Patheological Weddingsday – What is Purity Actually About?

The New Covenant of Christ provides a pure conscience.

Readership: Christians, especially those who were involved in the Purity Movement;

In a previous post, Patheological Weddingsday – Did Purity Culture Undermine Christian Identity? (2020 September 9), I covered an article written by Jackson Wu.  This post will take a look at his second, follow-up post on Patheos, entitled What is purity actually about? (2020 August 12)

To kick start his article, Wu poses the question,

“What is the relationship between purity and the concepts of honor and shame?”

Then he explains the reason for adopting this frame.

“Understanding how the language of (un)cleanness works can help us in several ways.  For example, we can discern the broader connotation of such imagery in the Bible and in our lives.  We can improve our ability to interpret the Bible and contextualize its message.”

I totally agree here.  This is the reason why I delved into this philosophical frame way back in late 2018.

• Σ Frame: What does it mean to be Unclean? (2018 December 2)
• Σ Frame: What does it mean to be Defiled? (2018 December 9)

Let’s see what the author has to add to the discussion.

Purity Matters

“Some people, like Tom Steffen, think purity-cultures exist alongside guilt-, fear-, and honor-cultures.  I respectfully disagree.  I think purity language falls under the honor-shame category.  Separating them seems redundant to me.”

I’m not sure what he means by “separating them seems redundant”, since he just identified a unique relevance to the Honor vs. Shame system, in essence separating them.

The concept of sexual purity may exist in any culture, because it is fundamental to human mating strategies.  Likewise, shame tactics can be implemented in any culture.  But in general, the practice of using shame and public humiliation against those who have lost their sexual purity (or for anything, really) as a means of social control and regulation, falls within the Honor vs. Shame ethical system.

The Righteousness vs. Guilt system adheres to the recognizance of moral law and relies on an internal sense of guilt among its constituents.  However, when certain individuals are lacking any sense of internal guilt, others in the culture often resort to shame tactics in order to preserve cultural order.  This is especially pertinent in the case of sexual sin, because for some reason, sexual sins seldomly produce guilt.

image

“But there’s a bigger point to make than how one classifies cultures.  Whether one is “pure” or “unclean” is no small matter; it frequently speaks to one’s identity, status, and character.  As mentioned in my previous post, we often use purity metaphors when speaking about morality…”

“He’s a filthy pig!”  “They have a dirty mind.”  “No one has clean hands.”

Yes, this is the fundamental idea behind the concept of defilement.  The Old Testament called for the death of those having certain kinds of defilement, and I believe this is because defilement is irreversible.  So yes, it is a serious matter, and no, this impression cannot be removed by changing cultural norms nor through teaching philosophical sophistry.

Unfortunately, I’ve noticed a subtle flattening of the metaphor among people.  They treat it as though it primarily were legal language.  For instance, “The judge will wipe it off your record.”  Or, “You have a clean slate.”  In these sentences, “clean” and “wipe” act as dead metaphors.  They lack potency.  One hardly notices the imagery.  They simply mean, “No crimes are charged against you.”

This kind of assessment hearkens back to the basic message of the penal substitutionary gospel, which has been ubiquitous in Christianity for ages.

However, we do not invoke a mere “legal” metaphor when we speak of (im)purity and (un)cleanness.  Fundamentally, purity is not a legal category.  If we miss this point, we can overlook the effect of such imagery and its significance in Scripture.

I need to point out that the opposite of purity is uncleanness or defilement. (See the posts listed above on these topics.)  Purity and its opposite, defilement, are dichotomous spiritual states, meaning that one cannot be both pure and defiled at the same time.  Although purity and defilement are spiritual states, and not legal categories, the Old Testament law had impeccably clear instructions about how to deal with individuals in various states of uncleanness and defilement from a legal perspective.  So defilement is not disassembled from the laws of the covenant, but is in fact, an integral part of it.

image

What is Purified in Hebrews?

Christians often use generalized phrases to describe salvation.  “He has washed away my sin.” “He has cleansed me.” These certainly have roots in the Bible.  The sacrificial system in Leviticus famously describes how the people of Israel removed ritual impurity through sacrifice.

Concerning these sacrificial practices, the writer of Hebrews says,

“…gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation…”

Hebrews 9:9-10 (ESV)

Someone might easily interpret him as if to suggest the purification rituals are archaic and antithetical to Christianity.  However, we find that the author of Hebrews does not dismiss such language; rather, he reappropriates it.

Hebrews 10:1–2 expands on the imagery of Hebrews 9.  It says,

“¹ For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.  ² Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have a conscience for sins?

Hebrews 10:1-2 (ESV)

In light of the new covenant, Hebrews 9:14 proclaims,

“…how much more will the blood of Christ… purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”

Hebrews 9:14 (ESV)

Therefore,

“let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.”

Hebrews 10:22 (ESV)

The wider context adds further support.  Hebrews 8:10, 10:16 repeat the promise from Jeremiah 31:33, where the Lord says,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds.”

Hebrews 10:16 (ESV)

image

The other two verses are similar.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Hebrews 8:10 (ESV)

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.  And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jeremiah 31:33 (ESV)

The NKJV translation says,

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

Jeremiah 31:33 (NKJV)

I am emphasizing this passage because this idea is stated three times in scripture, so this is a major concept!  Here are other translations, if anyone wishes to compare.

Now going back to Wu’s post…

When Christ “purifies our conscience,” he cleanses our hearts (cf. 10:22).  In effect, Hebrews refers to the fulfillment of the new covenant promise foretold in Jeremiah.

I agree with the citations from the scriptures, that the promises of the New Covenant are important, but he doesn’t specifically address the issues of sexual purity or the Purity Movement.

image

More Thoughtful Use of Purity

Across time and culture, people intuitively appeal to purification language to draw comparisons about morality and identity.  At least we can all be more thoughtful about how we use such comparisons.  When the Bible speaks of our being cleansed or purified, writers are not merely saying, “You have no crime on your permanent record.”

Of note, this is another reference to the penal substitutionary theory of the gospel that is prevalent within Protestantism. So I can guess that Wu is Protestant.

While that language has validity, it only scratches the surface of biblical meaning.

The Bible is concerned with far more than external or legal purity; it can hardly be called salvation if our legal record is erased but our hearts are contaminated with the basest of desires.  God cares about our hearts.  This is why he grants us new hearts.  The Spirit transforms our sense of honor and shame.

I like Mr. Wu’s writings because he’s been focusing on scripture.  In this post, he has described how the New Covenant entails the cleansing and renewing of our hearts.  Although this renewal is characteristic of justification and salvation, it seems that Wu is suggesting that this is what purity is all about.  But this is only one form of purity.  Purity is much more nuanced.

I’m somewhat disappointed with this article because he did not address the question contained in the title (What is purity all about?) within the context of the Purity Movement.  But perhaps he only posed this as a rhetorical question to provoke the reader’s thoughts.  We’ll see where he’s taking this argument in his third post, which I will cover next Wednesday.  I suspect that he will make the common mistake of overlooking the critical distinction between Coram Mundo and Coram Deo.

Related

• Σ Frame: Picking through the fruit of the Purity Movement (2020 April 20)

What do women think they contribute to a relationship?

Straight from the horses’ mouths.

Readership: All;

Note to Readers: I will be very busy with work this semester. So from next week onwards, my posts will be shorter and less frequent.

Women can observe many clear benefits to them in a relationship/marriage, but to most wimmin, a relationship is all about the Feeelz and other materialistic goodies.

• How many have ever considered their own responsibilities, or how they might benefit a man?
• Have they ever considered that God intended women to raise children and help men complete their mission in life?
• Have they realized that if a man doesn’t get any benefit nor satisfaction out of marriage, then he has very little motivation to marry?

In this video, several women who are from either the U.S. or South Africa are posed with several questions about their perceived usefulness to men.  Watch their responses.

Asking women what they contribute to a relationship (Length: 8:45)

Notes

One American woman mentions that men and women have different roles.  She doesn’t go into any further detail about her ideas of what those roles should be, but I’m sure we would disagree with her, unfortunately. 

“Women are more logical, so they don’t get hurt in relationships” she says.

Really?!?  There’s some genuine solipsism!

“Women bring softness, love, and care.”

This is the stereotype they would like men to believe.  A generalized answer like this is a cop-out.

At the 1:07 mark, they are asked, “Do you like to be appreciated specifically for your femininity?”  The American women are caught clueless by this question, but the SA women come back with immediate responses.  That says something about American wimmin.

At the 2:12 mark, they are asked, “Do you think it is a man’s role to be the leader in a relationship, or does it work better if both people are equals?”  They all dismiss the idea of the man being a leader, with the exception of one SA woman who says it depends on the man’s capabilities.  But at the 3:25 mark they are asked, “Do you often find yourself in a relationship where the man leads?” and at 3:40, “Would you ever date a man that you didn’t look up to and admire?”  There is a huge cultural difference in their responses.  Basically, American women want a superstar who is their “equal”, but SA women are more realistic.

When asked, “If a man finds that the woman in his life is not improving herself, is he right to break up with her?” most women agreed.  I can only assume that this is motivated by their desire for the man to be back on the market.

Related

• Σ Frame: Women’s choice to be relevant (2020 February 6)
• Σ Frame: Tinder Translations (2020 July 29)

6 Fundamental Goals Feminists have for Social Change.

Feminism’s Micromanagement of Gynocentric Idolatry.

Readership: All
Length: 2,800 words;
Reading Time: 10 minutes;

Introduction

About a year ago over at Boxer’s place, fellow Manospherian Derek Ramsey outlined several “problems” with the basic philosophy and implementation of Feminism in his post, The Definition of Feminism (2019 September 21).  These problems are listed as follows.

1. Equal opportunity is incoherent because men and women are different, not equal.
2. The conundrums involved in equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity).
3. In reality, Feminists seek inequality—of opportunity and outcome—favoring women.
4. Feminists treat opportunity as a Zero Sum Game.

Here, I wish to point out that it is impossible for these problems to ever be properly resolved because they are intrinsic characteristics of the female mindset. Consider the following.

Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies (2015 January 5) speaks to the first and fourth points by proscribing a Zero Sum Game.

“For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

Dalrock’s Law addresses the second and fourth points of application.  For those new to the ‘sphere, Dalrock’s Law of Feminism (2018 September 6) states,

“Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

Ramsey emphasizes the third point and assumes the fourth point in Derek’s Law of Feminism (2019 October 1), which states,

“The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.”

In summary, the Feminist perspective assumes a Zero Sum Game, not only in terms of opportunity, but for all social interaction. Thus, it may be insightful if we were to examine Feminism, not only as a corrupt social movement, and a hoodwinking philosophy, but also as a large-scale, culture-wide social game.

It is important to note here, this assertion that either the male, or the female, but not both, can “win” by exacting their respective prerogatives in the relationship are primarily the feral views of the female sex.  (The Manosphere reached these conclusions by observing females.) In contrast, marriage minded men have the understanding that a Positive Sum Game is necessary, in order to produce a family unit – a long lasting union conducive to deep contentment and the rearing of children. Thus, the demise of marriage is largely a result of women clinging to the Zero Sum Game strategy in their stubborn insistence on winning.

As soon as wimmin realize that they must change their mating strategy for a LTR to work, it becomes tempting for them to either (1) seek to control the man through various means, or (2) bow out of the union and go off seeking a better playing field – especially when responsibilities come home to roost. To carry either of these two options to fruition without subjective impunity, Feminism as a social movement must achieve a multitude of goals, which must be continually coddled and nurtured to bring them to fruition.  The most impressive thing about this scheme is that the feminist reach for control extends beyond the clutches of any individual woman, to envelop government policies and societal norms.

The remainder of this post will identify and discuss six of these goals, along with the motivations and Purposes behind the Zero Sum Game of Feminism.

1. The Primary Goal of Gaining Authoritative Control

The goal of gaining authoritative control is perhaps the one goal with the most strategic benefit, because this gives gynocentric idolaters the power to attain various other goals (to be discussed below).

Wimmin often state that men should have control, especially self-control, but this admission is only offered in the context of Chivalrous service to wimmin, so that men can become more capable servants in doing what wimmin want them to do.

The motives behind the primary goal of control have (at least) three main purposes.

1. To attain self-sufficiency and self-determination.
2. To manipulate the social environment in favor the Feminine Imperative.
3. To control men for the purpose of serving feminine interests.

The purpose of the first motivation will become self-evident in the following discussion.  Several expressions of the purposes of the second motivation will be discussed in later sections.  The third motivation remains as an underlying theme for all intents and purposes.

Of note, this greed for authority and control is alluded to in Jack’s Law of Feminism (2019 January 18):

“Feminism is the assertion and justification of women’s rejection of male authority in favor of an institutionalized social ontology which is dictated by the Feminine Imperative.”

The Feminine Imperative at its worst, is nothing more than solipsistic, hamster fueled, self-willed, self-determination, where carnal pleasure and hedonistic liberty abound.

Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, by Pablo Picasso, 1907.

2. The Goal of Self-Determination

Psychological self-determination (not to be confused with political self-determination) is essentially pursuing activities according to one’s interest, enjoyment, and inherent satisfaction.

To be fair, a certain amount of self-determinism is necessary for healthy psychological growth and emotional maturity. As such, self-determination is not inherently wrong or immoral, but should rightfully be implemented such to achieve the well-being of the entire family, and not just the wimminz personal interests. Making this adjustment is one of the primary challenges to newlywed wives.

To effectively optimize inherent potential, self-determination needs to be nurtured and disciplined by external loci, such as a father figure, or a structured social environment, like a family or a peer group.

However, many women obviate the more restrictive (and healthier) feedback loops of external reinforcement (e.g. father or church authority) by rebelliously choosing alternative mentors, role models, or peer groups that support her choices.  Since herds can be freely chosen, this partly explains women’s continuous pressing necessity to conform to the herd.

Feminism plays on this inherent weakness in encourages wimmin to pursue total self-determination, which denies any duty to comply to expected behaviors and avoids external regulation involving rewards and punishments.

3. The Goal of Sexual Self-Determination

Of specific note, Feminism pushes the idea that wimmin are, or should be, entirely self-determined with respect to sexuality and reproduction.

We don’t need to look too hard to find examples of sexual self-determinism in wimmin.

1. Both The Other McCain and Dalrock reported on the rise of Insta-Wh0res (ca. April 2019).
2. In a previous post, How much is Virginity worth? (2019 September 6), we reviewed how women are selling their virginity, in essence, trading their MMV for cash.  Yet, many of these same wimmin cling to the hope of one day being “married” while they willfully deny how sex and marriage are inextricably linked.
3. In another post, Irresponsible Ejaculation Causes Abortion (2019 September 23), we saw one wimminz clear statement about control.

“STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN’S BODIES AND SEXUALITY.  UNWANTED PREGNANCIES ARE CAUSED BY MEN.”

Here, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that men are locking their wives and girlfriends in stocks and bonds in a brutal effort to “control” their wimmin.  No, this is a statement of Psychological Projection.  The sentence in bold reveals Wimminz true motives – to control — and the object of control is men.

Can you imagine?  Wimmin want to decide which men can have sex!  This is exactly what R.S. McCain was getting at when he wrote, Guy Gets Laid, Feminists Get Angry (2019 September 22).

“Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of sexual activity, that they should be arbiters of who does and doesn’t get laid.”

But McCain doesn’t take it far enough.

• Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of the whole sexual marketplace (SMP).
• Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of the whole procreative process, or the interruption thereof.
• Feminists believe that women should have 100% control of the management and distribution of resources.
• Feminists believe that legislation should be used to implement all of the above.

This quest for control seems to have no boundaries of common decency.  Even after admitting that abortion is murder, the author went on to say,

“Abortion is the “cure” for an unwanted pregnancy.”

But truth be told, women already have 100% control of sexual activity!  (Except in the cases of Biblical marriage [2] or authentic rape.)  Women are the fundamental Gatekeepers of Sex – arbiters of who gets the key to the golden gyna, and when, and by extension, which men are deemed worthy of procreation.

Yet, this is still not enough to satisfy the Feministas of Flatbush.  They also believe women should decide which men can keep their Johnsons!  A previous post, Eunuchs of the New Feminist Order (2019 August 31) revealed how some women can be so bold as to assume they have the authority to snip the d!cks off of men.  This includes vasectomies, chemical neutering, and any legislation pertaining thereof. [3]

What if we turned this around, for the sake of equahluty? It would read something like this.

“Women believe that men should have 100% control of sexual activity, that they should be arbiters of who has sex with whom, and when, and who is worthy of procreation.”

Actually, this does seem more appropriate, and of course we know that men would be much more gracious in this matter.  But can you imagine the reaction we’d get from wimmin if men decided which women can have sex, and with which men, and when?

4. The Goal of being Free from Responsibility

Another important goal of Feminism is the effective displacement of responsibilities.  Since someone must assume the burdensome aspects of responsibility, the Feminist order assigns all responsibility to men, or else, diffuses the responsibilities into big government.

This particular goal of Feminism is wrapped up in Boxer’s Definition of Feminism (2019 January 18):

“A conspiracy against all men and all nations, to offload the individual and collective responsibility for female misbehavior onto men.”

But the problem with displacing responsibility is that for certain issues, you just can’t do it.  Every person has his/her own sphere of influence, which no one else can enter.  Women want to disabuse themselves of natural consequences and the responsibilities of being free moral agents, and the shame thereof, by shrinking this sphere of influence down to a singularity.  This is most often done by expelling from their consciences any sense of personal agency.  Wimmin want so desperately to believe that agency and responsibility can be magically transplanted from one gender to another, that this desire takes on the form of solipsistic hamsterbation (AKA psychological dissociation).

An all too common example of how extreme and perverse this disassociation can be, is how women rationalize their need for abortions.  As mentioned above, the previous post, Irresponsible Ejaculation Causes Abortion (2019 September 23) illustrated how “a women” made the case that abortion was the result of Menz irresponsibility, NOT Wimminz.  This is another classic case of Psychological Projection that we see coming from women way too often.

Men may cause pregnancies, but men don’t make pregnancies unwanted by the woman.  Most women who abort their progeny go to clinics on their own initiative…  Often without even informing the man.  Often to the man’s utter dismay!

All these arguments about abortions, condoms, pills, castrations, vasectomies, laws and legislation, and who is responsible for what, amounts to nothing more than a Pandora’s box of selfishness and sexual sin – which must necessarily be micromanaged for the blame to be shifted.

Even though the related arguments are haywire, the proliferation of these ideas on mass media, and their seductive appeal to the fundamental feminine desire for a gynocentric utopia, have slowly caused them to become more acceptable to the wider public since the 1960’s.

The Human Be-In, The Summer of Love, 1967.

5. The Goal of Remaining Clandestine

One of the primary strategies employed within the Game of Feminism is to obscure the goals and the purposes from the opponents (primarily men, but also other women within her competing social sphere). This has been done with remarkable skill for decades, as these goals have only become apparent to men since the advent of Red Pill consciousness.

The inherent value of secrecy to the feminine psyche is shown in the fact that they go ballistic whenever their secrets are revealed.  This is the cause of all the cries of “misogyny“. You see, according to the religion of feminism, introspection and confession are grave sins, but fornicating and child sacrifice, not so much.

Remarkably, even the traditional concept of the Feminine Mystique supports this goal (the original concept, not Friedan’s version).  Prior to the late 20^th century, women utilized the Feminine Mystique as a cover for their iniquities, and to present themselves in the best possible light, all to secure better prospects of landing a better grade husband, and to elevate their socioeconomic status.

Currently, the PoundMeToo playgame is a classic Plan B for many wayward, agency-lacking wimmin to resort to whenever that vital secrecy has been breached.

The goal of secrecy is not limited to individual wimmin, but is also expressed through selective censorship by MGM news agencies and internet host providers.  Recently, it was discovered that the megapowers of the information age have been… [We regret to inform you that because of “user policy violations”, the remainder of this paragraph has been redacted by IA internet bots.]

6. The Goal of Gaining Status and Respect

In the current, postmodern west, women seek to retain an aura of buoyant unpredictability, and pass themselves off as being flighty or emotional.  Yet, even so, they demand “respect”, in which “disrespect” is defined (here) as anything that pricks a woman’s ego or deters her self-centered prerogatives.  Manospherians know that wimminz idea of “respect” is not the same as a man’s concept of respect, and the female demand for “respect” amounts to little more than a $ћit test.

To top it all off, Feminists must capitalize on their gains by establishing themselves as respectable winners of the Zero Sum Game.  Part of this is done by displacing the responsibility, and thus the blame for their errant choices, onto men, as described earlier.  But abandoning responsibility also excludes them from the accompanying honor and respect that comes from being responsible.

Dalrock has described this desire for status as a weakness of feminism in his post, Status is a powerful motivator. (2019 September 23). He writes,

“Marriage conveys legitimacy to the children, and status to the woman.  The man’s money could be obtained via child support without a wedding, and likewise his assistance (living together would do the trick).  For middle class women, there is only one respectable way to babymamahood, and that is by marrying first, and then divorcing whenever it is most convenient after she has the number of children she wants (from that particular baby daddy at least).”

Feminists have been able to dampen the shame of divorce.  Laws which facilitate divorce, and the widespread frequency of broken marriages have made it generally acceptable to the larger society.  But for some reason, wimmin cannot escape the shame of the humility imposed upon them by being single mothers.  Women know this, hence perpetuating their demand for legalized and subsidized abortion.

In sum, respect is fundamentally crucial to men, but it just isn’t in the game plan for women.

Well, not quite. There are a few caveats. For example, I can respect a woman for being able to do this…

“Chinese students wrap their arms around their waist and touch their belly-buttons to attempt a “”Belly-button challenge”” at a school in Luoyang city, central China’s Henan province, 12 June 2015.”

Conclusions

The primary purpose of Feminism is to construct a gynocentric utopia, which is essentially an evil idolatry.  This utopia, which is only possible in a world without God, embraces secular humanism as their primary religion.  Pleasure and The Pride of Life are emphasized as the greatest moral good, even over the sanctity of human life.

To construct this gynocentric dystopia, Feminists must micromanage every detail of life and society, in order to maximize women’s freedoms and pleasure, and minimize their personal responsibility.  Within this world of Bizarretta baristas, bwitchy wimmin control everything, and supposedly get everything they think they want.

“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”

1^st Samuel 15:23 (NKJV)

What wimmin do not understand is that when they start controlling themselves and taking responsibility for their actions (viz. assuming moral agency), then men will not need to step in and do so in ways that abhorrently countermand wimminz fleshly desire for autonomy and self-determination.

Don’t start one, won’t be one!

Footnotes

1. According to 1^st Corinthians 7:5, a woman may rightfully expect regular sexual attention from her husband, and she has the authority over his body in terms of his sexual desire and satisfaction.  But that is within an intimate relationship between man and wife.  Women in general do not have authority over men’s procreative choices or abilities.  If a woman willingly lays her body down to be shagged by a man, which is her natural use in marriage, then by nature of the transaction, she is submitting to his authority, and his decision to ejaculate wherever he pleases.  If that results in a pregnancy, then she should have accepted that as a possible outcome long before she prostrated herself.
2. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 tells us that if a woman ever has a man by the balls (literally, as in a fight), you should cut her hand off, showing her no mercy.  The literal application of this verse might be a rare event, but the figurative meaning is evident.  Women do not have any authority over men’s fecundity or patrilineage.

Related

• v5k2c2 (Derek Ramsey): Feminism is Hǝll! (2019 September 4)
• v5k2c2 (Derek Ramsey): The Psychology of Gender Equality (2019 October 1)

A Revised Understanding of Game

The core essence of Game is charisma, discernment, and setting boundaries.

In a previous post on Σ Frame, On the Spiritual Significance and Social Value of Game (2019 November 3), I made the point that Game is not necessarily an anti-Christian behavior.  It’s only anti-Christian when it’s used to seduce women for illicit sex and STR’s.  On the contrary, Charismatic Gamesmanship may very well be the main thing that keeps a rocky marriage together during a rough patch, and it’s very common for marriages to be rough during the first five years.

Granted, this type of Game is different from typical PUA Game.  We might call it ‘Father Game’, or ‘Young Husband Game’.  The motives are to protect the girl’s vulnerabilities of her immature naïvety from any Satanic attacks of indignant dissatisfaction and the plunder of PUA types.  Some future discussion may be necessary to further define ‘Shepherd Game’.

Looking Glass wisely writes [emphasis mine],

“The crux is of the issue that Cane [Caldo] was having is that Feminism, Chivalry, and Game act as semi-understandable “poles” within the discussion frame, which radically limits the ability to hone into the problem.  This is why the undermining of language has been so important, as the inability to properly define a topic makes it fiendishly difficult to explain the problems with it.  For the Christian, we are to *be* different, which should result in us acting different.  This entire long discussion has simply been sorting through the definition issue, thus opening our eyes to the truth.”

To further this discussion, here I want to point out something that has been roundly neglected in the definitions and discussions of Game.

The backbone of solid Game is charisma combined with a steady maintenance of healthy socio-spiritual boundaries (AKA “detachment”).  Everything else about Game can be summed up as a technique, a strategy, or an asset.

If a man doesn’t have charisma and boundaries, but he’s relying on assets and pressing hard on Game techniques and strategies, then he’s little more than a dancing monkey, as many have complained about how they feel when attempting to practice Game.

There has been some argument that Game only works for certain men, but not others.  The real difference between men who are proficient at Game, and those who are lousy at it, is that the former are those men who have charisma and who are mindful of their personal boundaries, whereas the latter are those who do not.  The question of whether a man can develop Game largely depends on whether he has, or can develop charisma and become aware of metaphysical boundaries.  The answer to this question is not so clear, because discernment is required to maintain one’s boundaries, and charisma is a spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now, many readers might be wondering, if charisma is a spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit, then why is it that all these “charismatic” Game practitioners are using their “spiritual gift” to sin?  If the result is fungible fornication, then how can it be a spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit?  The answer is simply because God gives spiritual gifts to one man and not to another as He sees fit.  It has nothing to do with Christianity, strength of faith, or belief in God.  From what I can tell, having charisma isn’t connected to being a Christian any more than having blue eyes or having money in the bank is connected to being an American citizen.

I’m sure this news will come as a very uncomfortable truth for many Christian men.  However, you can always pray for more discernment and more charisma.  As the scriptures say,

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

James 1:5 (ESV)

It should be noted that discernment is a prerequisite for wisdom.  So if you pray for wisdom, then your discernment will grow.

Here, I should caution men who pray for wisdom (discernment) and charisma.  Once your discernment increases, you’ll suddenly become aware of many things that went on all around you which you were never aware of in the past.  You’ll begin to sense what I call “vibes”, and you’ll detect IOI’s from more women.  As a result, the temptation you’ll face will also be much stronger.  So beware, it will be a shocker!

It will become unnecessary, even irrelevant, for a man to dig any deeper into the science of attraction if he can develop discernment, wisdom, and charisma, and learn to mind his boundaries.

Related

• Σ Frame: On the Spiritual Significance and Social Value of Game (2019 November 3)
• Σ Frame: Why does Game work? (2019 December 9)

The gospel is relevant to all, not just guilty bad boys.

God touches different people according to their needs.

Readership: All; Christians;

In the comments under a previous post, A Conversation About Human Potential and Purpose (2020 September 4), Jeff Barnes wrote,

Below is a quote from an article exploring differing understandings of original sin.

“It is suggested by those in the Orthodox Church that the doctrine of ancestral sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and Divine compassion as the inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention to human guilt and Divine wrath. The image of an angry, vengeful God haunts the Western Church where a basic insecurity and guilt seem to exist.”

Having in addition been brought up in a Calvinist church whereby the doctrine of total depravity is emphasised, to me it seems little wonder that I have had trouble listening or trusting my heart.  Learning about the orthodox teaching of synergy between God’s grace and our wills is helping me understand my connection with God.  I never thought the doctrine of original sin was just and now I find that it is in fact a heresy contrary to early church teaching.  I really wrestled with believing the gospel as it was taught to me because it had been presented as penal substitutionary theory, now I can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that is another heresy.  I am not sure whether my spiritual intuitions are more on point than the average person or if being an independent minded thinker caused me to so uncomfortable with many Protestant heresies I had grown up with, but in any case I praise God for revealing to me the truth and beauty of Orthodox theology.

I tend to believe that the modern church has gotten distracted in all the discussion of ancestral sin vs. original sin, monergism vs. synergism, free-will vs. predestination, and so on.  These philosophical exercises have all produced continual schisms and divisions within the Body of Christ, leading to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Armenianism, and so on, and resulting in a thousand different sects and denominations.  I do not mean to say that any of these are false heresies, but that they are merely academic models of Christianity as a religion.  These concepts may help one understand and communicate what they are experiencing in their own spiritual lives, but seldom does a theological argument convince anyone to believe in Christ.  (Wintery Knight might disagree.)  Notice what the scriptures say.

¹⁰ For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.  ¹¹ For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”  ¹² For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.  ¹³ For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
¹⁴ How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?  And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without someone preaching?  ¹⁵ And how are they to preach unless they are sent?  As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”  ¹⁶ But they have not all obeyed the gospel.  For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”  ¹⁷ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Romans 10:10-17 (ESV)

Notice in verse 10, it does not say, “For with the mind (or by maintaining intellectual fidelity and integrity) one assents to cognitive agreement and is justified…”  No, it says, “with the heart one believes (or trusts) and is justified (by faith)”.

St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow Russia.

Two chapters later, Paul goes on to explain that after the heart believes, the mind must be renewed.

² Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.  ³ For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Romans 12:2-3 (ESV)

In sum, attention to the heart must come first, followed by the readjustment of the mind.  This is the crucial point that many modern iterations of Protestantism have skipped over entirely.  To emphasize any kind of theorology, and ignore the exposition of a heart-based faith in Jesus is a heresy in itself.

I’ll continue on with Jeff’s comment.

I relate to this: “I’ve always known that I’ve been led by something deep and quite different from those around me.  I’ve always known that there was a disconnection between what was and what ought to be…” In my view, that is typical of someone with introverted intuition as their dominant cognitive function or at least in a valued position.

I also see the giant discrepancy between the vision Jesus lays out for us and how the average Christian acts.  And those that see they fall short, often fall into the sin of despair and then label it humility, (I got that from someone else, and I think it is a bit of pithy brilliance.).  To me Jesus most defining trait, or the one most impressed on me was his virtue of humility, and if I look at myself and others our greatest sin tends to be pride.”

I do believe that most all Christians in the West have been exposed to the gospel as a “penal substitutionary theory”, as Jeff and I have.  I do not view it as a heresy, but rather, it is just one perspective of the Gospel that would especially resonate with someone who has a lot of guilt and shame, and who might question how God can remove that burden.  While it is true that everyone has a spiritual deficit such as this, not everyone perceives this as an acute spiritual need, and it therefore fails to touch their hearts and lives as the gospel should.

The way I see it, the shortcoming in how the gospel is presented in the modern Church today, is that it focuses too heavily on Jesus as a Savior (the penal substitutionary exegesis), and it fails to outline any of the other equally valid perspectives of the Gospel which would resonate with others who come from a different background and who perceive themselves as having different spiritual needs.

To iterate this idea further, I’ll offer the following examples.

• Someone with a poor or absent father figure would most appreciate a gospel that frames God as a loving Father.
• Someone who has been neglected or abused needs to hear about God as a provider and protector.
• An unpopular or disadvantaged person needs to know Jesus as a friend.
• A person who is proud, distrustful, or fearful needs to know how humility, sacrifice, and forgiveness can generate life, love, and joy.
• A person who grew up in a dysfunctional or broken home needs to experience acceptance and fellowship in God’s family of believers.
• Someone who grew up in an emotionally and spiritually dead environment needs to experience the joys and blessings of shalom.

And yes, there is a new market niche for the gospel since the advent of 4^th Wave Feminism.

• Feminist wives need to learn about Jesus as an authoritative husband who offers genuine fulfillment but who also demands obedience.
• Soyboys need a gospel that focuses on Jesus as a powerful conqueror and a victorious overcomer.
• Incels need a Christian “Red Pill” gospel to give them confidence, hope, and a sense of purpose in life.

I’m sure there are many other perspectives of the Gospel that I have not included in this list.  But my point is that what each person would consider to be the redemptive element of the gospel is a message containing the aspect of God that gives them what they are missing the most in their spiritual life.  In other words, the gospel is best presented as that which arouses a person’s heart to trust in God.  The heavily toted fire and brimstone gospel only reaches the most hedonistic of individuals, and only at the moment they are ready for it.

Related

Ed Hurst has written a series of posts about the nature of a heart-based faith.

• Radix Fidem: The Seeds of Shalom (2020 September 2)
• Radix Fidem: Clinical Evidence for Heart-led (2020 September 4)
• Radix Fidem: What’s on Your Heart? (2020 September 5)

Patheological Weddingsday – Did Purity Culture Undermine Christian Identity?

Do sexual behaviors determine one’s identity?

Readership: Christians, especially those who were involved in the Purity Movement;
Length: 2,300 words;
Reading Time: 8 minutes;

Foreword

Earlier this year, I wrote a series of posts about the Purity Movement.  Recently, I had a few referrals from Patheos, and when I checked out the source, I noticed a few posts about Purity Culture at Patheos, written by Jackson Wu.

In these posts, the author uses words like idolatry, morality, identity, and he refers to “Honor, Guilt, and Fear societies” by which he means Honor vs. Shame, Righteousness vs. Guilt, and Power vs. Fear ethical systems.  Because of the vast number of similarities in philosophical frame and vocabulary, I am totally convinced that the author has been reading my posts on Purity Culture and cultural anthropology’s ethical systems.

While I was perusing these articles, I also did a search for “purity” and found a treasure trove of articles about the Purity Movement!

Ever since butting heads with Susan Titkemeyer, who is an author there, I’ve become very critical about anything that comes out of Patheos, so I decided that these articles deserve some critical review.

Because of the sheer volume of articles at Patheos covering the Purity Movement (more than 70, as of September 1, 2020), I’ve decided to start a writing project which will address these articles.  As a tentative plan, I intend to cover one article a week, which I will facetiously name, “Patheological Weddingsday”, to be published on Wednesdays.

Now on to the critical critique.

How Purity Culture Undermined Christian Identity

The first article I’ll review at Patheos was written by Jackson Wu and is about How Purity Culture Undermined Christian Identity (2020 August 5).

“I have heard people say that purity culture preached a “sex prosperity gospel.” The basic message went something like this: If you don’t have sex before marriage, you will have wonderful marriages with amazing sex.”

I do agree that purity culture toted a “sex prosperity gospel”, and I believe this heavy emphasis on sex is what drew the crowds in, for one reason or another.  The problem is that the average young person who went after this were more interested in maximizing their sex lives than in pursuing sanctification and glorifying God with their bodies.  It was clear to everyone that sex belonged in marriage, and a few people (such as myself) recognized that sex should be a part of sanctification, but exactly how that was supposed to happen was not something that anyone knew anything about, much less taught.

There is some truth in this message, “If you don’t have sex before marriage, you will have wonderful marriages with amazing sex.”  But it was more or less an empty promise, or at most, one with a low probability of fulfillment, because the social structure necessary to reinforce the blessings of chastity was lost sometime in the early 20^th century.

The author quotes Joshua Harris here.

“There are all kinds of categories of sin where we sin and we don’t change our status, like you know, if you lie, you don’t say, “Oh well, I’m no longer, you know, a lying virgin or something….”  [laughter]  We just don’t think that way.  We just say, “You know what?  I sinned.  I want to repent of that.  I want to move forward.”

But with this issue, it’s like, if you have sex, you’re no longer a virgin, you know, it’s like your status has somehow changed.”

Harris was almost right about this point.  It isn’t one’s social status that has changed, per se, but the constitution of one’s body, especially the endocrine system, the immune system, the nervous system, and the reproductive system, and this has a significant impact on one’s social life and spiritual life.  St. Paul described this phenomenon as follows.

“Flee sexual immorality.  Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.”

1^st Corinthians 6:18 (NKJV)

There might be several ways to interpret the meaning of this passage, but to me, it means that illicit sex “programs” the body to respond to sex as a self-serving utility accompanied by guilt and shame, rather than a passionate form of love, marital bonding, and reproduction.  And apparently, this programming is permanent.

Continuing Harris’ quote…

“And I think that’s an emphasis on one particular sin out of the millions of ways that we can sin that I think is actually not healthy.  It makes the focus not so much “Who am I in relationship to God, who loves and relates to sinners and shows grace to sinners.”  It becomes this “Do I have this badge and this identity of being a virgin?”

And if I don’t have that, then I feel like I’ve lost something and I’m no longer as valuable…  I think that led a lot of us astray.”

Again, Harris makes the mistake of correlating virginity with holiness and social status, rather than correctly assessing how sexual activity alters one’s body chemistry and decreases one’s MMV, especially for women.  In a less perverse society where a majority are pursuing sexual purity, extramarital sex can become a mark of shame.  But in this day and age, this kind of social environment has to be artificially created within a small church community.  It’s not the same, because instead of encouraging people to face up to their sin and pursue righteousness, it only encouraged those who failed to leave the church.  To cite a bit of penal philosophy, “The surety of punishment is a greater motivator than the severity of punishment.”

The author concludes,

“In effect, purity culture conveyed the idea that this one particular sin — sex outside of marriage — would lead a person to perpetually being stained.  This link between one sin and an altered identity has led to decades of turmoil for many people who have struggled to untangle sex and shame.”

The author buys into the same false associations that Harris did without seeing the real connection between sin and shame, namely, that outside of Christ’s forgiveness, you cannot untangle illicit sex and shame, no matter how much one might desire to do so.  Shame as an emotion is experienced by those who know they failed to meet the behavioral expectations put upon them.  There are only two solutions: (1) abandon the social group that imposed those expectations, or (2) repent and accept God’s forgiveness.  Purity culture made option (1) an easier and ostensibly better choice than (2).  And no matter which path is chosen, one’s identity, body chemistry, and social standing (i.e. MMV) cannot be changed.  God may remove a person’s sin and shame, but not the real world consequences of one’s sin.

Isn’t Sin Part of One’s Identity?

Next, the author poses the question,

“How did the purity movement magnify one specific sin such that it seeming changed one’s identity in ways that other sins did not?”

He suggests two answers.

1. Idolatry
2. Purity Language

Let’s take a look at what he says about each of these two points.

Part 1 – Idolatry

“First, the movement subtly reinforced the idolatry it opposed.  Harris underscores an irony.  In short, the purity movement presents “sex as the most important thing to sell abstinence.” Christine Gardner, the author of Making Chasity Sexy, chronicles various ways that rallies and music were used to get people excited about sex only then to say, “Don’t have sex.”  […]  In an odd way, “Don’t have sex” acts similarly to the command “Don’t think of a pink elephant.” The heightened attention and exaltation of sex undermine the movement’s own goals.”

This is totally true.  One cannot avoid something by continually dwelling on the idea.  As long as that idea is in one’s mind, one will always gravitate towards that thing.  The reason this doesn’t work is because one is relying on one’s own resolution and will power (AKA “efforts in the flesh”), and not on the power of the Holy Spirit.  This is why the renewing of the mind is so important.  (Romans 12:2)

“These methods of purity culture infuse kids with idolatrous thinking that isolates one blessing above all others.  It never dislodges the idolatry of sex.  It isolates one blessing among others.”  […]  Physical intimacy is no longer seen within the larger plan and promise of God for creation.  Such reductionism isolates and then privileges different parts of life.  We begin to define ourselves in terms of one sin or social sphere.”

Yes, focusing on one certain blessing — sex, whether it be one’s present sexual purity, or one’s future sexual fulfillment, and trying to make deals with God in the matter – “If I keep my virginity until marriage, then God will grant me a beautiful marriage with lots of mind blowing sex” — all this constitutes a system of works motivated by idolatrous hopes.  The author is not being as clear on the issue as I would prefer, but he has the right idea.

However, the last sentence is a bit confusing.  “We begin to define ourselves in terms of one sin or social sphere.”  This is only true if we redefine sin to be anything that upsets one’s idolatry or social prestige.  In fact, our unique sins (according to God’s definition of sin) define our identity, and God in His ineffable grace uses a believer’s sinful identity for His glory.

Woman at the Well, by Howard Lyon.

Part 2 – Purity Language

“Second, the movement exploited purity language without realizing the potent effect of the metaphor.  For example, many kids in the 1990s publicly confirmed their decision to remain abstinent by wearing purity rings.  Similar rituals continue today.  In one documentary, we see families and communities hold galas where the girls wear white dresses to celebrate their virginity.

The author is trying to make the case that festivities and wearing certain attire is a manifestation of idolatry.  But in fact, sexual continence and virginity are so rare in this day and age, that it’s truly a big deal! Wearing white is not idolatry in of itself, but because of the rarity, it is perceived to be such by those who can’t do the same.  It also arouses envy and s1ut-shaming, which are social no-no’s.

“Richard Beck’s Unclean contains one of the most profound treatments on the relationship between morality and purity language (chapter 3, “Morality and Metaphor”).  All metaphors assume a certain logic.  Our minds often fail to notice the implicit logic one welcomes when accepting a certain metaphor.”

No, people understood the metaphors and the implicit logic with crystal clarity.  It was the moral implications which people found difficult to swallow.

“When a person becomes “unclean” or “impure,” one needs a remedy.  Unclean people attempt to regain their purity.  However, virginity is not something that can be regained.  Just as women cannot be “sort of pregnant,” neither is someone “sort of” a virgin.  You are or you are not.  There seems to be no remedy.”

Actually, a lot of young people tried to skirt around this technicality by redefining virginity.  I dedicated two posts to explore this deceptive strategy.

• Σ Frame: On the Definition of Virginity (2020 April 22)
• Σ Frame: Pseudo-Sex and Technical-Virginity (2020 May 11)

“When “virgin” becomes a fundamental identity claim, what happens? Church kids who have sex before marriage then come to feel they have become moral lepers.”

Dreamers Awake, by Loie Hollowell.

Well, one’s sexual proclivity is a fundamental facet of one’s identity, and purity culture got this much right.  Note that he identifies the feeelz as the main issue of contention.  Actually, if an offender feels ashamed of having illicit sex, then he/she can be thankful that he/she has a good conscience.  But it seems like the author is saying (to put it bluntly) that young people should be able to do as they d@mn well please, and still be valued as a member in good standing, or (more generously) that it’s not right that Church kids who have sex before marriage should have to face any negative repercussions.  But the fact that there are negative consequences is the same reason why God told us not to do such things!

In effect, this kind of argument is trying to get around the conundrum of sin by insinuating that the condemnation of sexual sin is wrong, and that anything that compounds a healthy sense of shame is wrong.  I will admit that it might be counterproductive for a church to aggravate one’s feelings of shame and condemnation if one is nearing repentance or has already repented.  But if repentance is not on the horizon, then this is the same as telling God, “Butt out of my life and let me sin as I please.  I’ll find a way to make others pay for the consequences.  And don’t You dare try to discipline me!”

Concluding Statements

Young Christians (not just those who were involved in the purity movement) are faced with a dichotomous choice in life – to be obedient, or not to be obedient.  But people want to taste all the joys and pleasures of disobedience and obtain all the blessings of obedience.  People will cook up all kinds of lies and deceptions in their efforts to attain both.  This is the fundamental sin of idolatry which the author should have stated more clearly in his discussion of idolatry.

The real problem with the purity movement is that the church did not give young people a true choice of either (1) pioneering their own path in life (outside of the church), or (2) submitting to God.  Either choice might find redemption through God’s grace, but instead, the choice was legalistically presented as a dualistic “All or Nothing”, which excluded the possibility of discovering God’s grace.  As such, leaving the church (after an infraction) became a punishment (either external or self-imposed), and not a choice.

Related

• Σ Frame: The Sin of Prioritizing Purity above Marriage (2020 January 17)
• Cornerstone: The “Purity” Movement 2 (2020 February 22)

Coram Mundo vs. Coram Deo

One’s righteousness before God is not the same as one’s practicable value to men.

Readership: All;

God doesn’t see things in the same way that man does

“Can women who were s1uts in the past, but then had a “born-again” saving experience, really become pure and undefiled?”

I have seen this question come up again and again around the Manosphere.

Outside of the Manosphere, all arguments to this effect are essentially shaming Christian men for not eagerly marrying single mothers.  A shame in itself.

Honestly, should Christian men pursue post-wall, Super-N Karens, and single Christian moms for marriage, as if they were the pick of the litter?

Matthew E. Cochran addressed this issue of confusion in a classic post, Do Single Christian Men Owe Marriage to Single Christian Moms? (2019 March 14).  A relevant excerpt follows.

Here, Parkison confuses righteousness coram deo (before God) with righteousness coram mundo (before the world).  Before God, single Christian moms are indeed pure due to the imputed righteousness of Christ, which he mentions several times in the piece. But in this very same sentence, he judges Christian men coram mundo when he indicates that they don’t deserve such a wife.  After all, coram deo, Christian men are likewise pure and perfect. Accordingly, they truly deserve a spotless bride just as much as Jesus Christ does. In other words, Parkison is making an apples-to-oranges comparison here.

What if we make an apples-to-apples comparison? Well, coram deo, there is no judgment to be made, for all the faithful are pure and perfect while all the unfaithful are totally depraved. That is precisely why Christians, when considering whether someone would make a good wife (or husband), always do so coram mundo. Coram deo, even the penitent but struggling prostitute is just as pure as the sinless Son of God. That doesn’t mean she would make a good wife.

As long as one thinks a man should actually evaluate a woman as a prospective wife rather than marrying completely indiscriminately, then it must be done coram mundo. And as long as any such evaluation is going to take place, then men are going to prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos, all other things being equal. The author desperately tries to tie that male preference for virginity to pimply 17-year-olds at youth camp, but as I’ve written before, that preference is rooted in natural law, biological reality, and God’s Word – not in vanity as the author asserts. This God-given preference cannot and should not be overwritten by worldly philosophies, and none of the author’s deceptive rhetoric changes anything on that count.

Apples to apples…  Cochran makes a good point! If women can claim that Coram Deo trumps Coram Mundo, then why can’t men do the same? Let’s entertain this perspective for just a moment to see what this would look like.

“I’m a short, obese man with Asperger’s, 45 years old, uneducated, unemployed, alcoholic, and living in the basement of my parents house. Ever since I was 13, I’ve done nothing but play video games and jerk off to internet p0rn all day. Recently I just got saved! I’m going to AA, and getting sobered up (mostly). I’ve dropped the p0rn too (kinda sorta). But hey, Jesus loves me! I’m a new creation in Christ! So now, I should have a voluptuous supermodel Christian wife who loves to suck my 3 inch dong all day!”

Somehow, we know this just won’t fly. But incredibly, women have the audacity to demand this same kind of nonsense from men!  ROFLMAO!!!

Believe it or not, this is the same man!

The Two-Ring Circus of Life

There seems to be two rings in the circus of life. One ring is the spiritual realm, in which the Holy Spirit works inside an individual to restore his/her fellowship with God and make him/her more Christ-like. This is all up to God. The other ring is the socio-sexual realm, in which what an individual does with him/herself in this world with whatever God has given him/her. This is all up to the individual.

Just like Barnum and Bailey’s famous three-ring circus, the events in each ring happen simultaneously and independently. But the events in each ring are also broadly coordinated with the others such to make up the entire presentation. Things that happen in one ring can and do affect what happens in the other.

For some people, namely those who had a good upbringing, the cause and effect relationship between the two is easily discernable. But for others, usually those from broken or dysfunctional homes, it might take years of trying and testing (and screwing up their lives) to figure it all out. Speaking from experience, generational curses can introduce a load of falsehood which is difficult to identify, clouds the understanding, and skews the perception of reality. I can recommend a liturgy of reading for those who are up against such a challenge.

Concluding Statements

Many false arguments have arisen because people ignorantly confuse Coram Mundo and Coram Deo.  They have the notion that if one is pure and spotless before God, then the same person should also be pure and spotless before men.  But it just isn’t so.

Similarly, people like to believe that if a person is attractive and popular, then such a person is good, even “godly”, whatever that might mean.  There might be some correlation when we look at broad averages.  But technically, there is no such association.

God is interested in a person’s spiritual constitution.  Man is interested in a woman’s sexual constitution.  There is a difference whether people want to accept this or not.  Contrary to what any popular culture stresses, there is no true moral compunction imposed by recognizing this difference.  Wisdom dictates that a man must consider the entire constitution of a woman he proposes to marry.  The same holds true vice versa. Coram Mundo.

For those who cling to the hope that God is somehow going to transform fornicators, Harley McBadboys, Chadwick Edcads, Karens, Katies, s1luts, wh0res, carousel riders, and single mothers into righteous, faithful, Christian husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers, do not be disappointed when this fails to pass.  If it does come to pass, then such an event is no small miracle by the grace of God.  Such individuals have made their decision about who they are, and therefore, God, in his righteous justice, is bound to respect their choices, thereby allowing them to experience all the joys, sorrows, and consequences, good and bad, of such a choice.  It is not for us to determine the outcome of another soul’s constitution according to our desires, needs, and willful expectations.

Why should so many men wish to reward a woman’s sexual indiscretions with the honor of matrimony and the lifelong investment of marriage?  The very idea is foolish, even ludicrous, and challenges the justice of God.  Do not condone their desperate deceit and defraudation.  Do not give ear to the frantic pleas of those who must needs pay the piper after prancing the dance of the faithless.  Instead, let God do His work.  Let their sufferings lead them to repent from their ways.  After all, they chose this path in life.  There will always be motorcycles, fuzzy cats, and red wine to take up the slack. Coram Mundo.

For those who desire purity and a pure marriage partner, for those who wish to avoid the consequences of sexual sin and obtain full sanctification in marriage, it should be stressed that you must necessarily accept all the sorrows and loneliness that accompany obedience, and that you will need to make difficult decisions in vetting for a spouse. Coram Mundo.

May God have mercy on our souls, Coram Deo.

Related

• Derek L. Ramsey: What Constitutes Biblical Marriage? (2018 February 1)
• Cane Caldo: Discussion of Whores IV: No Good Words for Bad Deeds (2019 March 18)
• Christianity and Masculinity: How does Humility play into Headship and Leadership? (2019 March 25)

A Conversation About Human Potential and Purpose

Jack and Ed discuss the proper attitude about what a man can do in life, and the proper approach to what a man should be.

Readership: All; Christians;
Author’s Notes: The content of this post is based on an e-mail conversation between myself and Ed Hurst at Radix Fidem.  My words are in black.  Ed’s words are in blue.
Length: 2,700 words;
Reading Time: 10 minutes;

Under last Monday’s post, Only noble born men are qualified to do housework for unicorns (2020 August 24), Ed Hurst left this comment.

“The false god of “human potential” has worked a great evil in the world.  All we really should aspire for is to please our Creator.”

Ed’s comment was directed toward women like the one in the post, those who go after worldly accomplishments, but who fail to achieve the most basic functions of femininity.  But after thinking on this, I know the same applies for men too.  This led me to examine my own life.

The Thinker, by the French sculptor, Auguste Rodin (1904).

Jack’s Perspective

For much of my life, I’ve carried a work ethic loosely based on Ecclesiastes 9:10 and 11:1-6.

¹⁰ ”Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.”

Ecclesiastes 9:10 (NKJV)

¹ “Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days.
² Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you know not what disaster may happen on earth.
³ If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth, and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie.
⁴ He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap.
⁵ As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
⁶ In the morning sow your seed, and at evening withhold not your hand, for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.”

Ecclesiastes 11:1-6 (ESV)

The Sower, by Henri Naegely (1862-1875).

Most of my life, I’ve had no idea what I would be doing five years down the road.  I’ve always worked hard at whatever came my way, and I haven’t been ambitious in terms of long range plans.  (Sometimes I think I should have more of a long range plan, especially an economic plan.  I think this would have helped me build a career with fewer false starts.)  Sometimes I wonder if I would have shown more faith if I had just made an assertion like, “I’m going to be a teacher or professor” and worked diligently towards that end.  But the only real goal I set for myself was to earn a bachelor’s degree, and I struggled very hard at that.  But after that milestone was achieved, I feel like my Masters and Ph.D. came rather serendipitously, and the same goes for my becoming a professor.

I’ve always carried the idea that God wants men to work, to earn, and to provide for himself and his family.  I’ve assumed that God wants me to achieve as much as I can, and so whenever a good opportunity came along, I always accepted it with thankfulness as part of God’s plan and provision.

In terms of my mission in life, it is not so clear to me how this fits together, but by the time I was 35, I had reached the roundabout conclusion that my mission in life is to influence others however I may through teaching (and/or writing).

Going back to Ed’s statement, the questions in my mind right now are…

• How much human potential does God expect a man (or woman) to achieve?
• If a man doesn’t achieve his full potential, wouldn’t that be reminiscent of being a lazy steward?
• Likewise, for modern women like Tomi Lahren and the woman in Monday’s post, there is a good deal of human potential that they have wasted, in terms of becoming faithful wives, mothers, and homemakers.  Are they not bad stewards of their personhood?

I guess this all boils down to an assumption that God does value human potential, but the question is about knowing which aspects of human potential God expects one to develop according to His plan and His glory.  As Ed put it, what would please our Creator?

This might be a complicated and confusing question, but I’m guessing there are some basic guidelines.  The most obvious guidelines are the male and female roles outlined in Scripture.  Men are to work at their life mission according to their respective calling, and women are to help the men and work in a domestic capacity.

The Gleaners, by Jean Francois Millet (1857)

Ed’s Insight

There’s nothing wrong with making plans if you sense a specific sense of calling in life.  Of course, you still need to be ready for all the unexpected things God does as you pursue that path.  There is a critical element in faith that we should expect the unexpected.  It goes back to the way God portrays Himself as a desert sheikh, and how that image included a ruler who should not and could not tell all of His subjects everything he had in mind.  There is an element of mystery that we humans need in order to serve faithfully and reach our divine potential.  Good men surprise their wives now and then, no?  It’s the same for the Bride of Christ.

That’s not the same as potential in terms of human reckoning.  Thus, I used the term “false god of human potential.” This is consistent with the teaching in James 4:13-16.

¹³ Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; ¹⁴ whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow.  For what is your life?  It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.  ¹⁵ Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”  ¹⁶ But now you boast in your arrogance.  All such boasting is evil.

James 4:13-16 (NKJV)

Without that sense of divine purpose, no plans we make are right, even if we achieve everything our human nature dreams.

The Last Dreamers, by Griegory Zieolkowski (2018).

What matters most is that there is no one-size-fits-all.  Some men should be so focused on the otherworld that they stumble along through life without accomplishing much that anyone remembers.  If they have peace with God, that’s all that matters.  Some men are called by God to dig right into the ambient social expectations and point out how they compare with God’s expectations.  There is a place for the mendicant wandering monk and for the rich entrepreneur in the Kingdom of Heaven, and for everyone in between those callings.  Whatever it is we might propose to define as “normal” needs to have soft boundaries.  We can’t call the mendicant “irresponsible” if he has been faithful to his calling.  That includes the mendicants who manage to get married and raise families in poverty.

We should define “good responsible manhood” to include all the special cases where men find peace with God.  A community still needs every peculiar type that Vox Day talks about in his Socio-Sexual Hierarchy.  We need a bunch of the Deltas and a few Gammas, and even an Omega or two, in order for society to have all the parts God intended for His Body.  A major element in a good solid faith community is taking in the strays nobody else knows how to handle.  We need a lore of teaching about taking care of those edge cases and putting up with the resource drainage, because in the Kingdom of Heaven, the people are the real treasure.  Jesus was a reject by worldly standards.

In sum, Ed is asserting that having peace with God is more important than one’s mission.  It makes sense.

Also, if one finds peace with God, then one’s mission will become evident through one’s convictions.

In addition, any Christ centered mission has to maintain that peace with God, or restore Shalom.  Perhaps that is the whole purpose of having a mission.

This pretty much answers my earlier question.  It’s just a matter of one finding peace with God and growing in Shalom/maturity.  Having a mission, and the nature of the mission, is a result of this.

Sisyphus, by Titian Vecellio (1548).

How Does One Find Peace and Purpose?

This seems to be an easy undertaking for some people, and very difficult for many others, even serious Christians.  I’m not sure if it’s because they can’t or they won’t, or maybe God won’t open the metaphysical door for them.  For me, the gospel is simple in concept, but it’s very hard to get plugged into God.  I’ve often wondered why it is so difficult for me (or anyone else) to get closer to God.

Of note, I discovered The Heart-Led Way since I started reading Ed Hurst’s blogs, Do What’s Right and Radix Fidem, in 2018.  The idea of “not using your mind to decide where your heart should be” is a perspective I picked up from reading his stuff.  Actually, this concept is mentioned in the Bible many times.  For example…

⁵ Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
⁶ In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.”

Proverbs 3:5-6 (NKJV)

And here…

¹⁷ ”This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, ¹⁸ having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; ¹⁹ who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
²⁰ But you have not so learned Christ, ²¹ if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: ²² that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, ²³ and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, ²⁴ and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.”

Ephesians 4:17-24 (NKJV)

Father Gregorius Vicenzo, by Lorenzo Lotto (1548).

But even though this shift in cognizance is spelled out clearly in scripture, and even though I grew up in church and have attended all kinds of churches over the course of my lifetime, for some bizarre reason I never really understood this very important, perhaps crucial piece of faith until I started reading Ed’s writings.  Maybe it’s because The Heart-Led Path is not something you can just hear about and pick it up right away.  You have to continually focus on what’s going on deep in your heart and learn to navigate through life using your innermost convictions.

This kind of awareness is so far removed from the Western style of consciousness based on rationale, that I didn’t really understand the idea until I had read Ed’s stuff for several months, and even then, I didn’t really “get it” for another year.  Even now, I am still in the process of learning this.

I am still uncertain as to whether my past ignorance of The Heart-Led Way is the sole reason for my spiritual difficulties throughout life.  I suspect maybe it is, but on the other hand, maybe it is not as simple as this.

The Adoration of the Shepherds, by Giorgione (1505-1510)

An Exhortation to Discover The Heart-Led Path

I didn’t call it “heart-led” until a few years ago, myself.  Prior to that I spoke of having conviction, which is very nearly the same thing.  And I’ve known for most of my adult life that the Bible considers the heart the seat of the will, of faith and commitment.  Someone shared an article with me about how the heart is a sensory organ, and it made so much sense that it was easy to put that idea into the existing frame of reference.

However, I’ve always known that I’ve been led by something deep and quite different from those around me.  I’ve always known that there was a disconnection between what was and what ought to be, and I handled it rather poorly most of my life.  I never understood why I had that powerful sense that nobody else seemed to have.  Somewhere in adulthood I realized that many people do have it, but had been taught it was just their imagination, something they couldn’t and shouldn’t trust.  Except that was wrong.  Once I began to trust it more, it turned out to be the voice of God in my heart.

Hearing the voice of God, by Cat Culpepper.

Aside from one brief period of a few days, when the Lord was showing me something important, that voice has always been there for me.  My reactions to it had been chaotic for most of my youth, because I had no training how to hear it, but somewhere around age 30 I began learning how to live with it.  I once thought it was a sense of calling to pastoral ministry, and labored under that delusion for a very long time.  It was the only guidance I got from people I trusted, so I trained for it.  Only in the past decade did I realize it was not pastoral ministry, but a prophetic calling.  Eventually I came to the place where I knew I was supposed to be a teaching elder, not a priestly leader.

Somewhere in there, I came to discern that few people have that strong sense of prophetic voice in their souls, but that apparently everyone can be heart-led.  Honestly, I’m not happy with how that comes across in the English language, but I have no idea how else I can say it.  But I do hope that, in community with others, we can spread this concept.  I’m convinced that this is the path of peace with God.

God appears in a vision to the boy prophet Samuel, by Harry Anderson (1975).

Does it Resonate with You?

“I’ve always known that I’ve been led by something deep and quite different from those around me.  I’ve always known that there was a disconnection between what was and what ought to be…”

When I read those words, I felt that I had found a kindred soul.  For most of my life, I have been deeply disturbed to find that the Truths found in the Bible don’t reflect my experiences of reality.  They have always appeared to be two, vastly distinct worlds.  I have always been vexed about how the two might be reconciled, and angry that no one seems to recognize how their thoughts and behaviors reinforce the worldly system, and neglect to implement the Biblical system.  Even those who profess to be Christians fail to realize how far away from the Truth they stand, nor do they carry any apparent sense of guilt about this discrepancy.  From my perspective, there was hardly any detectable difference between believers and unbelievers.  Yes, I’ve even been angry at God for being so nonchalant, for not taking any action to harmonize this disparity.  Yet, God asks me to love and forgive all these people who have rejected me for not seeing the world as they do.  It is a disheartening task.

I agree that it can be disheartening to find oneself standing alone in faith, but after a while, I got used to it.  What’s left is to be obedient to Him for the sake of obedience itself.  Having to discard the Western obsession with product, and focus merely on getting the process right, was a major shift in thinking.

Where do you stand in the grand scheme of things?

Do you have peace with God?

Have you discovered The Heart-Led Way?

Have you found your purpose for living, your mission in life?

Related

• Radix Fidem: Practice of Purity (2013 December 19)
• Radix Fidem: The Necessity of Trust (2019 February 22)
• Radix Fidem: A Psychology of Temptation (2020 March 24)

Moon Day Review – The Manosphere Reshuffles its Deck

An update on how the Manosphere has changed in 2020.

Readership: All;
Note: September 2 is the ninth full moon of 2020.

Introduction

As we have been focused on political issues, dealing with societal upheaval, and squirreling away our lives during the COVID crackdown, the Manosphere has quietly been slipping away.  This post takes note of the disturbances in the force.  The last time I reviewed such changes was in the post, Moon Day Review – Crack and the Red Pill (2019 May 13).

There were several blogs that slowed down over the past couple months, and I’ve been waiting to see whether they were taking a summer reprieve, or else were slowly fading into the archives.  I could always be wrong, but now I’m fairly certain about which way these blogs are going to fall.  Only time will tell for sure.

I have not included blogs which went down more than one year ago.

My apologies for omitting any pertinent secular Manosphere blogs.  Leave a link in the comments if you wish one to be included in the list.

Fading Blogs

(The authors no longer post with regular frequency.)

• Alpha Jedi
• Anti-Gnostic
• Black Label Logic
• Derek Ramsey
• Illuvitus
• Krauser PUA
• Larry’s Musings
• Laughing at Feminism (Sharkly)
• Malcolm the Cynic
• Red Pill Theory
• Sub-Created Worlds (J. J. Griffing)
• The Autistic Gamer
• The Red Quest

Defunct Blogs

(The authors have ceased writing new posts.)

• Ballista74
• Blair Naso (Austin Martin)
• Calculated Bravery
• Dalrock
• Days of Game
• Donal Graeme
• Fabius Maximus
• Free Northerner
• Hawaiian Libertarian (Keoni Galt)
• Major Styles
• Steve Jabba
• Talon’s Rest
• The Illiberal Liberal
• Things That We Have Heard and Known (Cane Caldo)
• v5k2c2 (Boxer)
• X-Splat

Terminated Blogs

(The web domain has been deleted, defunded, or deplatformed.)

• Chateau Heartiste (reconstructed site)
• Kakistocracy
• Moose Norseman
• Red Coco
• Saving Eve

Also of note, Scott Klajic says he won’t be writing for the Manosphere again. That’s probably good for him and his family, but bad for us.

New Blogs

• Cornerstone
• Joshua’s Path
• Sharkly’s expose of Whitewater Community Church
• The Biblicist Report (from the author of Biblical Gender Roles)
• To Reclaim Normality (Feeriker)

Revived Blogs

(The authors have renovated their site or image, or have resumed posting with greater frequency.)

• A Father’s Journey
• Didact’s Reach
• Full Metal Patriarchy
• Okrahead
• Marriage, Sex, and More (M. J. Davis)
• The Family Alpha (Zac)

Still Going Strong

(The authors continue to produce new posts on a regular basis.)

• Amerika (Brett Stevens, et al.)
• Biblical Gender Roles
• Captain Capitalism (Aaron Clarey)
• Christianity and Masculinity (Deep Strength)
• Dark Brightness
• Do What’s Right (Ed Hurst)
• Eric Conn
• Gunner Q
• Gynocentrism
• Hommunism
• It’s Good to be a Man
• Jim’s Blog
• Lexet
• Mogadishu Matt
• Patriactionary
• Paul Elam
• Pushing Rubber Downhill (Adam Piggott)
• Radix Fidem (Ed Hurst)
• Red Pill Dad
• Rob Says…
• Roosh V
• SFC Ton
• Snapper TRX
• Soviet Men
• Spawny’s Space
• Talon’s Rest
• Texas Dom
• The Male Factor
• The Orthosphere
• The Other McCain
• The Rational Male
• The Red Quest
• The 96^th Thesis (Matthew E. Cochran)
• Vox Popoli
• Warren Farrell
• Whiskey Tango Texas
• Whores and Ale
• Wintery Knight

Addendum: These lists have been updated to include the information offered by readers below in the comments.

Discussion

As you can see, there is a much greater number of Manosphere/Red Pill blogs making an exit than are making a debut.  34 going out, and 10 coming in, compared to 38 remaining steady.  That’s a huge turnover, and all within the last several months!

For those who have been following along, the real surprise is that this phase shift has been delayed for so long.  The Manosphere chuggered to a metaphysical standstill in late 2018, and since then, uniquely new behavioral theories and cultural models have become extremely rare and of diminutive impact.  Most of the philosophical (viz. morally neutral) perspectives have morphed into behavioral lore and praxeologies which continue to be discussed and are slowly leeching into the mainstream.

But even though the decade of the Classic Manosphere has passed (ca. 2008-2018), the movement is not completely dead.  Instead of developing new theories, it is undergoing a philosophical breech concerning which applications continue to receive a focused interest.

Back in early April of this year, I put my finger on a schism that has developed between Christian Red Pill and secular Red Pill.  This difference has become more pronounced since then.  This schism might explain some of the present attrition in the Manosphere, as writers are pressured to conform to either a pro-Game player mindset, or else chase after a Christ centered relationship/marriage context.  Many writers have been unprepared to make such a change or have grown weary in keeping up with these changes.

As things are now, secular RP authors are focusing on the pleasures of the flesh and the pride of life (e.g. lay reports, how to decrease approach-to-lay ratios, and gloating in the satisfaction of “enjoying the decline”), while the few remaining authors of the Christian Manosphere are continuing to produce insights with respect to Biblical proscriptions of morality and the spiritual significance of various nuances within specific contexts (e.g. marital sanctification, successful parenting, effective fatherhood, life-purpose, purity, etc.).  There is still much more to be examined through a Biblical RP lens.  So we can expect this trend to continue for the next few years or until there is a society-wide reset.

A suggestion for the hosts of fading blogs: Readers totally understand that life changes and that you no longer feel the need to churn out new content.  It’s hard work.  However, you have some outstanding and perhaps even historically significant content that continues to be relevant.  All that is needed is for you to mildly revise those older posts which are still pertinent and repost them.  Publish or Perish!

Another suggestion for the hosts of fading, defunct, or terminated blogs: Recently, I have contacted a few noteworthy authors of the past and I have invited them to post their content (old or new) on Σ Frame.  The few who have responded have flatly stated that it was too much work to maintain an active blog, and have expressed interest in submitting their work here from time to time.  To all readers, if you have something to say, but don’t want the responsibility of producing regular content, and you like this idea, I invite you to contact me at sigmaframe@protonmail.com.

Related

• Σ Frame: The Round Table of the Manosphere (2017 December 24)
• Σ Frame: The Evolution of the Red Pill (2018 December 31)
• Σ Frame: Red Pill Clique Bate (Page)

Frenemy Class Warfare?

Is there really a class warfare in the West, or is it just a story cooked up to fan the flames of unrest? What part does the mass global media (MGM) play in this?

Readership: Conservatives;

War and Peace, by Medi Belortaja (2009 November 26).

In his essay at Amerika: Fixing (2020 August 10), Brett Stevens writes,

“Globalism and diversity are the same idea, namely ending conflict by forcing everyone to be codependent on each other.  This has failed.”

Meanwhile, Elspeth writes,

“What’s really happening here is that class fissures are coming to bear and the people in power don’t want the proletariat (working people) to see what’s really happening to all of us, regardless of our color.  So they create enemy classes: black/white, men/women. straight/LGBTQ+, and on it goes.  So we bite and devour each other while they get rich on our backs, destroying small business, enriching gigantic corporations, brainwashing our kids, creating a new American paradigm by pretending we have no shared history when we do.

And people on both sides are falling for it while calling each other ignorant.”

In sum, Stevens says TPTB are ending conflict by forcing everyone to be codependent on each other, while Elspeth says TPTB are sparking conflict by creating enemy classes.  Both Stevens and Elspeth are conservative voices.  But yet, these two popular beliefs about Western political culture seem to be at variance with respect to their presumed goals concerning conflict.

Question for Discussion: Most conservatives presume that both of these viewpoints are true, but how?

An Update with More Clues

Apparently by providence, just after I wrote the above, I found that Ed Hurst addressed certain aspects of this question in his latest posts.

“Culture is not merely the meandering results of custom or habit. Much of it comes from shared DNA. The Anglo-American culture arises from a genetic background that includes a high social trust factor. Anglo-American people have a strong tendency to comply with social expectations, so the culture naturally includes that feature. It is neither good nor bad in itself, but it comes with its own set of challenges.

So long as early American immigrants were mostly from high-trust racial stock, things went well. Those who didn’t bring a high trust factor from their homeland were quickly forced to adopt it artificially. The establishment was consciously aware of how much it mattered.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the social elite never had that high trust factor. Royalty and nobility were seldom the same racial stock as the people they ruled. Gaining social and political privilege brought a perverse incentive to abandon it, anyway. But they definitely pressed the lower classes to keep it, and held forth a very strong pretense of high trust.

Over the past century, that gulf of difference has grown. The elite have been quite conscious and intentional about it. The much maligned “conspiracy theory” mindset is frankly fully justified; the elite really do try to keep us in the dark. But it still leaks out, so there’s no excuse for lacking awareness of the gap between the elite and the commoners.

Now, shift back to current events. The commoners’ right-wing backlash has begun in earnest. It’s more than just the brawls in Portland between right and left mobs, or the shooting in places like Kenosha.  The commoners are actually threatening the established order.”

Do What’s Right: Push-back Is Inevitable (2020 August 30)

“We know that shalom is exceedingly difficult to obtain, even when you are fully educated and committed to it. We must learn from the ANE perspective that it is a tendency of how God does things with the human race. It’s not that God doesn’t bless some with more of what appears to be shalom from where we stand, but that we have seen precious little of people striving consciously to fully embrace everything in Biblical Law. We have to remember that shalom is not the externalities, but the term is used in Scripture to portray a relationship with the Creator.”

Radix Fidem: The Bible on Trust (2020 August 30)

An Explanation of the Turmoil

I’ll offer a possible explanation for my question above, as simply as it can be put.

TPTB (AKA “the elite”) are trying to shoe-horn everyone into a one-size-fits-all society to be utilized as an economic powerhouse and/or a tax base, or something similar.  Foreign wars, unregulated migration and immigration, housing bubbles, pandemic scares, bailouts, liberal snowf1ake education, presumed racial tension and gender discrimination (and the persecution of the “offenders” thereof), feminology and the glorification of h0m0sexuality, gynocentric legal regulations, abortion and birth control… and much more…  These are all efforts to weaken the masses, destroy their individual cultures, and make them more compliant and willing to be molded.  But in the final, the deplorables simply refuse to be corralled, partly for the reasons Ed mentioned above and also for many other reasons discussed by Stevens.  In response, the people begin to percolate violence in a wrangling pursuit to restore Shalom and prosperity to their individual communities.

This might explain why traditionalism, patriarchy, and nationalism are suppressed, why the media continues to actively support all the maladies listed in the previous paragraph, and why they label nearly all violence as “peaceful protests” as an effort to tamp down large scale rebellion, but it doesn’t explain the evidence that the violence and looting surrounding BLM was planned and staged by TPTB.  Did TPTB somehow think that it would lead people to further forfeit their rights, or maybe it was fomented by some other entity?  So my earlier question is still not entirely resolved.

In conclusion, we find that a large imperialist empire filled with multiple racial and ethnic groups simply can’t work towards increasing the Shalom of its intrinsic societies, and therefore will fail after a time.  This is essentially why God is against large empires likened unto the Tower of Babel – because it destroys the Shalom of the people.  Furthermore, this is basically what Brett Stevens and Ed Hurst have been saying for years.

Related

• Σ Frame: How Social Media Algorithms Fuel Political Division (2018 December 15)
• Σ Frame: The Art of Inventing Hot Media Topics, and Then Trivializing Them (2015 November 12)