30 January 2013

Too Little Too Late



We recognize that our immigration system is broken. And while border security has improved significantly over the last two Administrations, we still don't have a functioning immigration system. This has created a situation where up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the shadows. Our legislation acknowledges these realities by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here. We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

This is meaningless drivel. Border security hasn’t improved.  Illegal immigration is partially responsible for the current high unemployment rate.  The amnesty proposals won’t fix the problem.  It’s too late for tracking and deporting illegal lazy Mexicans to make a difference.  Everything about this legislation is either pointless, counterproductive, or just stupid.  The problem won’t be fixed, or even reversed.  The only point of this legislation is to give politicians the appearance of being serious about one America’s largest problems.  Of course, politicians are still contemptuous of the citizens they nominally represent, and their contempt is clearly displayed in this vapid, meaningless legislation.

Hugo Schwyzer Is Wrong



The virgin/slut dichotomy has long meant that a young woman is given two choices: have sex with no one, or give it up to everyone. One key way to fight slut-shaming is to reiterate that girls have the right to want to turn on whom they want to turn on – and still be treated with respect and care by those whom they don't. That's only an unreasonable expectation in a culture that expects very little from men. [Emphasis added.]

Now, Hugo somehow managed to stumble onto the truth a couple of weeks ago when he asserted that no one is entitled to sex.  By the same token, no one is entitled to respect.  Even (or especially) women.

Women certainly have the right, derived from self-ownership, to dress however they please.  They can even go naked, if they so desire, though I hope fatties are compassionate enough to avoid doing so.  However, with that right comes the responsibility to deal with the consequences.  If a woman wants to dress like a stupid slut, she certainly can.  However, she doesn’t have the right to command respect from men whose attention they aren’t demanding.  She doesn’t even have the right to demand that undesirable men ignore her.

Being a young slutty female doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want, free of negative consequences.  Being a human being doesn’t give you right to whatever you want, free of negative consequences.  Ultimately, every adult of sound mind has the right to dress themselves as they please, and attempt to get the attention of other people.  But with this right comes the responsibility to deal with the consequences.  And if slutty girls don’t want the attention of certain people, then perhaps they shouldn’t dress and behave in a way that attracts that sort of attention.

24 January 2013

More Regression



Those achievements make it especially a surprise and disappointment to encounter in his latest work, The World Until Yesterday, a vanity project marketed as anthropology. In this book, Diamond draws from his extensive field research in New Guinea to share his views on the shortcomings of contemporary American society. Primitive approaches to social problems, he thinks, would better serve our society. For example, he argues for: dedicating more resources to mediation as an alternative to civil lawsuits, establishing “conventional monopolies” to smooth out trade fluctuations, deemphasizing competition and the desire for excellence among children, on-demand nursing for infants, spending more time talking to our children, devising new living conditions for the elderly, accepting that the gulf between rich and poor in the United States provides an explanation of the popularity of religion in our country, preserving language diversity, and ending obesity.
At its core, the book is based on a fundamental contradiction. Diamond explains that the customs of primitive societies are not applicable to the characteristics of our society; then he proceeds to use those customs as the basis for recommendations for improving everything in our society from parenting to diet. He opens the book explaining that the defining characteristic of primitive cultures is that everyone knew each other, necessitating the repair of relationships as the principal objective of justice and the establishment of rules governing the treatment of outsiders. Yet he proceeds to spend the rest of the book arguing for the use of these tribal customs to our own society.

Again, the progressive mindset is a misnomer, since oftentimes the policies recommended by progressives are really nothing more than desire to revert to savagery.  This is not to say that life in the civilized world is not without its problems, nor is this to say that primitive societies have nothing to teach those who are civilized.  However, it must always be remembered that progressives idealize the savage, and are constantly looking to revert to savagery.  Perhaps they think that a primitive life is an easy one; perhaps they think that being one with nature is pleasant; perhaps they are merely ignorant.  Nonetheless, the progressive is the most regressive thinker of all, and one must never forget that the progressive ideal is savagery.

Paying For Dates Will Get You Laid



Paying is also alpha in that it demonstrates the man’s control over the situation and his social ease.  A man who kind of glances at the check and then glances at you expectantly, like, Hey, aren’t you going to pick up your half of the tab = not confident, not cool, is more interested in testing you than getting to know you, is waiting for YOU to set the tone, is waiting on YOU to act, is waiting for YOU to initiate.  These are attitudes that make a woman shrivel on the inside.  Conversely, a man who nonchalantly grabs the bill and pays without looking to the woman for any sort of affirmation = TINGLES.  It’s a dominant move that says shows the man is a leader, he doesn’t need your “permission” to pay, he’s not deferring to your lead, it’s that he wants to pay and he’s going to and, furthermore, he CAN pay.

I wonder how men ever got the impression that doing things for women should lead to sex…

In all seriousness, my advice for men is this:  do what you think is right, and don’t worry about how it’s perceived.  If a woman likes you and wants to be with you, you can make her pay for an expensive date and she’ll manage to find a way to rationalize having done so, assuming she’s sufficiently attracted to you.  If a woman doesn’t like you, doesn’t want to spend time with you, and isn’t attracted to you then the only way you’re getting rewarded for spending money on her is if she’s a prostitute or a gold-digger.

If you’re view is that the woman should pay, then make her pay.  If you’re view is that you should go Dutch, then go Dutch.  If you believe that the man should, then pay.  Ultimately, if the question of who pays is what makes or breaks your relationship, then it’s safe to say that your relationship was pretty much doomed from the start.

Reshaping Marriage

Pete Wehner:
What we’re seeing is a rapid hollowing out of marriage in Middle America–with 44 percent of the children of moderately-educated mothers born outside of marriage. “We’re at a tipping point with Middle America,” W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading scholar on marriage, told National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, “insofar as Middle Americans are on the verge of losing their connection to marriage.”
We are “witnessing a striking exodus from marriage,” according to the study.
More than 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock, while more than half of births (53 percent) among all women under 30 now occur outside of marriage. Between 1970 and 2012, the annual number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried adults decreased by more than 50 percent. The divorce rate today is about twice that of 1960, though it’s declined since hitting its highest point in our history in the early 1980s. For the average couple marrying for the first time in recent years, the lifetime probability of divorce or separation now falls between 40 and 50 percent. Today more than a quarter of all children live in single-parent families, compared to only 9 percent in 1960. And the number of unmarried couples has increased seventeen-fold in the last 50 years.
While the trends don’t seem to bode well on first blush, my bet is that marriage isn’t being done away with as much as it is being reshaped.  Quite frankly, the government has done an awful job managing the institution of marriage for the last forty years or so, and it is no longer useful to many people.  To put it simply, government regulation of marriage causes more problems than it solves, which makes it a costly system, and therefore worthy of dissolution.

However, that doesn’t mean people aren’t living as if they were married.  I would suspect that a good number of couples have a Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie sort of arrangement where they basically behave as married people, but without the formal legal trappings of marriage.  Not all unmarried people are like this, since there are plenty of stupid young women who are unmarried but have still managed to slut it up and pop out a couple of bastards.  Nonetheless, the legal institution of marriage is basically dead, and the only people who will use it are those for whom the regulations surrounding marriage are essentially irrelevant (e.g. homosexuals, ultra-religious folk who aren’t inclined to get divorced, and SWPLs).  People who believe that divorce is likely will avoid legal marriages because the penalties of divorce are draconian.

While MGTOWs and MRAs would undoubtedly like to take credit for reshaping marriage by their willingness to walk away, it seems more reasonable to assert that women are fundamentally behind this reshaping of marriage.  If women really wanted to be legally bound in marriage, all they would have to do is trade down to a man who would enslave himself to her instead of trying to stay with a man who refuses to be bound.  Some might argue that alphas are reshaping marriage, but this isn’t necessarily true, as alphas would generally stand a considerably lower risk of divorce and the attendant butthexing that comes with it.  It makes more sense to say that women want a relationship where they are the weaker/inferior party.  Entering into a legal marriage automatically make them the stronger/superior party, and gives them hand.  Since women don’t generally like having hand in a relationship, the only way to avoid having it is to avoid the legal institution of marriage. Of course, this argument is inherently tautological, and there are multiple interpretations that make sense.  Arguing that men who would generally be considered unattractive are reshaping marriage by virtue of turning down uninterested women doesn’t make much sense, unless the pre-emptive rejection makes them more attractive.  I tend to doubt that it does, but I could be wrong.

Anyhow, the current collapse of the legal form of marriage need not be viewed as an unmitigated disaster.  The pendulum of marital authority, having once swung to the state, is now swinging away.  It will eventually swing to another authority that is not as abusive and misguided, and then that authority will eventually be corrupted.  In the meantime, a good number of people will still find a way to raise a family together, while a good number of people will make foolish mistakes and pay the penalty for it.  There is nothing new under the sun.

Suicide Of A Superpower


Apologies to Pat Buchanan.  Here’s some bad news from California:

New ethnicity trends outlined in Gov Jerry Brown's 2013-14 budget proposal revealed the state's expected new majority while reasoning the state’s declining birth rates and increasing migration as causes.
As early as July Hispanics are expected to be equal in size to non-Hispanic whites before outpacing them, according to the report, with both demographics in that month reaching 39 per cent of the population.
It's a swap that comes earlier than experts had expected.
Gov Brown, responding to the outlined future of his state, has since proposed shifting more school funding to those schools with more students in poverty and/or don't speak English.
Currently 40 percent of the state's students are living in poverty and 20 percent are non-native English speakers he said.

A number of progressive and libertarian policies are finally coming to fruition in California.  Thanks to the influx of impoverished workers, California saw its government expenditures rise because a) a lot of immigrants went on the dole and b) those immigrants that didn’t go on the dole took jobs from productive citizens who, in turn, went on the dole.  Of course, this required the government to raise taxes in order to compensate for the newfound budget deficit.  As a result, wealthy citizens and residents left the state, which, thanks to the magic of democracy, gave immigrants more control of the government, which, unsurprisingly, caused the government to take on some of the characteristics of the government that recent immigrants had left behind.  It’s a real mess, to say the least, and is an indicator of the future of America.  At least all the citizens of California are wealthier because prices are lower.

Might Makes Right



Now, if you want an answer to what you describe as the modern terms, it is that something is moral because god commands it. God’s game, god’s rules.


Today, it is really the progressive activist who is closest to the essential truth of all political endeavor - the fact that Might makes Right.

One thing I remember having pounded into my head as a child is that “might does not make right.”  I was told this because, as the oldest, strongest, and tallest of my brothers, I had a tendency to use my physical dominance to get them to do what I wanted.  Of course, the assertion that “might does not make right” was obviously false.  Clearly I was getting my way by using power.  It was not, however, until I saw both Vox’s and Moldbug’s posts that I finally figured out how to correct the assertion:  Might does indeed make right; however, you’re not the mightiest person.

God, of course, is the mightiest being, and it is entirely his choice to give power to whomever he chooses, for whatever reason he chooses.  If he chooses to give power to the Prince of the Power of the Air, he can certainly do so.  If God chooses to give power to certain nations and states, or to certain people, it is certainly his prerogative.

Furthermore, anyone to whom God gives power generally has the authority to delegate their authority to others (of course, there are obvious limits to this).  Also, since all spiritual and human beings have free will, there is no reason to believe that anyone is compelled to use their power responsibly.  As such, God could delegate power to certain beings in good faith only to have those beings abuse their power (this would certainly have been the case with Satan, and appears to have been the case with King Saul, as well as others).

The salient point, though, is that all men must give an account for what they have done.  If God gives you power and authority and you misuse it, you will answer to God for doing so.  God may not subvert your freedom of choice in order to make you use your power responsibly, but that doesn’t mean that your choices are consequence free.

Thus, a more helpful mindset is to acknowledge that, practically speaking, might does make right.  In keeping with this, the being with the most might is the one who makes the ultimate standard of right.  Therefore, it would be better to teach children to use might responsibly instead of asserting that “might does not make right,” for teaching generally good children to shun power instead of wielding it responsibly will only ensure that the corrupt will seek power and misuse it accordingly.

23 January 2013

A Cautionary Tale


A woman by the name of Karen Cross writes at The Daily Mail of the potential consequences of holding out for a better man:

Now I can only look back and admonish my selfish, younger self. When I visit friends and family back in our home town, I can't help but hope I'll bump into  Matthew.
I'd like to think I'd say sorry. That I will always be there for him. But I wouldn't be surprised if he turned his back on me and kept walking.
To those out there thinking of walking away from humdrum relationships, I would say don't mistake contentment for unhappiness, as I did. It could be a choice you'll regret for the rest of your life.

Of course, Karen did go on to pursue relationships with a couple of other guys, so while she’s not a D.C.-Lawyer-Chick-Level of slut, she’s not exactly pure as the wind-driven snow.  But notice what the consequences of her alpha-chasing is:  she isn’t able to marry a good guy.  That’s it.

She isn’t starving, she isn’t about to get kicked out to the street, she isn’t facing social or familial ostracism, she isn’t (from what I can gather)generally  lacking in sexual satisfaction.  All things considered, she’s in pretty good shape.  One hundred years ago, she would have been strongly pressured into marrying the guy she now misses, and she would have been largely dependent on him to take care of her basic physical needs.  These days, the only thing she really misses about him is his emotional support.  This is pretty much the only negative consequence of her alpha chasing.

I don’t mean to imply that this consequence isn’t painful, nor do I want to suggest that women shouldn’t consider the long-term consequences of chasing alphas.  However, when the most painful consequence of alpha chasing is that you feel a peculiar form of loneliness in your old age, then I think it’s safe to say that things aren’t as bad as they could be.  Thus, my earlier assertion that women can ride the carousel without much in the way of impunity would appear to be generally correct.

Progressivism Is A Misnomer



Strangely, America has regressed in its treatment of the mentally ill. In the 19th century, most of the nation’s disturbed were either on the street or in jail. In an effort to provide humane treatment, state institutions popped up across the country, confining most of the nation’s severely deranged. Yet by the 1960s, controversy erupted as stories of mistreatment and poor conditions (One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, anyone?) became rampant. Deinstitutionalization followed, in a movement that received strong bipartisan support. Liberals championed the fall of state psychiatric hospitals on the grounds of compassion and freedom; conservatives saw it as a way to save money and as a blow against the intrusive nanny state. [Emphasis added.]

In The God of the Machine, Isabel Paterson spoke of the progressive mindset and described it as, “men who had rejected civilization to embrace savagery, sinking to the worst instead of achieving the best.”  This mindset is seen clearly in the realm of treating the mentally ill.

The history of mental hospitals/sanitariums extends back to the middle ages.  The idea of segregating the mentally ill instead of letting them run amok was something that our forebears recognized as a good idea several centuries ago.  While institutionalization is no picnic for the mentally ill, they are not generally worse off in hospitals than being out on their own.  When left to their own devices, a good portion of those who suffer from severe mental illnesses usually end up homeless and abusing narcotics.  They also do a lot of damage to private property and infringe on other people’s personal property rights.

Mental health hospitals help to alleviate the problem of crazy people’s craziness by keeping them away from the relatively normal members of society.  Unfortunately, a good number of mental health patients end up getting abused.  However, they would still be abused by themselves if left to their own devices.  The difference between locking them up in a mental hospital and letting them roam about freely is that in the former case, innocent people get go about their lives unmolested by crazy people.

Thus, the “progressive” policy of allowing crazy people to roam about freely is actually regressive, in that it takes society back to a state of being that hasn’t existed since the middle ages.  The policy lauded by so-called progressives doesn’t actually help the mentally ill, since they end up destroying themselves with drugs and homelessness (instead of being destroyed by abusive doctors and nurses), but it does harm relatively normal people.

Therefore, progressivism is really a misnomer.  The progressive policy towards the mentally ill, like many other progressive policies in general, is actually regressive, and offers no improvement for the victim while posing harm to the rest of society.  Progressivism is truly nothing more than the politics of savagery.

Daughters Without Fathers



Their interaction creates one character (Ana) who is impossibly whimsical. The book goes on and on about her various concerns and emotions and thoughts. Then, suddenly, she makes some absurdly impulsive decision.
For a long time, I thought one of these characters might be her rationalization hamster. Eventually, you realize that she doesn’t have one – she’s fully modern in the sense that she’s progressed beyond the need to even rationalize her completely emotional, directionless decisions. The inner goddess wants to be whipped, the subconscious thinks maybe she should go on a real date first, and the body just does what it’s feeling at any given moment.
Behold, the modern woman fully unleashed!

This calls to mind an article written some time ago by Rebecca Hagelin.  I meant to write about it at the time, but I got busy with other things and did not.  Anyway, Hagelin, in review of a book titled Happily Ever After, wrote:

In her new book, The Jane Austen Guide to Happily Ever After (Regnery Publishing, 2012), Elizabeth Kantor provides some answers. She writes, “Of course it’s no secret that modern mating rituals have gone badly wrong.” And indeed they have: the number of cohabitating couples has doubled in the past twenty years, and the marriage rate has dropped precipitously. Many singles find themselves on a path to lifelong singlehood, not necessarily by choice. And even within relationships, time-honored ideals---like fidelity—increasingly fall by the wayside. (A recent Match.com survey found that only 62% of men believe that sexual fidelity is a “must have” in a relationship. In comparison, 80% of women say fidelity is a must for a successful relationship.)
Happily Ever After offers a thought-provoking, encouraging, and often witty take on what’s wrong with today’s dating patterns. Even better, Kantor draws on the wisdom and insights of Jane Austen’s heroines to mark out a confident path for young women who want a good man and a relationship that will deliver a lifetime of happiness—and love—in marriage.

Here’s a question:  why do we need a book providing marital guidance for women?  Why is it that it women of this modern age find it more difficult to find a good husband than did women of, say, sixty years ago?
The answer is here:

For a girl, Dad is her personal ambassador from the Planet Male. If she has a good relationship with him, she's unlikely to settle for less from the other males in her life, or allow herself to be manipulated.

The problem that Foseti identifies—the modern woman fully unleashed—the problem that Hagelin is trying to address with a book review, is, ultimately, the absence of fathers.  Women who act impulsively, following whatever tingles they feel, whatever fleeting emotions they feel cross their heads, or whatever impulses flow through their prefrontal cortex are women who lack the stability of a having a man in their life.

It was a commenter at Heartiste’s blog who wrote, a couple of years ago, “You need to be the rock on which her waves of emotions crash, but you stay un-moved and strong.”  Women, when left to their own devices, are short-sighted, impulsive, and ultimately self-destructive.  It is up to men, as Vox noted, to civilize women (or, as Shakespeare might say it, it is up to men to tame the shrews).  While this duty ultimately belongs to husbands, it begins with fathers.  Fathers need to be the first rock upon which the waves of their young daughters’ emotions crash.  Fathers need to begin the process of civilizing their daughters, of teaching their daughters to control and master their emotions, and not become slaves to their emotions.

Fathers need to stand strong and tall for their daughters.  Fathers need to be a rock for their daughters.  Elsewise, their daughters will simply be slaves to their tingles, emotional and undirected, and easily manipulated.  Their daughters will be, in a word, modern.

“I Will Not Punish Your Daughters When They Commit Harlotry”


As I was writing a previous post, I came across a passage in Hosea that really stood out to me:

“Harlotry, wine, and new wine enslave the heart.  My people ask counsel from their wooden idols, and their staff informs them.  For the spirit of harlotry has caused them to stray, and they have played the harlot against their God.  They offer sacrifices on the mountaintops, and burn incense on the hills, under oaks, poplars, and terebinths, because their shade is good.
Therefore your daughters commit harlotry, and your brides commit adultery.  I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go apart with harlots, and offer sacrifices with a ritual harlot.  Therefore people who do not understand will be trampled.” [Emphasis added.]

The book of Hosea functions basically as an object lesson demonstrating how God feels about Israel.  Recall that God commanded Hosea to take a harlot as a wife.  Hosea’s wife, Gomer, was unfaithful to Hosea.  After they got married, Gomer bore Hosea a couple of children, then reverted back to harlotry, and eventually ended up being enslaved, whereupon Hosea was commanded to buy her back.  What God wanted to illustrate was that, in a spiritual sense, Israel’s behavior towards God was identical to Gomer’s behavior towards Hosea.  Israel was being promiscuously unfaithful towards God, which prompts God to levy the condemnation quoted above.

What’s intriguing is that God says that he will not punish the women of Israel for their harlotry because the men are acting as spiritual harlots towards God.  The men of Israel had forsaken God and chased after idols, and offered those idols the best sacrifices, leaving God either leftovers or nothing at all.  God, then, decides to give the men of Israel a fitting punishment:  He won’t hold women responsible to the natural consequences of their harlotry. As long as the men of Israel cheat on God, God will enable the women of Israel to cheat on the men of Israel.

By now, the parallels to 21st century America should be obvious.  One common lament in the manosphere is that women go about riding the carousel, as the expression goes, often without much in the way of impunity.*  Women don’t get ostracized for acting like sluts; those who try to shame promiscuous women are often stopped in their tracks.  Thanks to birth control, condoms, and modern medicine, women face ridiculously health and pregnancy risks for sleeping around with multiple partners.  In the event they do get pregnant, abortion is not only legal, but relatively available.  And even if abortion isn’t possible, the state will provide women with plenty of financial support for them and their bastard spawn.  Quite frankly, women face minimal negative consequences for slutting it up.

While it may be comforting to look for naturalist explanations for why it is the case that women can slut it up without suffering what should be the natural consequences, it is likely more beneficial to ask whether there is a spiritual explanation why daughter aren’t being punished for playing the harlot and why brides are not being punished for committing adultery.

I would suggest that, as in the days of Hosea, the reason why women are essentially getting away with being whores is due to men being unfaithful to God.  The modern American man no longer worships Jehovah, but instead worships the idols of power, fame, intellect, sports, wealth, and Woman.  Most modern American men couldn’t tell you why they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, but they can tell you what team will win the championship and why.  They can tell you why capitalism is the best system ever devised, and why the government should be pro-business.  They can tell you what colleges are most prestigious, and what scholastic tests best indicate scholastic abilities.  They can tell what specific behaviors should ensure success what with women.  They can tell you all about why someone became famous, and what you should do to become famous like them.  They can tell you all about all sorts of legislation and judicial rulings, and their implications for the country, and they can tell you all about how to become politically active.  They can give you more details than you would ever need to know about anything except God.

Men have forsaken God and have pursued everything the world has to offer.  And that’s why women get away with being whores.

* There are some long-term consequences, but that’s for another post.

It’s Time To Ban Cars



A 12-year-old girl was killed on Monday and dozens of people injured in a 76-vehicle pileup on an icy Ohio highway, one of three major crashes that clogged roadways across the state, authorities said.
Sixty cars and 16 tractor trailers slammed into one another on Interstate 275 near Cincinnati just after 11:35 a.m., Hamilton County Sheriff's spokesman Jim Knapp said.
"Eighteen years on patrol, and I've never seen anything like it," he said.
At least 20 people were transported to local hospitals with undetermined injuries, said Colerain Township Fire Captain Darian Edwards, who described "dozens of walking wounded" being tended to at the crash site.

Clearly, the real cause of this accident is America’s car culture.  Parents are constantly pressuring their children to drive, oftentimes by offering to give them a car as a birthday present.  Auto makers, in turn, continue to promote car ownership by making cars as cheaply as possible, which generally means offering cars that barely meet minimum safety requirements.  Car makers also lobby the government for special privileges.  This constant push to get as many Americans on the road as much as possible enables this sort of tragedy to happen.

Obviously, the government needs to make it more difficult for people to get behind the wheel of a car.  This could mean implementing and raising taxes on car production and sales, which should help to reduce purchases.  Regulating or limiting gasoline purchases should also help to limit how much time people spend on the road, as would banning high-capacity tanks.  Furthermore, the government should require every driver to undergo background checks for every car purchase, so as to reduce the risk of dangerous people getting behind the wheel.

Ultimately, the government must work towards completely banning cars, so as to completely prevent these sorts of tragedies from ever occurring.  Only the government can be trusted with transportation, and so the only exemption to the transportation ban should be government-run and government-regulated transportation industries, like public rail, or the taxi system.  It is only by doing this that we can ensure that no one is needlessly killed or injured in horrific auto accidents.

22 January 2013

God, Man, and Marriage

There is a certain segment of the Manosophere that is both nominally Christian and participates in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM).  I generally make a point of avoiding these people since, as far as I can tell based on what I’ve read, they generally make a point of blaming women for everything that’s wrong with the world.  This view is hardly new, as Adam’s response to God in Genesis could certainly be viewed as the very first instance of Men’s Rights activism.  God’s response, if you’ll recall, was basically to say that because Adam shirked his duty as leader, his life was going to become considerably more difficult.  Note that this was not a particularly sympathetic response.

Anyhow, getting back to the point at hand, there are still plenty of men today who are, in a sense, trying to blame Eve for every major problem they have.  The complaints are legion.  Some men complain about getting fucked over in a divorce.  Some men complain about not getting fucked over enough in the marriage bed. Some men complain that their wives are unattractive; some men complain that their wives are not attracted to them.  Some men complain that their wives are lazy and refuse to help around the house.  In general, a good number of these men avoid being introspective and asking themselves whether they have at all contributed to their own problems.

It is helpful to take a moment and consider the purpose of marriage.  Obviously, one purpose of marriage is the propagation of Godly children.  Another reason for marriage is that allows for the proper release of sexual desire, and best enables pair-bonding.  Also, marriage acts as a method of conveying a number of theological truths.

In regards to marriage serving as a method of theological pedagogy, it is helpful to further note that truth can be learned through both pleasure and pain.  That pain can be used to impart certain theological lessons is often ignored, since it is often emotionally easier to view pain as capricious in its administration.  However, the pain of a bad marriage should be viewed as a time to learn certain theological truths.

Consider the example of Hosea.  Hosea was commanded by God marry a prostitute.1  The lesson that God wanted to illustrate was that as Hosea’s wife was unfaithful to Hosea by playing the harlot, in like manner the children of Israel were being unfaithful to God by worshiping idols.  This would certainly be a very painful thing for Hosea to endure.  The pain that he felt knowing that his wife was selling her body to strange men must have been quite severe.  Nonetheless, his pain provides a very distinct reminder for the children of Israel, and even for us:  The pain that a man feels knowing his wife is a whore is akin to the pain that God feels when his people worship idols.

There are, of course, many other theological truths that can be learned from observing both good and bad marriages alike.  Paul, for example, spends some time discussing how the ideal functioning of marriage should mirror the relationship between Christ and the church.  Many other spiritual lessons, particularly in regards to submission and hierarchy, can be drawn from marriage without needing explicit scriptural verification.  Men, in general, would do well to contemplate the theological truths found in marriage, for doing so would enable them to improve their marriages considerably.

One thing that I’ve noticed, regarding the aforementioned complaints, is how they are extremely gynocentric.  In a sense, these men are making women the focus of their lives, and in this case are doing so negatively.2 This is certainly a problem, since God is greater than Woman, and must be viewed as such.

What happens is that men become exceedingly focused on their wives and neglect their responsibilities to God.  Evidence for this can be seen in the common male lament:  “but I thought women wanted nice3 guys.”  This complaint is especially indicative of the fundamental failure that men have regarding women, since this complaint perfectly encapsulates their problem:  they are heeding the words of women instead of heeding the Word of God.  Nowhere in scripture does God say that men need to be “nice” to their wives, or even to women in general.  He says they need to be loving to their wives, and kind, but he does not ever expect men to defer to their wives, nor does he expect men to cater to their wives’ every whim.  God clearly expects men to lead their wives, and do what it is best for them, their wives’ protestations notwithstanding.

Men’s tendency towards niceness is a rather pernicious sin, because most men are trying—but failing—to manipulate women by being nice.  Those men who act nice towards attractive women are only doing so because they want something in exchange, and not because God commands this of this of them.4  This mindset is clearly condemned by Christ.  Those who only do “good” things because they expect some sort of recognition or reward will have their reward in full on this earth.  And that reward, Christ notes, is often shallow and meaningless.   Men who are nice to women because they are expecting a reward already have their reward in full.  Men used to be able to depend on getting women by being nice, but now those days are no more, but even in the days of Christ, being nice was only rewarded on earth; there was no spiritual benefit to it.  If you’re only being nice to get pussy, then whatever pussy you get is your reward, even if you get no pussy.

A husband’s job, though, is to obey God and do what he says.  In regards to marriage, the husband is expected to lead.  He is expected to treat his wife with kindness.  He is to love his wife and not be bitter towards her. He is to protect his wife.  He is to provide for his wife.5  He is to sacrifice himself for his wife, if necessary.  He is to make sure that his wife is sexually fulfilled.6  He is to do this because God requires this of him.  He is not to do this because he expects his wife to return the favor.  To him that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin.” Man cannot refrain from doing what is right simply because there is no earthly reward in it.  If a man knows that God expects him to behave a certain way, he had bloody well better behave that way.

When you think about it, marriage is one of God’s most brilliant designs.  Marriages function properly when husbands and wives submit to their proper roles in the marital hierarchy.  As long as men focus on submitting to Christ (and thereby treating their wives the way God commands them to) and as long women focus on submitting to their husbands, then the marriage will work just fine.  However, if man subverts the hierarchy by submitting to/worshiping his wife (or if the wife tries to subvert the hierarchy by ruling over her husband and her husband goes along with it), then the marriage breaks down.

Fittingly, the reward for subverting the spiritual hierarchy, which is itself a form of idolatry,7 leads to painful consequences which illustrate a broader theological truth.  When you elevate Woman above God, the natural result is a marital pain that demonstrates the pain God feels when he is not worshiped as he deserves.  Also fittingly, the corrective action is to restore the natural hierarchy, which in turn leads to a happier marriage.

One thing that whiny Christian MRAs should consider doing is spending a little bit more time examining their lives, to see whether they are truly worshiping God.  Marital problems are not completely one-sided, and the social problems that result are not solely the fault of the female gender.  If God’s word is to be believed, it is far more likely that a good number of marital problems—and the attendant social ills that accompany them—are largely results of men shirking their God-given duty.

This is not to say that women are completely without fault.  However, it is clear that the greater fault lies with the men and their near-complete failure to comply with God’s commands.  Therefore, men in unhappy marriages need to examine their lives for sin and failure, and do what they can to correct their course and live as the leaders that God would have them to be.  Once they’ve done that, then we can talk about the women.

1. I note, not without some degree of amusement, that the example of Hosea would indicate, contra to the assertion of some MRMs and MGTOWs, that God does occasionally expect men man to man up and marry whores.

2.  The other extreme of gynocentricity is the positive end of the spectrum, which is usually filled with PUAs, who worship at the altar of pussy.  While they are quite skilled in acquiring what they want, they are just as much slaves to women as men who constantly complain about how terrible their wives are since, in both cases, women are the center of focus, attention, and energy.  That one group gets what they want while the other does not doesn’t change the fact that both groups make women the focus of their life.  The proper way to view this is that one group’s sacrifices are not accepted while the other group’s sacrifices are.  In both cases, sacrifices are being offered.  (I observe here that it is to women’s credit that they are disgusted with the sacrifices offered by betas.  Women do not like being the object of idolatry, at least as evidenced by the fact that women do not generally reward it.  Also note that the main difference between God and Woman is that God rewards Man when Man offers his best, but Woman rewards Man when he offers his worst, which should indicate that, if nothing else, Woman is not worthy of worship since they simply do not appreciate it.)

3.  “Nice” is here defined as engaging in behaviors that are deferential towards women or otherwise indicate female superiority (e.g. listening to every last banal word that comes out of her mouth, doing things for her that she is capable of doing herself, buying her lots of/expensive presents, constantly asking her what she wants to do, and so on.)

4. For those who are inclined to argue that some men sincerely believe that God commands them to be nice to women/their wives, I would recommend reading Jeremiah 17:9 and 2 Peter 3:16.

5. If the only thing you, as a husband, can say in defense of your role as husband is that you provide for your wife, then you have utterly failed as a husband.  Providing for your family is so fundamental that failure to do so is considered to be worse than not believing in God.  This would indicate, then, that being a provider is considered such a basic point that hanging your hat on this accomplishment is a clear indication of being a low achiever.

6. As a side note, I’d like to take a minute to point of some of the implications of this expectation.  Since God does, in fact, expect men to sexually satisfy their wives, it would certainly behoove men to learn how to do so.  Now, unless I am simply projecting, and am therefore gravely mistaken, I sincerely believe that few men would be sexually satisfied with their wives just spreading their legs when it comes to sex.  Most men, and correct me if I’m wrong, want their wives to be sexually attractive and sexually engaged (e.g., this might mean staying in shape, wearing lingerie, wearing makeup, talking dirty, engaging in sexual role play, and so forth).  Satiating the male appetite for sex is not accomplished simply by the spreading of legs (though there are certainly occasions when it may be).  Likewise, satiating the female appetite for sex is not accomplished merely having a raging hard-on (though there are certainly occasions when it may be).

The apostle Paul forbade husbands and wives from depriving one another sexually.  I would take this to mean that both men and women alike are expected to whatever they reasonably can to make sure their spouses are sexually satisfied.  For women, this would generally mean looking as sexy as possible, and being a willing and engaged participant in sex.  For men, this would mean making yourself as attractive as possible, and engaging in what can reasonably be described as foreplay.  Men should also not forget that female sexual desire is remarkably different from male sexual desire (e.g., it’s not as dependent on bodily aesthetics).  As such, men should make an effort to figure out what their wives like and give it to them.  This more than likely entails learning Game, or at least learning how to demonstrate dominance and confidence, and learning how to tease.

I’d also like to point at that the modern church has completely failed in this theological matter.  God does not take the modern Churchian view that attraction is not necessary for marital satisfaction (cf. Song of Songs).  Why the modern church has shoved its metaphorical head up its ass on this matter and thinks that sexual attraction is not relevant to marriage is beyond me.  The church’s failure to adequately address the nature of sexual attraction and how it is to be satisfied in marriage is a black spot of colossal proportions.

7. Technically, I suppose this is really a form of improper apotheosis, but that’s for another post.

18 January 2013

Book Reviews

My reviews of Vox's most recent works - A Magic Broken and A Throne of Bones - are now live at Allusions of Grandeur.  Go read them.

The NRA Finally Does Something Right

The New Totalitarian State

Having spent a little more time thinking about something I wrote a couple of days ago, and having read this post by Vox and this post by Bill, I’ve come to the conclusion that America is the new totalitarian state.  Like Germany under Hitler, China under Mao, or the USSR under the Communist Party, America has pretty much devolved into fascism.  (Personally, I think America most resembles Communist-run USSR.)

No matter how you slice it, the federal government has nothing but contempt and hatred for the American people, and clearly wants a large portion of the American people to be dead, or else living in fear of death.  How else to explain this latest attempt at taking guns from the people.  As has been noted before on this esteemed blog, gun control does not make people safer.  Gun control has historically been a precursor to mass slaughter of citizens at the hands of the government.  Guns aren’t even all that dangerous, in the sense of being related to criminality.

If I, as a young, broke male need only a couple of minutes to discover that more people were killed with hammers than with guns in each of the last five years, or to discover that homicides by guns have been declining even after the assault weapons ban was lifted, then what possible excuse could federal politicians have for ignorance?  They have entire research staffs.  They can get direct reports from the head of the FBI.  They can have as much data and analysis as they (at taxpayer expense, of course), and have it more quickly than I ever could.  And yet, a good number of politicians appear to have opinions are even less informed than mine.

I say “appear to have” because I believe that, in this information age, there is no plausible way for politicians to be ignorant of the issues.  Thus, their supposedly ignorant opinion is nothing more than a charade to throw detractors off the scent of their evil intent.

The American government is the greatest evil in the world right now.  Assuming that the federal government is motivated by ignorance is simply ludicrous given that the federal government is the largest data collector in the world (think Facebook is intrusive?  The federal government is a thousand times worse.)  Assuming that the federal government acts in ignorance is simply foolish.  It is more logical to conclude that the federal government is simply evil.

During the cold war, the Communist government of the USSR was decried as being evil for locking its citizens up in jails without trial, for trampling on the rights of its citizens, for not allowing its citizens to leave the country, for trying to control other countries, and for a host of other evils.  Conservatives celebrate the fact the America brought down the USSR and its attendant evils.  What most fail to realize though, is that America has now become what it defeated.  The current “justice” system has the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized country, and most criminal cases never go to trial (even though citizens have a constitutional right to one).  The government harasses its citizens at every turn, and treats citizens as nothing more than idiotic meat sacks, too infantile to take care of themselves.  And now, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to leave the country.  The federal government refuses to respect other countries’ sovereignty.  Every evil perpetrated by totalitarian regimes in the past is now the action du jour of the federal government.

America is officially communist.

17 January 2013

Control The Frame, Win The Debate


Mark Thoma laments:

The one thing I'll note is that "free market rhetoric," which is said to have played a key role in winning (or at least shifting) the battle of ideas, was the vehicle for defending other interests, e.g. business interests in having as few environmental regulations as possible. It (free markets) was not the goal in and of itself. [Emphasis added.]

Just a friendly reminder that, in this modern age, as well as in time immemorial, rhetoric tends to win the popular vote.  Facts and logic are nice, but they are not essential to winning a debate. As such, those who appeal to facts and logic without once speaking to emotion will lose to those who engage in fiery, emotional rhetoric.

One application, then, that can be made by gun rights advocates is that it would be best to appeal to the emotion of security in the defense of gun rights.  Sure, it’s nice to say that we should have gun rights because statistic show that they keep us safe, or because gun rights are an extension of property rights.  But it’s far more effective to ask people if they wouldn’t want some sort of readily available defensive weapon in the event they’re attacked.  Guns suddenly become less scary if you’re pointing them at a would-be attacker.  And this fundamental emotional truth trumps all the statistic and logic in the world.

Helicopter Parents



Blogger “Agnostic” — who like me is in his early 30s — has been documenting the difference between his/our childhoods and that of Millennials, or those slightly younger folks he trashes for being shut-ins whose nostalgia consists mostly of things done indoors, under the tutelage of doting parents. In a post critical of a long list of things 90s kids supposedly adore from a site that wrote a book about it, he writes, “of about 140 items, I count roughly 14 things that are not TV, movies, and video games.” Sounds pretty shitty to me. Then again I’m biased, even if I think Hackers is pretty badass too.
But in their defense, helicopter kids are our future, because career-building, safety, and a fetish for the long-term, early on, are popular themes nowadays. It’s the offspring of the on-top-of-things that make for the flesh and blood of the professional class, i.e. the people who run shit. Brink Lindsey, writing at The Atlantic, complains that the only thing wrong with helicopter parents is that there just aren’t enough of them. He praises their excessive, even “comical” attention to their kids:
“Starting in the 1990s parents began spending significantly more time with their kids,” he tells us. “And there is evidence that the very nature of their parenting style is good for grooming productive workers.”

Helicopter parenting doesn’t bode well for the future.  A lot of people seem eager to praise helicopter parents—parents who pressure their children to be high achievers, mostly in the academic realm, occasionally in the sports or artistic realm—since these parent have appeared to prepare their children for a successful career in upper middle management, or in somewhat lucrative high-prestige professions, like medicine or law.  Undoubtedly these children will make good office/cubicle rats at the upper echelons of their profession, and they will undoubtedly play the attendant status games that come with their economic attendant.  However, what’s not guaranteed is that these children will actually run things.

See, these parents are basically training their children to become aggressive brown-nosing sycophants.  They teach them how abide by the rules of the system (even the unspoken ones), but the flaw in this plan is that those who run things don’t generally care about the rules.  They don’t aggressively follow the rules, nor do they exploit the rules.  Instead, they make their own rules. The failure of helicopter parents is that while they train their children to be aggressive in their pursuits of success, the never bother teaching them that the key to success is making your own rules.  And so, the offspring of helicopter parents may be able to achieve moderate success, but their preoccupation with rules—whether by extreme compliance or by attempts at subversion—renders them unable to lead because they never control the frame.

16 January 2013

That Which Is Unseen



This morning’s jobs report shows that the economy’s subsidized private sector (industries like health care services that receive big government subsidies) is back as a major source of new hiring.
If a stronger but sustainable U.S. recovery depends on reinvigorating industries not heavily dependent on government largesse, then this hiring out-performance by the subsidized private sector is a bearish indicator.
As Tonelson figures it, the subsidized private sector created 65,000 net new jobs in December, nearly 40% of total private-sector job growth, about the same as throughout the recovery. But is that a lot or a little?

One easy way to tell if an economist is shallow is to see how they analyze the role of government in the economy.  In this case, the assertion is that the government was responsible for about 40% of new net job creation.  But, I wonder, how much net job destruction the government was responsible for.

Gun Owners Need to Stop Being Pussies


Why is this legislation being proposed:

Tomorrow, Senator Ball will be publicly unveiling three separate pieces of legislation, all with bipartisan support, among them (S2132), to protect the privacy rights of ordinary citizens; including: law enforcement personnel, victims of domestic violence and private citizens. Let it be clear however, that under Ball’s legislation that has garnered bipartisan kudos and support, law enforcement and all related agencies would continue to have full access to permit information. Senate bill (S2132) would protect lawful gun owners, including thousands of retired and active law enforcement and victim of domestic violence survivors, from having their information publicly disclosed.

First off, it’s an incredibly stupid idea to give the government even more power and control over people, especially when guns are involved.  The fundamental problem with this legislation is that it operates from the principle that the government must protect gun rights.  This assumption is fundamentally unconstitutional (the constitution’s view of gun rights is that the government must recognize gun rights), and is oxymoronic to boot.  Plus, whatever the government giveth, the government taketh away.  Gun owners who support this legislation, then, are tacitly asking the government to be in charge of controlling guns.

Second, if you’re going to own a gun, you need to be personally responsible for it.  It doesn’t matter if people decide to publish your address in a newspaper.  You own a gun, and that’s one of the consequences of ownership, stop being a pussy and deal with it.  If you can’t handle the increased problems of gun ownership, get rid of your guns.  Elsewise, take responsibility for your firearms.

A lot of gun owners have this braggadocio (myself included), that if anyone is going to take their guns away from them, they will have to pry their guns from their cold dead hands.  Apparently some people don’t mean this.  If you’re going to own a gun, then you need to accept the responsibility for owning your guns.  And if you’re not willing to kill someone to preserve your right of gun ownership, then pray tell what is the point of you owning guns.

Welcome to Higher Taxes


It’s apparently unpleasant:

American workers are opening their first paychecks of the year and finding an unpleasant surprise: The government's take has gone up.
A temporary cut in Social Security withholdings gave Americans hundreds of extra dollars to spend over the past two years. But Congress allowed that break to expire during the wrangling over the fiscal cliff, meaning that Social Security taxes have reverted to 6.2% of salary from the temporary 4.2%.
The noticeable lightening of paychecks as consumers remain tentative threatens to put a drag on economic growth. The effect for companies is that the hit is likely to cement a frugal attitude that led consumers to cut back on eating out and shift to less-expensive store brands.

Now, I actually support a payroll tax increase.  I think people who receive any form of government benefits should actually pay for them (yes, I know this is a crazy belief), and I think that the increase in tax rates is small enough and marginal enough that it will lead to increased revenues, thereby hypothetically reducing the deficit.

Of course, a higher tax burden means more economic malaise.  But then, that’s simply the inevitable cost of the government living beyond its means.  Bills must be paid, even by governments.  If people don’t want higher taxes, they should vote for politicians who actually reduce spending.  If people are unwilling to do vote for budget cuts, then they shouldn’t complain about higher taxes.

Economic Autism

It appears that the economics profession exists merely to give autists the fa├žade of productivity:
For most of modern history, two-thirds of the income of most rich nations has gone to pay salaries and wages for people who work, while one-third has gone to pay dividends, capital gains, interest, rent, etc. to the people who own capital. This two-thirds/one-third division was so stable that people began to believe it would last forever. But in the past ten years, something has changed. Labor's share of income has steadily declined, falling by several percentage points since 2000. It now sits at around 60% or lower. The fall of labor income, and the rise of capital income, has contributed to America's growing inequality.
What can explain this shift? One hypothesis is: China. The recent entry of China into the global trading system basically doubled the labor force available to multinational companies. When labor becomes more plentiful, the return to labor goes down. In a world flooded with cheap Chinese labor, capital becomes relatively scarce, and its share of income goes up. As China develops, this effect should go away, as China builds up its own capital stock. This is probably already happening.
But there is another, more sinister explanation for the change. In past times, technological change always augmented the abilities of human beings. A worker with a machine saw was much more productive than a worker with a hand saw. The fears of "Luddites," who tried to prevent the spread of technology out of fear of losing their jobs, proved unfounded. But that was then, and this is now. Recent technological advances in the area of computers and automation have begun to do some higher cognitive tasks - think of robots building cars, stocking groceries, doing your taxes.
This hand-wringing, though amusing, is predicated on a couple of fallacious assumptions.

First, there is a false dichotomy.  There are more than two explanations for why labor’s share of income has decreased by seven percentage points over the last ten years.  Sure, free trade play a role, as does increasing mechanization of production.  But there are other factors as well.  What this economist apparently fails to consider is why companies have an incentive to hire people on the other side of the globe, or why companies mechanize their production processes, instead of hiring people.  Unsurprisingly, he fails to consider whether government policies have contributed to this problem.  Additionally, he fails to consider whether labor was overvalued in the first place, and he also fails to account for black market labor.  Thus, his analysis rests on some incredibly shallow analysis.

In the second place, he makes the even more unfortunate mistake of assuming that end results are the only concern to all employers.  There’s a reason why, for example, Wendy’s hires pretty young girls to work the dining room registers:*  people are willing to pay more to be served by pretty girls.  Yes, they want the food, but the food is not the only possible concern they have about the transaction.  As such, there will always be a roughly consistent demand for human labor because people fundamentally want to be around other people.  Man is a social creature, after all.  There’s a reason why very few stores have switched completely to a self-service model of checkout lanes.

Thus, the assumption that machines will render human labor obsolete is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the fact that the most fundamental demand of all is for human labor for its own sake.  People want to interact with other people.  People want contact with other humans (hence prostitution).  People want to show that they can control other people.  And that’s why human labor will not be taken over by machines.

Now, there will undoubtedly be some instances in which human labor is driven out of certain market niches, but this simply means that human labor will need to find a new market niche.  A lot of people lost jobs in the cassette tape industry once CDs became big.  This hardly precipitated a permanent increase in the unemployment rate, or in labor’s share in income.  Likewise, the introduction of robotics will do little to impact the long-term collapse of the market for human labor.  At worst, it will be a drawn-out realignment.

* When I worked at Wendy’s, back in high school, my manager straight up told me that the reason I worked grill/fryer instead of front register was because guys. Especially those who were young and single, would spend more if they were served by a pretty girl.  Apparently he had tested this by comparing sales on a revolving basis (e.g. comparing Monday lunch sales to Monday lunch sales) and noted that the most consistent predictor of sales variability was the gender and appearance of the front register operator.

Gun Control: The Redux


There’s still quite a stir over the issue of gun rights.  This probably isn’t helped by Joe “Cocksucker” Biden claiming that Barack “Knob-Gobbler” Obama is going to use executive orders to impose gun control:

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips. But Biden, who has been leading Obama’s task force on the response, spent two hours briefing a small group of sympathetic House Democrats on the road ahead in the latest White House outreach to invested groups.
The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting.

I suppose this was to be expected.  The government has become completely totalitarian, so the next step is disarm the citizens in order to kill off anyone who might provide resistance.  Alternatively, it may simply be that those in charge are courting the soon-to-exist felon vote, by making it easier for felons to rob people.  Either way, the main result of the president’s actions, if successful, will be the deaths of a significant number of innocent people.  Sadly, this action will be praised by far too many elitists and their useful idiots as a good thing, and the fires of hell are most assuredly reserved for those who support and applaud these measures that will most certainly lead to deaths of good, innocent people.

11 January 2013

A Compelling Case Against Democracy



In the sub-discipline of economics known as public choice, an important concept is the theory of "rational ignorance." First articulated by political scientist Anthony Downs in the 1950s, and expanded upon by economist Gordon Tullock and others, the theory of rational ignorance holds that it is perfectly rational for individuals to largely ignore politics, or even not to vote. There are only twenty-four hours in a day, and we all spend most of our time doing our jobs, pursuing an education, raising families, paying bills, and planning our private lives. We rationally spend very little time becoming informed about politics and government policy.

A decent number of Americans tend to revere the founding fathers for their foresight and wisdom, and rightfully so.  When you look at some of the things the founding fathers wrote, you can’t help but be impressed by the obvious fact that the founding fathers obviously spent a lot of time thinking about politics, political theory, government policy, and the philosophy of government.  It’s tempting to look at the thing these men wrote some two hundred forty years ago and project that level of interest and understanding of politics onto the general population.  However, this would be a mistake.

The truth of the matter is that humanity doesn’t really change much over time.  Most people today, lime most people of two hundred years ago, and like people of two thousand years ago, are rather apathetic toward politics and political theory.  Most people are simply too busy with their lives to be deeply concerned about such things.  The founders recognized this, which is why—in the early days of the republic—suffrage was highly limited.

See, democracy inevitably fails because the electorate elects representatives who most closely represent their political views.  Unfortunately, the electorate is rather politically ignorant, and so the politicians they elect tend to be ignorant as well (alternatively, the politicians may simply be acting ignorant so as to get re-elected; either way the result is the same).  Most people simply are not equipped to govern a nation, and therefore they should have little say in how it is governed.  As long as their rights are respected and they find themselves growing wealthier in successive generations, then they can rest assured that the government is doing its job.  As long as the metaphorical sausage is made properly, people need not concern themselves with the process by which it is made.

The End of Church



Life in Deep Ellum is part of a wave of experimentation around the country by evangelicals to reinvent “church” in an increasingly secular culture, and it comes as the megachurch boom of recent decades, with stadium seating for huge crowds, Jumbotrons and smoke machines, faces strong headwinds. A national decline in church attendance, the struggling economy and the challenges of marketing to millennials have all led to the need for new approaches.
“It’s unsettling for a movement that’s lasted 2,000 years to now find that, ‘Oh, some of the things we always assumed would connect with the community aren’t connecting with everyone in the community in the way they used to,’ ” said Warren Bird, the director of research for the Leadership Network, a firm that tracks church trends.
According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Americans who are not affiliated with any religion is on the rise, including a third of Americans under 30. Even so, 68 percent of unaffiliated Americans say they believe in God, and 41 percent say they pray at least once a month.
The “spiritual but not religious” category is an important audience that evangelical leaders hope to reach in a culture that many believers call “post-Christian.”

It is obvious that, in this particular instance, the church is clearly shirking its duty to God and true believers alike and thereby bringing about the end of the church, at least in its current incarnation.  However, the end of the church is not the same as the end of religion, for while this particular evangelical church has definitely left Christ, it has not left religion.

Of course, the church is taking a more “secular” tone, but it still aspires to provoke religious feelings in its members/attendants.  Thus, the “post-Christian” world is not a world devoid of religion, but one devoid of the Christian religion.  It will likely eventually bear a more than passing resemblance to paganism.

The important thing to note from this story is that it illustrates man’s apparently ineradicable need to engage in religious activity. This attempt at undermining the Christian faith is only able to work because it offers an alternative religion in Christianity’s stead.  Man must worship something.  If he is not grounded in his religion, he will worship anything.  But worship something he must.