTOW dynamic a swifter and more effective path.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 04, 2015 12:53 PM  

Roger that Vox.

The men of the West have been digitally castrated and are digital eunuchs.


Anonymous lozozlo January 04, 2015 12:55 PM  

@Cadders

Indeed (at least for men dealing with women) the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.

Anonymous Orville January 04, 2015 12:57 PM  

You are assuming failure. All I hear here is fear. And from whence comes fear?

Fear. That is the thread I see woven in so much these days. I've had to personally confront this the last year or two with an employment situation and the larger societal collapse going on. The 46th Psalm is a very potent antidote that God will provide shelter and strength in any trouble, even the worst case of societal or global destruction.

To quote Frank Herbert's "Dune", “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer."

Again I see fear as an active strategy of our various enemies to control and enslave us whether in the financial, political or spiritual arenas.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 12:59 PM  

Afraid of speaking out, losing status, job, family. Potent fears indeed, but chains if we let them.

Anonymous lozozlo January 04, 2015 1:05 PM  

@Stg58

Part of the reasoning behind FGTOW is becoming more independent of the current system - one of the left's most powerful tools is the form of economic warfare that you describe.

There is no need for gulags and the KGB to ensure compliance...just make sure that those who don't agree can't support themselves and their families. An empty belly is a powerful motivator.

So becoming as robust (and when possible as anti-fragile) as possible is absolutely vital going foward. I think rycamor has a great handle on this notion.

Disengage from the system and you can then far more easily give it the middle finger.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 1:06 PM  

@Cadders, that is still the weak option. High-value men who a) actually want to have sex and b) actually want to have family are equally able to tell a young woman "if you want to be with me, here's how it has to be:" The fact is we live in a decadent time where most men who can get no-strings-attached sex will gladly do so, and those who can't are the ones going MGTOW out of frustration. The alpha male does not need "walking away" as his primary option to combat civilizational decay.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 1:20 PM  

Vox, you did not ever answer my last point: white Christian civilization gave rise to this polluted, decadent society by refusing to discipline its women and deviants. What makes you think it will go otherwise next time, if indeed there is a next time? Even today tradecons (including the otherwise commendable Mr. Wright) have women on a ridiculous pedestal and would never be able to apply the firm hand needed to keep an unruly one in line.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 1:23 PM  

Calvin,

Each generation has the opportunity to learn something from the previous. Not guaranteed though.

Anonymous Rabbi B January 04, 2015 1:54 PM  

"To defend civilization, it is necessary for men and women to take the risks that modern society places upon us . . . And raise up a new generation that is not only civilized, but capable of defending the remnants of civilization."

I believe that as long as there is even one person left on earth to champion the cause of G-d and His Word, as long as there is even one person left with the courage to take up PUBLICLY the good fight on G-d's behalf, then G-d's cause, which is nothing less than civilization's cause, is not yet lost. Perhaps, then it would no longer be necessary for G-d's judgment to descend from heaven in order to save humanity.

I don't think that G-d promised His peace to the weak and complacent or to those who finally decide to take up a good cause only after
it has gained universal popularity and is no longer in need of defenders. Nor is G-d looking for soldiers who are willing to proclaim peace "at any price". If there lives only one man who finds himself alone and one among myriads with the whole world against him simply because he is courageous enough to speak up for the truth and fight for G-d's cause, then all the more significant will be such a man's words and all the more momentous such a man's deeds.

We need to bear in mind that the greater number of such a man's opponents the more will he be the savior of the very ones against whom such a man fights and of those who remain complacently silent around such a man. Such a man will, at the end of the day, have achieved that which all others should have striven to achieve.

My little appeal here is not to the agnostics et al (I think the Latin equivalent is 'ignoramus' iirc) commenting here today, but to those who hold a worldview that is unapologetically Biblical. My understanding is that judgment begins in the house of G-d, and rightly so. The sad truth is that far too many have succumbed and continue to succumb to secularization. Too many of our ilk continue to reject the view that sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal. Is it not those who lay claim to Biblical worldview who are expected to relate all human problems - social, political, and cultural - to solid Biblical foundations and views all things in the light of G-d's supremacy and our impermanence? We have only been allotted so much time. How are we numbering our days?

Not to sound to overly dramatic, but I for one believe that this particular post is one of the most important to date; the post is and the c that it contains may be nothing less than prophetic. We who espouse a Biblical worldview ignore the call at our peril.

"The risk is worth it, because there is more to life than maximizing your number of sexual encounters and your bank account."

In other words, what does it profit a man if he gains the entire world but forfeits his soul? In other words, have we not been called to forsake all to follow Him? Isn't this what we signed up for? Someone spoke of cost-benefit analysis earlier. Have we counted the cost? Are we not His ambassadors here on earth? Have we not been called to shine as stars in this dark universe no matter how much men may hate the light and love the darkness? Was not Jeremiah told to speak to rebellious Israel and also told that his message would be largely ignored? Just as G-d promised Jeremiah that if he were to remain terrified before his audience that He would terrify Jeremiah, may G-d terrify us for shrinking back and shutting our mouths at such a critical hour. We discharge out duty before G-d not because of the results we hope to achieve, but because it is our duty before G-d.

Blogger Rabbi B January 04, 2015 2:01 PM  

Please excuse the typos in my last post .... I couldn't delete and edit for some reason ...

Anonymous MrGreenMan January 04, 2015 2:06 PM  

@Rabbi B

To be clear, the value of and necessity of preserving any particular civilization is entirely dependent on it advancing God's will and the lordship of Jesus Christ. Civilizations die. Some civilizations deserve to fester and die. The ash heap of history contains lots of civilizations that turned their back on God and rejected Jesus Christ. Western civilization has had a sickness ever since it killed its kings and attempted to kill its Lord that was its only reason for being.

Blogger Cadders January 04, 2015 2:07 PM  

@rycamor

I think you are mistaken. A few years ago I used to dip into the MGTOW forums and did not stay long. As you imply the whiff of the desperate loser was never far away. I sensed there were some there who had options when it came to women and had taken the conscious decision to GTOW. However they seemed to be overwhelmed by individuals who (I suspect) were low value and were using the MGTOW label as a fig leaf to cover their own inadequacies (or more importantly, their unwillingness to self-improve - not to attract women, but just for their own self esteem).

This is what has changed. I see more and more articulate, reasoned and thoughtful discussions around male / female dynamics from men who clearly have had experience with women as partners, wives, FWBs, girlfriends, colleagues and as relatives. These guys do not appear to be the SMP losers that the MGTOW crowd is often made out to be. Some seem simply very rational and absent the desire to 'preserve the seed of civilization' it is hard to challenge their general conclusion (so it seems to me) of 'women aren't worth it'.

There are still some who come across as losers of course, but my interest lies in the direction of travel amongst MGTOW rather than where it sits at any given point in time. MGTOW are one of the canaries in the coalmine with regard to the course of the SMP and male / female relations will take in the near future.

I don't dispute that men who want a family can still attempt to do so. Many will succeed, but it takes effort, understanding and hard work (and some luck).

My point is that significant numbers of such men are (for the first time in modern history) doing the cost / benefit analysis and concluding it not to be worth the effort.

My point is that rather than getting them to re-think, we should be getting out of their way.

Blogger Rabbi B January 04, 2015 2:16 PM  

@MrGreenMan

Part of what informs my understanding is that it is G-d's will that none perish but come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth, that He takes no delight in the death of any man, irrespective of 'civilization'. Sadly, most men reject G-d's will for themselves (cf. Acts 13). My appeal is that we remain committed to advancing G-d's will along these lines to the best of our giftings and ability, no matter how many civilizations rise and fall around us.

Blogger Thordaddy January 04, 2015 2:47 PM  

Only when one brings an innocent child into this world does he truly contemplate bringing wrath to his enemies...

The enemy is the anti-white Supremacist....

And the de facto homos of the West deserve a nearly unconscionable tapout.

Blogger Thordaddy January 04, 2015 2:52 PM  

"Our" civilization dies because no "white" males desire to be genuine white Supremacists.

Even the staunchest anti-Equalist must finally concede the "equality" of "redundant phenomena" IF he rejects the label (white) Supremacist.

"We" have a nation of "unique snowflakes" who nonetheless reject The Singularity.

Anonymous Yorzhik January 04, 2015 2:55 PM  

Both VD and those advocating not risking marriage are right. But those advocating not risking marriage and kids are more right.

Civilization is better served by men going on strike and destroying society quickly.

If one is set on getting married and raising kids, then have a plan to raise the kids properly in case your wife follows female nature instead of her civilized training. Then you will sow the seeds of civilization instead of adding to the fuel of anarchy.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 3:16 PM  

Cadders January 04, 2015 2:07 PM

@rycamor

I think you are mistaken. A few years ago I used to dip into the MGTOW forums and did not stay long. As you imply the whiff of the desperate loser was never far away. I sensed there were some there who had options when it came to women and had taken the conscious decision to GTOW. However they seemed to be overwhelmed by individuals who (I suspect) were low value and were using the MGTOW label as a fig leaf to cover their own inadequacies (or more importantly, their unwillingness to self-improve - not to attract women, but just for their own self esteem).

This is what has changed. I see more and more articulate, reasoned and thoughtful discussions around male / female dynamics from men who clearly have had experience with women as partners, wives, FWBs, girlfriends, colleagues and as relatives. These guys do not appear to be the SMP losers that the MGTOW crowd is often made out to be. Some seem simply very rational and absent the desire to 'preserve the seed of civilization' it is hard to challenge their general conclusion (so it seems to me) of 'women aren't worth it'.


You mistake me. I'm not saying that high-value men won't do this. I'm saying they don't have to. Yes, there are definitely women who aren't worth it, whatever "it" is. But this idea that we should withdraw from all women until they come to their senses is still putting the power in the hands of the women. Men have a great deal more persuasive power over women than they realize.

Here's what men who have pull with women should do
1. Not have sex with them absent marriage. I know, right there that is a dealbreaker for most men, but it is what leads to all the other problems.
2. Tell them a relationship is only possible if the woman is willing to give up her career and raise a family.
3. Tell them up front they will be following the Biblical model for family, where the wife is to submit to her husband.

THEN, for each woman who finds these conditions too onerous--cold shoulder. Next. This is what the MGTOWs are too afraid to do. They want to skip right to the could shoulder without even giving women the chance to change course.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 04, 2015 3:22 PM  

You are assuming failure. All I hear here is fear. And from whence comes fear?

To be blunt, from lack of Alpha. Observable Fact Man nailed this one.

Unlike physical-war soldiers, we have no leadership or support structure.

So then be a leader. Build a support structure. Don't complain that someone else hasn't handed it to you on a platter.

Ergo, it failed in its primary duty. By my reckoning, that dissolves any weight of allegiance I might have had to it.

And also any allegiance the rest of us may have to you. Would you'd consider it unjust if someone killed you for your shoes?

The simple reality is that I can get just about anything I want from our modern women without committing

The thing the post-civilizationist PUAs don't understand is that they are enjoying the fruits of what's left of civilization without doing anything to support it. They are social parasites. In an un-civilized society, attempting to get sex out of women without any commitment to them will get you killed by their male relatives, unless you're barbarian enough to kill the relatives first. The only thing that allows modern (or is that post-modern) day Lotharios to operate is the renmants of civilization that hampers fathers and brothers from slaughtering the PUAs on sight (and we do recognize them on-sight). Or perhaps they do realize but assume they'll be dead and buried before anything changes. Well, things tend to change faster than we expect.

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 3:29 PM  

"Because, as I tried to say in the earlier piece on the looming demographic disaster that awaits us, the future belongs to the fertile. It belongs to those who show up. And whether it’s a monastery where no one seems willing to show up in order to risk everything for God, or a marriage bed whose mentality of not wanting life bespeaks the refusal to be generous, without at least some openness to life—the defining theme, no less, of love, of eros—there can only be death."
-Roger Martin

@Yorzhik
You're conflating society and civilization.

@VD
Not in an attempt to play "gotcha", but as an attempt to understand your position better, what's the difference between your position and "wife up a slut" as described by Dalrock?

Anonymous Jack Amok January 04, 2015 3:33 PM  

what's the difference between your position and "wife up a slut" as described by Dalrock?

I know this was asked of Vox, but I'll answer it too. You could describe my position as "wife up a woman worth being your wife." And be a man worth being her husband.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 3:33 PM  

Student in Blue,

"Do not pedestalize your daughter."

I am not sure of your intent, and in the spirit of hoping it is a good one, I will assume it is, so let me explain a little better. I am not sure where you got that from. Did you read what I wrote? I made it quite clear that my putting her above God (and God I am only recently familiar at all with at that) is my flaw.

With regard to pedastalising, I don't suffer from that particular flaw when it comes to women or indeed humans.
You seem to not be able to grasp my position, which is simply that my flawed, human daughter, matters more to me than pretty much anyone and everything else put together. It's an animal thing, not an evolved human thing, but there is a part of me that can't seem to evolve past the animal side because, frankly, I am not sure I should, and I am not sure it is completely wrong. The instinct to be able to sacrifice yourself completely and utterly for your offspring is, I think natural. And again, because you seem to have swallowed a bit too many of these pill analogies to me, it would not make a blind bit of difference if I had a son instead of a daughter with respect to how I feel about this. Your basic premise seems flawed and frankly a little sick to me.

As far as my flaw goes, call it a division between animal nature and human intellect, or demonic and divine, or whatever you will.
Your characterisation is completely wrong though in the context you tried to examine it. There is no sense of pedastalising. It's the tribal instinct that mine will always come before yours. And before everyone else's too.

Hope I cleared that up.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 3:35 PM  

The way to make women change, en-mas, is to give them what they think they want until they choke on it. I agree that collapse is coming. When it does, women will learn just how much they need a man. Or die. Whichever.

In the meantime, remember this all ye preachers of matrimony: to care for yourself and your interests alone, and to hell with everyone else is the essence of alpha.

To sacrifice your interests in the name of others is the essence of beta.

Which do women want?

Now do you understand why I disciplined women should never be trusted?

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 3:40 PM  

Sorry, that should be "undisciplined women". Irritating autocorrect.

Anonymous sawtooth January 04, 2015 3:42 PM  

As a single Christian man; what if you found a good young Christian woman who was willing to forego career to be a stay at home mom; wanted a big brood of thriving children, was strong and upright yet submissive to the future husband? She is a real pro at the domestic arts and keeps herself healthy and in shape. Dream come true right?

But what if, despite all that, she was a 2 or 3 in the physical looks dept. and you could not muster any physical attraction to her?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 3:44 PM  

Calvin, that line of reasoning, sacrificing your interests of other being beta, is described by Jesus as the greatest love man possesses.

Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for a friend. John 15:13.

Blogger automatthew January 04, 2015 3:49 PM  

As I see it, there are two taboos in the way of high-value men reclaiming civilization:

* polygamy
* Aristotle 37:18

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 3:53 PM  

@Stg58

I do not dispute its moral desirability. I merely point out that such behavior is not attractive to women. Indeed, in many cases it is the opposite of attractive, setting up some poor fool for heartbreak from a backstabbing woman. By contrast, I can assure you from much personal experience that self-centered, asshole behavior is extremely attractive to every sort of girl, including the "good Christian" church girls.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 4:03 PM  

Calvin,

Isn't it sad? We all fail God every day, men and women.

Anonymous Anon January 04, 2015 4:08 PM  

"But what if, despite all that, she was a 2 or 3 in the physical looks dept. and you could not muster any physical attraction to her?

You are going to need that physical attraction. But you don't want to put any woman on a pedestal just because she's hot either. Imho, Pray and hold out for a woman that has some physical attraction but has the other traits you mentioned.

Anonymous BoysMom January 04, 2015 4:11 PM  

Women tend to be very peer influenced, I've noticed. My friends have kids and home school. Are they my friends because they have kids and home school, or do they have kids and home school because they're my friends? (In the case of some slightly younger ladies I grew up with, I'm pretty sure there's a fair amount of the latter.)

It's entirely reasonable to judge people by the company they keep. Look at your potential wife's friends. If she's got any sense she's judging you by the company you keep.

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 4:17 PM  

@Giuseppe
I am not sure of your intent, and in the spirit of hoping it is a good one, I will assume it is, so let me explain a little better.

It is, and I appreciate that.

I need to address this section first before I can respond to the rest of what you said.

And again, because you seem to have swallowed a bit too many of these pill analogies to me, it would not make a blind bit of difference if I had a son instead of a daughter with respect to how I feel about this. Your basic premise seems flawed and frankly a little sick to me.

...Come again? What in the world did you think my basic premise is? Serious question. I'm reading this in a number of different ways as to what you assume my premise to be and I'm not sure where to go from there.

Blogger JartStar January 04, 2015 4:19 PM  

No sarcasm: This post seems uncharacteristically positive for you. Did you make a resolution to be more optimistic?

Blogger Thordaddy January 04, 2015 4:59 PM  

So the revolutionaries are going to slay this Beast, but are too risk averse to take on your female anti-self?

Blogger Cadders January 04, 2015 4:59 PM  

@rycamor

I agree with your 3 step plan. I think where we differ is in our understanding of the MGTOW 'philosophy'.

Your view is that women are still the central player in the game, that MGTOW take their position from a place of weakness and fear. That they really want a woman, but their inadequacies prevent them from having one.

My view is that for many MGTOW, women are considered to be largely inconsequential to the life they seek to lead. Mostly they just want to be left alone. For them, giving women the 'chance to change course' makes no sense because they simply don't want a woman.

I'm not saying either of us is correct in our understanding of the MGTOW philosophy - I'm not a MGTOW and I guess neither are you and in any case some of the power of MGTOW lies in the somewhat ambiguous way it defines itself.

I also think we view the male 'withdrawal' dynamic through a different lens. I suspect you consider it akin to sulking – a pre-meditated strategy designed to paint yourself as a victim and lay a guilt trip on the women. Of course this won’t work because it’s weak. This is not what I am talking about when I mention male dis-engagement from modern women.

The dynamic I am interested in here is the common male response to a women who has lost control and is not responding to masculine efforts to reign her in. When a woman pushes and pushes and pushes, usually over an extended time, until eventually a switch flicks in her man's head. He will suddenly cease caring about her. All their years together, all their shared experience will count for nothing. This is not pre-meditated nor is it a tactic. It is automatic and it is instinctive - and all the more powerful because of it.

This is intriguing because it seems that this instinct not only drives much of the MGTOW phenomenon but, more importantly, it must be in men for a reason. This is the ultimate tool given to men to restore balance in relations between men and women. And it's deployment is not triggered by a man's will but by a woman's behavior.

It is easy to read this process as weakness, withdrawal, running away. Because what is being deployed? Quite simply, indifference. IMO men are not running away....they are walking away.

My sense is that it is being deployed by more and more men with increasing frequency and by men higher up the 'value chain'. MGTOW is a good proxy by which to measure this trend.

Your advice for young men seeking marriage is sound. But I think it will fall on deaf ears for many of those aligned to MGTOW as they are past the point of considering marriage.

Blogger glad2meetyou January 04, 2015 5:01 PM  

@Stg/58 Animal Mother

"We all know the red flags for finding wives. Use them and you'll be okay. I used them before I knew anything about game or red pill or that I was totally blue pill. It can be done."

I agree. Goodness exists in people, and it's worth finding and defending. WIth women, I also instinctively knew good wife-types from bad wife-types before I knew anything about game. Before my parents told me about the birds and the bees. Before I tried and failed at love more than once. As I said though, it's just an instinct. A feeling. Good thing the world's big enough and free enough that us cads and dads can still play our separate games.

Blogger Thordaddy January 04, 2015 5:04 PM  

In the same way "you" clowns see the tatted-toothless-wife-beater-wearin' "white supremacist," "you" see the worn-out-one-minute-on-top-of-the-cockle-the-next-minute female liberationist AND CALL her "woman."

Why would anyone change what they were already doing having obviously earned such high verbal praise from YOU?

Blogger Thordaddy January 04, 2015 5:08 PM  

MGTOW is phony for the simple reason that "men" don't go their own way IN THE MANNER that the MGTOW movement actually envisions...

In other words... MGTOW -= de facto homo lifestyle... No lady, no children... And pleasuring one's self to annihilation...

MGTOW = MALE liberationists going de facto homo.... Radical sexual autonomy. Not men... Not AT ALL.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 5:11 PM  

@Stg58:

Agnostic, remember? I pick no bones about the fact that I exploit the system for my own ends. And yes, I am aware that such a state of affairs cannot last forever. But so what? Neither will I. And with no irritating descendants to worry about, I can't say I much care for the fate of those to come.

Anonymous Beau January 04, 2015 5:14 PM  

Last week a young man asked my blessing to marry my second daughter; it was readily given. She will be a blessing to him far above all he can imagine.

Anonymous clk January 04, 2015 5:16 PM  

"When a woman pushes and pushes and pushes, usually over an extended time, until eventually a switch flicks in her man's head. He will suddenly cease caring about her. All their years together, all their shared experience will count for nothing. This is not pre-meditated nor is it a tactic. It is automatic and it is instinctive - and all the more powerful because of it.... it must be in men for a reason. "

IMHO .. .. if men didn't have this ability to disassociate in a relationship there would be many dead wives after 25 years of marriage ... as the woman gets older, more shrill and under the control of the chemical storm of their hormones its one of the few self defense mechanisms that God allows men to survive and maintain sanity .. .. its what drives men to fish, hunt, sail etc as there wives get older.. you keep the family together and just hope that someday the normal woman you married returns...

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 5:21 PM  

Student in Blue,
Hi again. Apologies if I also came across wrong to you. Clearly we are both trying to be helpful and not rude. We may just have a very different perspective so are both inclined to take the other guy's meaning wrong. I also tend to have some Aspie tendencies so this is not really an issue when face to face but can be more of one in this medium. So to explain what I meant:

The whole red/blue pill thing and indeed the whole PUA thing irks me. Please understand that I am not saying that "game" doesn't work or isn't "valid" as to getting women in bed. I happen to actually know more about getting women in bed than most men. I am not bragging or exaggerating on this and most of it was simply due to my natural way of being. The first time I heard of PUA s and game, etc etc was as a result of various friends of mine discussing my sex life and one of them bringing up the topic and then giving me the book the game. I then (because I am curious) proceeded to look into this subculture quite extensively. I have an interest in hypnosis and many other things and I even went so far as to meet some of these guys. And the thing is...they all kind of miss the point. It's not a point I can articulate very well unfortunately, and it is not as simple as I will lay out here, but I hope I can give the basic jist.
Essentially the whole PUE/pill/seduction community is pretty much focussed on "getting the pussy" with more or less interaction with the owner of said genitals, but in essence, the underlying premise is still really that. And it's kind of ...desperate, and low, and unmanly.

Mr. Wright (in private) has taken me to task for being basically a savage man little better than a dog with the amount of fornication I have done (and by the way, no, this was not an issue with regard to what happened between me and my wife) and from his perspective he is absolutely right (as long as you ascribe to his premises, which currently I do not, but who knows, I may change my mind). In my view, the PUA/red pills etc. are kind of half-fags that don't understand it's not about the pussy. It's about the whole person.

To Mr. Wright I am probably little better than a dog in this department because I take my pleasure of a person and can move on after or remain friends or have another 10 friends in the next couple of weeks. It's not unlike a good game of tennis say. If you'r into tennis.

The PUAs etc. think it's all about scoring points with the ball. Yeah...ok...sure in tennis that's the objective, but in life and sex and intimacy, it's not exactly like tennis is it? And even in tennis, if you are a good player, you enjoy the whole match, win or lose.

Vox wrote posts here on football that were interesting because of his interaction with the other players, the whole game...the "intimacy" of it, if you like. And to me possibly the only thing more boring than football may be golf. But I read those posts and enjoyed them because of the "intimacy" that he has for that activity.

Also, the whole red/pill blue pill is basically a version of PUA-stuff (related to it very closely anyway) and the suggestion I should not "pedestalise" my daughter purely because she's a girl is absurd. Firstly because it has nothing to do with pedestalising anyone or anything, she's a little girl and my daughter. Not some PUAs version of a "woman" with cultural Marxist tendencies.

And secondly, it matters not that she's a girl. Which is I why I mentioned it would make no difference if I had a son. It's my child. I will literally walk over the bodies of countless innocents and rot in hell for her, and would do the exact same for a him. Or even just for my brother's child, who also happens to be a boy. Hope I clarified and reduced any unintended offence.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 5:28 PM  

Calvin,

Yes, agnostic, which means "I don't know".

Anonymous Uppity Goyim January 04, 2015 5:28 PM  

@ Calvin : white Christian civilization gave rise to this polluted, decadent society by refusing to discipline its women and deviants.

Yeah, 'cause subversive Jewish parasites are really white Christians....

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 5:31 PM  

I have a theory of biblical marriage that I have never seen and which occurred to me a few years ago. For starters, I find it dubious that God is constrained by human legal documents - has be really joined two together by the mere fact that they have a marriage license issued by their state of residence? Forget dubious, absurd is more like it. So, what does God mean when He states that what He has joined let no one tear apart? First, let's recall that God's command for marriage is that a man shall leave his father and mother and that the two shall become one flesh, so what does it mean to become one flesh?

I submit that becoming one flesh is a reference to the strictly biological reality of recombinant DNA, that God joins two in one via procreation. Absent procreation, then, there is no joining together that is recognized by God. Other forms of marriage are strictly social institutions for the stability and function of a society.

Anonymous Mike M. January 04, 2015 5:33 PM  

I have to agree with Vox, some of you guys are so defeatist I marvel you haven't committed suicide.

WRT a civilizational collapse, I think it already happened. We're IN the Dark Age. The technology may be there, but the cultural self-confidence the West had in 1910 isn't.

What's to be done? Attack! L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace! Stand tall in defense of the Classical West! Yes, the period from 1916-45 was a Grade A mess...but so was the Thirty Years War. One of the advantages the Old Civilization had was a willingness to look at what they had done and correct what fell below proper moral standards.

The feminists and their Gamma enablers? Treat them with contempt. Disdain them, don't debate them. Then use the grievance system against them - first, if at all possible. Attack the cultural underpinnings. These are not misguided people, they are doing positive harm. The average person doesn't take kindly to saboteurs.

Anonymous Beau January 04, 2015 5:36 PM  

OT

Today's homeless outreach was magnificent. It started roughly, with the physical challenges of left-side numbness and dizziness. We had too a few people loudly denouncing the voices in their heads around us as the immediate background. Somehow I got hooked into a pedantic religious history conversation, ugh. But suddenly, like a bright light, I was given the words to cut through right to the heart of the matter.

I asked, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, able to offer eternal life to any who believes? Then, what remains, (having achieved that) is this, Galatians 5:6, 'The only thing that matters is faith working itself out through love.' I'm not giving you coffee and a cupcake to be saved. See that little boy over there? He has faith in Jesus and he's giving out cupcakes as an act of love. His faith is alive, he's small, but his love for Jesus is expressed as love for you."

To go from a dead-end dissertation of controversy to the crux of discipleship in one fell swoop is truly astonishing. Thank you very, very much Lord Jesus.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 5:41 PM  

One benefit of this interpretation is that Christian women would be forced to acknowledge that waiting until their fertility renders then unlikely to procreate means that they will never be joined to a man by God. And I can think of many other benefits of this interpretation.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 5:43 PM  

Yes, agnostic, which means "I don't know".

Correct. Which means that saying that one has failed God means little to me.

Though my personal theory is that if there is a God, as I said before, He hates us.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 5:43 PM  

Jonathan,
I would say BINGO!
I have a very similar view.

Blogger Chiva January 04, 2015 5:47 PM  

Congrats Beau, may your daughter's marriage be blessed.

It is good to still hear about a young man showing respect to his future in-laws.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 5:48 PM  

Calvin,

I wasn't referring to you. But if God hates us, why not kill us all right now? Who is God?

Blogger Rabbi B January 04, 2015 5:49 PM  

"Though my personal theory is that if there is a God, as I said before, He hates us."

Why do you think this? I am curious ...

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 5:50 PM  

Rabbi B,

Probably related to the age old question regarding God and evil.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 5:51 PM  

Beau,
I would say NOT OT at all.
And thank you sir. I note your acts of prayer and kindness by lurking. And today, in telling that little parable, because I am still unfortunately very ignorant of the Bible (I am trying to rectify it daily) you have helped me immensely. And given me the kind of proof and guidance I need. Invariably God/Jesus give me signs this way. With a very deep and pointed accuracy to my specific question.
Thank you again.
You help more people than you know sir. May God bless you.

Blogger Rabbi B January 04, 2015 5:52 PM  

"Probably related to the age old question regarding God and evil."

What about the question of 'G-d and good'? I wonder ...

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 5:52 PM  

Why do you think this? I am curious ...

As the saying goes: "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

We look pretty mad to me. It's saying something that I think ISIS storming America would result in a substantial improvement.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 5:53 PM  

Why does God let bad things happen?

Calvin : Because He hates us.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 5:54 PM  

Jonathan January 04, 2015 5:31 PM

I submit that becoming one flesh is a reference to the strictly biological reality of recombinant DNA, that God joins two in one via procreation. Absent procreation, then, there is no joining together that is recognized by God. Other forms of marriage are strictly social institutions for the stability and function of a society.

I agree that there is something to that, in that modern Christians tend to over-spiritualize the commands in the Bible. However, if you are going to use the Bible as any guide at all, you will find ample reference to childless couples whom God obviously sees as married. Ergo I don't think it is only a question of whether procreation has occurred.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 5:58 PM  

@ rycamor

childless couples whom God obviously sees as married.

Can you cite such a couple?

Blogger Rabbi B January 04, 2015 6:02 PM  

"As the saying goes: "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.""

Not familiar with the saying. Reference? Context?

What would you say informs your personal worldview? This is not an attempt to 'bait' you but to honestly engage you.

Blogger RBooster Man January 04, 2015 6:06 PM  

Awesome.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 6:07 PM  

@Jonathan,

We start with Abraham and Sarah, and I believe the last childless couple mentioned is Zacharah and Elizabeth, who finally become the parents of John the Baptist.

Now yes, both of these couples eventually become parents, but only after many many years without children, and you never see evidence in the Bible of marriages being annulled due to barrenness. You do, of course, see reference to multiple wives or concubines, and barrenness is looked upon as a disgrace or a curse. In other words, a man with the means was permitted to find other ways to carry on his seed if his wife was barren.

My point being that it's obvious that God sees children as the central purpose of marriage, but it is not the only or necessary requirement. The thing just isn't that cut and dry.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 6:09 PM  

Abraham and Sarah.

Blogger RBooster Man January 04, 2015 6:09 PM  

If you want to actually save civilization, hang the Family Court Judges.

Blogger Ben January 04, 2015 6:11 PM  

@giuseppe i'm sorry to hear about your daughter. will be praying for you, that's a situation i wouldn't wish on anyone.

i'm of two minds about the whole mra/pua/manosphere. i don't spend a lot of time on the forums, but i follow roosh, ch, et al on twitter. while they have some good points, ultimately they and i both know what they are seeking won't satisfy. just like the drug addict never gets high enough, or the bankster never gets rich enough. i was beta as anyone in high school, but by the grace of God i managed to find a good woman there. is she perfect? who among us is? the pua/mra idea of essentially gorging on as much sex as possible doesn't square with other supposed goals of "traditional values" and self control in other areas, ie. diet, exercise, self improvement.

ironically when this was first posted I read it while registering for baby loot at target. the notion that giuseppe is 'pedestalizing' his daughter is a terrible one. protecting the family is a man's *job*. why are we using pua language to describe family situations? seems those are two very different ends.

maybe slightly OT: today MN Teen Challange came to our church. the members sing, give testimonies, etc. MNTC is a christian org that does addiction counseling, and they have a success rate that, frankly, baffles the secular world. i confess my faith is often plagued with doubts and questioning, but to see young men and women stand up and say point blank "I would be dead if not but for the grace of God" isn't something one can easily ignore. people say God doesn't still perform miracles? that's bull.

Blogger Ben January 04, 2015 6:14 PM  

@beau

congrats on your daughter's engagement.

i remember asking my wife's parents for permission. it wasn't that long ago, but i remember it like it was yesterday. i was really, really nervous. looking back, i needn't have been.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 6:14 PM  

Why does God let bad things happen?

Calvin : Because He hates us.


It seems a fairly intuitive conclusion to me. If I hated someone, prodding them into slow-motion self destruction would be a decent way to express it.

But anyway, it's just a musing from an agnostic, not systemic theology..

Not familiar with the saying. Reference? Context?

What would you say informs your personal worldview? This is not an attempt to 'bait' you but to honestly engage you.


From "The Mask of Pandora". Just something from the 1800s, often wrongly attributed to Euripides.

I am informed primarily by life experience, including time spent in a fundamentalist Calvinist church. I've been through more than one religious theology and attempt to prove God, and found them all wanting. At the same time, the atheist worldview fails to convince me. As neither a committed believer nor an atheist, I became agnostic almost by default.

I have had experiences with many women, which has led to both an understanding of them (as treacherous, fickle creatures of no serious worth) and a general dislike of everything about them beyond the hole between their legs. I learned the hard way after my first girlfriend cheated on me with a football player. I had always treated her well, and was utterly flabbergasted. When searching for answers, I found the concept of game. It changed my life.

My intuition, after examining the world around me to the best of my ability, tells me that if it was created, the being that did so did not like us very much. It's not an exacting scientific hypothesis, just my sense of things.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 04, 2015 6:16 PM  

If you want to actually save civilization, hang the Family Court Judges.

True, just don't use up all the lamposts on them.

Blogger RBooster Man January 04, 2015 6:16 PM  

Western Christianity has been a complete failure when it comes to resisting Progressivism. Only the Russian Orthodox Church has been successful and that's because it is backed by thousands of Russian nukes targeting Western metropolises.

Perhaps a new religion is in order that can undermine Progressivism. I nominate a form of technology worship that is already gripping Silicon Valley to be that religion.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 6:21 PM  

Calvin,

Look at the situation from another angle:

How many bad things does God prevent? We all deserve hell fire to be poured on our heads eternally, but God prevents that through the work of Jesus. Jesus has endured more than we can imagine. The worst on this earth we can suffer from is nothing compared to what he endured in our stead.

Most of the bad things in life that happen to us are our own fault.

Blogger James Dixon January 04, 2015 6:27 PM  

> What makes you think it will go otherwise next time, if indeed there is a next time?

It won't. Civilizations rise and they fall. It's a pattern as old as the human race. The question is, are the people better off in the time between the falls or not? And the answer to that is an unequivocal yes.

But your genetic potential will an learning will only be available to rebuild the next civilization if you pass them on. That's the potential you're throwing away. It's your choice to make though, not ours.

> Though my personal theory is that if there is a God, as I said before, He hates us.

Does he? Really? Or is it just you and your attitude?

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 6:28 PM  

How many bad things does God prevent? We all deserve hell fire to be poured on our heads eternally, but God prevents that through the work of Jesus. Jesus has endured more than we can imagine. The worst on this earth we can suffer from is nothing compared to what he endured in our stead.

For what? Existing? What of babies yet to do anything? Do they deserve it? What becomes of them when they die? Heaven? Then killing your babies before they can sin is the best thing you could do for them. Hell? That would certainly back up my impression of a God who hates us.

Yes, I'm well-aware of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. I don't buy it. No one can rationally claim that sentencing an entire species to misery and death in perpetuity because two people ate a damned fruit is loving. It requires blind faith to say as much. I don't do blind faith when I can avoid it.

Blogger RBooster Man January 04, 2015 6:29 PM  

"Risk aversion is a feminine trait, not a masculine one."

Okay, then go and execute the Family Court Judges if you think you're man enough.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 6:31 PM  

Ben,
thank you. And thank you for your prayers.
I will testify, as they say (though I feel like I should have snakeskin boots, a sting tie and a pair of six-guns when I say that, damn it!) that God indeed does do miracles. I have been privy to at least 2 big ones.

Regarding the gorging, my personal experience is that there IS some benefit from it (beyond hedonistic pleasure) but I am not sure it is a benefit all men should seek, or want, or have use for.
I really don't know about the whole beta, Omega, blah, blah, etc. long before I read anything about sigmas on AG, I had come to the conclusion that if we had to use such qualifications, there were a couple of types of Alphas, One more dangerous than the other, but neither quite as resourceful (flexible, mutable, and ultimately dangerous in terms of caveman dynamics) as me and a whole host of "beta" varieties, which I didn't bother to classify.

I came up with the idea that men like me are "scouts" they have the ability to infiltrate other groups, which was no mean feat back in the tribal caveman days, and still get the hot female, usurp the Alpha or whatever. Essentially though we used different names for it, the sigma type that Vox defined in AG is another version of my "scout" class.
That's not to say I put too much stock in any "hard" definitions of these names. A beta in a corner can become a lion and a sigma like me can still screw up and pick the wrong woman because ... got arrogant and blinked at the wrong time, picked a really accomplished narcissist, or one I couldn't detect because she mutated into one, or....who knows, maybe because it was the only way to make me see God?

Sometimes, shit happens. Sometimes it's really bad. Still. If you can still breathe, the point is, we need to get back up. And not just walk like zombies, but FIGHT!

I am happy you have a good family and a good wife. May you go to your grave a very old and blissful man with a large family behind you.

Blogger SarahsDaughter January 04, 2015 6:34 PM  

@The Original Hermit
Ten years later and we're pregnant with our fourth.

Congratulations! That is fantastic!

@Beau
Last week a young man asked my blessing to marry my second daughter; it was readily given. She will be a blessing to him far above all he can imagine.

Evidence of the excellent father you are to your daughter. Congratulations to your family!

It started roughly, with the physical challenges of left-side numbness and dizziness.

Praying for you, Beau.

Blogger Danby January 04, 2015 6:35 PM  

@Calvin
Yes, agnostic, which means "I don't know".
Correct. Which means that saying that one has failed God means little to me.
Though my personal theory is that if there is a God, as I said before, He hates us.


Who, whom. you've got subject and object mixed up.
Correctly stated, God doesn't hate us. We hate him.
More specifically you hate Him.

If you don't know something vital to your existence, isn't it incumbent on you to find out? If you didn't know if you have cancer, you would do everything you could to find out. If you didn't know if your accountant was stealing your money, you would taking your books to a forensic CPA. Yet, you don't know if you'll burn in hell for all eternity, so you'll use that as a justification for selfish and exploitative behavior? Sounds to me like you just like selfish and exploitative behavior, and you use Agnosticism as a way to fob off people who call you on your shit.

Most Agnostics are Atheists without the moral courage.

Blogger Rabbi B January 04, 2015 6:39 PM  

"It requires blind faith to say as much. I don't do blind faith when I can avoid it."

I think this is fair. What about an informed faith? In other words, there is a way that SEEMS right to a man, but its end is death. Is it enough to rely on the five senses? Is that all there is to being human? Are we truly no different than the animals? Has sense of the eternal been set in the heart of man? If so, by whom? I appreciate your questions ... and your candidness and would love to engage more, but have a commitment right now.

If you have any interest in continuing a dialogue, I just started a blog recently (mayimchayim10.blogspot.com) or you can reach me via email: rebbaruch10@gmail.com.

Blogger RBooster Man January 04, 2015 6:41 PM  

"Calvin, that line of reasoning, sacrificing your interests of other being beta, is described by Jesus as the greatest love man possesses.

Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for a friend. John 15:13."

And this, kids, is why Christianity in the West is a failure when it comes to resisting Progressivism.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 6:41 PM  

@ stgMother, rycamor

Obviously, God already intended to give both couples children in their old age as a testament to His power and glory. So, no, neither counts. BTW, you are confusing marriage as a social institution and marriage in God's eyes, which are not the same thing.

BTW, annulling a marriage is part of the social institution of marriage, separate from God's blessing of joining two through procreation. Also, I would point out that God's first appointed leader of Israel, Moses, gave divorce to the Israelites.

Look, the only possibly earthly testament to God's joining two together is via childbirth. Otherwise, you are saying that God is bound by a piece of written paper issued by earthly authorities.

Care to give it another shot?

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 6:45 PM  

@Jonathan,

Marriage as a "social institution" and as a spiritual union were considered one and the same in Old Testament Israel. It wasn't a secular democracy.

Find me *any* evidence anywhere in the Bible that God considers a childless couple unmarried.

I'll tell you what is bleeding obvious from reading the Old Testament. God considers sex itself to be marriage.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 6:47 PM  

I know this is inconvenient for lots of young Christian men who want to have their cake and eat it too. They like the idea that "recreational sex" with birth control measures is sort of a freebie. This is exactly what the one who wishes to destroy a society would have you believe.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 6:50 PM  

Here's a simple challenge: what is the evidence would you have to claim that God has joined two specific people together? A marriage license issued by their state of residency? Seriously? I understand why this upsets some, as it implies that anyone having sex without procreation is committing adultery. But that is not the case. Adultery is sex with someone who is married to another or when one is married to another. The bible also prohibits aselgeia (ἀσέλγεια) aka promiscuity, in other words, promiscuity and adultery are related but not synonymous.

Clearly, teaching that all sex without a marriage license is a false teaching and not found in the Bible. What is found in the Bible are prohibitions against promiscuity and violating God's joining via procreation, two distinct prohibitions.

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 6:53 PM  

@Giuseppe

Thank you for your candid reply.

I think there's an issue here with a conflation of "red pill" and "pua/game" and even "mra". While true that it all sort of started from Game and "Pick Up Artists", saying that "red pill" thought and "MRA" is the same or very similar is like saying that Jews and Christians are the same or very similar, as they originated along the same timeline.

While from a moral standpoint, what Pick Up Artists did as they were accumulating knowledge was deplorable, the facts and truth that they uncovered about the lies of feminism, and in general how women operate, is very true and relevant to everyone. That knowledge is what's referred to as "red pill" and it is in no means only about getting your rocks off. What PUAs did when they slept with many many many women were noting all the commonalities that all women have, connecting the dots so to speak - and proving that lots of "old knowledge" about the sexes was still very, very relevant.

So, it is with great emphasis do I declare that in no way was anything about pedestalizing that I was talking about inherently sexual. We do it all the time with people that we do not want or find sexually attractive as men. We men just happen to place women that we desire on a pedestal more often than other figures, but we do do it for other figures.

With that said, do you fall in to this same category, of essentially seeing the image you want rather than the person that is? My first posting took the assumption of yes, based on available evidence. While I am heartened by your second post where you wrote "You seem to not be able to grasp my position, which is simply that my flawed, human daughter, matters more to me than pretty much anyone and everything else put together.", as it shows you're not seeing essentially perfection, that still does not disprove the case of 'seeing the image you want'. Given as your next sentence is "It's an animal thing, not an evolved human thing, but there is a part of me that can't seem to evolve past the animal side because, frankly, I am not sure I should, and I am not sure it is completely wrong.", that points to your view of your daughter as being from your subconscious. In other words, feeling, gut feeling, instinct, all of those cases, but also irrational. Not always wrong, but not always right either, and fiendishly difficult to try and analyze if it was a wrong choice.

Where you said "The instinct to be able to sacrifice yourself completely and utterly for your offspring is, I think natural.", is on surface agreeable. But keep in mind that the doe who kills itself to feed her offspring is entirely foolish, and is sacrificing itself completely and utterly. Even then, keep in mind that children do their best with firm rules that are upheld fairly and justly. There are several parents who have thought that sacrificing themselves for their children meant giving them whatever they wanted, and being lenient on rules with them, which instead crippled those children

Sacrifice is not understood by everyone, and I advise you to be cautious about approaching it solely via your instincts. Use it to fuel you and drive you, but never to guide you.

There is more to what I meant about "pedestalizing your daughter", such as if you place her above yourself, then they are the leader of your household, and what they say goes, indirectly if not directly. However, I think I have typed enough for one sitting, and I am curious as to what you have to say in reply.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 6:57 PM  

Calvin,
If I may add my thoughts.
Regarding your view of women... that is what I was trying to say above is the limitation of the whole Game/PUA/Pill guys. Look, my wife kidnapped my child. I would happily trade my situation with any number of girlfriends fucking themselves senseless with my best friends all behind my back, and I still don't have your embittered view of the world of the females species.

If Vox can chip in here it might help you more, as he has developed (from what I glanced of it) a rather refined and more detailed version of the various alpha to omega types and he might better explain to you what your flaw is. If you will permit me some brutal honesty here, (but no intent to cause offence or humiliation, let's be clear) my view of it is that, you're a bit of a pussy and you're upset about it. And you put that rage on women.
Women are as women are.

You have no idea how many friends I have had telling me how shark-like, gold-digging and cold-hearted Russian women are. From personal experience, I can tell you that is all true...if you happen to be the kind of man that would let a woman walk all over you. I had various Russian girlfriends, and not a single one was anything but very feminine, loving and loyal with me.
They also, almost without exception, bluntly pointed out that if a man was weaker than them, they would turn him into a doormat in a heartbeat.

I see nothing wrong with this, it is pretty natural. Conversely, if you happen to be a man, it is my opinion that a Russian wife will probably follow you into the gulags. And some did just that in real historical contexts, so I am not just waxing lyrical here.

One woman cheated on you and then you got with a whole bunch of others and you realised how "easy" it can be to make a woman drop her panties and jump in bed with you. And you blame them for it. And sure, they have some blame for it, but there is another side to that coin, and that is that if she strayed, some of it was your fault.

My own wife (and as far as I know every girl I was ever with) never cheated on me, she did something considerably worse and for very different reasons, and I didn't see it coming because I didn't seriously consider what she did as something she would ever do. I was wrong. In that respect at least. That's on me. Her flaws are hers, but mine are mine.

And if I ever end up in a situation analogous to it I would never make the same mistake again (unlikely I would ever be in that position again anyway) but the point is that I don't think EVERY woman is an evil narcissist.
They are what they are and every one of them is quite unique even if broadly speaking they may have gross tendencies.

My personal make-up is such that it is in any case very difficult for me to find an adequate mate (I have been somewhat spoilt physically/sexually, and I have a high IQ, and high IQ women are in a ration of about 1 to 10 men at the place I am at and there are not many men at the place my brain operates at naturally, so...yeah...it's a bastard.) The Harem model might actually be more suitable for me, but it's not really what I would like.

So...if I may, and please believe me, I am not being facetious or trying to be disrespectful, but my view to you would be simply to: Man the fuck up. If you are enjoying female company and not ready to settle yet, and are still learning all the different varieties of skank you need to overcome before you start getting to a better quality of woman in terms of ethics, reliability and so on, ok...carry on, but realise it's a stage. You are to progress and not just learn but also educate.
Do not be a pirate. Be a crusader. Don't slash and burn. Conquer and move on, but civilise. Leave the conquered wiser and with a knowledge of modern agricultural methods after you pass.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:00 PM  

@ rycamor

Marriage as a "social institution" and as a spiritual union were considered one and the same in Old Testament Israel

The OT was the direct rule of God's Law within a particular people and government. That synonymy of God's and man's law ended with Jesus Christ, which is why the NT is basically silent on politics.

Find me *any* evidence anywhere in the Bible that God considers a childless couple unmarried.

This is asking me to definitively demonstrate a negative.

God considers sex itself to be marriage.

Given that this almost always leads to children, barring very recent technology, this is the same thing as saying procreation is marriage.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:03 PM  

@ rycamor

If God considers sex ipso facto marriage then aren't you committing adultery if you "marry" anyone who is not a virgin prior to your relationship? Given the near absence of virgins in Western society this would mean that Biblical marriage is nearly impossible for anyone over the age of eighteen. I fail to see how God sets of a standard that is beyond the ability of nearly everyone to observe.

Anonymous Jack Amoi January 04, 2015 7:05 PM  

Okay, then go and execute the Family Court Judges if you think you're man enough.

Nice Gamma there. Everything appears to be equally frightening to you. Conducting a one-man war against the government is risky. Asking a pretty girl out on a date is risky too. Ergo, better not ask her out on a date...

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 7:06 PM  

@Jonathan, this is stupidly simple stuff. No, I am not saying anything about a "marriage license" or any state documents. Red herring. I'm talking about what God considers marriage to be. Your knowledge of the Bible is obviously lacking. Find me any... I mean *any* evidence that God considers a lack of procreation to mean a marriage isn't real. Just one anecdote.

I said nothing about what constitutes adultery, nor am I "upset" in any way about that. In the Bible premarital sex without marriage intent is called "fornication", and the Bible clearly lists it as a sin. The OT also states that if a man has sex with an unmarried girl, he is bound to marry her. I.E. sex is marriage. It doesn't say "only if she get pregnant."

Anonymous patrick kelly January 04, 2015 7:09 PM  

"By the same token, there is more to life than slaving away to provide for some ungrateful female (who is very likely to just take all your stuff anyway) and some brats."

This is what I have spent all my adult, christian life doing, and failing miserably for the most part. Yet I'm still convinced it is what God wanted me to do. It is the only thing worth the effort, struggle, pain and failure.

Now I serve mostly as an example of mistakes to avoid for other, younger families, encouraging them nevertheless to equip themselves as best their families and communities can, and charge head strong into the battle.

It really is the only thing I have any fks to give.............really........

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 7:14 PM  

Who, whom. you've got subject and object mixed up.
Correctly stated, God doesn't hate us. We hate him.
More specifically you hate Him.


I do? I find it hard to believe I hate something whose existence I am unsure of. If I did, I think I'd be working for Freedom From Religion Foundation or something instead of saying I'd find the brutal imposition of foreign religious order a vast improvement over current condition.

If you don't know something vital to your existence, isn't it incumbent on you to find out? If you didn't know if you have cancer, you would do everything you could to find out. If you didn't know if your accountant was stealing your money, you would taking your books to a forensic CPA. Yet, you don't know if you'll burn in hell for all eternity, so you'll use that as a justification for selfish and exploitative behavior? Sounds to me like you just like selfish and exploitative behavior, and you use Agnosticism as a way to fob off people who call you on your shit.

Most Agnostics are Atheists without the moral courage.


I've studied quite a bit of Christian theology. Of the lot, Calvinism, which says that God has planned out and is in complete control of absolutely every event, ever, is the one I find by far the most consistent with the Bible. But even that simply does not convince me that God exists, or that Christianity alone of the world's faiths has the correct understanding of Him at present.

However, I've accepted that, if there is a God, my old Calvinist fellows were definitely right and I am one of the non-elect, destined for hell. Maybe I'm just desensitized to the prospect.

But perhaps you're correct. Perhaps I am just a fool rationalizing my selfish desires. It's always a possibility. If so, I assume full responsibility thereof. I left the church and chose to live the way I do. I ain't blaming nobody else.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 7:18 PM  

Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:03 PM

@ rycamor

If God considers sex ipso facto marriage then aren't you committing adultery if you "marry" anyone who is not a virgin prior to your relationship?


The man isn't, but it is a valid question about whether the woman is. Listen, the Western approach to these things is to look for the "gotcha" or the line that can not be crossed OR ELSE. The Bible presents these things as central truths and the will of God. Of course we find men in the Bible who marry non-virgins with God's blessing (although often there is trouble). These things were obviously a concern in the New Testament or Paul would not have felt it necessary to explain that a woman can be remarried if her husband has died.

But we still see the central intent, and it is quite clear: sex is not something that one can separate from marriage. If that's a problem for you mate, well... you're on your own.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 04, 2015 7:19 PM  

Jonathan,

So by your logic, and correct me if I am wrong, I could have banged a sextet of strippers at The Landing Strip in between the day I said my vows and the day she conceived and not have committed adultery?

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 7:25 PM  

Student in blue,
I stand by my point and I see more clearly in your reply (thank you for it by the way, we may have hijacked the crap out of Vox's blog but this is good and I hope useful for others beyond just you and me) that I am indeed correct.

I am failing in defining the flaw of the PUAs/MRAs/Pill etc guys. It is hard to verbalise concisely or even effectively. As for my instincts, no, they are generally hardly ever wrong. They can be off if I try to use too much intellectual bs to analyse them (which is what the PUAs do in spades) when I screw up it's usually because I didn't listen to that little internal gut voice/feeling. This has been a constant for some 45 years so I think I finally got the message. Which is simply this:

1. Make sure the little message has zero origin in anything based in fear.
2. If that holds true, then, listen to the little message, whatever it is.
3. If it does not, the re-evaluate at the very least, buy time or walk away.

You are basically wrong in your view/assessment. But to explain WHY you are is difficult to express precisely. Let me try (and again, please do not take offence. I speak bluntly but not with intent to harm).

To your first comment regarding pedestalising in the sense of sacrifice, you say it as if it is a weakness, and you mention putting her above myself etc etc.

All completely wrong.

First: Sacrifice in the RIGHT context (and I recognise you understand there is a right context) is a GOOD thing. This is axiomatic (as well as Axiomatically Christian [which I am not yet]) If you disagree on this point then we will hardly agree on anything else.

Second: I am not putting my daughter above myself in the sense of objective value (from the point of view of God let's say) or from the point of view just value in general, or leadership, or ability. Don't get me wrong, I hope she goes on to become first princess of the Galaxy (especially since that would mean I am the emperor, but I digress), but she is 3. She is hardly going to be empirically better than me at anything for a pretty long time yet.

Third: My choice to put her well-being, sanity of mind, emotion, health and life above my own is a purely SUBJECTIVE one and it is 100% CONSCIOUS. As well as driven by animal instinct, unconscious etc etc.

Did you see the reboot of Star Trek? Well in the first 2 minutes of that film I knew exactly what I would have done as Captain Kirk's dad. I wasn't thinking about the plot line in "outside" terms, I try to watch that kind of film as an "immersive" experience if I can (because spaceships!)

Anyway, long before he did it on screen, my instinct was exactly the same. I even said it to myself "Ram the ship". It was clear at that point that was the only option to make his child survive. It's that kind of feeling, intent and choice.

Fourth: I think you mistake a certain type of humility (easily done with people like me and ditto with Vox. My first email to Vox was precisely because I recognised his humility. Something few people do I guess) with weakness.
It's a bad mistake to make. Friends tend to never find out why, enemies do.

Fifth: There is never any doubt about who the "leader" is with my child. The only way that can ever get screwed up in her head is by this exact situation, her mother "raising" her as she is doing currently. It literally keeps me up nights. But....I am noticing that, thank God, Vox, and my father too, seem to be right...nature may trump nurture yet.

Even if the wrong nurture can do a lot of damage. And she does have 50% of my DNA. So there is a good chance my 50% will eat the other 50% and spit it out.
Early indications are this may yet become the case.

Out of curiosity, do you have children? Are you married? I only ask to get some context. If I were to guess I would say you are probably not older than early 30s at most, are unmarried and have no children.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:31 PM  

@ rycamor

In the Bible premarital sex without marriage intent is called "fornication"

Wouldn't this require intent by both parties? What if one has intent and the other does not? The point is that the pat custom of condemning anyone who has sex without a valid marriage license ignores the brutal realities today's young people face and prevent an honest discussion of how to address it.

Blogger David January 04, 2015 7:31 PM  

The answer: don't be or marry a whim-prone person.

It's doable. I did it an my sons appear to be doing it.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 7:35 PM  

@Stg58,

This is somewhat subject to how we parse the word "adultery". I would say it falls more under "fornication".

If we take it as a given that in the Old Testament men could have multiple wives, and indeed concubines without incurring God's wrath, then it seems that adultery is more a question of the woman forsaking her vows to be faithful to the man. Men's responsibility in marriage was seen to be a) not to forsake the care and provision of their wives and b) not to go cavorting with loose women and prostitutes. If a man really desired another woman--and she was single, he was free to marry her if he could provide for her (as long as he didn't forsake his previous wife or wives).

This is obviously not modern church doctrine. We really don't have a firm condemnation of male polygamy in the New Testament but we see that it fell out of favor sometime within the first 2-3 centuries of Christianity. I don't have an easy answer for you on this one. What I *think* we see in the modern church which is an error is a complete equalism between male and female as to how we apply these terms, whereas that wasn't the case in the Old Testament. For example virginity was considered a female thing, not a male thing.

In applying this complete equalism, the modern church then considers a man having multiple wives to be committing "adultery", which is obviously not supported anywhere in the Bible.

Like I said, I don't have an easy answer on this. But it does seem obvious that widespread polygamy has a negative impact on civilization, since there will inevitably be men left completely out of the sexual market.

What God truly intended with all this, I wish I knew.

Blogger David January 04, 2015 7:35 PM  

Wrong on so many levels.

The "don't marry" crowd signals defeat without even looking to see if the enemy is nigh.

Is this what they think Real Men do?

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:36 PM  

stgMother

So by your logic, and correct me if I am wrong, I could have banged a sextet of strippers at The Landing Strip in between the day I said my vows and the day she conceived and not have committed adultery?

Correct. However, the Bible also prohibits promiscuity, a different but related sin. The reason why God separates adultery and promiscuity in the NT, yes, different words, is that His own chosen people found ways around His law to indulge their sinful desires.

Blogger David January 04, 2015 7:38 PM  

Who will you hire in 30-40 years to care about your reminiscences and cut up your meat?

Such a lonely life people choose.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 7:38 PM  

@Jonathan...

Dude, would you quit prattling on about a "marriage license." It's obviously not what we are talking about. God considers as married those who have made a commitment before their group. Simple as that. We are not told exactly what form that commitment is to take, nor whether the state needs to be involved.

The point of what I was getting at as it relates to the original post is... what is most beneficial to our living together on the planet in God's good favor?

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:42 PM  

@ rycamor

Men's responsibility in marriage was seen to be a) not to forsake the care and provision of their wives and b) not to go cavorting with loose women and prostitutes.

Bingo! At which point, it is the responsibility of young women to avoid getting tagged as a woman of easy virtue. That said, there is still the general prohibition against wonton and promiscuous behavior.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 7:42 PM  

Calvin,
"I left the church and chose to live the way I do. I ain't blaming nobody else."

There's hope for you yet. The Church is only a symbol. Actual Christianity is not the Church. Nor does the church teach much actual Christianity much at all. Churchianity is one of the more useful Voxologisms.

I don't know enough about Calvinism to speak deeply on it, but I do not believe everything is pre-ordained. If you have not read Vox's TIA, I suggest you do. The analogy of God as game designer is much more fully and richly explained there and it is a very compelling idea. Very.
Also...I recognise many of your views as my own of not too long ago.
May God show you kindly and gently the truth.

Blogger David January 04, 2015 7:42 PM  

What a joke.

People want "leaders" to show them virtue else they can't find it themselves.

Read "Isaiah's Job" by Nock to see why the defeated posting here are not of the Remnant.

Anonymous Sam the Man January 04, 2015 7:44 PM  

Just a comment for those chaps thinking marriage and children is all risk and no gain. Coming from a chap that went through a first disastrous marriage and second happy one. Two kids and a happy wife who is not fat, a shew nor with a short haircut, though we are both well on our way to being old fogies.

In any case what you fellows are missing are your old years, say between 50 and 75 or even longer. At least a third of your life, and maybe far more. Sure a 35 or even 45 year old fellow can bag some cute girls in the pre-wall period for simple sex. That said, having sampled both brief encounters and marriage, there is some definite advantages to a good wife which cannot be described to a chap who has not yet lived that life. All one can say is that lifelong marriages exist not only because of the force of law, but because it does meet many needs of men and women through the various stages of life.

The risk in not being in a good marriage: Now young chaps are likely thinking that they need no one and are independent fellows, but as you age life changes. First off your siblings will drift away. Second your parents will die. Friends who are married and busy with their lives drift away. Life can become very lonely if you have nothing to replace the above. In time men hit a wall as well, you will become invisible to young women. You will then be left pulling your pud, so to speak. Past 45 or even earlier with a little extra weight, few cute chicks (other than paid ones) are willing to do one-night stands. Yes you can get 2 to 4 ratings that have hit the wall, but you will likely find them not all that becoming.

Regarding that, you may well say that the nothing is different, as a wife will hit the wall and so how is that different? Well there is a phenomenon called wife goggles. If she does not become a slob, cut her hair or become a land whale, then she will appear quite attractive in that regard far past her sell by date. You will see your wife in some sense in the way when you first knew her. The same is true of you, if you do not get a beer belly, stop bathing or become a pussy, your wife will find you attractive in that regard. So the married chap is getting a lot more sex at age 50, 55, 60, 65 and even later.

We go back to loneliness. Fact is we change, when I was middle age I thought I would continue to want to pursue male competitive activities for life. Children changed that. Life and age seem to change all men, as we grow older those competitive things mean less, and we as well as women need human contact. A wife and kids replace all those contacts that we lose as we age.

Lastly the Kids: Having been a productive chap in my life as an engineer, with publications in my name, many products of my design under my belt and many shooting awards in 4 different countries. All is now dust in the wind; few products I made are not obsolete, my publications forgotten footnotes and no one cares about your competitive efforts one season after you are no longer a contender. But your children do matter and live on past you, both in life and in terms of accomplishments. Far past when no one gives a hoot about you, your kids will still care deeply about you, just as you cared for your parents. I have never met and old person who regretted having kids. I have met older folks without children who in the final years of their life saw all as bleak, as there was not one who cared about them, their interests, and their accomplishments. Life looks a lot different when you are at dusk.

In any case to those welling to walk away from life: be aware of the above. Do not think you are a special flower, you will most likely change in time just as most everyone else does.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 7:49 PM  

Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:42 PM

@ rycamor

Men's responsibility in marriage was seen to be a) not to forsake the care and provision of their wives and b) not to go cavorting with loose women and prostitutes.

Bingo! At which point, it is the responsibility of young women to avoid getting tagged as a woman of easy virtue. That said, there is still the general prohibition against wonton and promiscuous behavior.


I don't know what Chinese food has to do with it. But once again you ignore the word "fornication". I'm guessing that you have been in a few relationships with women where you went ahead and had the sex, and you are trying to absolve yourself. After all, it wasn't promiscuity! If you want to make a case for why you should be able to have sex without commitment, don't let me stop you. Go ahead and paste a few Bible verses and some odd exposition together until you have it. If you care that much. Or if you are seriously trying to resolve this issue, don't get all bent out of shape. It's a sin like any other, and we are all fallen. The important thing is what are you going to do now?

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 7:51 PM  

@Sam the Man,

Amen, brother.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 04, 2015 7:52 PM  

Sam the Man,

Very well put.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 7:56 PM  

@ rycamor

I'm guessing that you have been in a few relationships with women where you went ahead and had the sex,

This is a very lame and the sort of argument one expects from the average woman - i.e. making it personal.

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 8:02 PM  

No, because I'm not judging you or making a big deal about it. It seems to me you are. Plenty of men have been there, and it is understandable given the confusion and frustration of our culture. If this does not describe you, then fine. No big deal to me either way, doesn't change my argument. I'm just trying to point toward a greater good.

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 8:10 PM  

@Giuseppe
To your first comment regarding pedestalising in the sense of sacrifice, you say it as if it is a weakness, and you mention putting her above myself etc etc.

All completely wrong.


To be pedantic, I was saying it was a mistake, but I understand what you're saying, and I see now how you came to understand it that way.

If it ever comes to you, the flaw you see in red pill thought, I would be interested in hearing it. Maybe it's the materialistic approach the vast majority of them hold in regards to life?

With that said, I think a large part of this discussion has come to be because I saw a pattern in personality that doesn't seem to be true, probably because I'm just not used to dealing with your personality type and as such don't fully understand it. Certainly, seeing how exactly you approach your instincts waylaid any assumptions I had, but please don't fault me on that as it seems all too common nowadays to overly rely on "instincts" and feelings.

I have to head on out soon, so I'll quickly do these parts:

First point: Of course.
Second point: It's why I said "indirectly if not directly" in regards to being leader. What you said looks good though.
Third point: Subjective, sure. As far as 100% conscious, probably. However, the human mind is amazing at rationalizations and I've met a lot of people who have claimed that what they do is 100% thought-through and rational and... facts end up showing otherwise. Given what you've said on instinct it's probably not that but I never completely rule it out, personally.
Fourth point: It's possible. I was chalking it up more to just being a different personality type, and as such "reading between the lines" incorrectly.
Fifth point: That's good.

And for context, you're correct. I merely compare how my two brothers run their families however.

Blogger Shibes Meadow January 04, 2015 8:15 PM  

Folks, don't encourage Calvin by attempting to argue with him. There is no point in arguing with him. His mind is made up and is not going to change. You might say he is "totally depraved" and eternally predestined to be a nihilist and cynic. Only God can change a person like that,

Look at his worldview: God does not exist. Life has no intrinsic meaning, and human life no intrinsic value. Morality is for suckers. Get all you can while you can, because it's just you and your nerve endings, then you die and the Universe ceases to exist.

That's the philosophy of the psychopath. And you are not going to argue a psychopath into becoming sane. It's a spiritual problem, not a problem in logic or rhetoric. Only God can fix people with broken souls.

So please stop trying. You are not going to change his mind. He doesn't need his mind changed, he needs his heart broken -- and not by any earthly cause. You are not going to lead him by example to the truth. He knows the truth: that there is no truth. Everything is bullshit: your, God, religion, morality, truth itself. It's all bullshit, by his reckoning, and you are never going to lead him out of that. You might as well try to lead a maggot out of a pile of shit. You might as well try to argue a drunk out of drinking booze. All the good examples and clever argument in the world won't work. By responding to him, you just encourage him in his madness. It amuses him to see suckers frantically trying to convince him of something that he, in his superior wisdom, knows to be untrue: that God exists, that life has a supernatural quality and meaning, and that there is any sort of telos of humanity.

So stop. You are wasting your time. Instead, why not cross yourself, get down on your bony knees, and ask God to liberate His poor, suffering servant "Calvin". Because that is the only thing you can do that can possibly help him.

And how do I know this?

Because I was once a Calvin myself.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 8:15 PM  

@ rycamor

It's got nothing to do with judging. Your insinuation was that my stated position was due to a desire to absolve myself of some sort of wrong doing and that is a typical female device.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 04, 2015 8:20 PM  

It's got nothing to do with judging. Your insinuation was that my stated position was due to a desire to absolve myself of some sort of wrong doing and that is a typical female device.

So what is the source of your stated position then?

Blogger rycamor January 04, 2015 8:25 PM  

Yeah Jonathan, I didn't insinuate it. I directly guessed it. Based on having been a young Christian man and having known many young Christian men.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 8:32 PM  

Student in Blue,
thank you for your very honest discourse and replies.
I also understand you much better now and I see where you were coming from better too. Of course there is no fault in your overall first impact at reasoning and I commend you on your noting that you are not used to dealing with my personality type. That is true of most people, and certainly not unique to you. The fact you noticed and did such quick work of it tells me you are unusually observant and certainly well above average intelligence, at least based on my experience.

I also generally agree with you concerning "feelings" and "Instincts" etc.. And you are mostly right. There is a small subset of men however who when they say "Instinct" are really looking for some other words we don't have. It took me a long long time to realise that somehow, in certain activities, some people naturally seem able to draw on the resources of the unconscious in an analytical way.
We cannot reproduce the process consciously usually, but we seem to have a talent at analysing a situation, person, or event and find its weakness or flaw or some aspect of it relating to strategy and tactics.

My theory is that the "scout" class would have to be well beyond average in skill at these things in order to survive and procreate. It is also my considered opinion (and was before my daughter event) that scouts are more liable to possibly have more than one child and possibly with more than one woman, but in a way that is very different from the vibrants.
I did not like this aspect and was sure it would probably never apply to me because...err...because this time it's different I am afraid to say. And so far, I only have the one child and no real plans for another with anyone else...but...who knows...

I think you're an intelligent and capable man. If I may suggest something, perhaps look into the NT a bit. I ignored it completely most of my life and it was a miraculous revelation that lead me to it in the last 22 months or so, but it has a wisdom and an explanation for how this world works that is quite sublime.
Remember, this place is not run by God.
It falls under the dominion of the Lord of Lies.
Bless you sir for your temperate way of being able to converse with me intelligently. It was a pleasure.

Blogger Calvin January 04, 2015 8:34 PM  

If you will permit me some brutal honesty here, (but no intent to cause offence or humiliation, let's be clear) my view of it is that, you're a bit of a pussy and you're upset about it. And you put that rage on women.
Women are as women are.


Indeed. I was. And then I changed. Key to that was the mental transition from seeing women as humans to be treated respectfully to seeing them as stupid, subhuman sex toys with a somewhat complex instruction manual. My new approach hasn't failed me yet - I get far more women than I ever imagined before I learned game.

There's hope for you yet. The Church is only a symbol. Actual Christianity is not the Church. Nor does the church teach much actual Christianity much at all. Churchianity is one of the more useful Voxologisms.

I don't know enough about Calvinism to speak deeply on it, but I do not believe everything is pre-ordained. If you have not read Vox's TIA, I suggest you do. The analogy of God as game designer is much more fully and richly explained there and it is a very compelling idea. Very.
Also...I recognise many of your views as my own of not too long ago.
May God show you kindly and gently the truth.


I have read The Irrational Atheist, yes.

Calvinism is a rather depressing theological belief system, but I found it by far the most intellectually rigorous and theological sound doctrine out there, at least as far as the Bible goes.

The sentiment, if nothing else, is appreciated.

Anonymous Jonathan January 04, 2015 8:47 PM  

@ Jack Amok

Intellectual clarity. For people to stop saying stuff is in the Bible that simply isn't there, which is necessary for a serious assessment of how to move forward. It makes absolutely no sense for us to focus on scolding two horny 19 year olds for having sex without a marriage license when there is rampant sin among those who call themselves Christians.

1 – 200 of 242 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts