Marry and Reproduce!

marryandreproduce

Over on Dalrock, there is scuttlebutt about a new commandment by the Christian god, that all Christian men must marry.

Cane Caldo explains:

there is a command is for each man and each woman to marry, but that concessions–exceptions–might and should be made in specific cases for specific reasons.

Later on, BillyS agrees and amplifies:

God said it was not good for a man to be alone and made a woman for him. That is the baseline principle. Exceptions, such as Paul, exist, but they are just that, exceptions. Review the Scriptures I already posted.

The problem that Cane and Billy have is a simple one. There is no “Thou shalt marry” commandment, anywhere in the new testament. So, Cane and Billy are fabricating new commandments, and weaving justification for their new commandments from minor allusions found here and there in the text.

Astute readers will remember that Artisanal Toad seemed to do something precisely similar. When asked where the “Thou shalt marry multiple women” and “Thou shalt let thine wives dyke out in weird lesbo group sex orgies” commandments were, he’d go on a long, dull tirade, about how ya boy Boxer was too worldly and too stupid to get the hidden meaning in the text.

Now Billy and Cane are asserting that the Christian god says something which he clearly doesn’t say. Their motivations for making this assertion are unclear, and don’t matter anyway. Let’s assume that both Cane and Billy are perfectly sincere in their beliefs, and are not trying to lead anyone astray for the sake of any ulterior motive. Since their beliefs neither correspond nor cohere with the propositions in the New Testament, there are a finite number of possibilities available to explain the disparity.

  • The Christian god has given a new commandment, by revelation, through internet bloggers.
  • Cane and Billy are starting a new, post-Christian religious movement.
  • Cane and Billy are reading the text through the lens of ideology.

While all of these are plausible scenarios, the first doesn’t seem likely. The text itself warns against false prophets, and implies that it constitutes both the completeness of the theory and a final revelation. It also pronounces a curse on anyone who claims to have had a subsequent revelation (Galatians 1:8-9). Billy and Cane both study the New Testament, so they know this themselves.

The second also doesn’t seem likely. Neither Billy nor Cane has ever denounced any of the central tenets of Christianity, nor have I ever seen either of them claim to be anything other than a sincere Christian.

So, assuming (as I do) that these guys aren’t purposely lying to people, I am left with the final scenario as the one that seems most likely to be the case. They are reading the New Testament through the lens of ideology.

What is ideology, and what does it mean to read a text through the lens of ideology?

Ideology is a Marxist term which (like most weighty philosophical items) takes some effort to unpack. We might say that it is a social phenomenon, which originates in the false state of consciousness, arising out of the mode of being prevalent in our particular historical epoch. Marx would point out that the mode-of-being in the epoch is brought into being by the mode-of-production, but we’re not going to go that far. The bare concept is itself hard to understand.

We live in a world that prioritizes certain things (fame, money, status, women) and thus we adopt certain inherent biases that color any new sense data we are exposed to. When sense data hits our eyes, our brain instantly begins working to translate such stuff into intelligible information. It does this by making associations through a conditioned structure. That’s part of ideology.

The warm fuzzies that the wimminz get when they see a lavish wedding, or the sympathy that a man feels when he sees a suffering child… some of that may be inborn, but most of it is ideology. We have each been conditioned and socialized to respond in certain ways, and the conditioning is at least partly subconscious.

The Marxist term is usually considered a subset of what Hegel called a world-spirit (weltgeist). We theorize about history, that is about our place in society, as we navigate all the currents that brought us to the now, in terms that our place in society offers us. To some extent, we are limited by language and pop culture to certain channels of thought, whereas other possibilities are closed off to us.

So what does it mean to speculate that some people read texts through the lens of ideology? In truth, we all do. This is why so many texts can be interpreted in such a variety of different ways.

The truth of this statement often gives way for linguistic relativism, and an idea that nothing inherently means anything: that in the war between text and subtext, context is the only winner. While students of ideology should examine the truths available from a variety of interpretations, we should also be careful about adopting the view that the interpretation is everything. If meaning is chiefly interpretive, then text is deprecated.

In an answer to the bizarre assertions of Cane Caldo, I had to ask:

Where is this command that each man marry? Chapter and verse, please.

Of course, Cane had no answer. Neither did anyone on his side of the argument. I did get a few replies, though. My man Earl said:

It’s not there. There are commands on what you are supposed to do when you get married…and what you are supposed to do if you are not married (the common theme for both is sexual morality)…but there is no command that states you are to get married.

That’s the way I read the text also. Of course, I read the text at face value, and try to keep my Marxist critique-of-ideology shades on, whenever I turn a new page in it.

They-Live

One thing many of my secular readers might not appreciate are the differences between the Christian god, and the Mormon god. These are, despite all the protests to the contrary (by Christians and Mormons both) very different gods. Mormons have a specific commandment to play up our similarities when among Christians, but in private we tell our children the score. We can pass as Christians, but we are not Christians.

One of the differences between the Mormon god and the Christian god is what each calls his people to do. The Christian god does not make any specific commandment to marry; but, the Mormon god did command his people to marry.

To obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (D&C 131 1-4)

The Mormon heaven is only for married people. Mormons who never marry will not be allowed in. Not only this, but the Mormon man or woman who marries in a secular ceremony, will also be counted as an unmarried person after death, and will likewise never be allowed into the Mormon heaven.

If a man marry a wife not by me, their covenant and marriage is not of force when they are dead (D&C 132 15)

Mormons are not only commanded to marry, but they are further commanded to marry other Mormons, in temple ceremonies. Failure to do so precludes a brother from any leadership positions in the church, any sort of benefits or employment within the church, and he will die condemned.

This, in fact, is the greatest example of the superiority of Jesus (the name of the Christian god) and his disciple St. Paul over Elohim (the Mormon god, who definitely has nothing to do with Jesus) and his disciple Joseph Smith. Jesus allows for those of us who may want to choose another vocation to do so.

I will always be a Mormon, and I will always love my people; but I will never bow the knee to the Mormon folk religion, and I encourage my Mormon brothers to explore the truths that can be found in the works of St. Paul, and, for that matter, Karl Marx.

 

Advertisements

The Obsession with Wife-Beating

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 08.46.27Over on Dalrock blog, a critical article was recently published about the work of one Pastor Doug Wilson (link). Wilson is a cunning neo-feminist who uses various lawyerly tactics to redefine marriage in order to conform with feminist norms. Wilson noticed the critical article, and immediately confirmed his feminist credentials, by poisoning the well with broad accusations of wife-beating. (link)

Of course, the fact that people disagree with Wilson doesn’t automatically imply that they beat their wives, and people who use these fallacious tactics are safely ignored. It did surprise me to see Wilson use this cheap trick. He’s a very clever guy, and his arguments are (formally speaking, anyway) quite well constructed.

When I see men in the sphere talking about wife-beating, I instantly prepare myself for a handful of distinct, but related, neurotic types. In the first place, there is the feminist, who socks up to indulge in black propaganda. Our deluded sister will pretend to be a man of the sphere, and under her very manly pseudonym, will boast about keeping “his” little lady in line. There are also the trolls, who write over-the-top parody. Matt Forney is alleged to have created a funny web page about this, years ago. Disguised as a female, he drove the saps crazy with sexual allusions and garnered a few bucks in the process, from thirsty simps who just couldn’t help but fantasize about a night with this prize catch of a drag queen. And then, there are the fetishists.

Screen Shot 2017-07-28 at 08.59.51My nigga Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) is a quasi-famous polygamist and advocate of the spank fetish. Toad encourages men to spank their wives, going through a whole spectrum of less-than-optimal responses, until he touches on the perfect woman, with the perfect attitude.

The truth is if a woman is honest with herself, she’ll admit that at least some man exists for whom she will get undressed and with tingles running through her body… lay across his knee in anticipation of having her bottom turned cherry red.  But, only rarely does one find a woman who can admit she would do so for the man she is with.  She may love him and she may even be in love with him… but not like that.

If Toad’s thesis is correct, then, a wife who eagerly accepts her spanking is the perfect woman, who is perfectly in love with her man.

By the same token, there are men who may not be sufficiently interested in beating their wives for sexual thrills. These men are not merely people who have other interests. Toad explains in detail, as follows:

there are also many reasons why a man might object to this, chief among them is the claim that women are adults and should not be spanked.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When men object, as a rule the objections are driven by fear.  They know the woman they are with would never allow such a thing to happen, which only leaves one of two paths to take.  Either they acknowledge their woman is just not that attracted to them, or they come up reasons why it shouldn’t happen.  Their wife or girlfriend will back them up on this 100%, knowing she would never allow him to do something like that and even claiming no man would ever be allowed to do such a thing to her.

In other words, if you married bros aren’t interested in spanking your wives, it’s because you’re insecure. You must conform to Toad’s weird sexual fetish, or you’re not a real man.

If you disagree with Wilson, then you’re a wife-beater. If you disagree with Toad, you secretly wish you were a wife-beater, but your wife isn’t sufficiently attracted to you to make you want to beat her.

If I were to take this nonsense seriously, I’d honestly need a spreadsheet to keep track of all these convoluted arguments about paraphilias and sublimated desires.

In reality, most men just aren’t interested in spanking their wives. They’re probably too busy fucking to bother with any of this other nonsense. Most men aren’t anorexics, pedophiles or zoophiles. Most men don’t get turned on by smelly feet. Most men don’t have granny fetishes. Most men aren’t interested in anal or oral sex. None of these normative men have a problem. They’re perfectly happy. I’ll stop short of speculating on the underlying neurotic energy that makes people like Toad and Wilson focus so much of their efforts on wife-spankery. Maybe these people enjoy it, and it’s nothing to me, but the fact that not everyone agrees with them doesn’t imply some underlying hangup.

I do think there is a general problem (with both social and individual dimensions) with fetishism. One aspect of paraphilic degeneracy (whether it be the spank fetish or something else) which seems universal, is the gradual overtaking of all other aspects of the relationship, by the primacy of the sexual fetish. For men like Toad, real emotional intimacy, and interpersonal connection, is secondary to the act of beating a woman’s ass. The fetish eventually comes to replace feelings of love and union. The act of beating a woman’s ass may eventually become a substitute for actual sex. Experiencing the beating is the telos, and intercourse may never occur, or may be a halfhearted, masturbatory afterthought.

(Another) Male Feminist Arrested

Over on Dalrock, there’s a participant named ‘Anon’ who often points out the correlation between male feminists and scroungy behavior. This phenomenon is undertheorized.

ug_z60RKOne can see examples such as Hugo Schwyzer, the famous wimminz studies professor who made a career out of desperately groping and assaulting his hot female students. Schwyzer was well-known as a guy who traded on shock value and cheap theatrics, at one point sadly confessing that he had attempted to murder an ex-girlfriend (he was probably lying, but who knows?) (link). On another occasion, Schwyzer advocated men give up normal sexual intercourse, in favor of allowing their female partners to don a strap-on dildo and “peg” them with it. (link)

Screen Shot 2017-06-30 at 13.20.13As though anyone needed another illustration, we have this creature. While not as well-known as Schwyzer, our feminist hero appears to be cut from similar cloth, making a name for himself with outrageous internet theatrics condemning normal couples for doing normal stuff, all while behaving privately like a total degenerate.

Thirty-two-year-old Christopher John Goldberg, who went by the name “Amir0x” on social media, was a male feminist who often took to Twitter to express his hatred at “sexists” and Trump supporters, in vocal support of the Women’s March. He was active during the GamerGate debacle that took the gaming world by storm in 2014, taking the side of feminists.

The Tobyhanna, Penn. man was charged this Wednesday with 64 counts of child porn possession and one count of criminally using a computer to download the illicit materials. Goldberg told police that he believed the pictures were not illegal if they didn’t depict sexual acts, but the police didn’t buy his excuse and issued the charges against him.

Props to Age of Shitlords (link) for this summary. One can also read more at Pocono Record (link).

If Momma Ain’t Happy, No One Ain’t Happy!

An excellent blog for Christian MGTOW dudes. Bill Smith discusses the fashionable emotional terrorism that married feminists wield over their husbands and children. Show him some love.

billsmithvision

A Commonly Used Phrase

It is quite common for many preachers and others to use the phrase, “If momma ain’t happy, no one ain’t happy,” or some close variant.  The idea is that a happy family requires a happy mother.  The implication is that an unhappy momma will make for a very unhappy family, whether that woman is truly a mother or not.

This is True, to a Point

Of course any family with an unhappy momma is going to have a high level of unhappiness.  This will impact the entire household.

[Pro 21:9 NKJV] 9 Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

[Pro 25:24 NKJV] 24 [It is] better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

Proverbs talks about other cases as well, and all clearly note that it…

View original post 624 more words

Christian MGTOWs: What Do You Want?

MGTOW for Christian Brothers.

Self-Defensive Christian Man

I’ve been contemplating this a bit. If possible, I am looking for some serious discussion about this and feedback as I am very, very interested in people’s thoughtful answers.

If necessary, allow me to explain where I’m coming from with the question. Obviously, I identify a great deal with the MGTOW movement and school of thought as well as MRAs and the issues they confront. Like many Christian MGTOWs, I’m sick and tired of what we have and don’t have in churches. We get “Men Step Up” or other accountability groups that are willfully ignorant of men’s realities, lack any sort of restorative and protective spirit towards men, and consequently, just don’t come across like they even care about the men to whom they “minister.” It’s the boot camp school of thought at best, and at worst, it’s a loveless demonization, condemnation, and an atmosphere that reduces men to performance…

View original post 618 more words

RIP William Norman Grigg

William Grigg has apparently passed away, and far too early. Of all the people who trolled me, he was consistently among the most skillful and clever about it. Highest respect to his wife and children, who were dearest to him.

The Anarchist Notebook

The past week has been one of many sorrows. Adding to them is the death of a pivotal figure in the liberty movement, William Norman Grigg, a cofounder of the Libertarian Institute and a fastidious investigative reporter documenting corruption within police departments and the court system – a real life P.J. McNeal.

It is fitting that he is mourned by libertarians on both the left and right; he chronicled problems that no one could or would deny.

At a time when the world needs more men like him, one of the few remaining leave us.

Grigg had a large family; if you want to help them, you can donate here.

View original post

The Private Man Has Completed His Journey

A moment to remember a solid and unassuming writer, who never came across as anything other than genuine. Go easy…

The Private Man

It is with great sadness that I have to inform everyone that Andrew Hansen a.k.a. The Private Man has completed his journey as 9:27 PM April 3 2017.

As many know unfortunately his cancer had returned a few weeks ago and there was not much to be done to help him. He chose to face it head-on rather then try experimental treatments. His greatness and courage in the face of knowing his own moral demise is an inspiration for us all.

It’s a great loss for not only all that followed his writing and his teachings but for those of us who consider him a friend. His last days were as comfortable as possible and he passed peacefully.

I can only hope that he realized how many peoples lives he touched and we were all better for knowing him. As the saying goes “Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because…

View original post 74 more words