Thoughts on Charlottesville

In the wake of Charlottesville, this is pretty much the only article I’ve seen of 50+ that actually delves to the root of the problem. It’s by a reformed white nationalist.

Here’s some of the relevant bits:

I think ultimately people become extremists not necessarily because of the ideology. I think that the ideology is simply a vehicle to be violent. I believe that people become radicalized, or extremist, because they’re searching for three very fundamental human needs: identity, community and a sense of purpose.

If, underneath that fundamental search is something that’s broken — I call them potholes — is there abuse or trauma or mental illness or addiction? In my case, many years ago, it was abandonment. I felt abandoned, and that led me to this community. But what happens is because there are so many marginalized young people, so many disenfranchised young people today with not a lot to believe in, with not a lot of hope, they tend to search for very simple black and white answers.

Because of the Internet, we now have this propaganda machine that is flooding the Internet with conspiracy theory propaganda from the far right — disinformation — and when a young person who feels disenchanted, or disaffected, goes online where most of them live, they’re able to find that identity online.

They’re able to find that community, and they’re able to find that purpose that’s being fed to them by savvy recruiters who understand how to target vulnerable young people. And they go for this solution because, frankly, it promises paradise. And it requires very little work except for dedicating your life to that purpose.

But I can say that they’re all being fooled, because the people at the very top have an agenda. And it’s a broken ideology that can never work, that in fact, is destroying people’s lives more than the promise that they were given of helping the world or saving the white race.

He correctly identifies “what” the problem is: people are lacking identity, community, and a sense of purpose. However, he doesn’t have the correct answers to “why” this problem came about.

Of course, neither the “right” or the “left” are anywhere near correct. Both sides of the coin are committing acts of terrorism. The only real answer is Jesus.

Why are people lacking identity, community, and a sense of purpose?

All of this goes back to broken families and lack of fathers. We’ve all seen the statistics on crime, earlier sex and increase STD rates, decreased graduation rates, and so on. This is simply another manifestation of that. The groups or rather “gangs” they get involved in because they had no solid family structure and love are these “hate groups.” Gangs commit crimes. Surprise.

Europe hasn’t had the same problems as the US with similar out of wedlock birthrates and lack of fatherhood, namely because their population(s) are still fairly homogeneous. However, they still have tons of men and women who are broken and disillusioned; they just don’t express it in terms of racial politics as their country(s) are not as diverse as ours.

Of course, if you point out this “problem” to anyone on the right or the left, they will still tell you that “no fault divorce” and “child support” and “women get the children in divorce” and other laws that encourage blowing up marriages are a good thing.

Jesus fills the ultimate identity and purpose hole in our hearts because we were never supposed to be separated from God in the first place. Marriage was also meant to be forever for good reason: both the father and mother are needed to raise kids that are not broken and disillusioned which prevents them from getting sucked into perverse ideologies.

Hillary Clinton wants to get involved in the ministry

From Relevant Magazine.

The comments are by far the most interesting part. Some point out the fact that Hillary continues to promote laws that are obviously anti-Christian and are lambasted for being “judgmental” in comments. Pretty much like the random commenters I get about Lysa’s divorce. Other “Christians” applaud her for wanting to get involved in Church ministry.

Now you know why you should avoid Relevant Magazine and heretical churches like the United Methodists.

The “anti-diversity manifesto”

As you may have heard, a Google employee was fired for internally posting a critique of the “system.” Here is a copy of the so-called “anti-diversity manifesto.”

I think the funniest part of the situation is that the Google employee actually had good intentions. He pointed out that men and women and liberals and conservatives were different. He wanted to play to each groups strength and weaknesses to further promote diversity and reduce the echo chamber. However, because he didn’t toe the ideological line, he was fired. He was fired because he wanted to promote diversity by removing biases from the process.

His goal was to ultimately promote diversity like the company wants, but because he thinks about it differently he got fired. You can’t just promote diversity, you have to think about it the right way too. There’s a reason why the left is called the “thought police.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

Biblical relevance

In the process of writing.

Sadly, the book needs to start off with the argument for Biblical relevance. In other words, can we trust the Word of God in plain text over what the culture tells us?

I’m trying to keep it very brief since there does not need to be a long discourse over this. Either people will accept it or they won’t. They key is to get them to at least question and/or throw into doubt the cultural beliefs they’ve held.

What I have so far is a rough re-write that could use some additional feedback and/or arguments.

---

Is the Bible relevant?

For any Christian, this is one of the first questions you will have to wrestle with when taking your faith seriously.

As Christians, we live our life with a 4,000-year-old book as our guide. Some people would (and do) call that crazy. They say the Bible was written for a different people in a different time. They say it’s been translated so many times that nobody knows for sure what it really even says. They say the entire thing is open to individual interpretation and so it means something different to everybody.

There are several simple arguments that strike this down if we believe the Bible to be God’s Word.

• God is eternal. His character and nature does not change. Therefore, what He has told us does not change as well. His Word is trustworthy for all peoples and all times.
• If we cannot trust that the Word God sent to us to tell us about Him is Truth, then why would we live according to what God says? Why shouldn’t we just live according to how we want?
• If we believe that the Bible is only culturally relevant, then any part of the Bible can be rationalized as only a “part of the culture” of the time. This is no different than moral relativism.

All of these questions allude to what is known as what is “Buffet Christianity.” A Christian can go down the buffet line and pick and choose – from the Bible – what they want to eat. Don’t like that particular food? You can just ignore it. Like that particular food? Pile it up on your plate. Living according to such a moral relativistic lifestyle is no different than declaring yourself your own god instead of believing in God and following after the example of Jesus Christ.

According to a Gallup polls in 2008 and 2014, 80% and 75% of those in the US consider themselves Christian.(1). However, as any Christian in that is living in the US can tell you, the vast majority of people do not live like they are Christians.

This is no mistake. Even the early Christian Church struggled with this. That’s why the New Testament books were written. The new Christian converts in Judea, Asia Minor and the rest of the world were blending their culture with their new found faith in Christ. The gospels were written so that the new believers would know the message and acts of Jesus. Paul, Peter, James, and other disciples wrote letters to the various Churches in order to persuade them to eschew the culture around them and strive for purity and sanctification in both word and deed in Christ.

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
– Luke 14:25-33 (ESV) – The Cost of Discipleship

This is the Cost of Discipleship. We lay down all that we are for the sake of Christ. We lay down our desires to follow Jesus. We lay down our families and those we may be close to knowing that we may need to choose Christ over them. We even lay down what the culture tells us. We take up our cross and follow Jesus.

This concept is the crux of understanding the rest of this book. If you believe that the God’s Word is not relevant for all time – only culturally relevant – then you will not be able to understand how the wool has been pulled over many Christian’s eyes by cultural indoctrination.

Our Creator, God, knows a thing or two about men and women. He made us. He created human nature, and He saw it go haywire when Adam and Eve sinned. He also gave us the Bible as a guide to understand His plan and how our human nature goes haywire. He knows what works and what doesn’t. And He’s given us some pretty clear instructions, if only we would take them seriously.

Therefore, we will be approaching Scripture with the assumption that it says what it means and means what it says. That may sound obvious, but you’d be surprised how many people will try to wiggle out of certain passages or simply ignore them altogether.

We live in a time in which the highest good is equality and non-discrimination and being non-offensive. The Scriptures highlighted in the rest of this book will offend some people – possibly you. We only ask that you judge the message on its own merits. Don’t focus on whether or not it’s offensive to modern sensibilities. Rather, ask yourself if it might actually be true.

Writing plans

As you may know, there’s pretty much zero Christian literature out right now on the Truth of the nature of men and women from the Bible. Dalrock has pretty much exposed almost every pastor for pandering and pedestalizing wives in marriage.

Unfortunately, the “red pill” has a bad reputation, even though much of the information is true due to users using it in immoral ways. The only way you could possibly make any sort of in-roads into a Church is through a book based solely on Scripture. That’s why such a book is needed.

I talked with Don of A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century: Why Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong. His book is available free through commons license on Donal’s sidebar. The goal is to rewrite much of the book to eliminate RP terminology and expand upon the concepts in order to reach the single and married Christian men without having the stigma of the secular manosphere weighing over it.

This is easy to do because the full nature of men and women are clearly and thoroughly explained in the Scriptures. Pulling out those examples and contrasting them against the culture is what this book will aim to achieve. This will show that God’s Truth trumps the cultural and churchian indoctrination that has demonized men and angelicized women for decades.

My writing goal is to have a rough draft by the end of the fall.

We may or may not post sections on my blog for critique. We will see.

I will continue blogging in the meantime.

Are Christian guys not taking dating seriously Commentary

Are Christian guys not taking dating seriously is one of the newer posts making rounds of the old facebook, which unfortunately includes me.

Young Christian men, we have a problem.

It’s a problem that will require all of our courage, confidence and creativity to solve. It’s a problem that affects many of our brothers in Christ—it might even be affecting you. Finally, it’s a problem that’s disappointing many of the young Christian women in our lives.

We aren’t dating them.

This never used to be a problem, gents. My father has many memories of giving the cute girl from youth group a ride home on the handlebars of his bicycle, while my grandfather had something of a reputation for dancing with all the eligible young ladies at Christian fundraisers.

But somewhere among books like I Kissed Dating Goodbye, a lack of relationship role models and trying to navigate the minefield that is modern dating, something changed for our generation. A number of problematic attitudes crept into Christian culture.

So, young Christian men, why aren’t we dating?

[…]

1. WE’RE FREAKED OUT ABOUT FINDING OUR SOULMATE.
2. WE TAKE DATING TOO SERIOUSLY.
3. WE’VE GOT THE WRONG STANDARDS.
4. WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN’T DATE OUR FRIENDS.
5. WE’RE STILL DISCERNING.

This post has clearly resonated with a lot of people seeing as how often it has been reposted and seeing it on facebook. However, it still doesn’t mention any of the 3 big elephants in the room that I’ve talked about before.

• Lack of attraction
• Feminization of the Church
• Lack of mentors and discipleship

Everyone knows there is something wrong, but they can’t seem to figure out what it is. This list is more just a superficial poking around of the problem.

Fortunately, a ‘Jimmy Lipton’ in the comments was kind enough to enlighten everyone what was actually happening:

Christian women(white ones mostly) have become very useless, because they have this super perfect version of a man that makes them feel good all the time, never saying the wrong thing. Then they pick some worldly asshole, while they reject the real Godly humble men. These women(girls) play games in church all the time and reject guys constantly, then they hit on the same very few douche bag dudes in church and compete for the say top 10% and wonder why they all feel insecure and cant get a “real man”. They end up settling down for some gay ass hipster boy or Justin Bieber or man-bun douche.

And a ‘Jon Crass’ pointed out what actually happens inside of a Church:

Here’s the 100% HONEST truth from a man’s perspective. You won’t hear this anywhere else. Let’s say a man is part of a church community containing several single women around his age. Chances are pretty good that all of these women know each other and fellowship on a regular basis. Chances are also pretty high that they share stories and gossip with each other. That being said, the man is likely going to be physically attracted to more than one woman in this group at once. But he will be interested in one woman more than the others and will befriend/orbit her. He will not immediately ask her out because he better be 100% sure she will say yes.

Here’s why, the logical reasoning of man:

1) If he asks her out and gets rejected, then all of the girls in the group will learn of the rejection.
2) Once the other girls learn of the rejection, then chances are very high that *none* of them will accept him on a date.
3) At this point, he’s basically cast off as a “low value” male.
4) Asking any other girl of the same group out on a date will make him look desperate and low value.

Given this environment, the man’s strategy is to become friends with the woman he’s interested in and hope that she will become interested in him romantically. He’s going to treat her well, because he likes her a lot. Of course, a relationship doesn’t happen because he’s already in her friendzone.

Even if she does accept him on a date and the relationship doesn’t work out, her church girlfriends would not feel right dating him because “you don’t date your friend’s ex’s”.

As you can see, from the man’s perspective, dating within the church is an incredibly frustrating experience. As a result you see a lot of women not being asked out on dates and wondering whether the modern man is emasculated.

Quite simply, Christian women are very hostile to men when it comes to romantic interest.

Quite the clear perspective.

Still, none of the them addressed the attraction factor or the poor quality of mates to choose from generally speaking. However, most young men aren’t aware that most aren’t marriage material if they look deeply at their value system either.

In conclusion, another article in a long line of ‘feel good sentiment’ that misses the mark with what is actually going on the world. It gets popular because of its feel good message, but it’s lacking in bare bones Truth so it can’t actually address the problems.

When you make a decision, know your responsibilities

I think one of the interesting scenarios that may come up fairly often in marriage is one of the situations that I recently experienced. Not the first time I experienced it, but it is particularly common especially when a husband and wife want to do things differently.

Here’s the scenario, to which you can also think of many different types of scenarios like this.

• There’s something to carry somewhere. The car is parked in the parking lot.
• I want to pull the car around to get it. The wife wants to carry it to the car.
• I start walking without carrying anything saying I’ll pull the car around. The wife in a huff picks up the thing to carry to the car.
• On the way to the car and/or in the car, the wife gets mad because the husband generally is supposed to carry the heavy objects.

This is where you have to understand making a decision and standing on it. I made the decision to bring the car around. If the wife doesn’t want to abide by it, she can, of course, carry said objects herself. However, her complaining about it doesn’t make it right. Her hassling me about carrying it does not force me to carry it either. She is the one who voluntarily wanted to go against my decision; therefore, she bears the consequences of said decision.

A husband should not offer to help his wife in that circumstance where she is not abiding by his decision.

The story ends with me telling my wife that I made the decision to pull the car around. If she wanted to carry it instead of wait for the car, that’s her responsibility and not mine because I already made the decision. I’m not going to go back on what I said and cave to carry it to the car because she didn’t want to abide by my decision.

Fortunately, my wife is less on the crazy side 2-3/10 and was able to see the logical merits of my decision. And yes, she reads this blog and we’ve talked about where she is on the crazy scale before. This among other things was why I made the decision to marry her.

For the husbands that haven’t been firm on this type of decision making from the start, it is a much, much harder to make a decision like that and stand on it without a wife going crazy about it. However, you have to start somewhere. This is where I diverge from a lot of the so-called secular manosphere thinking that women are like children.

If you don’t treat your wife like an adult who bears responsibility for her decisions, she’s going to keep acting like a child.

Feminism creates “unsafe men,” then complains about it

OK, I couldn’t resist. Going back to Dalrock’s piece on the mom who thinks that her boys are unsafe. Let’s talk about men who are actually unsafe. First, we need to define terms.

By “unsafe men” I mean actual “perpetrators of violent crimes.” I don’t mean “feel unsafe” which feminism and other liberal policies suggest perpetration by “men” and/or “the patriarchy” as microaggressions, making someone feel bad, and supposed but false systemic bias against women in society.

From Heritage.org on fatherlessness:

A review of the empirical evidence in the professional literature of the social sciences gives policymakers an insight into the root causes of crime. Consider, for instance:

• Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.
• High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.
• State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
• The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.
• The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
• The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

On the other hand:

• Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.
• Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.
• Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married.
• The mother’s strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child’s best buffer against a life of crime.
• The father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime.

The scholarly evidence, in short, suggests that at the heart of the explosion of crime in America is the loss of the capacity of fathers and mothers to be responsible in caring for the children they bring into the world. This loss of love and guidance at the intimate levels of marriage and family has broad social consequences for children and for the wider community. The empirical evidence shows that too many young men and women from broken families tend to have a much weaker sense of connection with their neighborhood and are prone to exploit its members to satisfy their unmet needs or desires. This contributes to a loss of a sense of community and to the disintegration of neighborhoods into social chaos and violent crime. If policymakers are to deal with the root causes of crime, therefore, they must deal with the rapid rise of illegitimacy.

Even Heritage has some bias in their wording. Homes “abandoned” by fathers is a misnomer.

• Wives initiate the majority of divorces (65-70%).
• The out of wedlock birth rate has soared to as much as 70% for black women, 65% Native American, 55% Latino, 30% White, and close to 20% Asian for a national average of around 40%.

Image from wikipedia.

The total amount of fatherless homes caused by the policies of feminism aiming to destroy marriage by increasing out of wedlock birth rates and no fault divorce is high. How high?

Accounting for the national average of 40% out of wedlock births plus 50% of marriages ending in divorce which are 70% initiated by women we get:

40% out of wedlock + (60% wedlock * 50% divorce rate * 70% initiated divorces) = .4 + (.6 * .5 * .7) = .4 + .21 = .61 fatherlessness.

Thus, approximately (since not every divorced home has kids but out of wedlock births all count as fatherlessness):

• 30% of marriages have husbands and fathers
• 61% of marriages end in divorce and/or fatherlessness, which is caused by feminists and feminism policies
• 9% of homes the divorced and/or fatherlessness is caused by the dad (e.g. so-called deadbeat husbands/dads)

Let’s re-quote one of the most important statistics from the Heritage statement to re-emphasize the importance of fathers:

Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.

We also know that homes with children from a previous relationship because of a “mother’s boyfriend” or mother’s new husband” are prone to be some of the most violent including domestic and child abuse.

Basically, the stability of the biological father in a marriage almost literally prevents crime and delinquency of the children in that home.

This is the legacy of feminism — the “freedom” of women. Creating the problem it complains about.

Feminism creates “unsafe men,” then complains about it.

Wife wears what husband wants

Since Dalrock ended up getting to the crazy mother who believes her sons are unsafe because they’re men first, I’ll go a different direction.

I’ve written before about what women can do to be more attractive to men. Indeed, it seems that women don’t really understand why that much.

This article pretty much encapsulates how a husband wants his wife to look much of the time.

I Let My Husband Pick My Outfits For a Week

If you ask your husband to look in the closet and pick your outfit, what do you think he will choose? A long red dress? A pair of jeans, sneakers, and a T-shirt? Or maybe a bikini?

Bright Side invites you to look at the results of an interesting experiment where Colin had to create looks for his wife, Caitlyn, for a whole week.

Like many women, I have a large wardrobe stuffed with things, and some of them I’ve never even worn. Nevertheless, quite often I thought I had nothing to wear. Then I decided to experiment and asked my husband to pick my outfits for a week.

His choices really surprised me.

Copy pasting pictures is really annoying, check it out if you want to see the outfits. However, I’ll summarize:

• 6/7 days were dresses and skirts
• 6/7 days were form fitting dresses and skirts that emphasized her hips and waist
• The one exception was a comfortable jean jumpsuit
• The dresses/skirts were modest for out in public, much more revealing when it was just him and her.
• The days out in public were bright, feminine, and stylish, and the ones in private were more sexy.
• He mainly pulled out old(er) outfits in her closet that she hadn’t worn in some time but the ones he thought would look good on her (which they do).

The same is true the opposite way. Wives usually like to dress up their husbands to wear more form fitting and stylish clothes to look more attractive.

Anyway, the point being is that if a woman wants to attract a man she must cater to what men think is attractive. Surprise. Wear more waist and hip form-fitting, bright, feminine and stylish dresses and skirts.

Wedding photography?

A friend sent me a link. It’s pretty short, so I’ll quote the whole thing.

There’s boudoir photography, and then there’s… this. A reader spotted this strange “wedding photographer needed” ad posted on Craigslist by someone in Wisconsin. Apparently there’s an engaged couple looking for a wedding photographer who’s willing to double as a consummation photographer.

“Hello, my fiance and I are getting married later this year and are looking for a wedding photographer,” the poster writes. “We are hoping someone will document the whole day from beginning to end.”

Seems pretty normal so far, right? Except by “whole day,” the couple means an actual day, rather than the wedding preparation, ceremony, and reception.

“We are specifically hoping someone will document the end, which we are finding difficult to find someone who will,” the ad continues. “We have both saved ourselves for marriage and understand our first time will be awkward but do not think it will be that much more awkward for the photographer to be there and we’d really like it documented (in a beautiful and tasteful way).”

“If you are ok with being with us the whole day, please send pricing and some examples of your work. Thank you.”

So if you’ve been yearning to add “consummation photographer” to your resume and list of accomplishments, keep your eyes peeled — that genre may be following on the heels of “pro birth photography.”

And no, we won’t be having a wedding photographer that does that. 😮